Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Interview With Erroll Southers; Operation Hemorrhage
Aired November 22, 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: I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the show.
Coming up, Erroll Southers will join us momentarily. He was Obama's first choice for director of the TSA, until his nomination got blocked. And he does not like the way things are being done right now. Yep, I'm talking about those body scans.
PARKER: And Newt Gingrich's daughter will be with us, too. She's a chip off the old block in certain respects. You'll want to hear what she has to say.
PARKER: First, we're hearing nonstop about those body scanners. And no matter what you think about them, it's important to remember they're just a distraction. The real issue, folks, we're losing. Because the terrorists are playing puppet master and we're the puppet.
The terror group behind the failed parcel bomb last month, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, they posted an online article in which they are basically mocking us. They call what they're doing now, "Operation Hemorrhage". So, what exactly is Operation Hemorrhage? It's really a simple strategy. Employ low-cost operations against America, and get us to throw huge sums of money at the problem. We bleed money and that's why they call it Operation Hemorrhage.
For example, that parcel bomb attack aimed at the Jewish synagogues, but intercepted in Britain and Dubai, that cost the bad guys $4,200. But the security measures we put in place to protect ourselves against the attacks? Billions of dollars, and counting.
PARKER: And the language they use is striking, and frankly, disturbing. This group suggests the failed terror attempt was actually quite successful because quote, "It will, without a doubt, cost America and other Western countries billions of dollars in new security measures. That is what we call leverage."
What do they mean by leverage? Let's take a look again at that parcel bomb attempt. This is the breakdown of the costs. Two phones for $300, two printers for $600, and $3,300 in shipping, transportation, and other costs. In other words, a grand total of $4,200. How much do we spend to prevent terror attempts like this? This past year, $1 billion on airport security just this year; since 9/11 more than $40 billion on aviation security. SPITZER: Going to talk more about the response to these terrorism plots and airport security with tonight's headliner. Joining us from Los Angeles the man President Obama initially wanted to head the Transportation Security Administration, but whose nomination was blocked for months, and ultimately withdrawn. Erroll Southers has a different take on the threats we face and how to deal with them.
Mr. Southers, welcome. Thank you for joining us.
ERROLL SOUTHERS, FMR. TSA ADMINISTRATOR NOMINEE: Thank you for having me.
PARKER: You've seen some of these really out of -- just over the top inspections that have resulted in some really humiliating experiences for some people. If you were in this job right now, what would you do?
SOUTHERS: Well, the first thing I would do is explain to the American public why we've had to resort to this level of screening. Why we have to touch people, why these pat downs are necessary. The other thing that I would do is training. We always talk about Israel. I spent a lot of time there. The folks there that are trained, they understand they have to look at people's behaviors. You shouldn't automatically be subject to the pat down because you're the fifth in line. However, I do understand after looking at the TSA blog today that there are certain parameters that would subject a person to either advanced imaging technology or a pat down.
But I have to agree, the pat downs seem to be a stretch. Again, inasmuch as our international partners have not adopted this kind of policy, I have to wonder what kinds of threats are we facing that we have to go to this level? And they are intrusive. By the admission of the administrator, himself, they are intrusive. I don't know that they are going to have to change this policy or back it off. It's something I haven't been subjected to, but don't look forward to it.
SPITZER: Mr. Southers, I don't want to raise the specter of politics when we talking about a very serious issue like this, that should not be involved in politics. We didn't give our listening audience, our viewing audience, your entire resume but suffice it to say, you are the real deal. FBI agent, counter-terrorism expert, consulted around the world, in charge of the most important airlines in this nation. You were nominated to be head of the TSA? What happened? Why couldn't you get through, because frankly, I wish you were there. So what happened?
SOUTHERS: I think it's very unfortunate when people politicize the safety and security of the American public, and that's what happened. However, you can see that I'm still doing the things that I did before. I want to believe I'm part of the solution. I'm dedicated to the safety and security of this country and the world. And politics be damned, I have a job to do. And I think that everybody in the country at the end of the day wants the same thing, which is a safe and secure transportation system. PARKER: I keep coming back to this idea that we've got these machines set up, these X-rays, these advanced body scans. But you've only got them in -- I don't remember what number -- what is it 40 airports, or something? Then there are all these others, hundreds of others, that don't have them. How effective is that really to have just a few of these machines in place? If it's so important to our security why not have them everywhere?
SOUTHERS: That's a very valid question. I have to tell you I've traveled a number of times in the last several weeks. I've not been subjected to advanced imaging technology. And I'd like to, because I'd like to experience it. I've not been subjected to the pat downs. I would think that your question is extremely valid and makes sense. Why not have them at all of the airports if they are doing what they propose to do, which is reduce the threat or opportunity of an Abdul Mutallab type-device being attached to someone's body and getting through screening.
SPITZER: And I suppose on the other side of the coin, the question could be asked how many weapons or terrorist plots have been foiled because of these machines? In other words, is there a count -- I'm sure there is a count somewhere that says, look, there are 55 suspicious people whom we have caught because they tried to go through a screening machine, and we found them holding X, Y or Z material we thought was dangerous. Is that number a meaningful number or is it close to zero?
