Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Christine O'Donnell Speaks Out; Interview With James Traub and Ralph Reed

Aired October 07, 2010 - 20:00   ET

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


KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer.

Welcome to the program.

Tonight, we begin with an exclusive. CNN's Jim Acosta has the first interview with Christine O'Donnell, the controversial Republican running for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware, first interview she has done in quite some time.

PARKER: O'Donnell, of course, is famously known for having dabbled in witchcraft as a much younger woman. And Jim Acosta asked her all about that, Sarah Palin, Obamacare, you name it.

Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Your latest ad says, "I'm you."

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL (R), DELAWARE SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Right.

ACOSTA: It's as if you're trying to reintroduce yourself to voters.

O'DONNELL: Yes. Yes.

ACOSTA: Why is that? Is that what you're trying to do?

O'DONNELL: Absolutely.

My goal has been, since the primary, to go out and meet as many voters as possible, so that they can get to know me and I can get to know them.

I have got to hear what's on their minds, so that I can know how I can help in Washington, D.C. My goal, my whole candidacy is about putting the political process back into the hands of the people. I'm not a career politician. I'm not someone who's been groomed by -- groomed for office. I'm not someone who's been handpicked by her party elite, by the party bosses, obviously.

ACOSTA: Right. O'DONNELL: I'm an average American citizen. I'm an average Delawarean. I want to go to Washington, D.C., and do what most Delawareans would do.

I would not have -- voted for Obamacare. I would not have voted for the bailouts. I would not have voted for more of the spending bills that are putting us into bankruptcy. And neither would you.

ACOSTA: Right.

O'DONNELL: That's what my message "I'm you" means. I want to do what you would do in Washington, D.C.

ACOSTA: Let me ask you one more thing about these video clips that have surfaced. Have you been embarrassed by those clips?

O'DONNELL: No, I haven't been embarrassed. And I'm not saying that I'm proud.

It's -- you know, obviously, what they're trying to do is paint a picture of who I was 20 years ago. You know, I -- I have matured in my faith. I have matured in my policies. Today, you have a forty- something woman running for office, not a 20-year-old. So, that's a big difference.

ACOSTA: You said last night at your event that you would vote to extend the Bush tax cuts. Now, I have covered a lot of Tea Party rallies, and they're all about cutting the deficit. How do you extend the Bush tax cuts and cut the deficit at the same time, because the experts say it's impossible?

O'DONNELL: It is not impossible.

First of all, any time taxes have decreased, revenue has increased, because what you're doing is, you're putting money back into the private citizens, who then go start businesses and create jobs based on the private sector, not government spending.

They go spend that money on those new businesses that are starting. So, it happened under Kennedy. It happened under Reagan. When you decrease taxes, revenues increase.

ACOSTA: Should creationism be taught in public schools?

O'DONNELL: That doesn't have anything to do with what I will do in Congress.

ACOSTA: But do you think that it should be taught in public schools?

O'DONNELL: That has nothing to do with what I would do in Congress. My opinion on that is irrelevant.

ACOSTA: Let me ask you about Afghanistan, the president's timetable for withdrawal. A good idea or a bad idea? O'DONNELL: We need to make our foreign policy decisions based on their effectiveness, not based on time. So we need to be looking -- we need to take a serious look at what's going on over there, and before we make any decisions, we need to examine whether or not it's weakening our own security.

ACOSTA: Is -- is Sarah Palin qualified to be president?

O'DONNELL: Is she running for president?

ACOSTA: I don't know. You tell me.

O'DONNELL: Well, again, hypotheticals. I don't know if she's...

ACOSTA: I have heard you talk on the phone with her. Does she advise your campaign?

O'DONNELL: She does not advise our campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: Does she give you advice?

O'DONNELL: She gives me "You go, girl" advice. "Don't listen to them."

If any -- anyone really. .

ACOSTA: Does she really tell you to speak through Fox News?

O'DONNELL: Well, I heard that through -- she didn't tell me personally...

ACOSTA: OK.

O'DONNELL: -- but I heard her say something like that on "O'Reilly," you know, because, you know, if anyone knows about the politics of personal destruction, it's -- it's women candidates, women politicians like Sarah Palin.

ACOSTA: If the Republicans take the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Jim DeMint?

O'DONNELL: I don't know yet, because what I would need to -- what I would need to see is Jim DeMint running?

ACOSTA: You tell me.

O'DONNELL: I honestly don't know. I -- I love Senator DeMint. I love what he does. He's a -- you know, he's a principled man. But what I have said, when people have asked me who I would support in leadership, I don't know that as an outside -- outsider right now I am a candidate, not a U.S. senator.

ACOSTA: Is the unemployment...

O'DONNELL: Senator DeMint...

ACOSTA: Is the unemployment problem in this country Barack Obama's fault or George Bush's fault?

O'DONNELL: It's a combination of politicians in Washington losing their way. Like I said, whether it's Republicans or Democrats, our so-called leaders in Washington have lost their way and are no longer in touch with the needs of the Delawarean -- an -- any citizen, not just Delaware. So I think what we need to get our country back on track is to replace career politicians with citizen politicians.

ACOSTA: Let me make this the last thing. Your staff was very reluctant to have us ask you about these past statements that you made in the past. And I -- I wanted to ask you, why is that? Because aren't they...

O'DONNELL: I think...

ACOSTA: -- aren't they your statements?

O'DONNELL: This campaign is about the future and not the past. This campaign is about what each candidate is going to do to address the needs of the people in Delaware, how we're going to get private business jobs back in Delaware, how we're going to get our economy back on track, how we're going to empower the individual and the entrepreneur to open up those ma-and-pa businesses back on Main Street. That's what's important to the Delawareans and that's what should be important to both candidates in this race.

