Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Inside the Mind of an Alleged Killer; Understanding Arizona's Gun Laws
Aired January 11, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
You are looking live at final preparations for a memorial service tonight for the victims of the Tucson shooting. It's being held at St. Odiilia Catholic Church where 9-year-old shooting victim Christina Green made her first communion just last year.
The church seats 700 people. They expect they'll fill it as people from all over Tucson come to pay their respects. This as we learn of some good news. Doctors say Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords condition is slowly improving. She's now breathing on her own.
Meanwhile, the parents of Tucson shooter Jared Loughner break their silence for the first time since Saturday's shooting with a written statement saying, and I quote, "We wish that we could change the heinous events of Saturday."
We've also learn more about Loughner's life from people who knew him. Steven Cates went to college with the 22-year-old and was frightened by him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN CATES, LOUGHNER'S FORMER CLASSMATE: He was off. That's the best way I can put it. He was definitely off. He -- it was obvious that he lacked the sane ability (ph) to connect socially that other people have. He would grin a lot for no apparent reason. He would clench his fists sitting at his desks. He would have random outburst of laughter and for no apparent reason.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
PARKER: A high school friend, Katie Parker, has tweeted extensively about Loughner. She says his favorite bands include the Doors and Jimi Hendrix and an anarchist punk bank called Anti-Flag.
Disturbing. And we know that among his favorite books was "Mein Kampf". It's hard to draw any conclusions about Loughner's politics from his reading or his music choices. What's clear is that Loughner is a troubled young man whose behavior became increasingly erratic in recent months. SPITZER: Here are the questions we're looking into tonight. The Loughner family called the tragedy a heinous event and expressed sympathy for the victims' families. But what do we know about the Loughner family, the kind of home from which the shooter came?
Loughner's jumbled incoherent YouTube videos were posted just weeks before the shooting. We'll do a careful examination of those to see what they tell us about his mindset.
And Arizona has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. Exactly what was the process that Jared Loughner went through to buy the Glock that killed and injured so many.
Our first guest tonight is speaking for the first time about what he knows of Jared Loughner. Kent Slinker taught Loughner at Pima Community College last year, the class "Intro to Logic."
Mister Slinker, thank you for joining us tonight.
PROF. KENT SLINKER, PIMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE (via phone): Good evening.
SPITZER: Sir, I guess the place we just have to begin is, what did you make of Jared Loughner in your class? What were your impressions of him?
SLINKER: Well, he was, as so many have reported, an odd student but to be honest I thought he was my first student with Tourette syndrome because that's more -- what would happened, the outbursts and the odd questions and that type of behavior, so you just try to do your best to give logical concepts across to someone who may have difficulties in that sense.
I certainly didn't feel any threat from him. Certainly not any violence. Other than that, other than finding out he was the shooter, which was quite shocking, I don't think I have any real unique insights to Mr. Loughner.
PARKER: Mister Slinker, in the picture that we've all seen now of Mr. Loughner when he was photographed for the mug shot shows a man with -- you know, sort of wild looking eyes and his head has been shaved. Is that the student you remember?
SLINKER: No, not at all. The student I remember -- I know that there's a picture on the Internet. He had short hair. Certainly not shaven. And I recall he had an intense stare and yet blue eyes as I recall. But he usually didn't stare at other people. He would have a focused stare some place else in the room, and almost as if he was viewing another scene or intensely thinking about something.
One occasion he would ask questions and as many have reported those questions were incoherent and didn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion at hand or what was being taught.
SPITZER: You know, your course was one about logic and yet everything we see and read and hear about Mr. Loughner is just the opposite. It was almost a randomness, incoherence.
Did he seem capable of grasping logical concepts and how ideas flowed one to the next?
SLINKER: It's difficult to say really what his inner thoughts were. Obviously I'm not in a position legally to disclose any of his performance on tests or homework, but I did want to try to reach out to him, and I did try to reach out to him.
I wrote notes on his homework or perhaps tests asking him to talk to me after class to express perhaps different options.
You know in this case sometimes students will learn logical concepts visually. Sometimes certain areas of logic they will get and I just wanted to get my foot in the door even if it just meant that, OK, he got that part. It would be just a success for him and he could feel good about something that he had accomplished in the class.
But unfortunately he would always run out of the class pretty quickly with his eyes turned down. I thought at one point I would really be able to reach out to him but that's a two-way street and it never occurred.
PARKER: Well, did you think about taking it any further and getting in touch with someone else outside the classroom?
SLINKER: Well, I did discuss it with my department chair who had him in a meditations class at the same -- at the same semester and pretty much Pima, it's a community college with limited resources and our concern was to try to get him perhaps academic help.
If he had some type of learning disability, we have -- we have people who are experts in that area and sometimes special accommodations can be given such as extended test taking time in a testing center or a note taker or perhaps having a digital recorder in class. And we tried to do that but these students have to self- identify. I don't have the power to say you must go here and take this test.