SOUTHERS: I don't know what that number is and I don't know if it's publicly available. But again, I want to reiterate the point, if we find a bomb at the airport that's one of the last lines of defense. We have to back these security circles, these security circumferences away from the airport, find out who these people are who might be trying to get these devices on board.
Like I said earlier, if someone is going to be intent on getting a device on board, there is technology and bomb makers in the Middle East that every time we come up with a technology for detection, they're coming up with a new device, or new compound to get it through.
SPITZER: But how about the cargo? How about all the FedEx packages? How about the mail that make their way on to passenger planes and others? So much of which really isn't scanned. Or let me ask you the question, what percentage of that is scanned, is examined, to prevent the sort of bomb efforts that almost detonated just a couple of weeks ago?
SOUTHERS: Well, I believe that there's 100 percent scanned cargo that goes into passenger planes. But let's understand something. The counterterrorism business is a risk/management proposition. And the situation is such that the United States public doesn't understand that we can never reduce the risk to 100 percent. We are quickly approaching a zero tolerance for anything in America in the way of a thwarted plot, or unfortunately a successful attempt. So, cargo is going to be screened. If we were to screen cargo to the level that's probably 100 percent, it would so shut down the supply chain -- as you mentioned at the top of the hour -- the direct economic costs would be catastrophic. So they have to screen cargo based on risk, based on information that suggests the packages may be coming from a point of origin that deserves greater scrutiny. Those cargos, then, are properly taken care of and the other cargo that is not at that level of risk can pass through more quickly and more efficiently and the system can stay open and work better.
SPITZER: So, it sounds to me that what you're saying when we push back farther into the supply chain. If you can almost think of it that way, any package out of Yemen or Somalia, where we know we have a very large-or where Al Qaeda has relocated, those are the packages where our security system needs to be doubled, trebled, we really need to be intense, and that's where the resources and efforts should be.
SOUTHERS: Absolutely. Let's not kid ourselves. Al Qaeda a non- state-sponsored adversary is looking for a home. And there are non- state sponsored-I should say opponent, that's been around for over two decades. They're adaptive. They're resilient. They're quickly gaining a foothold in Yemen. We certainly have to look at packages from that region, a lot more closely than we do other packages from around the world.
SPITZER: Mr. Southers, I just want to thank you for your many years in law enforcement and doing what you've done over the many years to keep us safe both in the air and elsewhere.
SOUTHERS: Thank you. I'd like to thank the men and women around the world that are doing the same thing.
SPITZER: We share those views.
PARKER: All right. Erroll Southers, thank you so much for a fascinating conversation.
SPITZER: Don't go away, in just a few moments a dramatic scenario in which President Obama could regain his lost popularity. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PARKER: Who should be fired from the White House?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody, practically.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Certainly he needs a new press officer. He needs, you know-Axelrod, nice fellow, not done the job, fine for campaigning.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Three weeks since the midterm elections, Kathleen, and you know what, we still don't know what the president has in store, what his agenda is going to be, what he plan for the economy, how he's going to deal with Republicans on anything from taxes to the rest of the domestic agenda. Kind of beguiling, we haven't heard from him.
PARKER: Where is President Obama? Here to discuss that and a number of other issues journalist and historian Simon Schama.
Simon, let's start with the president. Where has he been since the midterm slide?
SIMON SCHAMA, JOURNALIST, HISTORIAN: I don't know. It's the danger of the lame duck making the turkey, really. Actually this is very, very serious. You can see why he may not have wanted to spill blood if there are going to be changes. Please, should there not be changes in the White House communications, wherever you look you would think there would be a startling shift, of course.
But you don't want to do it too soon because it looks like panic. On the other hand, of course, by having the scheduled foreign trips you risk the possibility of the American public saying he cares more about the G20, he cares more about them foreigners than he does about the sinking ship of the United States. So now, or soon after turkey time as he possibly can, he has to really make a very strong imprint on an extremely fluid political situation or he's well cooked.
SPITZER: The worst thing about the trips is they seem to have been failures. Whether or not they were in actuality, certainly the Asia trip he went 0 for 3. No treaty with Korea. The currency move didn't go anywhere. The QE2 thing, everything came back to-
SCHAMA: He didn't throw up at the dinner party.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: The Bush standard.
SCHAMA: That's setting it very, very low.
SPITZER: Doesn't he need to define an agenda? We don't know what he stands for or where he's' going now?
SCHAMA: He absolutely does. Actually he can't drift. If the problem is, oh, help it all went, as we say in Britain pear shaped. Do I move to the center? No center position-if he imagines this, he's in self destruct mode. Can possibly in enough for a Republican Party and a Tea Party riding very, very high indeed. He needs to say, hello, America, you do have a president. I'm in control. There are a number of incredibly important things. If we do what the Republicans want us to do, we raise the deficit. You've told me you're all concerned about the deficit by $4 trillion.