ACOSTA: So you're never going to talk about your time with Bill Maher?

O'DONNELL: No. Why? What I did -- what I said or did on a comedy show, you know, over a decade ago is not relevant to this election.

ACOSTA: All right. Christine O'Donnell, thank you for your time.

O'DONNELL: Thank you.

ACOSTA: I appreciate it. Nice talking to you.

O'DONNELL: Thank you. Anytime.

ACOSTA: All right. Good talking to you.

O'DONNELL: Thank you.

ACOSTA: Let me ask you about the health care reform law, because there are protections in there for consumers that a lot of people, even some Republicans, say are very important, such as, the law would deny -- would -- would ban insurance companies from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions.

Would you scrap that, as well?

O'DONNELL: What I want to do is create real health care reform. Things like that are absolutely crucial. We have to make sure that people with -- with preexisting conditions get the coverage and care that they need.

ACOSTA: So you would keep that?

O'DONNELL: But what this -- I want to scrap the bill and start over, with real reform, piece by piece.

Nobody is disputing that we need health care reform. But this bill is a massive government takeover of the health care system that gives the government way too much power. Uncle Sam has no business coming into the examination room, getting between you and your doctor. And that's what this bill does. We need to repeal it, so that we can re -- reenact real reform.

ACOSTA: Is that even realistic, because I know the Republicans say we want to repeal the bill, but the president would have to sign any bill that you pass through the Congress? So, isn't repealing health care reform really unrealistic?

O'DONNELL: That kind of throw-in-the-towel mentality is what got us to this mess that we're in the first place.

Repealing Obamacare is absolutely realistic. I heard a statistic this morning that one out of four Democrats are for full repeal of Obamacare.

ACOSTA: So you think...

O'DONNELL: What this...

ACOSTA: ... you could get Democrats to go on board and perhaps...

O'DONNELL: Many...

ACOSTA: ... override a veto, is what -- that's what you're saying?

O'DONNELL: Well, not even just necessarily -- here's why I think it's realistic, a couple things.

Number one, a lot of Democrats are coming forward, saying, we want to start over. We want to scrap this bill. We all made a mistake. We didn't read it. We didn't know about the unintended consequences. As elected officials, our first priority needs to be taking care of the most vulnerable in our society, so we do need real health care reform.

But if -- if the House and the Senate passes a bill to fully repeal Obamacare, so that we can clear the way to start over with true reform that helps the most vulnerable, and then the president goes and vetoes that bill, when the will of the people have been -- has been made very clear, if Barack Obama vetoes that the year before his reelection, he's setting himself up to be very vulnerable.

And I have seen many Hillary-for-president ads running. So, if -- if he chooses to thumb his nose at -- at the will of the American people and ram this -- this unrealistic, unconstitutional bill down America's throats, then there will be consequences, politically, for Obama.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: I think, when we look at the substance of what she says here, a lot of people are going to say, you know what, we are not so sure she's ready for the Senate.

PARKER: You know, I happen to -- I feel for the girl a little bit. She was a sweet girl when was on the Bill Maher show, right? She was 20 years old.

And she actually -- if you look at some of those tapes, she had a lot of personality. She was spunky and cute. She was just saying things I don't think she intended to be taken terribly seriously. And now that's taken on a life of its own.

SPITZER: Look, I agree with you on that. I think all that is not only fair to her, but accurate.

And I even defended her with that sort of crazy ad, "I'm not a witch," because you know what? She is trying to defuse a tough situation. But then when you step back and as you get closer to November 2 and you say, wait a minute, there are some serious issues here.

PARKER: Well, sure.

SPITZER: I don't think she passes that threshold.

PARKER: No, there are a lot of people who are cute and spunky that I don't want running the country.

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: Or good TV fodder.

But here's the other question. Why there are so many folks like her who seem to be taking over the Republican Party? I mean, this is not Bob Dole's Republican Party anymore, thoughtful, serious people. this is people who are kind of, I hate to say it, but kind of from the fringe.

PARKER: Careful there, Eliot.

You know, I think what we have to be very cautious of here -- and this is an important point that you almost hit -- there's a sense out there. We have talked about this. There's a sense that there's this elite core of people who are designating -- they have designated themselves as in charge of how Americans are going to live their lives. And you have people like Christine O'Donnell and others who identify with her who feel very much left out of the conversation and marginalized. And so they're -- we have talked about this sort of anti-elite movement. And we are both in favor of elites, meaning smart people, sitting down at the table.

But you can't be elitist. And I think that's she and others have responded to.

SPITZER: Look, I am not only sympathetic, but I agree with her core notion, which is that the so-called elite people in this country, in Washington, in New York, in the so-called academic centers have failed us miserably over the last decade.

And so when she says in her ad, "I am you," when she says in the interview today, "I am an average person," I say, yes. I sympathize with that. We want real, genuine people. Now, there's a difference between that -- and I think that is wonderful, and that's why I have defended those ads and that sort of notion of her getting into politics. But there's a difference between that and policies about economics and other serious things that, frankly, just don't work and don't add up.

PARKER: Right.

Well, that ad was done by Fred Davis, as you know, and he's a brilliant ad-maker. And he kind of latched on to that Zeitgeist. And he said, the thing you need to do is look in that camera and say, it's them. They're the bad guys, and I'm just like you. And I'm going to go to Washington and fix things for you.