But I actually thought at the time I might be able to get him to do that, but I never was able to talk to him on a one-to-one basis. And I did worry about him a lot. He came to class. He was -- he wore clean clothes. He was well fed. Clean shaven. And obviously I thought he had Tourette's so I wasn't too concerned about, you know, going off the deep end or anything like that.
But I did -- I do recall thinking I hope his parents know what's going on and that they have a handle on things.
PARKER: All right. Pima Community College Professor Kent Slinker, thank you so much for being with us.
SLINKER: Thank you.
SPITZER: Professor, thank you. And this evening more breaking news out of the Pima County Sheriff's Office. Additional notes have been found in the home of Jared Loughner. One in particular deeply troubling and of course -- perhaps a premonition of what he did in a note that says, and I quote, "die bitch," and that is in addition to other notes that have been written that have been recovered already saying "planned ahead," "my assassination", and of course the name "Giffords" referring to the congresswoman, who by all appearances was the target of this assassination.
And so again, more evidence, written materials showing the premonition or showing the planning for this absolutely heinous event adds to the terrible, terrible story that's been emerging over the last few days.
PARKER: And you heard the professor just tell us that he hoped Loughner's parents were paying attention. Listen to part of the statement that they put out today and judge for yourself.
Quoting here. "This is a very difficult time for us. We ask the media to respect our privacy. There are no words that can possibly express how we feel. We care very deeply about the victims and their families. We are so very sorry for their loss."
SPITZER: So how did this seemingly typical high school kid transform into someone capable of such an absolutely horrific act? At this point, we just aren't certain but from everything we've learned Jared Loughner was sending some pretty clear signals that he was deeply disturbed.
PARKER: Here to interpret those signs is Dr. Gail Saltz. Gail is a professor of psychiatry at New York's Presbyterian Hospital.
Welcome, Gail.
DR. GAIL SALTZ, PSYCHIATRIST: Thank you.
PARKER: All right. So just to be clear, you have not met Loughner nor his family members. So this is pure conjecture on our part. Speculation.
SALTZ: It is.
PARKER: But you say that there have been signs in some of his writings and certainly from this note just found that there was some -- there was some troubling information there. Something clearly going on.
Let me just read something that was -- this is one of his writings that was released on YouTube. I can't -- this is quoting his writing. "I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications. The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar."
So sounds a little strange to me. Why is this --
SALTZ: Right.
PARKER: Why is this writing troubling, Gail?
SALTZ: This is kind of classic for a paranoid delusion. Somebody is out to get me. The government in this case. They can't be trusted. They are doing something to me. Mind control. Mind control is not consistent with reality. So this is a psychotic thought that's in the paranoid realm and it makes you concerned about various psychotic illnesses like paranoid schizophrenia.
SPITZER: Here's the thing, as this additional information continues to tumble out, clearly a deeply troubled kid. His teachers, his professors, these notes, yet was there no safety net to capture him. Somehow where was society? And this is by no means of course meant to justify him.
SALTZ: Right.
SPITZER: But who was there to say this is a dangerous kid we've got to do something?
SALTZ: Here's the problem. It's about nine years usually between the first onset of an illness, a psychotic illness, and actual diagnosis. And that's a very long time. And the reason for that, in my opinion, is partially that we don't understand. We're not as educated about mental illnesses as, say, we are about many medical illnesses.
But the bigger issue is the stigma and shame that still surrounds mental health issues so that people don't want to know, don't feel comfortable knowing, don't feel like they can say to a kid -- for instance this kid in high school something was probably already going on.
If his parents or a teacher had said, you know, something has changed and doesn't seem right and I'm concerned, that would have been an earlier stage where there could have been an intervention and treatment could have been done and he may never have ended up as ill.
PARKER: Well, Gail, that brings me to the question, you know, his parents said we don't know how this happened.
SALTZ: Right.
PARKER: So are parents unable to see their own children clearly? Is that part of the problem?
SALTZ: Sometimes that is the case. And the reason is well, you know, we all know to some degree our children are our prize. We have sort of a halo effect when it comes to our children. We -- it's hard to see wrong in them. And so, you know, honestly, parents do have a difficult time often seeing something -- especially something as stigmatizing as a mental illness.
Now sometimes that's a reason. Sometimes the other reason is that mental illnesses run in families. There's often a genetic component and there's often something going on within the family in general or one parent that makes it difficult to see frankly that there's something wrong or they sort of all become a bit desensitized to, you know, what is normal behavior.
SPITZER: The other interesting thing listening to what we are now learning about him, even though everybody now says we saw something was off.
SALTZ: Yes.
SPITZER: There was not a record of violence.
SALTZ: Correct.
SPITZER: And then listening to people comment upon him, there is not -- there are no stories of he punched, he beat, he took advantage.
SALTZ: Yes.
SPITZER: So the violent element of what erupted this weekend seems not to follow from what we've heard. Is that typical?
SALTZ: You know, here's the thing. Believe it or not actually because people I think often think people who are really ill are often violent, that is not the case. In fact, it's unusual for someone even with a severe psychotic illness to actually do something horribly violent.