If we do what the Republicans say we should do, not sign on to a START Treaty, we have no control over nuclear materiel that could be from here to Kazakhstan. He can take center right issues and say we must get a grip on this. Or is the most important thing, for the entire country, that America stops until I'm defeated. He has lots of cards to play. He needs to play them soon.
PARKER: As a political matter, can't he-isn't he in a position really to put the Republicans on the defensive. And say, look, they're getting in the way of national security with blocking the Russian treaty.
SCHAMA: Yes.
PARKER: And they are the ones who are going to cause us to grow our deficit even more?
SCHAMA: Yes.
PARKER: So why doesn't he do it?
SCHAMA: Well, let's wait until Merry Christmas. If he doesn't do it by then, then something is even more seriously amiss.
PARKER: Who should be fired from the White House?
SCHAMA: Everybody, practically.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: What?
PARKER: Clean slate.
SCHAMA: Certainly, you know, he needs a new press officer. He needs -- Axelrod, nice fellow, not done the job, fine for campaigning.
SPITZER: Why are you giving him till the middle of December? Every day that goes by with this vacuum -- this vacuum is killing him.
SCHAMA: No, you and I would do it tomorrow. I would do it tomorrow. It's true, I would do it before Thanksgiving.
SPITZER: Let's come back to the tax cuts. You were so eloquent there, saying it drives up the deficit. It is not the contract, the social contract, we believe in. We have had muddled messages. They've said 10 different things about it. What do you think they want to do, and what should they do, and where is the line in the sand they should draw if he misses it?
SCHAMA: It's really hard. I think what they think is going to happen if they actually get their way at all, is that there will be a two year extension for all classes of taxpayers, but not make the tax cuts permanent. The tax cuts, again, tell the American people the story simply. The back story without moaning about what the Bush years did, nonetheless converted -- Bill Clinton was very accomplished during the campaign -- converted a massive surplus into $1.3 trillion deficit. Big problem.
You say out there, Americans, I hear you. All you Tea Partiers say we are imposing this gigantic deficit on our children, our grandchildren forever. Fine. Then actually we shouldn't really be perpetuating these tax cuts at all, but we're in a tough place. I recognize that small businesses and the American economy needs a certain amount of stimulus. But why make it a $4 trillion extra hit on American posterity? How hard is that to say?
SPITZER: It is mystifying to me that he hasn't stood up, given a speech with a chalkboard, using that chart of the jobs lost, the jobs now created under him, the deficit impact. He should give a tutorial. It would be a little bi wonky but with passion.
PARKER: No, no, no.
SPITZER: And say here is where we are.
(LAUGHTER)
PARKER: I don't think Obama can do that because he has that. But he has already been labeled too professorial. If he gets up there with a chalkboard.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSS TALK)
SPITZER: Play to the caricature. He's not going to go up there and give a stem winder on these issues. He has to explain it. They haven't done it in two years. He could do it. The case is there to be made, as you just did.
SCHAMA: Yes.
SPITZER: But he hasn't put his full force and full-throated energy behind it. That's why I am waiting to see them draw a line in the sand, somewhere.
SCHAMA: They have to basically -- it's fine -- the American public always says, we don't like partisan bickering, we don't want to hear the noise. But at some point when the country is still suffering, doesn't need to be a screaming rant. We've got plenty of that actually on the radio airwaves.
SPITZER: Right.
SCHAMA: But they do need to feel there is someone who is passionate enough to defend the principles he believes in, who is in, and who is upset and his distress and is neither arrogant nor wetly contrite. It's this horrible Uriah Heap kind of dripping hand, forgive me, for I have sinned stuff. That actually turns people's stomach.
SPITZER: Exactly.
SCHAMA: And out there in America are millions of Americans, everybody, who do not want to be told by the Tea Party that their view of government is the only true American view. Come in, Franklin Roosevelt.
SPITZER: Can we give you David Axelrod's phone number, and you can call him right now and explain all of this?
SCHAMA: I would love it.
SPITZER: You could say, here's what to do?
SCHAMA: I mean it's -- it's not that hard. He has all these cards to play. Exactly, as you say Kathleen, in the months that come up -- he can't be too patient. God knows he's tried patience really. What America needs now is as if it's the incoming months of his government. It needs energy. It needs a sense, actually, of tenacious resolution. That's an American thing. People want -- the plumbing imploded, there is water all over the damn house. They ought to wait till Thursday after Thanksgiving to mop the sucker up.
PARKER: Except that we do kind of go into this state, during this time of year, where maybe it's turkey induced, but we don't want to seem to want to do a lot the rest of the year.
SCHAMA: If it's all about shopping, you know, that's really not why anyone elected Barack Obama.
(CROSS TALK)
SPITZER: No, no Simon, its worse than that.
SCHAMA: To have a shop, to listen to Frank Sinatra. To watch "It's A Wonderful Life", life right now for millions of Americans ain't so wonderful.
SPITZER: And it' worse than that, because when you saw how he was dealt with over in Asia and you understood that China is now collecting our interest payments.
SCHAMA: Yes.