That's a very effective message right now. And it's resonating with the Tea Party people. That's what is driving is.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: It is amazing to me that the Democratic Party has not filled that enormous chasm, that void in the middle of our political -- that doughnut hole, where nobody from the Democratic Party has said, we are the ones who actually speak with that voice and with that empathy and that energy.

Bill Clinton, as we have all been saying, would have done it.

But, anyway, we're going to talk about these ideas with some extraordinarily smart people. It's time to go into the arena.

PARKER: Smart, but not elitist.

SPITZER: Absolutely.

(LAUGHTER)

PARKER: And joining us tonight, James Traub from "The New York Times" Magazine" and Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. SPITZER: Welcome to both of you.

Great to see you back.

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: Hi, Ralph. Nice to see you again.

Nice to see you.

(CROSSTALK)

RALPH REED, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Eliot, how are you?

SPITZER: Ralph, thank you.

PARKER: Welcome, welcome.

SPITZER: Well, in case you haven't heard, CNN broke the spell, and we got this remarkable interview, Jim Acosta of CNN, with Christine O'Donnell. She kind of came in on her broomstick and gave an interview.

And it's amazing what she said. I want your view of this. She said she wants to -- and she, of course, being the Republican Tea Party candidate for the United States Senate from Delaware. And she said, we are going to extend our should extend the Bush tax cuts, because it will both solve the deficit problem and help our economy expand.

PARKER: Grow the economy.

SPITZER: What do you think?

JAMES TRAUB, "THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE": Well, what's wrong with that? That is the official Tea Party position, isn't it?

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: You have been cast under the spell as well?

TRAUB: No.

I mean, look, it's become, I think, Republican Party doctrine not only in the Tea Party that the Bush tax cuts should all be extended. You're right. This is a particularly hyperbolic version of what I would say is a ridiculous view in the first place. But that's the direction the party is going in right now.

PARKER: Well, Ralph, what do you think? I mean, she obviously was not prepared for this interview and has been saving herself for FOX News and others, not meaning to go into the other news outlets.

What do you think of her handling of that interview and that comment?

REED: Well, I think she's doing fine. You know, I mean, she's obviously under vicious assault.

I'm fascinated by the media's fixation with this woman. There's 37 governorships up or something like that, 37 U.S. Senate races, and everybody beating up on this one woman in one state. And I understand that.

PARKER: Well, but, Ralph...

REED: That's politics.

But to say that lowering marginal tax rates produces more revenue is not only economically sound; it is an established historic fact.

SPITZER: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: ... can we just probe that for a second?

PARKER: I want to just back up a minute, before you get to the economic issue.

The reason people are fascinated by her -- with her is because she is fascinating. When you have someone stand up and say, I'm not a witch, I'm you, and it's got this black, you know...

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: ... odd background.

REED: Well, but that ad followed a pillorying that went on for weeks after she won the nomination.

PARKER: Well, Bill Maher started that. And I am sympathetic.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: Let's be frank with one another. You have been in politics. I have been in politics. Neither one of us is surprised that she gets all this attention. She is a remarkably fascinating personality.

She has made herself a quixotic and interesting person. But let's put that aside for a minute, because there are real issues here.

David Stockman, who was the budget director for President Reagan, after President Reagan came into office on this same theory, the Laffer curve, as it was called for many different reasons, said it was all a sham, and he said, we knew it was a sham. No serious economists believe -- believes that you can cut rates the way they want to without expanding the deficit, doubling it or tripling it, and damaging our economy. Nobody serious believes that.

REED: Well, look, we would pine for the roughly $160 billion deficit that Bush had in his final fiscal year.

OK, this president has given us a deficit which in the first year was $1.4 trillion and this year is $1.35 trillion. He's doubling the national debt in five years. He's tripling it in 10 years.

And they left town without even giving America's 26 million small businesses and hundred million households any understanding of what their taxes are going to be in the calendar year 2011. It is totally irresponsible and that's why they're losing at the polls.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: The spin that this is an act of fiscal recklessness or something, the fact is, we're talking about something rather small. The Obama administration has actually agreed, I think wrongly, to extend the Bush tax cuts, save for the top tax rate.

And so the issue here is...

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Which is saving $100 billion over 10 years.

TRAUB: Which, alas, is not as much money as it used to be.

But the fact is, the idea that we would be having this political pitched battle not over the large question of, do you repeal the Bush tax cuts, but do you repeal the tax cuts for the smallest number of extraordinarily wealthy people, to whom a huge fraction of the additional revenue of the last 10 years is gone, I can't believe there's a fight about that.

REED: Well, here's my question. If you had both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for two years, you have the president and you have the House and the Senate, the largest margins since the Great Society, at any point in the last two years they could have extended the Bush tax cuts for everybody making less than $250,000 a year. They didn't do it.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: Let's set the table so that it's real. What was inherited here was an economic cataclysm the likes of which we haven't seen since 1929, a direct and absolute consequence of policies that were born during the Reagan administration and metastasized during the Bush administrations, both of them.

And that is what brought us down. Recovering from that, which the Obama administration has been desperately trying to do, is what's taken us to the point of the precipice.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Not true.

SPITZER: Then to go back to the same policies would be economic suicide.

REED: Absolutely not true.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Eliot, it was the Clinton administration in 1999 that directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite 50 percent or more of the loans in every single zip code in America for people at 50 percent or below the average income in that area. They deliberately made them, by executive order fiat, underwrite loans for people who couldn't make the payments.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: Can I raise a less exotic question, which is, the first question is, why are we so interested in her? We have to remember, she beat Michael Castle.

PARKER: Well, there is that.