That being said, this person apparently was involved with drugs. Now that combined with mental illness greatly increases the chance of violence. In fact drugs by themselves increase the chance of violence. But when you have mental illness it progresses.
And so somebody may not appear to be violent but having quiet violent thoughts that are hallucinations, in fact, often and then at some point it builds and builds. And the illness gets worse if it's untreated and ultimately something violent can happen.
SPITZER: Go ahead.
PARKER: Well, no, I was just going to say, you know, as -- you talk about the stigma that's associated with identifying mental illness. And as a parent I think oh my gosh, why didn't somebody help this kid. You know we're all mad at him right now. He did a horrible, horrible thing. And there's no justifying that, as Eliot said.
But you also are very aware that this is someone who was not helped. Now I don't want to be the one who says, by the way, Gail is acting a little weird. Somebody ought to check on her. Now -- and how do people make that judgment?
SALTZ: I believe there really needs to be a shift. There needs to be greater awareness of the -- frankly a lot of children struggle with some mental health issue. We are really not attending to that. I think that if -- look, if the kid came in and passed out in class and we found out his sugar was really high. Oh my goodness, he has diabetes. We need to refer him to somebody. He needs to get care.
There would not be any question. Nobody would be concerned, nobody would be embarrassed. You wouldn't have a problem doing that. If you saw someone growing out of someone's leg, you'd say that doesn't look good. You know we'd be upset if our child had diabetes, if our child had cancer.
But it doesn't have the shame of saying I think you seem very odd and bizarre right now and you might have a mental health problem. That -- until the shift occurs, there won't be more providers. That was another problem in Arizona. They don't have as many providers there as many people to see people quite honestly.
So until the shift occurs we need more providers, we need more funding, we need more science and we need something to de-stigmatize these mental health issues so people can stand up and say I think -- I think you need some help, something is going on. It's an illness.
PARKER: All right. Dr. Gail Saltz, thank you so much for being with us.
SALTZ: Pleasure.
PARKER: Up next, a critical question. Exactly what did it take for Jared Loughner to get that deadly Glock semiautomatic pistol? We'll give you all the details in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: If I have just one question on my mind about the tragic events of Saturday, it's this. How did this kid get a gun?
PARKER: Here to help us understand what's involved in buying and owning firearms in Arizona is Alan Korwin, a journalist and author of several books including "The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide."
Welcome, Alan.
ALAN KORWIN, AUTHOR, THE ARIZONA GUN OWNER'S GUIDE: Nice to be here.
PARKER: So, Alan, walk us through this step by step. How do you buy a gun in Arizona? I walk in a store, what happens?
KORWIN: Well, any law abiding adult in America actually can buy a firearm. It's legal property. And they go through a pretty standard process. You fill out a 4473 form. It takes your name and address and other identifying information that identifies the firearm. And it identifies the dealer.
And you list -- you fill out an entire list of questions on disqualifying factors and then the dealer performs a NICS background check through the FBI. The FBI has a list in theory of everybody who can't own a firearm for felony conviction, dishonorable discharge, illegal aliens, conditions like that that you would expect. And if you're a law abiding adult and you make it through the background check, then you can buy a firearm. But almost more important than how did this one person buy one firearm is the fact that there are 100 million households with firearms whether they bought them yesterday or 10 years ago, they still have them.
And the real question is, what do you do if somebody with a gun goes crazy? How do you protect yourself from that?
PARKER: Well, here's the question. What about -- how does a -- can a gun store owner deny someone a gun just on the basis of a bad feeling? I mean if he passes all the tests, does he have to sell him a gun?
KORWIN: That's a great question. And there's a whole issue of racial profiling or discrimination against people. If you think somebody looks like a gang banger or looks like an alien and you deny them a firearm, the ACLU would be on you right away for profiling a person or discriminating.
And many dealers will refuse to sell a firearm to somebody who seems incompetent or just doesn't seem right but you're taking a little risk there because a law abiding adult has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and if one individual decides, I don't like you, I don't think we should sell you a gun, you might have a cause of action against the person.
SPITZER: Alan, I'm sitting here looking at this form. And the thing that struck me with the form you referred to, the 4437, I think are the numbers --
KORWIN: 4473.
SPITZER: 4473. When I looked at this form what struck me was that there's no obligation for fingerprints. There is now real way to make sure that the person filling it out was the person who he pretended to be or claims to be.
You know you need one form of I.D., you need a driver's license or some other I.D. as which -- as we all know unfortunately readily available, and so there are no fingerprints to actually make sure that when the FBI runs its check, it's running its check on the right person.
KORWIN: Well, most people don't have their fingerprints in a criminal data base anywhere. You do need photo I.D. that comes from the government that's ascertainable. The FBI runs the check and if the I.D. is false that should show up, but filling out the form falsely or doing anything to try and skip through that process is at least three federal felonies, and would land you in prison for 15 years depending on sentencing.
