Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Interview with Rand Paul, Reaction to Sarah Palin's Speech
Aired November 09, 2010 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATHLEEN PARKER, CO-HOST: Good evening, I'm Kathleen Parker.
ELIOT SPITZER, CO-HOST: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to a special edition of the program. Coming up momentarily, Sarah Palin is speaking live from Plumstead Christian School in Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania.
PARKER: It's one of her first speeches since the midterms. And I am, of course, curious to see if she gloats just a little bit about the Tea Party's success, but of course, that wouldn't be very Christian of her.
SPITZER: That is just moments away. Before we go out there, though, we have all-star line-up tonight. David Stockman, former Reagan budget director will join us. What he says about extending the Bush tax cuts might surprise you and anger many in his own party. We'll talk to him shortly.
PARKER: But first we start with tonight's "Headliner." His message embodied the Tea Party during the campaign reform, government and cut spending and as a result of his victory last Tuesday he will lead the movement's wave into Washington.
SPITZER: But converting campaign rhetoric to action won't be easy. Joining us to explain how he will tackle Washington's entrenched interests, Kentucky's newest senator and Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul.
Thanks for join us.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Good to be with you.
PARKER: Well, thank you so much for joining us. We do want to talk about Sarah Palin a minute and her critics of the QE2, the Federal Reserve's decision to inject $600 billion into the market, as you know, rather than the boat, which I had to learn. Given the Republican's opposition to any other stimulus is this not the government's last option to stimulate the economy?
PAUL: Well, I don't think the government can create jobs or stimulate anything. I think the government is only successful when they get out of the way of the marketplace, in fact, I would like to stimulate the economy by, you know, the government's taking 25 percent or spending 25 percent of our gross domestic product. We historically spent 20 percent. Why don't we go back to 20 percent, give five percent back to the marketplace and you'd see an expansion of jobs like you've never, ever seen.
PARKER: Well, I don't think anybody disagrees that we have to cut spending dramatically. I guess the question is how you do it. And of course, your stance against earmarks was central to your campaign. "National Review" magazine, which is the conservative magazine that's accusing you now of selling out on that issue and...
PAUL: Well, they need to interview me before they accuse me of selling out. I was misquoted by the "Wall Street Journal," because I will not earmark anything and I will not support earmarks. I have signed a pledge, I have signed word of honor that I will not do that and the reporter misinterpreted it and now everybody is jumping on me before they have had a chance to ask me. So, I am not in favor of earmarks and will not earmark any legislation.
SPITZER: I want to put up on the screen, just for the benefit of our viewer, just some basic numbers, what the budget is and what the deficit is. And you know these numbers, I'm sure. A budget of about $3.8 trillion and a deficit of about $1.3 trillion and a second chart that will show folks where the money really goes -- 2.3 trillion of it to these programs: Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and interest. Now, you've been asked over and over where you want to cut and what you've said is across the board, is that correct?
PAUL: Everywhere.
SPITZER: Everywhere. Now, then, here's what mystifies me. You're a doctor and I think, am I correct, 50 percent of your practice came from Medicare and Medicaid, government, federal reimbursements to you for doing -- for practicing medicine, is that correct?
PAUL: Right.
SPITZER: Am I correct then that you've said and I got read this right, there, that the one place you don't want to cut is doctor reimbursement rates?
PAUL: You've been reading too many liberal bloggers. Let me set you straight there.
SPITZER: Senator, is it correct you don't want to cut those?
PAUL: No, let me set you straight. What I have said is that look, if we want to cut physicians fees automatically without a vote, let's lump all federal employees in there: Senators, Congressmen and all two million federal employees and let's automatically cut their pay every year without a vote and then I am all for it. But right now, let's don't single out one set of people and say that somehow we're going balance the health care budget on one set of people.
The problem is, is that, ultimately if you keep reducing, for example, if physician fees go down with Medicare by 30 percent, as there are designated to do in December, you won't find a doctor. I think we need to think about do we want to have doctors available to see patients and I think you'll have a major problem.
SPITZER: Senator, but I'm correct in saying you have opposed cutting Medicare reimbursement rates even though the Medicare system is the single largest deficit hole we are facing, as we look at our budget, and reimbursing doctors is the largest piece of that?
PAUL: You do have to figure out how to balance the Medicare budget and it's going to take a lot of different things to do it but you can't balance it simply on one facet. But, what you should do is that if you want to cut physician fees which you need to acknowledge to your viewership, have already been cut by 50 percent.
When I started in '93, fees are now 50 percent of what they were in 1993, so they have been cut by 50 percent. What you have to picture is you want to cut them by 40 percent more, fine go ahead, but there may not be any doctors left seeing Medicare patients, so don't stick your head in the sand and say you're going to fix this problem and all will be hunky-dory again. It won't work. You won't have any doctors to see patients.
SPITZER: Senator, Doctor, call you both, I don't mean to be impertinent here, but what was your peak income over the last decade? What's the most you earned in any one year?
PAUL: I think -- if you want to make this about me personally, you're not have a real intelligent discussion, but if you want to make this about -- I mean, do I want to go into your personal past and talk about your past on this program. I don't think so. So, let's talk about things about how we fix Medicare.
SPITZER: That's what I'm trying to do.