TRAUB: The entire professional Republican Party, not the whole party, but the professional party, was banking on this guy as, this is how we're going to get to a majority Republican Senate.

Nobody thought this was going to happen. So she became a poster child -- and I think rightly so, whether you like her or not -- for the immense transformation inside the Republican Party.

PARKER: That's right.

REED: I think the left and the media are making a huge mistake strategically. And I think Christine O'Donnell is the greater decoy in American politics.

PARKER: Absolutely.

REED: While they're firing all their artillery at her, Sharron Angle is beating now Harry Reid, not in one, but two polls this week. Nikki Haley is going to be the governor of South Carolina. Susana Martinez is now up in New Mexico by eight.

These mama grizzlies, these women candidates who are attractive and tough and smart and able are going to win from coast to coast, and Christine O'Donnell may surprise some people and win, too.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: I don't deny that.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: I think that may be so.

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: There's no question, though, that, when people gang up on an individual like Christine O'Donnell, it has the opposite effect. I mean, there's a lot of sympathy for her.

TRAUB: Though it hasn't so far. The last poll showed her doing quite badly behind Coons, the Democratic candidate.

SPITZER: Right, the Democratic nominee.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: So, she may be a casualty. But I think Ralph may well be right about the trend that she is a representative of.

PARKER: Yes.

SPITZER: Look, there is no question when you offer candy to kids sometimes it works. The question is, having lived through the Reagan administration, with David Stockman I think being the most honest articulator of what those policies really did, we know what it does. And now, of course, we have that on steroids.

The numbers are that much bigger. The economy is at much greater risk. And the failure to recover and balance our budgets, whether you're a Paul Krugman or Niall Ferguson, is going to take us to a very dangerous point.

And I think that's why many of us saying, look, Christine O'Donnell -- I happen to like her. I admire her for what she is going through and how she is handling it. But I think the substance of it is going to be very damaging to us long term, because it doesn't add up.

REED: Well, what doesn't add up is raising taxes in the middle of the deepest and longest recession of the post-World War II period, punishing small businesses.

Between 50 percent and 60 percent of the income that they want to tax at the above-$250,000 level are small businesses that create 80 percent of the jobs. And here's the other thing. Even if you were to take Jim's argument and repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, you have got a $1.35 trillion deficit.

You would save $100 billion this year. So you're punishing the job creators. You're punishing the people who are creating the jobs, and you're moving the deficit number an infinitesimal small amount. It is a crazy economic theory. And that's why it's going down the tubes.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: I want to go back to Michael Castle-Christine O'Donnell difference, which is Michael Castle was a professional, not even a politician. He was a professional legislator.

He was a serious guy. He thought about this stuff a lot. You may think he's right or wrong. But it also strikes me that there's a kind of war on competence and professionalism going on here. And these insurgent candidates, one of the biggest things they have to advertise is, they have never done it before.

PARKER: Right.

TRAUB: And sometimes even they don't know anything about the subject. That makes them preferable. I find that really disturbing.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Mike Castle voted for the Bush tax cuts as a member of the House. So, is he a nut, too?

TRAUB: No, of course not. That's not my point at all.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: What about the 37 Democrats who said that they would not vote for extending the tax cuts only to those making under $250,000?

TRAUB: I don't think you have to be a crank to think that. I just don't agree with it.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Pelosi couldn't even hold her own caucus. So, apparently, you've got people in your own party, Eliot, who you think are nuts.

SPITZER: No. I think anybody who buys this economic theory has not studied economics...

REED: Thirty-seven Democrats in the House, Eliot.

SPITZER: ... has not studied our history, and in fact...

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: They haven't studied economics.

REED: OK.

SPITZER: .... and in fact

(CROSSTALK)

REED: So that's the strategy, insult people with whom you disagree.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: No, no, no, we're not insulting them. What we're saying, Ralph, is that...

REED: But you're saying they're dumb. They're basically what you're saying.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: No, no, Ralph, you're trying to put words in my mouth. And I think you shouldn't do that.

What I'm saying is that the historical record that we look at from the Bush presidency is one where these tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending, which we had Dick Armey sitting here the other day, and Dick Armey said he was going to cut National Public Radio and the National Endowment for the Arts. You're not going to balance a budget based on that.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Fair point, OK?

SPITZER: And, so, if that's the counterpoint, we are going into a deficit structure that is going to take us over the cliff.

And, more importantly, all of these deficits that you are talking about were used to bail out the major financial institutions that took us over the cliff because of the deregulatory philosophy of President Bush.

REED: No, look, it's a fair point. And the response is twofold.

Number one, from 1981, when the Bush tax cuts were passed, until Reagan left -- I mean, the Reagan tax cuts were passed, until he left office, federal revenues doubled. So the lower taxes didn't lead to less revenue. They led to more revenue.

We had a spending problem. It wasn't that we didn't have enough revenue, number one. Number two, to your point on how are we going to deal with the fiscal time bomb, everybody in Washington knows that the elephant in the room is entitlements. We have got $50 trillion in unfunded entitlements in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They actuarially do not add up.

SPITZER: Hold on, more fireworks in a second. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: Well, we are back with Ralph Reed and James Traub.

I want to go back to the mama grizzlies, because you talk about these women as being smart and tough. And, obviously, they're being very successful. What do you attribute that to? What is it they're selling exactly?

REED: I think it is traditional Reagan conservatism, with a feminine emphasis on education and children.

If you look at, for example, Palin, who was really the -- she was the trailblazer for these candidates, and she's inspired a lot of them, endorsed a lot of them. I wouldn't say she's personally responsible for their victories, but there's no question her endorsement was very helpful, for example, to Sharron Angle and Nikki Haley.

