Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Interview with Nancy Skinner, Armstrong Williams
Aired March 03, 2002 - 08:40 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, it's time now to take a look back at some of the stories that went on this past week, reflect upon them, and then get into a big food fight over them. Our guests today will sound off. Nancy Skinner is a talk show host with WLS Radio. It says in Boston, Massachusetts. That doesn't make any sense. WLS is in Chicago. Would you straighten that out for me, Nancy. She's in Boston, not to confuse folks.
NANCY SKINNER, WLS RADIO: I'm nationally syndicated as well.
O'BRIEN: You're everywhere.
SKINNER: Yes, I am, but also today especially in Chicago at WLS.
O'BRIEN: Nancy Skinner, citizen of the planet, happens to be in Boston today, and it's heard throughout the globe. Armstrong Williams meanwhile is heard throughout the galaxy, right?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I don't know about all that.
O'BRIEN: He's got one of those syndicated deals too. It's good to have you both with us.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
O'BRIEN: Of course, oh Nancy are you there? There you are, OK. Of course, my top story of the week is the space shuttle and the Hubble. DO you guys care? No, right? Do you care?
WILLIAMS: We care about it all.
SKINNER: No. No. No. That's big news, Miles. I know, I listen to -- in fact, this morning you're on the CNN International, your report. I did see it.
O'BRIEN: Did you notice when I do CNN International, I do it in a British accent? Did you notice that?
SKINNER: Yes, I was wondering. It sounded a little funny.
O'BRIEN: Yes. All right, obviously no one wants to talk about the Hubble. Let's move on and let's talk about welfare reform, shall we? WILLIAMS: Yes.
O'BRIEN: And I can hear the clickers going right now going. Stop! Don't reach for that clicker. I just find it very fascinating and stay with me on this folks, that we're at a point in the debate where it's no longer the classical liberal statement of "we need to protect the poor" and the classic Republican statement of you know, "we need to protect the rich. Don't worry so much about the poor." It's much more how to tweak a system that changed radically in 1996. Has the debate changed fundamentally, Nancy?
SKINNER: Well, I think in the 1996 reform bill, both Republicans and Democrats came together. It was Clinton's issue he really stole from the Republicans. Let's face it. They cut the welfare rolls by half, but this is really tinkering.
This is very funny stuff here. Now the latest word is, in Bush's new proposals for welfare reform or tinkering with it, some serious social engineering in which they want to use financial incentives to encourage marriage among welfare moms.
And I'm thinking to myself, what is it $100 if you get married, $50 if you eat your green beans now, $25 if you wear clean underwear in case you get into an accident?
O'BRIEN: The possibilities are limitless, right?
SKINNER: Yes, just think about this. This is a conservative's "we want smaller government" getting into such details as whether you're married, and encouraging it with taxpayer dollars. But the real issue is this. We're not talking about Murphy Browns here, Miles, that are on welfare. Most of them, half of the children in this country born out of wedlock happen to be born to teenagers.
So are you going to encourage a 15-year-old, 14, 15, 16-year-old girl to get married? And it's ironic that in the same proposal, he is opposed to increasing the funding for job training, child care, transportation, the things that we know have worked, that have reduced our welfare rolls by half. Just encouraging them to simply go home, get married, be barefoot and pregnant isn't really going to solve a problem, is it?
O'BRIEN: I don't know. Armstrong, what do you think?
WILLIAMS: Well, obviously the President understands and you can not ignore the results since President Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform Bill. If you talked to many people before then, who thought this initiative, which many people saw as a conservative initiative, they feel better about themselves. They have self-esteem. They set better examples for their children in their household in terms of working.
And what the government wants to do, the government wants to empower the impoverished to work for themselves, to earn a living, and prepare them for the marketplace where they encourage corporations to employ them. And when we talk about encouraging people, encouraging two-parent households, we all understand that welfare is accumulated in this country, basically through marriage and by encouraging marriage. People are better able to save, produce for their family, and have better role models for their children, and better to be mentors for their children in the community when they can do it as a two-parent household.
Now, I understand what Nancy is saying. Obviously, not everyone is going to have a two-parent household. But that does not mean that Mr. Bush and his administration should not encourage that kind of behavior, because a lot of young people are brought up --
O'BRIEN: Mr. Armstrong, you're a conservative guy. What you're talking about is a little bit of social engineering on the part of the government here, right?
WILLIAMS: No. No. No, Miles.
O'BRIEN: Isn't that against some of your principles? No?