PAUL: There are many ways we have to fix Medicare, for example, Part B is only 25 percent paid for by taxes and premiums. So, it's 75 percent paid for out of the general budget. So, I think we have to figure out how do we pay for that? That may include talking about eligibility in the future, talking about changes in age. It may talk about changes in premiums. It may talk about means testing and there are honest people discussing these things as we speak, but we're not really going make any point about trying to vilify doctors for making a good living.
SPITZER: Again, I want to come back to your words across the board cuts. I want to talk about numbers for Kentucky, if we might, right now. I've got actually a print out here that's very informative that shows me exactly how much federal money has been spent in Kentucky and I want to go through some of these to see if you're willing to do this sort of 25 percent cut that we would need to, to balance the budget. Social Security and SSI, Supplemental Security Income, $11.7 billion to Kentucky residents. Would you cut that by 25 percent so you could balance the budget the way you wanted?
PAUL: Well no, what I think what we have to do is look at certain programs that we don't need to be doing at all at the federal level and if you eliminate some of those entirely, then you don't have to be as draconian with other things.
SPITZER: Can you specify which ones?
PAUL: Well, let me finish my answer. What I would also say is that Social Security and Medicare, I have said repeatedly, were not for changing any of the eligibility or any of the payments for those currently on. We're talking about the next generation, we're talking about typically, most of the people who want to have an honest discussion about this, who are talking about reform of those 55 and under. But, you have to immediately start making those decisions and if you don't want to have the discussion about how to fix this, what you need to be doing is bring liberals on your program and asking them how do you continue to have these programs. What I'm saying is, we need to fix these programs that you can't continue to borrow money from China to pay for daily expenses.
SPITZER: OK, Senator, here's the problem. You have said, as recently as today that you do not want to take a position on increasing the federal deficit level because you plan to go Washington in January and propose a balanced budget. Now, in order to close a $1 trillion budget gap in this next fiscal year, we're going to have to cut 25 percent. And I just gave you the single largest program in the federal budget, and you said you won't touch it. Now, let's go to defense spending.
PAUL: Well, no, well, no, that's not true...
SPITZER: Well, that's what you just said, sir.
PAUL: Well, you're mischaracterizing my position. We do have to look at Social Security and we do have to look at Medicare, some of the cuts will be more gradual or will deal with younger generations. But, you will have to have to look at the entire budget.
The main thing you have to have is you have to have rules. We have had a pay as you go rule and then broken it, they passed it and then within three weeks they evade their own rules. What you need to do is have a balanced budget amendment or rule and that they have to adhere to that. We have that in Kentucky, we have that in 32 states. Doesn't work well in all the states, but it does work fairly well in Kentucky. You force the legislators to make difficult decisions, so much of this is about the process as it is about the particulars.
SPITZER: Well, Senator...
PAUL: The second thing you do is you have to come up with a compromise. The compromise typically is not occurred because you have Republicans who say, oh, we'll cut domestic spending, but we're unwilling to cut military spending.
You have some liberals on the other side who are deficit hawks and who are serious and who say, oh, we'll cut military spending, but we won't cut domestic spending. The bottom line is the compromise is you do have to look across the board.
But there are entire books written on this and you want me to point out each and every program. There are thousands of pages that go into the budget and there are thousands of people who go into preparing the budget.
I will be preparing a budget over the next two months, and it will include a balanced budget and I will give people different alternatives.
SPITZER: Well, Senator...
PAUL: I will give them a one-year budget -- I will give them a one-year budget, and that will have significant cuts. It may not be palatable to many people. There will be budgets that will be balanced over two, three, four and five. But the thing is, is what we have -- what we cannot do is simply put our head in the sand and keep doing what we've been doing.
SPITZER: Well, Senator, if I can tell you, learning one thing very well even before you get to Washington is how to filibuster, but what I plan to do is go through and ask you a few questions, specific programs, the biggest ones, federal dollars, into Kentucky to see if you, right now, are willing or not to be true to what you ran on, which is a balanced budget. Now, let's go the next program.
PAUL: I'm willing...
Well, let's go to the next program...
PAUL: Let me explain to you what I am for. If you want to ask questions let me answer the question.
SPITZER: No, I haven't asked the question, yet, sir. I want to ask you about a program and then we will see if you want to cut it.
PAUL: My answer to the question is that nothing is off -- off limits. Nothing is off limits. And we will -- let me finish. The other thing is, is that we will locate each individual program and we will do a step-wise process to this. We will say: Can it be downsized? Can it be privatized? Can it be eliminated? Or can we not look at this program at all because it's too important that it can't be cut?
So, we will look at this, in a step-wise fashion and we will look at everything within the budget and we will make those determinations, but I am not prepared to look at all thousand different categories and tell you exactly what we will cut other than to tell you that I am serious about doing this and I will introduce a budget and I will be happy to come back in on in January if you want to go into each individual item. But I think it's impossible to go through each individual item of the budget and tell you exactly what percentage and what we will cut at this juncture.
SPITZER: Well, the good news is we have loads of time, right now, and you haven't given us a single cut, yet. And we're not going to go through the thousand, but we're going to continue through some of these approach...
PAUL: Well, actually, how about a trill...
SPITZER: Senator, I let you finish, sir.
PAUL: Well, actually, how about a trill...
SPITZER: Senator, I let you finish, sir.
PAUL: A trillion dollars from Obama Care. We'll cut a trillion dollars by appealing Obama Care. It's a $1.2 trillion program. How about the TARP Funds? A couple hundred billion dollars in TARP funds, why don't we send those back? How about the unused stimulus funds, a couple hundred billion dollars? Why don't we send those back?