PARKER: Oh, yes, no question.

REED: And she talked a lot about, you know, children with disabilities who needed special education.

There's been at the state level in a lot of states -- Jeb Bush was one of the leaders on this in Florida -- of providing what were there called McKay Scholarships, so that a child with a disability could get a voucher and go to another school. Some of these children in public school settings either don't get their needs met, or they're sometimes subjected to peer pressure, and aren't always treated respectfully, those kinds of things.

So, I see this as putting a new face on the Republican Party. And I think -- I think, frankly, the left and the media are fit to be tied. They don't know how to deal with it.

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: Nikki Haley is plenty smart.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Very smart.

TRAUB: Reagan went into office, I think, speaking in a lot of the ways Ralph talked about, but in fact in the end wound up as someone who grew the federal government, as opposed to diminished it.

I don't think the current crop of Republicans are Reaganesque, not only in that sense. The most outstanding thing about Reagan to me at least in memory was his amazing optimism for himself and for America.

I'm struck at how this current crop of Republicans has kind of grabbed America's brain stem, you know, the combination of anger, which is today's word, and I think fear, which was the post-9/11 word. And I'm really struck that, to me, Obama has almost abandoned the hopefulness that at one time was his calling card, and the kind of cool, rationality which at one time seemed appealing now seems like kind of a form of wimpishness or something.

And so this focus on anger and that, if you're not angry, there's something deficient about you, I find that really disturbing.

REED: Well, you have got -- according to the Battleground survey, you've got 70 percent of the country says they're either anxious or nervous about their economic...

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: Voters should be. I wish political leaders...

(CROSSTALK)

REED: You have got some of the 18-to-29-year-old voters who supported Obama 2-1 two years ago who are now either seniors or are graduating from college, and guess what? They can't find a job.

SPITZER: And they're moving back home.

REED: That will change a political environment overnight. When you add that level of political toxicity with this government overreach and these massive deficits and the concern that America, if we don't rein in this spending, could be like Greece or Spain, and that's the environment that you're in.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: I should clarify, I think Ralph is right.

REED: And Obama brought it on himself.

TRAUB: People, voters have every reason to be frightened and in some cases angry. I don't think it's good to have political leaders see themselves as channeling and amplifying that anger.

SPITZER: And the great piece on the Democratic side that is missing is that optimism. Nobody has stepped as a Democrat to fill that void and say, here's the answer, and we have a solution. And we're going to solve the problem.

And we have left the field empty for the Sarah Palins. And that's the political brilliance she's brought to it. And I am troubled by the substance, but the Democratic Party has failed to step up and say anything meaningful.

REED: When you leave town without even addressing tax rates in the middle of one of the great economic crises of the modern era, it is just total, abject abdication of government responsibility. And they're going to be punished in November because of it.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: Go ahead. I was...

PARKER: Well, no, I was just going to -- I'm sorry, but we're going to wrap it up here pretty quickly.

But we go, we have to talk about Ralph's novel. I don't know if many people are aware that you're also a novelist.

REED: That I'm a novelist?

(LAUGHTER)

PARKER: Yes, that you also write fiction.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: Has this been fiction until now?

SPITZER: No.

REED: No.

SPITZER: I thought it was.

PARKER: So, anyway, "The Confirmation" -- "The Confirmation"...

REED: "The Confirmation."

PARKER: ... it's about a Supreme Court confirmation. And you've been witness to several of those.

How did you apply your experience to your book?

REED: Well, I lived through the Clarence Thomas nomination when I was then at the Christian Coalition, through the Bork battle.

And I think it's become broken. I think the judicial selection process has gone from advise and consent to search and destroy. And I candidly think it's a double standard.

I think, particularly with a conservative nominee like an Alito or a Roberts, it's dumpster-diving. It's digging into their past. And I wanted to write about what I saw as a broken process. So, I thought fiction was the way to do it.

PARKER: Well, I agree with that. And I was actually misquoted in a newspaper recently that shall not be named.

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: Thank you both. This has been an incredibly lively and contentious conversation. We thank you for that. We will get you back soon, we certainly hope.

REED: Thank you.

SPITZER: And we have to take a quick break.

Thanks so much for joining us, both of you. Come again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNARD-HENRI LEVY, CO-AUTHOR, "PUBLIC ENEMIES": We are in a short-term society, short-term (INAUDIBLE) society. If you don't have immediate results, you say, OK, I'm disappointed. Where's my dream?

PARKER: Yes. Right.

LEVY: OK, come on. Politics is long-term, long-shot, long- breathing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: Now it's time for fun with politics. And, no, that's not an oxymoron. In fact, it is getting harder to separate the silly from the serious -- case in point, political ads.

SPITZER: There are so many parodies out there. Just go to YouTube. You can see hundreds of Christine O'Donnells riding a broomstick.

But, tonight, let's take a look at the real ads.

PARKER: It's hard to know what is a parody and what is not from Senate campaigns to local elections.

Take this ad for Representative Mike Weinstein, a Republican running in Florida to the Florida House of Representatives. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Whoa.

PARKER: OK. Eliot, this is a former prosecutor, just like you.

SPITZER: Not just like me, really.

PARKER: A serious man. But it looks like his son may have made that ad after school.

SPITZER: You know, his son did make it. But you know what? We need to come up with some rules for candidates. Rule number one, no rap ads if you are carrying an AARP card and you're bald. That was too crazy for me.

PARKER: Good point.