SPITZER: They are beginning to rule the world. Their economy booming, importing everything, buying everything under the sun; every day that goes by costs us something. So there's an urgency to it that you do not get a sense of in this White House right now.
SCHAMA: Absolutely. Has very little respect in the international community right now. That is a further problem.
PARKER: Can we switch gears for a minute? Because the big news right now is the TSA, the body scans, the pat downs. When you say people don't want the Tea Party telling then what kind of government they have. They don't want this kind of government, either, it seems. So what do you make of this? What is going on here?
SCHAMA: Well, you know, is the problem that it's the pat down government?
(LAUGHTER)
I don't get it really. The problem is actually -- much of me-I'm a bit like the Tin Man. Constituted of metal parts and various-
PARKER: So you won't get patted down? SCHAMA: I'm constantly patted. I'm really disturbed, actually, if hands aren't all over me. I've been patted down from Omaha to Miami. And I don't really care. I understand that people might. I think the issue is a combination of incompetence and intrusiveness, really.
SPITZER: I take a contrary-I'm with you, but our think our view I think is contrary. I think this is being overwrought by media desperate for issues; 85 percent of the flying public says we understand. It is fine with us. Just get it done and move on.
PARKER: I don't know. Ask them after they stand in line for one.
SPITZER: I've stood in every line. There is a vocal minority that is upset about it. My answer to them is, look, either you have to understand -- I think it's misguided and the security dollars should go somewhere else, but this isn't so intrusive.
SCHAMA: Right.
SPITZER: There are threats. Airplanes as bombs are bad things, as those of us who were in New York on 9/11 understand. This is the world. We have to go after the terrorists. This is one of the arrows in the quiver and we just have to grow up and get used to it.
SCHAMA: There is the train.
(CROSS TALK)
PARKER: All right. Simon Schama, thanks so much for being with us. Always great to have you.
SCHAMA: Pleasure to sound off as usual.
PARKER: Don't go away. In just a moment, more on my very favorite subject, Sarah Palin. Why her friends are turning on her, while her enemies call her a winner.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: Winner or whiner? Whiner?
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't know what's in a person's heart based on the way they look. You don't know what their intentions are. But you can check their underwear. And so I guess --
SPITZER: Deep thoughts.
(CROSS TALK) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As much as it's an inconvenience or an embarrassment for many, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable, given the danger.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Welcome to our "Political Party", where we invite a cool mix of guests to speak their mines. Let's meet tonight's guests. We have John Avlon, a senior political correspondent for the Daily Beast.com, and Elise Jordan, who is a former speechwriter for Condoleezza Rice, and director of communication for the National Security Council.
SPITZER: And Jackie Gingrich Cushman, and yes that middle name is what you think it is. Who is a syndicated and author of the new book, "The Essential American: 25 Documents and Speeches Every American Should Own." We are going to quiz you on that later. And Max Kellerman, who is a boxing analyst for HBO sports.
Welcome to everyone.
PARKER: All right. First question body scans and pat downs? I have to admit I'm not looking forward to going home Thanksgiving. In fact, I may just skip it.
SPITZER: Well, that was true even before-
(LAUGHTER)
PARKER: An excuse. No, just teasing. Anybody had that experience? Any pat downs, any close-up X-rays?
MAX KELLERMAN, BOXING ANALYST, HBO SPORTS: I had the X-ray.
PARKER: How was it?
KELLERMAN: You stand there, and you get a little dose of radiation, and now your image is on file.
PARKER: Any giggling in the background?
KELLERMAN: No, thank God. You think you don't know what's in a person's heart, right? Based on the way they look. You don't know what their intentions are, but you can check their underwear. And so I guess --
SPITZER: Deep thoughts.
(CROSS TALK)
KELLERMAN: As much as it's an inconvenience or embarrassment for many, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable given the danger.
JACKIE GINGRICH CUSHMAN, EDITOR, "THE ESSENTIAL AMERICAN": I think there has to be some training, though. I'll give you for instance. I have traveled six times in the last few days, and I haven't been patted down, but my brother-in-law was when he recently came to Atlanta. His challenge was not only did they pat him down, but they set him aside and he couldn't even see his belongings. So, you wonder about what kind of procedures do they have in place to make sure they have the right person, and that everything stays together. Because not only is it not secure, right? Someone could have grabbed his belongings and taken them. Or you could have had someone there with him-they have to make sure that the whole thing is thought through.
PARKER: Yes, but I mean, does anybody else have any objection to these - I mean these are intimate pat downs. They're touching people in places where one should need an invitation, or at least a dinner.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLERMAN: Great idea.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold on.
SPITZER: I'm not going there.
CUSHMAN: I think it's part of the training. You have to make sure you understand what you're doing when you do it. To you point, you don't want to have something that's not appropriate.
PARKER: Well, and it has been in many cases.
SPITZER: The whole thing is inappropriate, but it's necessary.
PARKER: Why do guys like this? Guys do not mind this?