SPITZER: Sir, the Obama Care that you love to malign, according to the Congressional Budget Office that you have been referring to, will save over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. The TARP money was not affecting the next year's budget.
PAUL: The tenure of this discussion hasn't been useful for the country and I think somehow you're personal agenda is getting in the way of making you a very good broadcaster. So, I'd suggest that we have one more question and then we have to move on to another previously scheduled interview.
SPITZER: Sir, the tenure of the campaign in which you say you're going to balance the budget and cannot name a specific cut suggests to me that that debases politics. And I have been in politics.
Here's what I would love to do, when you propose that budget, which is balanced, we look forward to having you back on and I'm sure by then you will have gone through the thousand programs and we can go through one-by-one and figure out where these cuts are, because honestly, sir, as of now, I don't see the budget cuts in your agenda. Thank you, sir.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: We're waiting now for Sarah Palin to speak at an event in Pennsylvania that's just moment's ways, but while we keep an eye on that event, let's bring our esteemed panel into the arena. Joining now, we have John Ridley, a screen writer and contributor to NPR. Nicolle Wallace, a former White House communications director and senior advisor for the 2008 McCain/Palin campaign. And Matt Miller is a columnist at WashingtonPost.com among many other things.
OK folks, you saw the interview with Rand Paul, what'd you think?
MATT MILLER, "LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTER": I mean, I think sit a classic example of Tea Party rhetoric running up against the reality already of Washington, because there wasn't a single cut he could talk about and using a very old kind of politician's excuse that there's thousands of programs, people have written books on this, I'll get back to you in a couple of months.
(CROSSTALK)
PARKER: You have written books about it.
MILLER: I have written books on this. But the one thing I did applaud him for was, he's a Republican (AUDIO GAP) who said we should put the defense budget on the table, because usually that's off limits on the right and I think that could, in a weird way, become a predicate for some progress.
SPITZER: Absolutely.
NICOLLE WALLACE, FMR. SENIOR ADVISOR, 2008 MCCAIN/PALIN CAMPAIGN: Well, you have heard a couple Republicans put defense spending on the table and I think there is a lot of interest on the right in reforming the way defense contracts are issued and I think, you know, it always disappoints me when you hear a voice like this and you paint the whole Republican Party with his lack of specificity. I think Congressman Paul Ryan actually has put together a very specific budget.
You hear a lot of the folks that are talked about as potential 2012 Republican nominees talking about means testing. I mean, I think anyone that's actually sat in a meeting about entitlement reform. President I worked for, President Bush, unsuccessfully tried to, I think, salvage Social Security for future generations. The only real way to get at the deficit is to actually tackle that, that it's become such a tired cliche to call these programs the third rail, they should become the first rail and all of our politicians should wrap both of their arms around them or else it's all, you know, jibber-jab.
PARKER: Well, is it fair to say, look, the guy just got elected. He hasn't gotten there yet and he is not necessarily expected to have a complete plan going into the office.
SPITZER: No. No, and I'll tell you why no. He ran as the voice of the Tea Party attempting to articulate answers. You don't get elected to the United States Senate as a doctor who then immediately takes off the table the one thing that benefits him. We didn't even get into the issue of how taxpayers subsidize his medical education because his gradual medical education is subsidized by all taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid. He couldn't, as Matt said, name a single cut in a single program let alone the 11 trillion that is necessary to close this chasm of a deficit we face over the next deficit. So, it think it's flim-flam and I think until the American public sees it for that, there will not be the next step which Nicolle properly focuses on, which is we've got get our arms around this in a meaningful way.
MILLER: You know, but the other thing is, what could be useful is, if he goes off and does his homework, and you said he's' going to put out a plan that will show an option to balance the budget in one year, apart from the fact that that would devastate the economy, in the near term, I think we will come back and say actually I can't do this. It couldn't be good for Kentuckians and that could be a teachable moment for the Tea Party and all of us.
JOHN RIDLEY, NPR: Remember, all of these candidates, this is the Bill McKay moment -- when you run on an ideology and at the end it it's the, "now what." And all of these guys, you know, have guys -- guys and women, they've gone in on a particular ideology and there's been a very strong movement. But the reality is -- and I loved your graphic because I think a lot of people -- we talk about the budget, we talk about that t $2-3 trillion, but they don't see that most of that is essentially essential spending -- things that we really have come to depend on and it's not just these frivolous things with these programs and all these other things. So, now is, now what? What are you going do? That's when the chili hits the cheese.
PARKER: Well, the truth is, I mean, we do have to cut vast amounts of spending. And everybody we have on the show, we ask the same question and virtually no one has an answer. I mean, it really gets tough when you have to produce...
MILLER: Most of it's also slowing the growth on Social Security, on Medicare. Slowing the growth will do the job. The depressing thing, I saw Mike Pence, who may be running for the president, when he leaves the Republican caucus chair, and he was on one of the Sunday shows and said, yes, we've got to talk about Social Security and Medicare for people under 40. So what does that mean? So, the Republican plan is starting 25 years from now? Is that something new?
SPITZER: Well, Rand Paul tried to do...
PARKER: We don't want to offend anyone in the meanwhile, right?
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: We don't vote anyway. We don't vote Republican.