SPITZER: No, but the point I'm --
KORWIN: So -- SPITZER: I'm making, Alan, and I'm not disagreeing with some of what you said earlier, is that if I'm intent on obtaining a weapon and I have an I.D. that is going to let the person behind the desk, you know, who either winks or nods or says yes, that looks like you because it's a good I.D. say that yes, this is the person in front of me, the FBI doesn't know and cannot know that it's running a check on the person who's actually getting the weapon. There's no real way to make sure they're running a check on the right person.
KORWIN: And you're actually addressing one of the more core problems here. It's not a question of law. It's a question of law enforcement. If a person obtains a gun who shouldn't have one, or a person gets a gun who becomes mentally unbalanced, which is a disqualifying factor, how do you weed that person out? How do you act if they take the gun and do something evil?
Look at cocaine. There's no legal channel for cocaine. But you can buy it anywhere in America, 24 hours a day at low, low prices. And there no legal way to get it but people can get as much as they want. No amount of retail control can prevent criminals from arming themselves who can't arm themselves legally no matter what.
SPITZER: Well, that may --
KORWIN: So the real question is this. What do you do with a person who has a firearm, any of the millions of people, a million background checks are conducted a month. What do you do if any one of these persons goes crazy? The only way to stop them is with countervailing force.
When somebody goes crazy with a gun, you send in somebody else with a gun to stop them. And that's an issue that America hasn't looked at. There's no amount of paperwork or legalities that will stop a madman like this from attempting an assassination.
And unfortunately, this assassination attempt is now being used to denigrate or demean basic civil rights that people have. A million people a month who legitimately buy a gun, fill out the form, are who they say they are, and participate in what is the number two participant sport in America, the shooting sports.
SPITZER: Look, Alan --
KORWIN: Ahead of golf.
SPITZER: I'm not going to engage right now with you. We obviously have different feelings about whether gun control could work, whether it'd be constitutional. I want to put that aside for a moment. Obviously, there's room for fair debate on that.
KORWIN: OK.
SPITZER: And I respect your views although I disagree with them. Let me ask you from another perspective. The sale of the magazine with 30 bullets. I think many people are observing had there not been 30 bullets in the magazine of that gun, the scope and range of the damage would have been so much diminished.
I mean Carolyn McCarthy, a congresswoman whose husband was killed, I believe -- it was by Glock, has made a point, at least the number of bullets that can be sold and place in a magazine. Does that make sense to you?
KORWIN: Well, how many rounds of ammunition would you limit it to?
SPITZER: Well, look --
(CROSSTALK)
KORWIN: And in fact --
SPITZER: Continue. I'm sorry.
KORWIN: A limited -- a limited supply of ammunition is actually quite dangerous in many respects. We give the police magazines that hold 18 rounds and many of them carry two spares so they've got almost 50 rounds of ammunition because if you're in a confrontation and you ran out of ammo, that's extremely dangerous.
So if you limit a citizen -- a mom, a grandmother, a person -- to two bullets, two rounds of ammunition because you think it's safer, that puts them in jeopardy, violates their rights. And I'm not sure that's a good idea. What number would you pick and on what basis would you say this is all you need to protect yourself or to exercise your rights?
PARKER: Alan, I'm just trying to picture the scenario where we -- where everyone has a gun and they respond with countervailing force. And you know, I'm not an anti-gun person at all. So I grew up with guns and understand the Second Amendment perfectly well.
But what would that be like? I mean if everybody in that crowd had their own gun and somebody turned on Loughner, they might well have missed him and hit someone else. I mean is that really the solution here?
KORWIN: With 19 people shot, if somebody in the crowd had a firearm and could have stopped Loughner, you don't see that as an improvement? In Arizona, lots of people have firearms. We have banquets where people go out, carrying their guns openly, and they're peaceful, wonderful affairs.
The only way to have stopped Loughner was with countervailing force. No, you don't want to shoot out in public but if somebody goes berserk -- look at how this story would have been different if some individual there had a firearm, one of Miss Giffords' aides had a firearm and was able to return fire, that's the real travesty.
There was nobody there capable of returning fire. And we all know that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away and then they're on TV for days parading around with arms that didn't help, didn't do anything. It's the people who were there who were the first responders.
And although this is ugly and I don't like it, it's a dangerous world. Do we solve the danger by making ourselves defenseless or do we provide a culture of marksmanship where people can protect themselves against that sort of hellacious activity?
SPITZER: Look, Alan, I thank you for joining us. Obviously I disagree with you fundamentally about these issues. Although I obviously respect your law abiding sentiments. I would only observe this one last point.
KORWIN: How so?
SPITZER: In terms of shooting and the number of bullets used in every case which I've seen and recalled, and I was in law enforcement for many years, it was usually the bad guys who were using and taking advantage of magazines that have 30 and 40 bullets in them.
But anyway, thank you for joining us. We look forward to you joining us down the road.
KORWIN: Thank you.
PARKER: When we come back, we'll examine this issue further with CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: CNN senior legal analyst Jeff Toobin is here to help us break down some of the legal issues raised by the Tucson shooting.
Welcome, Jeff.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hey.