(CROSS TALK)
JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I do wonder though what are the sum costs here? These machines they have, I've traveled a bunch, I've only been through one. It's an awkward machine. Your arms are up. You have to stay in place for eight seconds. This is without the pat down. I just wonder, when they were making the order for this to become the new standard, who was thinking what? Because it is not the most ease-free. Obviously safety comes first, but these are cumbersome machines. Add to that I think a little partisan anger at the TSA fueling this fire, people are getting furious before Thanksgiving.
ELISE JORDAN, FMR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE SPEECHWRITER: The machine is easier than getting patted completely so I would prefer the machine. The only time I've been really been patted, patted, would be Delhi airport heading into Kabul and by a female, couldn't be happier to have that full pat because I know that everybody on that flight is also having that.
PARKER: That's a good point.
KELLERMAN: Don't you feel the kinds of more inconvenienced you are, the safer you have feel?
JORDAN: But is that reality?
CUSHMAN: Not really.
JORDAN: Exactly.
SPITZER: But it was into Kabul. Terrorists were going into Afghanistan. Usually they're trying to come here. We're not going to -- but here's the difference --
(CROSS TALK)
PARKER: It was done in a way that is respectful. What we've been reading are several hundred examples that are not respectful.
SPITZER: Have you-
PARKER: I've had -- I've been patted down but not in the way that they're talking about doing now.
SPITZER: The sad truth is it will become something that we get used to and we'll move beyond it. It will become part of life.
PARKER: I'm never going to get used to being felt up at an airport by strangers, sorry.
SPITZER: Six months from now, we'll say oh, well.
AVLON: I'm thinking nuns should get an exemption. I think nuns do not need to be present. I'm just throwing that out there.
(CROSS TALK)
PARKER: What about Muslim women who have the -- who wear the head dress and the robes? Because out of modesty -- the issue is modesty for them. So are they going to be exempt? No, of course not. But how do you think they feel?
SPITZER: Enough of the search stuff.
PARKER: No.
SPITZER: Yeah. I want to-
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: I want to change the topic now.
Here's something that really does bother me. We got the Republican Party saying you must extend the tax break for people who are making zillions of dollars, but we don't have enough money to continue and extend unemployment insurance for people who are running out of money, looking for work and can't pay for food. Is there something wrong with that picture fundamentally?
CUSHMAN: Yeah. And I want to step in here. I know this is a great way to truly think about it. I think what's wrong with that picture it's too narrow. OK? The question, if you think about it, what it goes to is can we tax enough so we can give people enough money for unemployment. The answer is no. What those people really want are jobs, what you said. They want jobs. People want jobs. They want to go to work. They want to have a paycheck. I think what we need to think about is what creates jobs.
I'll tell you what. Stability in the economic environment, lower taxes, incentives, and then people can get the jobs they need. In the meantime I would say we need to go to training and transition education.
AVLON: I appreciate your larger point, but I think the point Eliot is making is that there is a choice here. There's a choice that people are making, to prioritize tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which you can make an economic argument for. At the same time saying when it comes to actually extending unemployment benefits when we've got unemployment that runs 10 percent or higher, there's not the money to do that.
That is a policy choice that is not about economic philosophy. And I think Republicans are in a problem there. What happened to compassionate conservatism? Remember the idea that you are not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, as George W. Bush said? That idea still holds and I think --
KELLERMAN: It's an article of faith on the right I think that tax cuts are good for growth whether or not there's necessarily evidence for it. And that just in terms of branding is an easier thing to sell than unemployment benefits to the -- you know, easier thing to sell to the working class who's the largest block of voters. Unemployment benefits, the real argument against it is it's a disincentive to work but we're not dealing here with an environment where there are more jobs than there are people in the workforce. It's quite the opposite. So incentive doesn't seem to be the issue at the moment.
CUSHMAN: Let me give you an example. I work with a nonprofit in Atlanta and they're called Genesis New Life. And they work with homeless, babies and their families. So these obviously are people who don't have jobs. They're homeless. So what they do is bring them in and train them, to help in the education of the mother and baby, and actually help them get a job. And they actually work.
This is a program that actually is successful. They create jobs. They create -- my point is we need to look not at policy but what actually works in the workplace. And my background is in finance and let me tell you what works in corporate is to be able to actually spend money to have a solid environment and to have progress.
SPITZER: But John's point I think is the critical one. We're not talking now about some theoretical issue. We're talking about a real moment right now. There are no jobs. People are running out of money. They can't make mortgage payments, pay for their kids' food. They're desperate. They want just a little bit to help. Don't we have it within ourselves to say, yes, we will help you at this moment?
KELLERMAN: Wouldn't that be the most stimulative thing to do because they actually need to spend the money immediately?
CUSHMAN: But I think they can. You have to back up and say what's really the problem. And I understand it's a short term problem and again, I think we've solved that with training and education and --
SPITZER: We're for that too. We're for that too.
CUSHMAN: Exactly. But I don't think if you think about the long term prognosis, we've had this problem for years. You can't tax people enough to give other people unemployment benefits. It doesn't work. It doesn't work.