SPITZER: But Rand Paul tried to do the same thing saying we're going to talk about it for the next generation and we're talking about a deficit next year. And Governor Rick Perry, wonderfully nice, decent guy, the governor of Texas came on the show, said let's have a conversation. I said we are, so what's the answer, he said, no let's have a conversation and I said, no we are, what's the answer? It is kind of circular. This is the conversation. Show up. They don't want to show up and actually have the conversation.
WALLACE: But, you know, what's different is who ever thought, no offense, the OMB geeks would become the coolest kids in town.
SPITZER: Well, that was always true.
WALLACE: And the truth is four years ago, and eight years ago, the deficit was not the political issue that it is right now. So, George W. Bush tried to reform Social Security. There was no political will, frankly, in all the halls of the White House. There was none in his own party and there was less than that in -- among the Democrats. So, you need leaders to feel the political pressure first. And now there is actually mounting pressure on the politicians in Washington to do something, so...
RIDLEY: Is it just the flavor of the moment, then? I mean, right now it's in front of everybody because we trip on what's in front of us. Everybody understands debt and deficit now more than ever. But let's say and let's hope the economy picks up. A lot of that money starts rolling in on taxes and things like that and all of a sudden, you know, we'll worry about that next year. What's Reagan said, you know, nobody cares about the deficit, that was (INAUDIBLE), correct?
PARKER: I don't think it's going get better any time soon. I think lit be on our front burner for a while.
RIDLEY: I don't think it's going to get better, but making these tough choices, and you've got to back to your constituents, it's just, you know, next year we'll do it, in three years we'll do it. Money starts coming in, let's not worry about that...
WALLACE: It's not an emergency. The politicians don't feel the heat any more. They don't go home to their districts and have people raise their hands and say I am really stressed out about the deficit. They put it off again.
RIDLEY: We didn't get to 13 trillion overnight...
MILLER: And where was the Tea Party when Bush was tripling the debt during his era? Well, that looks like small change, now...
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: The Tea Party certainly has its origins in their anger over George Bush's spending. I remember doing talk radio when he passed education reform and they were angry about that and they became more angry when he added the prescription drug benefit. So, their anger certainly has roots in spending under Bush.
MILLER: I'm sure a lot of the seniors who are Tea Party people enjoy their prescription drug benefits under Medicare.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: I want to pick up something that John was alluding to, which is the flavor of the moment, of course, is deficit reduction. The critically important question is how do you get the economy moving? And right now there is tension and the timing of these two things is really what Ben Bernanke is trying to deal with, with this QE2 that nobody knows what it is, whether it will work. As you point out, is it a ship and there's real concern. It's serious. (INAUDIBLE) that QE2 would be better than what blew up or burned out in the Caribbean, today. Get this ship out there. But clearly we need to do something to create jobs or else there will be no revenue in the long-run, anyway, so that's the tension.
PARKER: On that, as an OMB geek...
SPITZER: We need you to come back to the show.
PARKER: Is the QE2 a good idea?
MILLER: I guess I think on balance it is. I'm a big proponent of what I call spaghetti economics. We need it to get out of the crisis to throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall. And I view this as Bernanke's latest toss of some spaghetti. We don't know if it's going be, you know, a fix. But he's looking at the Hill. He sees that fiscal policy is going to be in total gridlock. There's not going to be any further stimulus coming from Congress, so why not err on the side of taking some action that might boost the economy a little bit. The thing that's weird about it is, I think it's strange in a democracy that one unelected guy can cause essentially an international economic diplomatic crisis. You've got everybody jumping out the window in Germany for good reason.
PARKER: And Sarah Palin (INAUDIBLE) in China.
MILLER: So, it's uncomfortable.
RIDLEY: We've got a lot of honor, like the people in this country who are driving the discourse. So, you know, at least he's in some kind of position my question is, aren't the banks sitting on tons of capital, right now/ Isn't there something that we can do to incentivize the banks. I mean, incentivize line in a punitive sense, to get this money out to the people who need it.
WALLACE: Where is Jesse James when you need him?
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: But here's the bizarre thing, everybody is saying we want to banks to lend. The banks are saying nobody's coming in the door with credit worthy conditions or demands so we can lend to them. No demand. They are sitting on $2 trillion and that's why you say to Ben Bernanke, so you're going to lower the interest rates a little bit, it's already zero. That's not going stimulate the economy at all. Somebody analogized it to pushing on a strong. Nothing's going to happen to get these dollars into the economy and that's what worries me.
MILLER: I mean, I think his hope is that it gooses the stock market a little bit and that that creates some of what economists call a wealth affect, and maybe that makes people spend a little more. I admit, tic's a strange, weird situation where in when that's spaghetti we're throwing at the wall.
PARKER: We've got a goose and spaghetti on the table.
WALLACE: Here's the thing, nobody out there has any ability to sit around the kitchen table and feel better because of the ship, QE2. They are worried about the value of their homes and historically in America people feel more wealthy, they feel like spending when their home is worth at least what they paid for it and they spend even more when they feel like it's going up.
PARKER: Good point.
WALLACE: So, this again is a financial policy discussion, totally disconnected from the American people.
SPITZER: Nicolle can we ask you since you are on the Republican side of the aisle, Sarah Palin about to give her first big speech after the elections last Tuesday. Big win for her -- what will she say?
WALLACE: Well, I think that she may tell us what those dead fish who don't flop up the stream are going to be doing now that she's reloaded. Who knows what she is going to say. But you know, E.F. Hutton, everybody will listen.