PARKER: Hi, Jeff. You just heard us interview this pro-gun fellow out in Arizona. Are we all going to be safer if we're all packing heat?
TOOBIN: But you know the thing that was so interesting about that interview is that that's the conventional political wisdom now. This is how much gun control has fallen off the map politically that the idea that more guns will mean more protection is widely believed. His view which may sound odd to those of us who were sitting in the upper west side of Manhattan where there are very distinct views about guns is very widely shared outside of our world.
SPITZER: You know, interestingly, Jeff, I think the divide on gun control issues is very much in urban/nonurban issue. I think folks who live --
TOOBIN: I agree.
SPITZER: Urban settings are more willing to control guns, and whereas if you're not living in an urban setting you say wait a minute, I want to use a gun for shooting, for sport, whatever it may be. And so this is a very real political ideological bit of difference.
Let me ask you about the mix (ph) system. This system of federal controls that he talked about. Does it work? You were a prosecutor for many years. Does the system weed out those who shouldn't buy guns?
TOOBIN: Not many. It's a very complicated system that relies on states and localities to put their information into the system, to put in every time someone has been convicted of a crime or judged mentally incompetent or have a domestic violence restraining order against them. Most community or not most -- many communities don't do that.
The kid who shot up Virginia Tech who killed 32 people, he had been judgmentally incompetent. Virginia didn't put that into the system.
SPITZER: Right.
TOOBIN: He was allowed to buy the guns. The system has a lot of holes in it.
SPITZER: Look at the system here with Jared Loughner. I mean, he had not been deemed incompetent by a court but clearly everybody around him said this guy has instabilities and yet he walked in and bought the Glock and the system failed.
TOOBIN: Well, the system may have failed but the law was not violated because there was no judgment against him that should have been in the system. Now, maybe the system should be different but the system worked as designed with law enforcement.
SPITZER: Unfortunately.
PARKER: Jeff, we talked to the sheriff last night and Eliot asked him directly would it have -- do we have to reform gun laws to prevent this sort of thing from happening. He says no, that won't do any good. You know, people who are criminal or people who are mentally unstable are still going to be able to get a gun no matter what the law says.
SPITZER: But the issue --
TOOBIN: That's true. You know, I just -- law enforcement doesn't usually assume that their actions are futile. Law enforcement is based on the idea that you can actually accomplish something so it doesn't seem to me that it's just throwing up your hands and saying it's impossible is a reasonable way to approach it.
SPITZER: There is the issue of the size of the magazine. Thirty-two bullets, 33 bullets, I think, is not what you need for sport and therefore who has access to that is a fundamentally different issue.
I want to switch gears for a second. Seven states I believe it is, including Arizona, have passed laws that say if a gun is made in our state, then the federal laws don't even apply. First, is that constitutional in your view? Will it be effective? What do you make of all that?
TOOBIN: I think that is not constitutional. The two parts of the constitution relevant there are the Second Amendment which does protect the right to keep and bear arms. But there's also the interstate commerce clause which says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce and guns even if they are only made in state affect interstate commerce. They shoot people. They create law enforcement activity that crosses state lines. I don't think there are any votes on the Supreme Court that would uphold a law that says somehow if you made a gun in Arizona, it's outside of all federal regulation.
SPITZER: But as a political statement in terms of what we were talking about before where the public is on issues of gun control, seven states haven't passed this law saying we don't even want the gun limitations imposed by a rather weak federal statute, tells you how sort of rabid folks are probably on either side but certainly those who do not want any limitations on access to a gun.
TOOBIN: Look at Barack Obama. Barack Obama was a senator from Illinois where Chicago, big defender of gun laws, but he had to run for Senate in downstate Illinois, too, and he's against gun control. So, I mean, politics are very different from what they used to be.
SPITZER: Fascinating.
PARKER: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, it's always great to have you with us. Wish you could stay longer.
SPITZER: When we come back, politics changes with the weather. Just ask Mayor Michael Bloomberg here in New York. Another blizzard is on the way tonight. Will it be a chance for a do-over or another disaster? Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: The same storm that hammered the southeast for the past two days is now heading north. New York City is bracing for up to 14 inches of snow.
PARKER: Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already called a weather emergency. Remember he was criticized for mishandling the last major New York snowfall.
SPITZER: That criticism came from frustrated New Yorkers stuck in the snow and city leaders who saw their neighborhoods ignored by plows and sanitation workers. Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz was one of those critics. He is here with us right now. And after the snowfall on December 27th, this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARTY MARKOWITZ, BROOKLYN BOROUGH PRESIDENT: The residents of Brooklyn are outraged and they have a right to be outraged. In many ways, government has failed them. My opinion is -- listen, the Department of Sanitation and New York and Commission Authority, I think they're among the best in this country. Something happened. And I know in the days ahead we'll find out what happened. Something happened between midnight and 6:00 a.m. where the Department of Sanitation did not get out the necessary trucks, salters, to clean this up. Something happened because there was silence from the Department of Sanitation during those crucial hours, and now we're behind the curve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PARKER: Marty Markowitz joins us now from Brooklyn.