JORDAN: Also unemployment benefits, 99 weeks. That's nearly two years of unemployment. It's essentially another entitlement program. We have welfare. We have other programs that we can transition --
SPITZER: You look into the eyes of people who are going out every day looking for work and --
JORDAN: I have plenty of sympathy. I'm a freelance journalist.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: And so the end of 99 weeks you're going to tell them we're cutting you off and that guy who's buying his third yacht gets a tax break?
JORDAN: We have other forms of entitlement --
KELLERMAN: Well, the tax cut can be seen as an entitlement of sorts in the sense that it wasn't paid for and now it's being defended.
JORDAN: Taxes are just going to be -- politicians do not put that money. They're just going to spend it.
KELLERMAN: Well, the argument at the time was at least in the 2000 election, the argument was, you know, Gore lost partly because he said lockbox, lockbox, lockbox. And Bush said no, it's your money, we want to give it back. And Gore said well, that's based on the most optimistic projections. It's not necessarily going to keep growing like this, the economy. We need to save this money for social security. And Bush said no, no, we can give it back to you and the money is gone and social security is still in trouble and now you want to extend the tax cuts.
AVLON: Welfare reform passed under your father with President Clinton. It's one of the great policy successes of the past generation. But when you're dealing with a jobless recovery that we are slowly engaged in and with protracted high unemployment, there is an obligation I think to help people who are holding on by their fingernails. That's an important role of government. It is stabilizing for not only the economy but the society and I think that cannot be discounted under the name of philosophy or theology.
SPITZER: We'll be right back with another question for the party. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PARKER: The big question and what we really want to know, is your father running for president?
CUSHMAN: You know, the good news is he's exactly where he says he is, which is he's thinking about it very hard. I'll let you know that we had a one-on-one discussion for about two hours and we haven't had a one-on meeting since I had two children. Since then I've been kind of this fairy to bring the grandchildren to him. So we talked for a long time. He's very serious.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Welcome back to the "Political Party." We have time for just one more quick question.
Jackie has a new book out that's got some of the most famous speeches through time and the most recent was George W. Bush in 2001 on the floor of the Congress. Any other speeches good enough for history that you can think of?
AVLON: Barack Obama Philadelphia speech on race 2008. Instant classic. Really important speech.
PARKER: All right, then.
KELLERMAN: Obama inaugural address because he said at one point -- he said -- he included the nonbelievers along with the Jews and Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers. And we live in a republic where, you know, the sovereignty is with the people -- where the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority. And as an atheist, I felt for the first time that even when it's not politically helpful necessarily for someone to say that in that position, he was talking to me. And I really appreciated it.
PARKER: I'll throw one out that will come as a surprise probably. But Mitt Romney gave a fabulous speech on religion speaking to your -- and he made room for atheists in his speech. His freedom of religion is a beautifully --
SPITZER: Do you include President Kennedy's speech on religion? Because I assume those two go in.
CUSHMAN: We include his inaugural address which is a great speech. I think everyone would agree with that.
SPITZER: Yes.
JORDAN: I would include a speech that hasn't, you know, received much notice. It's kind of below the radar but President Bush in Prague in 2007. And he spoke with Vaclav Havel, Aznar. It was a speech about before democracy, freedom promotion and the power of human conscience.
SPITZER: I just got to ask you, did you write it?
JORDAN: No.
(LAUGHTER)
PARKER: You're talking Yale boy's thesis (ph) there, right?
AVLON: No. Great speeches motivate and elevate and it's great. We need always time.
PARKER: All right. Big question, the one we really want to know, is your father running for president?
CUSHMAN: You know, the good news is he's exactly where he says he is, which is he's thinking about it very hard. I'll let you know that we had a one-on-one discussion for about two hours and we haven't had a one-on meeting since I had two children. So since then I've been kind of the fairy to bring the grandchildren to him. So we talked for a long time. He's very serious. He's given his life I think to service of this country. As you mentioned, he's had some great achievements. He's worked very hard. He's overcome lots of them. You know, he's been very persevering. And I think we'll see. I think he doesn't know yet. I think he'll decide -- I think he'll decide.
It's a real long answer. I think he'll decide like he said February or March. I think he's very concerned about where we're heading and I think he wants to make sure he does the very best that he can for my two children. For that, I'm appreciative to him.
SPITZER: Good grandfather.
CUSHMAN: Yes, he is a good grandfather.
SPITZER: John Avlon, Elise Jordan, Jackie Gingrich Cushman and Max Kellerman, thank you so much for being with us tonight.
PARKER: Thanks, everybody. All right. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: China seems to be newly assertive, staring us down on currency, staring us down on trade, militarily beginning to get more aggressive. Is this driven by domestic Chinese politics? Is this just their flexing muscles? How do we understand this and what does it mean for us?
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: They're much bigger and they're continuing to grow. And internally they look at the world and they see it as the west is weaker.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PARKER: Time for "Fun with Politics." Over the weekend, Eliot, both the liberal "New York Times" and the conservative "Weekly Standard" weighed in on Sarah Palin. Here's what they had to say. But first, the negative.
Karl Rove suggests, "The American people might expect a certain level of gravitas in someone who's considering running for president and that starring in your own reality TV show might not be the ticket." After speaking to nearly two dozen key Tea Party activists who universally adore her, even her own supporters have reservations about her becoming president.