PARKER: No, I have a list of things I think she will say. We must not forget the ordinary men and women. The soul of movement is everyday Americans. Everything - education comes down to good old fashion common sense. We want true history taught.
SPITZER: True history.
PARKER: I know, don't you love that? She has said that before. And I just pulled these from previous speeches, so I would expect to see some of these, tonight.
(CROSSTALK)
RIDLEY: So, you're saying it's solution, solution, solution.
PARKER: Exactly.
SPITZER: All right. I think at this very moment there she is. Sarah Palin, going to the podium at Plumstead Christian School in Pennsylvania.
Let's take a listen to Ms. Sarah Palin, former governor, Sarah Palin.
PARKER: Wearing her power red.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SARAH PALIN (R), FMR ALASKA GOVERNOR: Oh, it is such an honor to get to be here. Thank you very much. Truly it is my honor, it's my privilege to get to be here and Daniel that singing, absolutely beautiful. Daniel, would you like to sing at an inauguration?
(LAUGHTER)
Not necessarily mine!
(APPLAUSE)
He should, though. At somebody's, right? Oh my goodness. He just -- doesn't he just give you goose bumps and make you so proud be American. Are you not so proud to be an American?
(APPLAUSE)
And so inspiring. That tribute to our veterans all serving in the past and presently serving. They are a force for good throughout the world and they are America's finest and nothing to apologize for. Thank you so much for honoring those who protect our freedoms and allow us to be here today, allow a free press, allow this free assembling. Thank you so much to our vets. God bless you. We salute you.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, it is a thrill to get to be here back in the Keystone State and it was really neat to get to meet some of the Plumstead students, earlier today. Had to kind of shake it up a little bit, because I heard that there's a debate going on in Pennsylvania over whether public schools are going ban sweets, cakes, cookies, that type of thing. And so I had to bring to these private school student to show them how privileged they are. I brought dozens and dozens of cookies to these students. I had to shake it up for you guys, especially the press. OK? Because I wanted these kids to bring home the idea to their parents for discussion, who should be making the decisions what you eat in school choice and everything else? Should it be government or should it be the parents? It should be the parents. So, using that as kind of a tool.
(APPLAUSE)
Especially in Pennsylvania, you know, people like me, outside of Pennsylvania, looking in, I look at Pennsylvania and I think of sweets, I think of Hershey and then I think, oh how dare they ban sweets from school, here. And, as we left that forum, I was giving some kids a couple other ideas that I wanted them to talk about to their parents, probably some not too exciting topics. I said go ask your parents if your parents know what Quantitative Easing is and monetizing the debt, so they know what the feds are doing right now. Sort of scary things in our economy.
And a couple parents who were standing nearby, they looked like they were interested in what it was I had to say. So I turned to them to make conversation with them about those topics in our economy and instead they didn't want to talk about the economy, you want to know what they wanted to talk about? How's Bristol doing on "Dancing with the Stars?"
(LAUGHTER)
I thought that was so cool, because this whole "Dancing with the Stars" thing, that's a whole new ball game for us. I'm up there in Alaska and here Bristol, she tells me just a couple of weeks before the show starts, she says, "Mom, 'Dancing with the Stars' called and they asked me if I want to be on their show." And I'm, I said, "What did you tell them?" Because, you know, we're Alaskans and we're, you know, jocks and I'm a klutz, so I figured you know, maybe she -- you know, hunting and fishing and hiking and playing basketball and here Bristol she was on the youth football team. She was on the youth wrestling team. Instead of taking dance or home ec, she took shop class. But in shop, I should have known she had a little bit of that foo-foo she-she in her because in shop class her semester project was she carved shoes out of wood. That was her project.
Anyway, Bristol tells me "Dancing with the Stars" calls and says, what did you tell them? And she said, I told them, we'll I'm not a star and I don't dance. So sure, I'll join. So I kid you not, she loaded up the truck and she moved to Beverly Hills. She did. She loaded up her truck and she drove it all the way from Wasilla to Rodeo Drive and parked it there where the dancers are staying through this competition. And I said well, Bristol, I didn't think this was a funny thing to suggest. It was a sincere thing because it's something that would we do. I said, Bristol, Rodeo Drive, how about if we load up the motor home and we come on down and visit you, the whole family. It's like, yes, mom, you're going to part the motor home on Rodeo Drive. And I saw by the pool there are some lawn chairs. Maybe you guys can all sleep in the lawn chairs, too. Here come the Palins.
So Bristol is telling us how difficult some of the steps are to learn because of these songs and these dance types. Forgive me, Miss (INAUDIBLE), because I am not as artsy as you are but I did look at the loudest in the band and I was proud because that's what I used to do is play the flute. But anyway, I'm thinking, OK, some of these dances I certainly can't help her. I've never even heard of the dances much less know the steps.
Piper, my little one, she was listening to a conversation I was having with Bristol about how difficult some of these steps are. And Piper says I know how you can learn the steps first. So when you're out there, just write them on the palm of your hand.
