Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Lyda Rodriguez-Taseff, Michael Smerconish

Aired October 13, 2002 - 08:47   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.


CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: It is a busy week in the nation's courts. So joining us today for our "Legal Roundtable" is Lyda Rodriguez- Taseff, a civil liberties attorney in Miami, and trial attorney and talk show host Michael Smerconish. Good morning, Michael. Good morning, Lyda.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

LYDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: Good morning.

LIN: How are you?

SMERCONISH: All right. Thank you.

LIN: Let's talk about some of these interesting cases, that really interesting story about black coaches. Apparently, the NFL put together an executive committee to actually study the rate of successes comparing African-American coaches and white coaches, and trying to draw a conclusion as to why black coaches are not promoted more. What do you think, Lyda?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think it's a good first step. The reality is if this was what was happening in any other industry, people would be doing exactly the same thing. The mass says since 1920, there have been over 400 coaches selected in the NFL. Only six of those have been black. That's less than 2 percent. And right now, we only have two African-American coaches, and the statistics show that they have a better winning percentage than do white coaches. And you ask yourself, why is that? Is it genetics? No.

It's merit versus nepotism. Traditionally white coaches have been selected on who they know, and African-American coaches, those few that have been selected, have been selected on merit. And merit wins out in the end. And I think these statistics show that these people should be given an opportunity, and that we should judge the NFL as we judge any other industry. There are 70 percent of black athletes in the NFL. Why should there be not be more black coaches, since most coaches come from the player ranks?

LIN: So, Michael, does this call for a quota system then in the NFL?

SMERCONISH: No, I think that's ridiculous. And interestingly, you know who wants that quota system? Johnnie Cochran. I mean, if we listened to Johnny Cochran, I imagine that O.J. Simpson would be back on the NFL coaching a team before this is all over. I'd like to see more African-American coaches, but Carol, the problem here is that historically, there have not been a great number of African-American assistant coaches, and that is the drawing pool from where you get head coaches.

I think that's going to now level itself out, because more and more assistant coaches happen to be black. But in the NFL, it's all about winning. I mean, you could be purple as long as you are a winner. These coaches are going to give you the tools to get the job done. They don't care what you look like. All they want to do is win the Super Bowl.

LIN: Yeah, but, Lyda, aren't you saying that it's a system that perpetuates itself because it's only natural, where it's the NFL or a corporate boardroom across America that people hire who they know.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, and I disagree with Michael completely. It's not all about winning. If it was about winning, these black coaches would be given greater opportunities. Sixty-nine percent greater chance of taking the team to the playoffs than 39 percent for white coaches, so you are looking at the odds, and if the issue really was winning, you'd be hiring more black coaches.

And the reality is, these black coaches, or all coaches, come from player ranks. And it has nothing to do with assistant coaches, because you have winning coaches who are African-American being fired or not having their contracts renewed, while white coaches keep getting recycled no matter how lousy they are.

And I think that the argument about O.J. Simpson is the perfect example why we need this program. That's absolute race-baiting. That's absolute using a poster child who is a murderer simply because he is African-American, but it has nothing to do with O.J. Simpson being a football coach. It has to do with racism that's institutionalized.

LIN: Michael, you know, I'll give you a quick last word here. We have many, many topics to cover here. Sure, go ahead.

SMERCONISH: Quick final word is this -- sure -- that's ridiculous. Listen, if you want to play a numbers manipulation, if 70 percent of the NFL is African-American, maybe we need a quota system to have more whites in the NFL since African-Americans are not 70 percent of the American population. It gets crazy when you start to play a numbers game. It's about winning.

LIN: All right, let's put that one on the table and talk about this wacky Senate race in Montana. A la -- boy, a la New Jersey here. You have got the situation here where the GOP candidate, Mike Taylor, says I am out of here, because this race has become a sea of sleaze. He is running against the incumbent Democrat Max Baucus. And I want to share an ad with you guys as well as the audience. This is an ad produced on behalf of Max Baucus that apparently Mike Taylor says is an attack. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NARRATOR: State Senator Mike Taylor once ran a beauty salon and a hair care school, until the Department of Education uncovered Taylor's hair care scam for abusing the student loan program and diverting money to himself. Abuse that causes innocent students to default on their loans. Abuse that cost taxpayers thousands and lining Taylor's own pockets. Mike Taylor, not the way we do business here in Montana.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: You know, not so subtle, Michael. I don't know, what are they trying to imply with that?