Marty, thanks for being here.
MARTY MARKOWITZ, BROOKLYN BOROUGH PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you. Is this any way to make a living, Eliot, huh? Anyway, go ahead.
SPITZER: You're standing out in the snow having a good time.
PARKER: So, Marty, you were pretty angry there.
MARKOWITZ: Of course.
PARKER: Are you there?
MARKOWITZ: I'm here. Sure.
PARKER: All right. Well, you seem pretty upset in that clip. When was that blizzard? More than what? Two weeks ago, and there's still snow on the streets of Brooklyn?
MARKOWITZ: Well, you know, even to this day we still have snow that has not been picked up. Unbelievable. But I'd got to promise you this much. For this snowstorm coming right now, there's no city in America better prepared and more fired up than New York City. I can assure you everyone alive, everyone alive that has anything to do with sanitation are already out.
SPITZER: You know, Marty, I have to say all the years I was in public service, you were always the happiest guy. You enjoyed it every day. People are seeing it right now. You are Brooklyn. When people think Brooklyn, think Marty Markowitz. You're valiant (ph). You never have a down day. Are you going to be out there with a shovel today to make sure that your constituents have their driveways cleared?
MARKOWITZ: Well, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to listen to the reports this evening and then tomorrow morning I'll do a survey. I'll go throughout the borough. We've got everything set up in the entire communities around the borough. I called late today. The superintendent, the head of the Sanitation Department. I spoke to the deputy mayor, Goldsmith. We are ready. Bring it on, Mother Nature. Bring it on.
PARKER: You were highly critical of the Department of Sanitation and the mayor, and we're expecting 14 inches of snow to hit New York city tonight and tomorrow. MARKOWITZ: Yes.
PARKER: Do you think the city is going to handle it better after all?
MARKOWITZ: Oh, I don't think there's a question about it. I think the last time was really a fluke. It was the perfect storm. It really was.
We already had our city council hearings. More to come. We've already seen where the weaknesses are. Everyone like I said, they're fired up. And everything is out there. We've learned and we'll get this cleaned up. And then after we clean the snow, then if they want to get to the bike lanes in New York, it's OK.
SPITZER: You know, Marty, I got to say, every time you made a promise that I'm aware of you lived up to except one. The Dodgers -- you haven't brought the Dodgers back from Los Angeles. Are you ever going to do that?
MARKOWITZ: No. But we're going to get the Brooklyn Nets. We're going to have the best basketball team once they get to Brooklyn. It's going to be a new day in national sports in Brooklyn. And Manhattan Knicks, get out of the way.
SPITZER: All right. Now, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. All right. Marty Markowitz, thank you for joining us.
PARKER: Thanks, Marty.
MARKOWITZ: Thank you. Brooklyn loves you. Thank you.
PARKER: Ahead on the show, Tim Pawlenty became the former governor of Minnesota on January 3rd. And he is now possibly a future Republican candidate for president. We'll ask him when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Our next guest says simply, America is in trouble. Is he the man to save it? That may be why he's considering a run for the White House in 2012. Tim Pawlenty just completed two terms as a conservative governor of the traditionally blue state of Minnesota.
PARKER: He is also the author of a new book "Courage to Stand: An American Story" which hit newsstands just today.
Governor Tim Pawlenty joins us now. Thank you for joining us. All right. I noticed on this book tour that you're hitting some pretty important states when it comes to political -- to presidential politics. New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, I don't see South Carolina on here, but we'll let that go. So do you have something to tell us tonight?
TIM PAWLENTY (R), FMR. MINNESOTA GOVERNOR: I'm not going to be cute about it. I'm seriously considering running in 2012. I just haven't made the final decision yet or announced it but that will come in terms of the decision sometime in the next few months.
PARKER: You can't say you're not going to be cute when you're wearing a purple tie.
PAWLENTY: Look at Eliot. Look at Eliot.
SPITZER: I think I picked the wrong one this morning.
(CROSSTALK)
I don't know who I'm rooting for. Jets Sunday night. Great game.
PAWLENTY: Yes.
SPITZER: We're going to win.
PARKER: All right. You've got a book. Everybody who's running for president has a book. So we're just going to say you're running for president even though you're not going to say it.
How do you distinguish yourself in this field? This is a very crowded field. You've got all sorts of people running. Mitt Romney is going to -- he sort of has the economic financial sector covered. Sarah Palin, as you have said, is a force of nature all her own. Mike Huckabee has the sort of social values crowd. How do you stand out?
PAWLENTY: I think, Kathleen, there's going to be a lot of people running. And regardless of who precisely it is who runs or who doesn't run, I think you're going to have on the Republican side six or eight, who knows, people. And there will be some differences in policy but there are going to be a lot of overlap on pro-growth economic policies, health care, education reform, terrorism and the like. I think beyond that, though, the country is going to have to look for a leader who's going to have an uncommon amount of fortitude. Not just to flap their jaw out, not just to offer failed amendments, not just to give a speech but to get it done. And when you look at the story that's in the book that you mentioned, you have to look at people's background, their life story, their record to see can you really walk the walk or are you just flapping your jaw?