I swear to you, she said that. Smart little kid. Piper is the one, too, though, who told me, and I shared this earlier in a forum where she has warned me on the vice presidential trail. It was the night of the debate with Joe Biden and I got up there to get ready to get upstaged and debate. Knowing that there's like 40 million people who are going to tune in to see how I did, you know. Backstage in the Green Room, I'm looking around for somebody to pray with before I go out on stage. Because wouldn't you do the same thing? You know, seeking God's guidance and inspiration and some divine intervention there at the last minute. I'm looking around and nobody on the campaign staff looks really enthused about praying with me. But I grabbed piper for she's in the corner of the Green Room. I said Piper, I tried to keep it simple for her. I said just pray -- this is a competition, so pray that I win. Pray that God speaks right through me. She says God speaking through you? That would be cheating.
(LAUGHTER)
But anyway, so as Bristol is out there dancing and she's had a great run and her prayer -- literally, her prayer at the very beginning was mom, just pray that I make it through the first night. I just don't want to be voted off the first night. And here's she is. You know, week after week and she's doing just fine.
And Bristol is a story of God being able to turn mourning into dancing. Being able to turn what we think is life's greatest challenge into a blessing because she has put her life in God's hands. And Bristol has faced some challenges the last couple of years. And here out there on the national stage, you know, a young unwed teenage mom and yet she has dealt with these circumstances less than ideal, premature ending of her own adolescence and humiliation and accusations of hypocrisy because she has a message now of abstinence to other teens. She's not trying to set some kind of sex-ed policy for the nation. She's just trying to warn other kids don't do what I did because it's not easy. It's nothing to glamorize or try to emulate just being, you know, an unwed parent. It's very, very difficult. But Bristol being able to allow God living and working through her to turn what seemed like life's greatest challenge into life's greatest blessing.
And I know that every single one of us here, we all face challenges. We all have battles, every single one of us. Yours may not play out on the front page of the "National Enquirer" like ours do. But everybody faces challenges. So her lesson in putting her faith in God and allowing him to deal with the circumstances and turn what seems like life's greatest challenge into life's greatest blessing, she is a picture of that.
Bristol told me, too, when I asked her, really you're going to do this? You know, you're going to be out on the national -- you're inviting more scrutiny and it may be tough. And she said mom, no matter what I do I'm going get criticized so I might as well dance. I'm like yes. That's the life lesson. That is a lesson for me, for all of us. You might as well dance.
(APPLAUSE)
But watching God exchange --
SPITZER: We will be coming back just momentarily. We're going to take a quick break. But we will cut back to former Governor Sarah Palin momentarily.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Welcome back. We understand Sarah Palin is getting to the substance of her speech in Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania.
Let's take a listen.
PALIN: I had the privilege of participating in the Q&A afterwards with two very respected talk show hosts on radio, Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager. One question asked by the moderator was if you could name a single threat to our society above all others what would it be?
Dennis Prager was the first to answer the question. He could have chosen any number of threats. He could have said that the greatest threat is our exploding national debt and our record-setting deficits, which, of course, we continue on this road towards insolvency, we will be essentially owned by foreign nations. They will own our notes. We will not be free. We will not be secure. That's a big threat. Or he could have said that the growing threat to our energy security is our number one threat here as we don't produce our God-given resources that are here in our homeland. Instead, we ask foreign countries that don't have the strict environmental or worker standards as we would have, we ask them to produce for us? That doesn't make any sense. So that's another threat. Or he could have said that international terrorisms attempt to destroy us and our allies at home and abroad. That is a consistent threat especially when you consider what some of these threats are aiming at our allies is real. Those are serious threats.
But instead, Dennis Prager looked beyond these immediate threats and he focused on something that would affect us all forever more in the long term. His biggest fear, he said and he taught me a lot with his answer. He said is that we are not passing on what it means to be an American to this new generation. I agreed with his concerns but I offered a caveat when it was my turn to respond. I had to ask, well, wait, if we're not teaching the next generation what it means to be free and how important it is to be free, then how can we explain the thousands of young men and women who voluntarily enlist in our military and are willing to sacrifice all for our freedom?
Our young men and women, my teenage son, he was one of them. He spent his year in Iraq and he's furthering his career now. And these young men and women in America who have choices just to do anything, really, in the world, the world is their oyster and yet they choose to fight for freedom, and yet they have never tasted anything but freedom. So how do they inherently know how important it is to be out there fighting for and securing what it is that we have? They inherently know how important it is to fight for freedom, to protect our constitution. They enlist voluntarily because they know inherently that America is worth defending. So I was asking Dennis, how could it be possible that we are losing this next generation when we see who it is who's enlisting in our military?
Perhaps these kids and so many of them are just kids. Perhaps they are not able to articulate what it is that instills in them this inherent belief that they need to protect the blessings of liberty but they get it. And I thank God that they get it. And they are willing to lay their very lives on the line to protect and to serve something greater than self, to defend the American idea of liberty. And even considering the example of young people, though, like our service women and our servicemen. Mr. Prager though is right. Perhaps we are not properly education our youth in the exceptional nature of America. It's worrisome because this belief in American exceptionalism is something that every new generation has got to make its own if we expect our Republican and our liberties to be secure and to live on. For America to survive, we have got to pass this on to that next generation to the young kids who are here, to the students, and to understand that we have to go back to the beginning of our republic and to the heart of what it means to be an American.
You see, most countries are the results of kind of accidents of history. Either wars of conquest or peace treaties. That's how most countries are formed. But America is so different. We're not the product of historical accident. We're the product of design. We're the only country in history that was founded on an idea. And that idea and that ideal is liberty. We hold these truths to be self- evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the genius of our founding fathers, wrote that, is they took what the declaration of independence calls the laws of nature and of nature's God. Those laws that, as the Apostle Paul says, are written on our hearts and designed a constitution that enshrined these laws and they allowed people then to live by them. And it's an awesome gift given to us in this constitution and our declaration of independence which really was a declaration of responsibility, too.