WILLIAMS: No, it is not. It is not social engineering and it's not conservative or liberal. It's the fact that two-parent household works. The best household, if it can happen, if people can get along is to raise a child with both parents, and especially if you are on welfare. It's best if you have two incomes in that household. It's just common sense as far as I'm concerned.
And the other thing too, is that the people who are on welfare are applauding not only former President Clinton's 1996 welfare reform initiative, they're encouraging President Bush. Not only that, there was a meeting with Secretary Tommy Thompson and the national governors from around the country and he referred to the meeting as a love-fest, because they are on board with President Bush's welfare reform package. There's been a meeting...
SKINNER: Armstrong. Armstrong.
WILLIAMS: But why would you, why would you Nancy...
SKINNER: We agree that two -- let me ask you a question, Armstrong. We both agree a two-parent family is the best way to go, and if it can be worked out and it's a wholesome relationship, great. But what role should the government have?
O'BRIEN: Are you going to endorse apple pie, too? Come on, you know, too (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Let's move on with that.
SKINNER: Maybe he can save this thing, but do you really want the government to offer financial incentives and do things like that?
WILLIAMS: They need to encourage good behavior, and if that's a way of doing it, then I applaud it.
O'BRIEN: All right. You know what? We've done our little take your medicine news for our viewers, and we appreciate you staying with us, those of you who are left, mom. Thanks very much.
Let's move on now and talk about something near and dear to my heart, and this is the network executives.
SKINNER: Oh no, we're back on Hubble now, right?
O'BRIEN: No. No, we're not going to Hubble. I give up on that one.
SKINNER: OK.
O'BRIEN: The network executives at ABC, who think it's a great idea to take the most prestigious broadcast news program off the air to make way for David Letterman. What does this say about the network news business? Is there any semblance of public service anymore? Armstrong, do you care?
WILLIAMS: But, Miles, I mean even from your own network to others, there's no one who's sacred anymore. You do what is best for the ratings. You do what is best, what is best to make the money, and the one thing that you leave out of this, the ABC network executives tried to meet with Ted Koppel. They, for the longest time, have tried to move his show to a prime time slot. They realize the value of the show.
He's been very difficult and he did not want to be flexible on this. It's not as if they just pulled the rug from under this man without some alternative. They realize they have an opportunity to get David Letterman. They understand the kind of ratings that Letterman brings to late night television to compete with Jay Leno, and so they're making a business decision.
You understand this, Miles. This is a business decision. No one is sacred and no one is untouchable in this industry anymore. If they have something that's going to make money, they're going for it, and that's the bottom line.
O'BRIEN: Nancy, is that an unfortunate but true statement?
SKINNER: You know what? I think really it's in keeping with, not only what's going on in the entertainment world and people want the ratings and forget news, forget education, forget all these things. But look at what's going on even at the Pentagon, where they are not giving real journalists access to what's going on in Afghanistan. They're completely cut off like no other military engagement.
But they're going to be unprecedented access to a show, ABC Show "Profiles from the Front Line" which Jerry Bruckheimer (ph) the producer he has said will not criticize the military at all. It's going to be a salute to the military and Admiral Craig Quigley said, "oh yes, they'll have (inaudible) access to all our ships, boats, everything.
But real journalists can not get this information. So we're going to have more Daniel Pearls out there or need more Daniel Pearls courageous enough to go and get that information.
WILLIAMS: That's an unfair statement. That is so outrageous that you would say that.
SKINNER: No.
WILLIAMS: It really is.
SKINNER: Wait, what are you talking about?
WILLIAMS: That is an outrageous statement.
SKINNER: If the Pentagon will not give information, will not give access to real journalists, it's going to take courageous people to go out there into dangerous situations and get that information.
WILLIAMS: You know, we have this romanticism where the fact that for the last 200 years we have been the defender of civil liberties in this country. But our government must also use its common sense to understand that networks like Osama bin Laden's uses our media to send messages and telegraph images that they want to their cell network.
So in the end, what our government has to do is protect us from those who would use our media against us, to make sure that we don't have more 9/11s. I mean, I understand. I think your point, there's some merit to you point, but the government still has a role to play.
SKINNER: You want the government to protect us from the media. That's scary.
O'BRIEN: All right, unfortunately in a very un-First Amendment way, I have to end this discussion. But I would like to continue it. Perhaps we can pick up on this at another time, and you know, if you want the straight stuff, listen to these radio programs. Nancy Skinner, Armstrong Williams, they're all over the place.
SKINNER: Thank you.
O'BRIEN: All over your radio. We appreciate you being with us this Sunday morning.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
SKINNER: Thanks, Miles.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