SPITZER: Sounds like an honest appraisal committee. But let's take a look at the other side of the coin.
This from another major publication. Quote, "These insults just play into Palin's hands burnishing her image as an exemplar of the real America, battling the snooty powers that be. The last thing she wants or needs is gravitas. There's little reason to believe now that she cannot dance to the top of the Republican ticket when and if she wants to."
PARKER: OK, here's the surprise, Eliot. Guess which publication wrote which piece.
No, that's not a misprint. The conservative "Weekly Standard, the ones who actually put Sarah on the map when they urged John McCain to make her his running mate are ready to toss her under the campaign bus. And guess who's taking her seriously.
SPITZER: All right. Let's be clear, Kathleen. Frank Rich of "The Times" isn't a Palin booster. He's just sounding the alarm. He's telling us Reagan and Bush were also underestimated. So before we laugh her off as a reality TV show clown, we better take Palin and her chances pretty seriously or else let's take a look at what could happen to us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH PALIN, FMR. ALASKA GOVERNOR: You're leaning over the boat. And if that fish decides -- because, you know, it's almost as big as you are. If it decides that no, it's going to fight you until the end, you're going to go over before it comes up and over.
Good job, guys.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I love it.
PALIN: I wasn't going to hesitate either especially when the fish were piling up and they're slapping around. They could do some damage here. We need to calm these boys down real quick.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PARKER: Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Well, that's one grizzly momma.
Coming up, from Russia with love, Vladimir Putin has a new cause. We'll tell you all about it. So stay with us.
SPITZER: Vladimir Putin has convened a conference in St. Petersburg with the goal of saving the world's endangered tiger population. Barely 3,000 are believed to be left in the wild.
PARKER: That Vlad loves tigers. He was given a tiger cub for his 56th birthday. I guess he relates to the big cats. It's a macho man thing.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: In the last month, President Obama has traveled to five countries from South Korea to Portugal. The question now being asked is whether there's an articulate theory driving our foreign relations or merely a series of individual transactions with regional powers.
Joining me in "The Arena" tonight is Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group and the author of "The End of the Free Market" Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?".
Ian, thanks for joining us. The question is, is there a foreign policy or merely a series of discreet transactions and does it matter?
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: Well, there's no doctrine. Right? I mean, despite a Nobel Prize and despite incredibly articulate sort of articulation of U.S. policy country by country by country, there's no overarching vision for what the U.S. wants its role in a very rapidly evolving world to be. I think it does matter and it matters because your constituents, whether their domestic or international, they can't -- they can only digest, you know, sort of a couple of messages. They can't digest 30. So if you're hitting them scatter shot, they're not really getting what you're doing.
SPITZER: There doesn't seem to be a coherence to it in the sense that, what is it that we want of the Middle East peace process beyond just peace but who gets what and why? Why are we containing China or not? When he goes off to South Korea, is it trade, is it jobs, or is it related to China? It doesn't seem to be -- the pieces don't seem to fit together. And why are we in Afghanistan when terrorism is somewhere else? I don't understand what we're doing and why. And as a constituent, it makes it harder to support it.
BREMMER: Well, do we want to be and to what degree the world's policeman? What is our view in how the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency is evolving over time? How committed are we to a U.S./China strategic and economic -- this things needs to be underscored.
SPITZER: Right. And you immediately came back to China so let's start there in terms of a quick trip around the world. What's going on? China seems to be newly assertive staring us down on currency, staring us down on trade, militarily beginning to get more aggressive? Is this driven by domestic Chinese politics? Is this just their flexing muscles? How do we understand this and what does it mean for us?
BREMMER: They're much bigger and they're continuing to grow and internally they look at the world and they see it as the west is weaker. They won't be able to rely on the west as much. They respond in two ways. If you're a member of the Chinese military, you say aha, here's a chance for us to prod. Let's see how strong the Americans really are in places like Japan and South Korea. See if any juicy low-hanging fruit shakes off the tree as we, you know, ruffle the branches. If you're on the economic side you say, wow, we can't rely on the American economy, the American consumer, the American strength of the treasury the way we used to. We need to decouple away from it to hedge, but it's hard for us to do in the near term.
SPITZER: But what they are doing is buying up resources around the world. You speak to people who are either in leadership positions in Africa or follow this. They are buying up the natural resources all over Africa because they will consume them, and they're disengaging at a certain level from the North American economy.
BREMMER: That's right. They certainly understand that when the United States engages in $600 billion of quantitative easing or turning on the printing presses that the exposure that the Chinese have to all of these U.S. treasuries is a less wise bet over time.
SPITZER: Right.
BREMMER: Where do they want to go? They want to invest in hard commodities in places like Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America and they want to diversify their currency exposure.
SPITZER: And so longer term, how does this relationship with China evolve? What should the president be doing? Going to war at the WTO bringing a trade battle to the World Trade Organization or is there another mechanism that he has?
BREMMER: Using currency is not very bright. That basically means that the United States is saying, look, if you don't move your currency we're going to hit ourselves in the face really hard. Right?