And it's not just Republicans who make themselves silly. John Hickenlooper is the Democratic mayor of Denver, a geologist, a businessman, and now he's running for governor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D), COLORADO GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I'm John Hickenlooper. And I guess I'm not a very good politician, because I can't stand negative ads. Every time I see one, I feel like I need to take a shower. And you see a lot of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: All right, stop. Rule number two, never take a shower with your clothes on. That -- I don't want to see that.

PARKER: OK.

But the ad that may capture what we're talking is the one that went viral during the primaries. Dale Peterson, an ex-Marine, was running for Alabama agriculture commissioner. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DALE PETERSON (R), ALABAMA AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE: I'm Dale Peterson, and I'm after the Republican nomination for Alabama agricultural commissioner.

I have been a farmer, a businessman, a cop, a Marine during Vietnam. So listen up. Alabama ag commissioner is one of the most powerful positions in Alabama, responsible for $5 billion.

I'm Dale Peterson. I will name names and take no prisoners. Give me the Republican nomination for ag commish, and let's show Alabama we mean business.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: All right. By the way, he didn't win. That's the good news.

But one rule trumps all the rest: no guns if you're not running for sheriff.

All right, we will be right back.

(LAUGHTER)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEVY: Realty is never exactly like the dreams, so Obama did a great job. He should be more supported than he is by his own party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Now tonight's person of interest, one guy Kathleen and I agreed we couldn't wait to get on the show was Bernard Henri-Levy. He has no equivalent in America, the philosopher as rock star.

PARKER: World leaders consult him and he has helped shine a light on injustices around the globe. His latest international best seller "Public Enemies" is an exchange of letters with fellow lighting rod Michel Houellebecq (ph). In France, he's just known by his initials. We don't even do that with our president anymore. BHL, welcome.

LEVY: Thank you.

PARKER: You have traveled all across this country several times and what I love about you among many things is that you love America.

HENRI-LEVY: Absolutely.

PARKER: But America is in a different state of affairs right now. What has changed in your view?

HENRI-LEVY: What is changing is that America is more lovable than ever but becoming a little crazy. This Tea Party story look from outside is really crazy. It is not even ideology. It is pure hatred sometimes and it makes for someone like me who love this is country, it is a little frightening. The duty of the moderate Republican leaders which are still the majority and who are the honor of this country should be to confront passion and irrationality with ideas and with facts.

SPITZER: I agree.

HENRI-LEVY: This is a duty. This should not let Sarah Palin holding the front of the stage. She's alone on the stage today. What are the others doing?

SPITZER: Who do you blame? Blame is an easy thing to do, but who should step up?

HENRI-LEVY: All these people who mobilize themselves two years ago should be on board again. They are too absent. They are disappointed, but disappointed by what?

Reality is never exactly like the dreams, so Obama did a great job. He should be more supported than he is by his own party. And on the Republican side, you have a lot of good people, of great people who have entered the view of America. They should stand and not let the extremists like Palin, for example, be on the front like this.

PARKER: I want to ask you something I heard you say that this was actually this is a period of brainstorming, which is a nicer way of describing current events. Can you talk about that a little bit? When you said brainstorming, what do you mean?

HENRI-LEVY: I mean that today nobody knows exactly what are the solutions. We are all of us European, Americans, right, left, in a sort of black hole, of course. All the old ways of thinking are dead, old ideologies. But we have to reshape and to reinvent but to reshape and reinvent does not mean to let the passions speak and to say, I know. We all know that 70 percent of the Republican voters believe that Obama is Muslim. They do believe that he was born in Kenya. He's more American, more American than a lot of them. Obama is more American than Mrs. Palin. He embodies -- of course.

PARKER: Well, that's a good statement. That will get a lot of buzz.

SPITZER: You talk about brainstorming.

HENRI-LEVY: Wait a minute. Obama is really -- if America is what the founding fathers dreamt a few centuries ago, Obama is one of the embodiments of America.

PARKER: You obviously like President Obama a good deal. Is there anyone on the Republican side that you admire?

HENRI-LEVY: Today, the race for the Republican camp is to go back to the Barry Goldwater time. Barry Goldwater, 1964. The Republicans lost, did lose a lot of ground because of the extremism of Goldwater.

SPITZER: But here's the interesting thing, Goldwater created the modern Republican Party that then won with Nixon and with Reagan. So many people in the Sarah Palin camp are saying we want to go back to Goldwater because that laid a foundation. Haven't there been over periods, I would call them spasms in American history to go where we go through something like this?

HENRI-LEVY: Of course. Beginning of the '60s, the moment of Martin Luther King, the Kennedy years and so on. You had some moments like that.

Well, the hope that the America of today will be able to sort out that with as much nobility and greatness as she did in the past. The new deal period also was a great moment of America with some very strong oppositions which could look like vulcanization from outside. It was just an ideological fight and this is good for democracy. democracy is fight. And democracy is a martial art.

PARKER: That's what I wanted to hear you say. Now why do you think as an outsider looking in, why do you think Obama has lost his appeal with the American people? Because his ratings are way down. What do you think it is?

HENRI-LEVY: Number one, I'm not so sure he lost his appeal. We'll see, 2 of November. My bet is that we will win much more than is expected by a lot of American observers and foreign observers today. The game is not over. You will see.

I'm not so sure that he will lose the Senate and the chamber. Now we live in a strange society with very short-sighted way of considering politics. People in Europe as in America want results immediately. We are in a short-term society, short-term society.

PARKER: Right.

HENRI-LEVY: If you don't have immediate results, you say, OK, I'm disappointed.

PARKER: Yes.