SPITZER: Well, let's talk about fortitude and the tough decisions. Because central to your plans, central to the Republican Party's agenda right now is continued tax cuts for the wealthy. And I want to begin by quoting back to you something you've said that I think is really stupendous saying, you said the Republican Party has to be the party of Sam's Club not the country club. The middle class that is being hurt so badly over the last couple years, yet these tax cuts for the wealthy are going to add a trillion dollars to the deficit. How do you plan to close that yawning deficit because that also is part of your plan? How do you do it?
PAWLENTY: Yes. Just to be clear on the quote, Eliot, we want to be the party of Sam's Club not just the country club.
SPITZER: That's right. You want the country club too. All right. All right. You got the country club already. Getting Sam's Club is the battle. How are you going to do it?
PAWLENTY: Two things. Just jumping back to that quote.
SPITZER: Sure.
PAWLENTY: You know, if you shop at Walmart, Kmart, Costco, Sam's Club, these are people who don't have a lot of money but they want the most possible value for the money that they do have and they're investing in their families. And we need is Republicans to connect with them better. And that's a topic maybe for another segment. But on the issue of tax cuts, don't characterize them please, as, you know, more tax cuts. The recent debate was just about keeping the tax rates where they were under the Bush administration. We were fighting against tax increases.
SPITZER: Right. But, Governor, we agree it adds a trillion dollars to the deficit. How are we going to close that deficit? Because the Republican Party said close that deficit. So let's make these tough show the fortitude to take defense.
PAWLENTY: Yes.
SPITZER: Will you cut defense?
PAWLENTY: Let me give it to you.
SPITZER: Sure.
PAWLENTY: The federal outlay if you look at a pie chart of federal spending, in terms of total federal outlays, you look at nondiscretionary, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, interest on the national debt, the red part of the pie is already over the halfway mark.
SPITZER: Right.
PAWLENTY: You look at where it's going in terms of the rate of growth, it's going to be over three-quarters in the next 15 years. A big part of what's left is defense.
Here's the thing. You can't say you're going to solve these problems without looking the American people in the eye and say we're going to have to restructure and reform the entitlement programs with particular emphasis on cost containment and health care. And unfortunately, the Obama administration just took a big swing at this and missed as it relates to --
SPITZER: Let's talk about health care in a minute. But I want to come back specifically. I agree with you we've been on this program for months.
PAWLENTY: You want some specifics.
SPITZER: Name your cut. Defense -- will you cut defense spending? Which the Reagan, former Reagan department officials are saying they could cut a trillion dollars out over 10 years. Would you look at that and say we can make real cuts in defense?
PAWLENTY: I think Secretary Gates had it about right which is to say at least in the near and intermediate term we're going to increase defense spending but we're going to do it at about the rate of inflation, but within that we're going to reprioritize the spending that we do have. He talked about discontinuing ineffective weapon systems. There's a bunch of those. And I also think, by the way, we should look at shrinking some of the bases that are obsolete or underutilized within the United States.
SPITZER: OK. Look, even the Bowles-Simpson plan which had Alan Simpson, a very conservative senator, said we could save close to $1 trillion on defense spending. Is that a number you say you can embrace and make part of your plan?
PAWLENTY: No, I think -- I think Secretary Gates talked about cutting --
SPITZER: How much left?
PAWLENTY: -- reducing the increase about 93 billion over the next five years.
SPITZER: Right. That's not the trillion dollars.
PAWLENTY: That's right.
SPITZER: So this isn't going to come close to the --
PAWLENTY: It is not.
SPITZER: We have a $4 trillion deficit gap.
PAWLENTY: You know, what we have is a federal government that takes in $2.2 trillion a year and spent $3.7 trillion last year.
SPITZER: That's right.
(CROSSTALK)
PAWLENTY: Yes, stop the stimulus. Don't spend more than you take in. But look, here's what we got to do on social security, Medicare and Medicaid. On Medicaid, cap it at a level that we can afford. (INAUDIBLE) grant it out to the states. Make them use it for health care for the poor, but let them experiment. Let them innovate. On Medicare, we have to get away from a 1950s cost plus system and turn it more into a market-based system where we reward not just volume but price and quality. And lastly on social security, and I know we're running out of time. Here's one quick example amongst many. If you just say -- and I don't like means testing philosophically. But if you say as to the COLA, not to the whole program, if you're really wealthy, you're not going to get as big of an increase in the future as if you're middle income or poor. That by itself would take care of a significant chunk of the problem.
SPITZER: Let me say this to you, and I said off camera. I want to say to the whole nation that's listening, you're one of the nicest, most genuine guys I've dealt with in politics. We're governors at the same time, and I admire you for that. Having said that, when it comes to means testing, only the COLA, I admire you for using the word means testing. That's a tough word to use. But if you only do it to the cola, you're not going to save any real money on social security.
PAWLENTY: Well, there's more. You know, just give me (INAUDIBLE) as an example.