SPITZER: Right.
BREMMER: It's credible but it's not actually effective. What the U.S. needs to do is first focus on leverage where they have it which is much more strategic. So in this regard, you go to India. You go to Japan. You go to South Korea. You go to Indonesia. Interesting. The four largest democracies in Asia, the places that most want to leverage and hedge against --
SPITZER: So you can almost see the president's Asia trip as building a border around China saying to the Chinese government, OK, we will recreate the alliance that we used to have built of necessity but now will be built upon fear of you, the Chinese emerging power?
BREMMER: Especially because American allies in Asia are desperately asking when you go and travel there, look, we don't want to get completely subjugated to a China-led economy and security architecture but we don't know if the Americans are going to be there in five years time.
SPITZER: Right.
BREMMER: Give us some belief that you actually have staying power. That message has to be delivered.
SPITZER: Let's switch from Asia to part of Asia to more sort of Eastern Europe, Russia. Russia, the START Treaty, the president said to the Russians I will get the START Treaty approved. He's being embarrassed by the Republican control -- not control yet, but the Republican ability to block it. What should happen? Is this the first time that a treaty like this has been held hostage to partisan politics?
BREMMER: No, it happens all the time. But I mean, you did have former Secretary of State Kissinger with a bunch of other sort of, you know, conservative realist folks basically saying look, this is important, let's get it done. So far, Lugar is one of the only folks that I've seen out there really in front saying let's make sure we get START passed. It looks to me like Jon Kyl really wants to come to some form of compromise. If it doesn't happen now, it's clearly going to I think in the next Senate session.
SPITZER: So you think they will. Let's actually listen. The president was making this really a major, major push. He had a very powerful statement. Let's listen. It's pretty brief.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Without ratification, we put at risk the coalition that we have built to put pressure on Iran and the transit routes through Russia that we use to equip our troops in Afghanistan. And without ratification, we risk undoing decades of American leadership on nuclear security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: So you're more bullish than many I've heard. You think it will either happen between now and the end of the year or certainly next year.
BREMMER: I do, but also I'm not quite as concerned about what happens even if it doesn't. The main reason why the U.S./Russia relationship is getting reset is because the Russians themselves want to. They feel more geostrategically comfortable, less insecure in their own region. I mean, the colored revolution is in Ukraine, Georgia. The (INAUDIBLE) Republic have gone in their favor recently. They're economically doing better. And they no longer have the leverage with some of the gas producers and Qatar in Iran as the prices have gone down. The Russians actually need to cooperate more with the Europeans and the Americans to start, you know, really diversifying their own economy. The Russians have good reason to reach out right now to the west.
SPITZER: Ian Bremmer, thank you for being here. Still ahead, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's new pet project. Would it inspire President Obama to save the donkey? That's story and a lot more coming right up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Hello. I'm Joe Johns. More of "PARKER SPITZER" in a moment. First, the latest.
We begin with breaking news near Seattle where a Boeing 747 cargo plane stopped too close to the end of the runway at Sea-Tac Airport a short time ago. There's no word on injuries or damage. It's unclear if the incident is weather related.
In Haiti, officials are now bracing for more than 200,000 cases of cholera saying previous estimates were too low. That's how fast the outbreak which began in late October is spreading. Tonight, the death toll is approaching 1,400. Nearly 57,000 people have been sickened.
A park ranger who was shot multiple times while on patrol near Moab, Utah is in critical but stable condition. 34-year-old Brody Young exchanged gunfire with the driver of a vehicle he'd stopped. Authorities identified Lance Leeroy Arellano as a person of interest. The 40-year-old man is believed to be armed, dangerous and seeking medical attention.
Changes at the White House. Sources tell CNN that President Obama is planning to bring former campaign manager David Plouffe on to the White House staff at the beginning of January to work alongside senior adviser David Axelrod for a short time before Axelrod moves on to help run the president's re-election campaign.
And tonight on "360," new questions and growing fury over those full-body scanners in use at dozens of airports. New research due out this week suggest many of these machines put in place to stop the next underwear bomber simply won't do what they're promised. We're keeping them honest. That's the latest.
Now back to "PARKER SPITZER."
PARKER: Before we go, a postscript. President Obama has been traveling the globe trying to rescue world economies. Meantime, Russian Prime Minister Putin has a different mission. He's trying to save the tigers.
SPITZER: That's right, Kathleen. Vladimir Putin has convened a conference in St. Petersburg with the goal of saving the world's endangered tiger population. Barely 3,000 are believed to be left in the wild.
PARKER: That Vlad loves tigers. He was given a tiger cub for his 56th birthday. I guess he relates to the big cats. It's a macho man thing. Maybe President Obama can take the hint. Man up, Mr. President, and save another endangered species, the donkey.
SPITZER: Oh, come on, the donkey is doing just fine. Wait until 2012. We're going to be running all over the place. Thanks for being with us. Stay tuned for "LARRY KING LIVE." Larry's special guests are former President George H.W. Bush and wife Barbara.
Good night.