HENRI-LEVY: Where is my dream?

PARKER: Right.

HENRI-LEVY: OK, come on. Politics is long term, long shot, long breathing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILL CAIN, NATIONALREVIEW.COM: Your description of the Tea Party as some eruption of absurd hatred is absolutely, totally off base. It's the reflection of a Frenchman in Paris who turns his TV on for five minutes and gets a description from a liberal commentator. It has no touch on reality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: Welcome to "Our Political Party." This is a show about strong opinions, and we thought what better way to serve up those points of view than with a party right here in our studio.

SPITZER: Let's meet our guests. Bernard Henri-Levy is joining us once again. Bernard is a philosopher and a journalist, a job description you only find in France. Ari Melber, a columnist for "The Nation" and "Politico."

PARKER: Paulina Porizkova is a supermodel, a writer and a blogger, and Will Cain is a columnist and the host of the "National Review" online's "Off the Page."

Welcome everybody.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, Kathleen.

PAULINA PORIZKOVA, FMR. MODEL/BLOGGER: Thank you.

PARKER: Paulina and Bernard, you are both foreign born looking at us from the outside. Are we crazy?

PORIZKOVA: Well --

HENRI-LEVY: Rather crazy, yes. Rather crazy.

PARKER: Charmingly crazy?

HENRI-LEVY: Charmingly crazy most of the time. But sometimes not completely charmingly. When you see the Tea Parties, for example, it is crazy and not charming at all, I must say.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the reason --

PARKER: Paulina is going to answer that.

SPITZER: Jump over the table here.

PORIZKOVA: Frenchmen will answer in the most charming possible way. Yes. You know? Oh.

PARKER: Yes, you are crazy.

PORIZKOVA: Yes, a little bit in a charming way except for -- I love that. OK.

Well, I'm American now. I have an American passport so I feel like I can get into it a little bit more. I think that any country in which the word "liberal" has become a swear word is weird.

PARKER: All right.

SPITZER: I like that view.

PARKER: So?

PORIZKOVA: Thank you.

PARKER: All right.

WILL CAIN, NATIONALREVIEW.COM: Let me tell you what's crazy. OK.

SPITZER: All right. Here we go. Put on your body armor.

PORIZKOVA: Totally disagree with everything you say.

CAIN: Bernard, I'm sorry. Before today I didn't know who you were. I've known Paulina since I was 9, but --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRI-LEVY: You're right. I would say the same.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good choice.

HENRI-LEVY: I would much prefer Paulina than -- you are right.

CAIN: Apparently you are God in France but your description of the Tea Party as some eruption of absurd hatred is absolutely totally off base. It's the reflection of a Frenchman in Paris who turns his TV on for five minutes and gets a description from a liberal commentator. It has no touch on reality.

SPITZER: Why don't you get a better sense of then?

CAIN: The Tea Party isn't an emotional movement at all, Eliot. It's not about fear. It's not about hatred. It's an ideological movement of people who believe in liberty and limited government, and they have seen this government grow to a point where they feel like it is so far removed from its original intentions if they are marching in the street.

(CROSSTALK)

ARI MELBER, "THE NATION": Let me jump -- I'm going to jump in. I'm going to tell you what they are to Tea Parties. And since they're not very familiar with BHL's work, I can tell you that he's a strong ally of America in many ways but he's described himself more as anti- anti-American than pro-American previously. And so it's with a Tea Party. There's an anti-Obama part of the Tea Party that is motivated by some very deep-seated negativity. And we've seen that and we need an anti-anti-Obama movement for them. And then there is a big government economic argument that's also part of the Tea Party and that's the ideology and that's legit. But the part that we've seen with the posters, you know what I'm talking about, is not legit.

PORIZKOVA: Ignorance? I'm scared.

CAIN: But the point is this, Ari, is that element of the Tea Party is so small that it deserves no lip service. It's not representative of the Tea Party.

SPITZER: This is a party. This is all much too heavy. One thought.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRI-LEVY: A private cup of tea. Is there a cup of tea around?

SPITZER: That's not sufficient.

HENRI-LEVY: My point of view is not a point of view of a Frenchman. It is -- wait a minute, the point of view of a lot of American women and men whom I know and who are ashamed. American. Ashamed of what they hear in Tea Parties.

CAIN: And I don't think it's --

HENRI-LEVY: It is not a European point of view.

CAIN: And I don't think the view you're representing is that representative of Americans.

SPITZER: Let me say this about BHL. He is, even though he's French, he's an American patriot and I've read his works. He believes in what this nation stands for and he is one who believes in what this country -- we've got to move on. This is a party. But here's the most important thing. Here's the most important thing.

(CROSSTALK)

It is also abreast with politics and that part of it we all love. Agree or disagree. But anyway, Nobel Peace Prize is going to be announced tomorrow. And we think there should be a Nobel political prize awarded for honesty and integrity. If there were such a prize, who would you give it to?

PORIZKOVA: Well, Eliot, can I just interrupt right here?

SPITZER: Of course.

PORIZKOVA: I think there is a reason there is no such thing in the Nobel prizes. There is an honest and politician with integrity would sink like this rock thrown into the world of politics.

SPITZER: Anybody wants to defend this. Look, I was in that, in that tawdry world for a while but there are some. MELBER: I'll give you one but he already has a Nobel for something else. And that's Paul Krugman. He is a political figure. He advocates positions. And if you look at every crisis we're dealing with, beneath the financial crisis, there's a media crisis.

SPITZER: Ari, I love Paul Krugman. He's going to be on this show tomorrow. I'm a huge fan of his, but he's not a politician.