These are our charters of liberty. Every American, whenever he or she is challenged to define what America really stands for, we get to hold up a copy of the constitution and we get to say this is what we stand for and what we believe in. This is what it means to be an American. The constitution is the very thing that all of our politicians and our men and our women in uniform they swear an oath to support and to defend. It's the glue that holds us together as we strive for a more perfect union. But even with this great document, still we have to admit that something seems to be missing, especially it seems like to me it's been in the past year or two especially. And here's the crux of the issue. It's what Dennis Prager was trying to get that.
The constitution has given us a number of amazingly valuable governing principals and institutions. It provides the checks and balances and limited federal government with enumerated powers and an independent judiciary and states' rights as protected under the tenth amendment states' rights. But though these principles are still the best possible protection against tyranny, they are not enough in and of themselves to assure the survival and success of liberty or the survival of our great country. Freedom doesn't just depend on these institutional guarantees or words written on a document. It's above all a question of culture. To most Americans, freedom isn't just an ideal or words written --
(END OF COVERAGE)
SPITZER: We understand Governor Palin is about coming to the end of her comments and we will cut to a break but be right back with a panel to figure out what she was talking about.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: We're back with our panel. John Ridley, Nicolle Wallace and Matt Miller.
PARKER: OK. Let's do a quick whip around the table? What do you think of Sarah's speech.
MATT MILLER, HOST, "LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTER": I think CNN has covered for the next 10 years on any equal time requirements that they may have. I think it was -- I think it was -- I think it's just a surreal thing, the whole Palin phenomena. It's the merging -- you think about American exceptionalism, it's the merging of culture of celebrity with politics at this new weird apotheosis that's hard to grapple with.
PARKER: Yes.
MILLER: Because it's, you know, we're sort of fixated and can't look away and yet what's in there. So I guess I find it fascinating and troubling.
PARKER: Well said.
Nicolle, you spent time with Sarah Palin on the campaign and you had a conversation with her about exceptionalism?
NICOLLE WALLACE, FMR. SR. ADV. MCCAIN PALIN 2008: Yes. First of all, I'm one of those people she didn't want to pray with. So in the issue of disclosure, I feel I have to confess that.
I remember on the campaign in September of 2008 handing her an incredibly eloquent piece written by (INAUDIBLE) about American exceptionalism and using the piece to kind of start a conversation with her about, frankly about McCain's belief in American exceptionalism. And I will say I do find her as riveting as people who love her and people who hate her. I write fiction now, so I find her just a treasure trove of inspiration for my creative endeavors. But she is on to something. And there are a whole lot of people out there who are deeply troubled by a tone in the culture that says America is just like everybody else. And she is going to ride the issue of American exceptionalism to nomination if people don't see what she sees, which is that people love it when others recognize America's greatness.
PARKER: Well, that is one of the big complaints aimed at President Obama. They don't sense that he feels that, whatever that is. And, you know, does real America exist, John?
JOHN RIDLEY, NPR: Well, in terms of real America exceptionalism, the most basic thing that people can do in support of democracy is vote. And we take our votes very seriously. The people of Alaska voted for Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin quit. Exceptional people don't quit. And I seriously tell my kids this probably two or three times a week it's better to lose than to quit. So she can sit there and she can talk about being exceptional. She can talk about a better America. If she were a better person, she would have stood and fought. She chose to check out and to do it to make money.
I've got no problem with making money. But that's what she is.
SPITZER: I have a different observation though. He hears what's going on. That speech the first 20 minutes was every vapid cliche strung together. It was complete, almost nonsense. And then interjecting in there was a little snippet about QE2, that's quantitative easing, and a little bit about exceptionalism. And what she's doing is beginning to burnish her reputation and say, see, I can talk about serious issues but surrounded with stuff that will make people feel good. And I think Nicolle's right. Politicians have to make people feel good. And this was -- we can mock it, we can make fun of it. It was brilliant.
And you know what? I don't know if she's going to get the nomination or not, and it makes me cringe when I listen to it. But boy, is it good.
PARKER: Right. RIDLEY: But Eliot, honestly, I can do that. But I can't run a country. But I can sit here and I talk and carry on and that's fine. I don't say that in a grand fashion. We need exceptional people right now across the board.
PARKER: Right.
RIDLEY: This is not an exceptional person. And this is not even a Democrat or Republican.
WALLACE: She's exceptional all right.
RIDLEY: Exceptional --
PARKER: And you're right, Eliot, she's very crafty and dropping those words in. Little nuggets about the economy. Little nuggets about foreign policy. But there is never going to be a follow up scene (ph). There would be no answer to the question that would naturally follow. But I think she has a huge problem for the Republican Party. I read a column about it today, in fact, that she is now -- I have heard the word used, dangerous. Because she is too powerful to ignore and yet she is too fill in the blank to be taken seriously. And I think the Republican Party doesn't quite know what to do with here.
WALLACE: Well, I think the Republican Party has made a lot of mistakes by planting Nazi stories about her in "Politico." They just fuel her power. And I think that bringing her in would be the best strategy. There are a lot of people in the Republican Party who excite voters who aren't leading our party. Rudy Giuliani is really exciting to the Republican voters. His heroic after 9/11 still excite Republicans.