SPITZER: Will you means test all of social security?
PAWLENTY: I don't think we need to. There's other things that we can do that I think most Americans, Republicans and Democrats -- because look, we're in a hole. And we don't have perfect options. We're going to have to do some other things too. I would say that the new entrants into the program, we're going to correlate your retirement. Not for the people already there, to life expectancy in the future in some reasonable way. And there's other things like that. You add them up and they get to go a long ways towards solving the problem.
SPITZER: OK.
PARKER: Governor Pawlenty, you are scheduled to speak at CPAC, the upcoming annual conservative festival. And some groups are pulling out and threatening to boycott because a gay group is one of the sponsors of the meeting this year. How do you feel about that?
PAWLENTY: You know, I haven't heard about that particular controversy but I've spoken in CPAC in the past. I think it's a tremendous organization, tremendous opportunity for conservatives to come together and share ideas and compare notes and I plan to be there. I'm going to speak.
PARKER: Do you think because social issues are so divisive and such a problem for general elections, do you feel like there's time, this is the right time given all of our economic problems and other issues to put social issues on the back burner?
PAWLENTY: Well, I think, you know, people can chew gum and walk at the same time. You know, so as a nation more than just about any one issue and to say jobs and the economy is the most pressing issue in domestic agenda right now, that's true. That's what most people are concerned about. But that doesn't mean that we can't do other things and focus on other things. For example, I'm not just a fiscal conservative. I'm also a social conservative. And as governor of the state, I had a lot of things to do. We pushed a lot of agendas up the field, but I didn't take core values and core principles and say I'm throwing them under the bus. Forget about them.
PARKER: Let me just ask you about the terrible shooting that took place in Arizona. A lot of liberal groups and some people in the media have put the finger, you know, pointed blame at some of the conservatives.
PAWLENTY: Yes. PARKER: Radio show hosts Sarah Palin specifically. What's your response to that?
PAWLENTY: It's one of the things I talked about in the book. And I'm sure Governor Spitzer experienced this when he was in office. When you have a crisis, people tend to react in a knee-jerk way. You've got to have good information, otherwise you can't make good decisions and leaders have to step forward in measured calm, accurate ways and convey what took place and then show a better way forward.
I had that with the bridge. People made false claims about why the bridge fell. It turned out to be something completely different when the NTSB issued their findings. Here you have people when there's no evidence to suggest it was talk radio, right wing, you know, any particular individual, they're saying perhaps it was caused by those kinds of things. There's no evidence of that. This was the act of a mentally deranged individual who undertook a senseless and irrational act and turned it into a horrific tragedy. That's what it's about based on the evidence we have today. And to suggest that anyone caused that other than that individual, there's no evidence to support that and it's unfair and it's irresponsible.
SPITZER: But don't you think the rhetoric could be toned down?
PAWLENTY: Well, setting aside this incident, all of us could benefit from a more thoughtful discussion. But we don't want to chill or deter people's passion or enthusiasm for their positions. But we need to -- look at Ronald Reagan. He was a great example and role model in this regard. Agree or disagree, he had strong views but he treated people thoughtfully and he treated people with decency and civility. And he was strong but he was hopeful and optimistic and positive.
PARKER: All right. Governor Pawlenty, good luck with your book tour. And thanks so much for being here.
PAWLENTY: Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
PARKER: We have excerpts of "Courage to Stand" on our Web site at CNN.com/parkerspitzer. It's a good read.
Thank you for joining us. And we hope you'll come back soon.
SPITZER: When we come back, the families of the shooting victims spoke out today demonstrating incredible grace under the most difficult circumstances. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Tonight, we want to share a bit more about the stories of love and courage that occurred in the face of chaos and carnage in Arizona. As we told you last night, Dorwin Stoddard died saving his wife Mavy's life. Tonight, we know more about what happened. After he pulled her to the ground and threw himself over her, he was shot in the head and died. She was hit in the leg but as Mavy's daughter's told it today, being shot was the last thing on her mind. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANGELA ROBINSON, DAUGHTER OF MAVY STODDARD: As dad lay dying, mom didn't know she'd been hurt. She thought that she was holding him and her leg started hurting and it wasn't until they got to the hospital that she even realized she had been shot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Suzi Hileman was looking for a positive female role model for her friend's daughter, 9-year-old Christina Green. Hileman took the budding politician to Congressman Giffords' event Saturday, and was holding the little girl's hand when they both were shot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL HILEMAN, HUSBAND OF SUZI HILEMAN: I hear her in her semiconscious ramblings, screaming out, Christina, Christina, let's get out of here, let's get out here. And she keeps talking about the holding of hands and then the realization that she was on the ground and the bleeding was profuse. Her memory seems to end there. Suzi had a breathing tube removed late Saturday evening. The very first thing she asked, she grabbed my hand, she looked me in the eye and said, what about Christina?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Later on, Suzi was told that little Christina had died.
We, of course, continue to think of all the families involved in the Arizona shooting. Our prayers are with them.
PARKER: Good night from New York. A special edition of "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now.