MELBER: I think he's in politics.

SPITZER: I get X on that answer.

HENRI-LEVY: You have somebody who will not be on the show tomorrow for sure but who might have the Nobel Prize and who deserves it.

SPITZER: Who's that?

HENRI-LEVY: The Chinese Liu (ph) who is a human rights fighter since Tiananmen, since 20 years ago who spent most of the time in jail, who tries to think and build the democracy in China.

SPITZER: This could be fascinating. The Chinese government called the Norwegian government and said if you give him the prize --

HENRI-LEVY: Yes.

SPITZER: -- it will cast a pall over relationships between China and Norway. I'm not sure if's that going to work or not.

HENRI-LEVY: We chose the importance of Nobel Price which sees a reason to give it to him. I would be the Norwegian jury, it could be an additional reason to decide to give it to him.

SPITZER: I agree.

PARKER: Don't you think Barack Obama will be relieved to no longer be the holder of that prize?

PORIZKOVA: He looked so unhappy when he got it. I have never seen anybody receive a Nobel Prize and be like -- weighed down by it.

(CROSSTALK)

PORIZKOVA: But he only speaks great. He just looked dejected. His ears were drooping.

PARKER: That's hard.

SPITZER: Frankly -- yes, I agree. Arguably the last great speech he gave.

HENRI-LEVY: Maybe the last one. Yes, exactly.

SPITZER: Nobody more but most recent one --

PARKER: Ari, well, you didn't get a turn.

CAIN: I always err with supermodels when in doubt.

PORIZKOVA: I do not err with --

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: What I would say is I'm not comfortable putting politicians on a pedestal and setting them up for hero worship. Good politics is about principles not about people. People are flawed.

SPITZER: Right.

PARKER: All right.

PORIZKOVA: Politics is about getting --

PARKER: I have another question for you all when we come back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Welcome back to "Our Political Party." I have one more quick question for everybody. Roy Halladay pitched a no-hitter last night, the second ever in a playoff games. That's a huge deal. What is the closest political equivalent to a no-hitter? Will?

CAIN: It doesn't exist.

SPITZER: It doesn't exist.

CAIN: That's why sports is so great.

SPITZER: Ronald Reagan's landslide --

CAIN: This is why sports is so great in our society. It's a merit-based system where winners and losers exist. You cannot do it in politics.

MELBER: I think you got a no-hitter going right now with the Senate Republicans. I will hand it to them. It's no hits and no votes for about 100-plus Obama nominees. So I think that's an area where you're throwing pitches but nobody is getting through.

SPITZER: Give us the European perspective. Does this no-hitter metaphor work?

HENRI-LEVY: There is no European perspective of baseball.

(LAUGHTER)

It's too good -- well, baseball is supposed to have been better.

SPITZER: Cooperstown. Cooperstown.

HENRI-LEVY: Cooperstown. SPITZER: If you go to New York State. Yes?

HENRI-LEVY: Two hours from here.

SPITZER: Four hours.

HENRI-LEVY: If you go to Cooperstown.

SPITZER: Yes.

HENRI-LEVY: With a good car.

SPITZER: The way you drive, OK?

HENRI-LEVY: Sorry, no equivalent in Europe.

There should be. Baseball is an exquisite sport.

SPITZER: Well, there should be. Baseball is an exquisite sport. Graceful --

HENRI-LEVY: I know but this is one of the superiorities of America. There is a lot superiorities of America.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See that again?

(CROSSTALK)

HENRI-LEVY: That's why I'm so desperate about Tea Parties. You understand.

SPITZER: Paulina, what's yours?

PORIZKOVA: We, on the other hand, I -- you know, to watch a bunch of sweaty guys chase balls -- oh, dear, not the kind I'm interested in.

HENRI-LEVY: Great point.

PARKER: Across the nation, I hate to break up the party but that's all we've got time for. Thank you, again, guests for being here. Bernard, Ari, Paulina and Will.

Thanks for being here. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Anderson Cooper. "PARKER SPITZER" continues in a moment. But first, the latest.

In Chile, rescuers have drilled within 300 feet of the area where 33 miners are trapped. They could reach them by Saturday. The miners could be pulled to the surface next week using a rescue capsule, you see it there, that was tested successfully last week. As you know, the men have been trapped since August 5th. In Texas, the sheriff is pointing on the drug cartel to produce the body of missing American David Hartley. The cartel controls the area in Mexico where Hartley was reportedly shot in the head last week. His wife, Tiffany, says gunmen in three boats attacked the couple while they were jet skiing on a lake that straddles the U.S.- Mexico border. Some have questioned her story. You can decide for yourself. I'm going to speak to her tonight on "360."

Plus, our in-depth look at bullying continues with the latest in the case of Phoebe Prince. The 15-year-old girl was bullied and killed herself. Six students are now facing trial. Should they be charged as criminals? Well, that's the latest. Now back to "PARKER SPITZER."

PARKER: And now time for our postscript. We love those political ads so much that we saw earlier we thought we'd show you more of our favorite.

SPITZER: It is a lesson for every candidate. Do not let your kids run your advertising campaign. That's a warning you should pay attention to.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, POLITICAL AD)

MUSIC: Mike, Mike, Mike Weinstein working hard for you and me. Representing District 19. Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike Weinstein. These days we're in need of justice and integrity. Standing up for you and me and fixing our economy.

Mike Mike Mike Weinstein working hard for you and me. Representing District 19. Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike Weinstein.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Thanks so much for being with us. Be sure to join us tomorrow night.

SPITZER: Good night from New York.

"LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.