SPITZER: Wait, how many votes did he get in the west primaries?
WALLACE: This is the point I'm making. Eliot, this is the point I'm making. You put him on the campaign trail and just his anecdotal storytelling about the -- the Republican voters want to feel like our party is more brave, more strong and better capable of protecting this country. That is part of what the Republican primary is about.
SPITZER: We're not bringing those back to nuts and bolts and then, you know, get mad, those numbers. I didn't hear a single word in there about how she's going to close that debt that she's talking about.
WALLACE: That's the point though.
(CROSSTALK)
RIDLEY: She's talking the grade school thing. It's just about K through 12 school that she's talking about.
WALLACE: She's just trying to blow up the sweets ban.
RIDLEY: Talking about, you know, basically saying that, you know, sweets in school is something that is an American right. I mean -- WALLACE: But Bill Clinton made school uniforms an issue. I mean, she has not committed any political crimes.
RIDLEY: This is important for our kids to get in shape and be in shape. It's really part of America to be able to do whatever she wants.
PARKER: Now, she's making an important point about the role, proper role of government in our lives and here is what she said specifically. Who should be making decisions about what to eat? Right? I mean, we don't want the government telling us whether we can have trans-fat in our donuts. Right?
RIDLEY: But this is all a mistake. This is all a mistake.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No fat in your donuts because you don't have any trans-fat.
SPITZER: She's running against Mike Bloomberg. Mike Bloomberg who is saying in the city of New York, as you point out, no fat in your donuts, no smoking in certain places. We're going to create a healthier, better-run society. She's saying get out of my life, which is a very Alaskan and western thing.
PARKER: Main line sugar and smoke cigarettes.
MILLER: When she talks about military service and can point to her own child who's served in the military, less than one percent of the population serves in the military. Yet we've got, you know, we're spending $150 billion with 100,000 troops chasing 30 members of Al Qaeda according to the CIA.
SPITZER: Don't exaggerate. It's 50.
MILLER: Fifty. But there's something wrong when so few American families bear the burden of essentially what's --
SPITZER: I'll say something, I'm for a draft.
RIDLEY: Bring it back.
SPITZER: I am for a draft so that we all share the burden. I know poll is terrible. People are going to say are you nuts. I believe we all have an obligation of citizenship and being in military or some other service as part of it. I'm all for that.
PARKER: Well, neither one of you is going to be drafted so that's pretty easy to say.
WALLACE: We're at a point now where the people who are heroes in red state America are totally disdained by blue state America. And the people who are beloved by blue state America, by the coast, are totally misunderstood in our land. And she to me, she and Barack Obama epitomize this moment in American politics. Neither one is respected or understood in the other part of the country. And, you know, again, I'm out of the game. I write book, but I think it is a fascinating thing to understand. And if we can't grapple with the power of a Palin comment about QE2 and the -- am I even saying that right?
SPITZER: You got it right.
WALLACE: The power that it has had among Republican primary voters, she doesn't -- she couldn't explain what it is any better than I could. But it doesn't matter because this is an electorate. These are primary voters who are so agitated by the role of federal government in American life that they'll -- you know, it's kind of like the line in the movie. They're crawling through the sand toward the mirage.
SPITZER: That's why I said it was a great speech. Look, Matt, Nicolle, John, thank you so much for being with us, critiquing and listening to that speech. We appreciate it.
PARKER: Don't go away. We'll be right back. Stay with us, please.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: We're back. I know we promised you David Stockman who had been President Reagan's OMB director. We'll talk to him tomorrow night. And I can promise you it will be fascinating and it will challenge you.
Also, tomorrow night, we will hold another Republican congressman's feet to the fire.
PARKER: That fire is getting a workout, isn't it? I can hardly wait, Eliot.
SPITZER: The feet are getting the fire, I think.
PARKER: I hate to break it to you, though. As fascinating as you are, you'll never be as interesting as Sarah Palin because she is a phenomenon.
SPITZER: I agree with her.
PARKER: You know what I loved about the speech? So many things. We don't have time to go through all of it. She was amazing as always. But I love the way she started. Because I've said it before and I will say it again -- she is a tease.
If you noticed in the very beginning, she says to Daniel who apparently sang a song, we missed that part. But she complimented him on the beauty of the song and said and shouldn't he -- to the crowd, she says -- shouldn't he sing at an inauguration? Not necessarily mine. But, of course, you know that's what she's saying. She's planting that seed. She's getting everybody all ready to hear. And then she went through and made some very specific points about what the role of government should be, about having lived a Christ-centered life. And, of course, she's talking to a Christian school. I mean, she hit all the right notes for her audience. And she seemed to have a great time.
SPITZER: Can I make a point. I haven't thought this one through. But I don't think there is any question Bill Clinton is still the best politician out there in terms of speaking, pulling an audience in. Until recently we thought Barack Obama is number two. He has dropped. Sarah Palin is the second best politician in America right now. Everything she says is calculated and is thoughtful in terms of what the audience response is going to be. As you pointed out, she pulls everybody right in. Little nuggets here and there for every little piece of her base. She's a marvel.
PARKER: And not only that.
SPITZER: She drives me nuts but she is a marvel.
PARKER: Not only that. She brings cookies.
SPITZER: Right. All right.
Thank you so much for being with us. That's it from New York.
"LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.
PARKER: Right now.