SMERCONISH: Come on, it has nothing to do with defaulting on student loans or defrauding his students. They are saying the man is gay. I mean, look at him, he's got a leisure suit from the '70s and the hairy chest and the chains and disco music. What they are trying to tell Montana voters is that the man is a homosexual, and of course leaving off the table that he's got a wife and two kids at home. It's a disgusting ad.

LIN: Well, and as Seinfeld would say, not that there's anything wrong with that.

SMERCONISH: Not that there's anything wrong with that, right.

LIN: But you are talking about a very conservative base in Montana.

SMERCONISH: No doubt about it. And I think that what's interesting is that Montana law says if you are within 85 days of an election, you cannot replace a candidate. Nobody is running to the courthouse in Montana the way they did in New Jersey to get rid of Torricelli. I think that's the interesting legal point to be made about this.

LIN: You know, but, Lyda, isn't decision day supposed to be up to the voters? You are supposed to get to the polls in order for the voters to decide. This guy has just completely chickened out and he has pulled out and he said, I have had it, my family can't take this anymore.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That's exactly right. Can't stand the heat so you are getting out of politics. That's absolutely ridiculous. What we do hear is we need to analyze the fact that whether it be Torricelli or Mike Taylor, it is wrong for politicians to get out simply because they decide or their political party decides that they are not going to win.

And so, that clause aside, this ads may be in bad taste, or it may not, but you know what, it's politics, and that's how the game is played. And people need to stand by their convictions and they need to be -- allow themselves to be elected or not elected, and let the voters decide.

And I bet you by Monday or Tuesday, we will have a lawsuit here. Whether it be Torricelli or Mike Taylor, it is wrong for politicians and political parties to use voters as the excuse for allowing these people to get out. The problem with the Torricelli lawsuit in New Jersey was that the excuses the Democrats gave for wanting to replace him on the ballot was that, oh, no, if we don't, the voters are not going to get to speak out on election day.

Well, the reality is that, especially here in Florida, we have plenty of voter disenfranchisement problems around the country, and for politicians to be using the voter disenfranchisement card to replace these lousy losers who want to run away because they're losing is a problem.

LIN: All right. Let's talk Winona Ryder. The girl is going to court on her shoplifting charges, but it looks like the prosecution is backing off on these drug charges. She was supposed to be charged with having prescription drugs without a prescription, but now the district attorney's office is saying, you know what, we have talked to a witness, and this case doesn't look so good.

Do we care about this case anymore, Michael?

SMERCONISH: I don't. I for one does not. It's had so many false starts. I would hope that this week they finally get the thing on already. You know, Winona Ryder's lawyers are saying she is being penalized for her celebrity status. They of course don't want to talk about the fact that at a preliminary hearing, a security official said "I saw her on the floor of the dressing room cutting off the security labels from the clothes."

But there's a different interpretation, and the different interpretation is that law enforcement wants to hold her accountable because in the past, they let her go. There's an allegation out there that previously, she had a five-finger discount, and they let her off the hook. And so this time, they've said no way are we letting go of Winona Ryder.

LIN: Lyda, quick word on this and then we got to go.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I agree, whether it be Winona Ryder or Noelle Bush, the reality is the war on drugs, the war on hypocrisy. We treat stars and famous people and children of presidents and nieces of presidents differently than we treat other Americans. All of a sudden, they are trotting out this thing about the war on drugs should be about treatment, and this is a prime example of why it is that Americans are hypocritical about the war on drugs, and rich people and celebrities get off while the rest of us end up in jail.

LIN: Oh, but we sure love watching it on TV, don't we? Thanks so much. Lyda Rodriguez-Taseff, Michael Smerconish, very good to see you on this Sunday morning.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired October 13, 2002 - 08:47   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: It is a busy week in the nation's courts. So joining us today for our "Legal Roundtable" is Lyda Rodriguez- Taseff, a civil liberties attorney in Miami, and trial attorney and talk show host Michael Smerconish. Good morning, Michael. Good morning, Lyda.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

LYDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: Good morning.

LIN: How are you?

SMERCONISH: All right. Thank you.

LIN: Let's talk about some of these interesting cases, that really interesting story about black coaches. Apparently, the NFL put together an executive committee to actually study the rate of successes comparing African-American coaches and white coaches, and trying to draw a conclusion as to why black coaches are not promoted more. What do you think, Lyda?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think it's a good first step. The reality is if this was what was happening in any other industry, people would be doing exactly the same thing. The mass says since 1920, there have been over 400 coaches selected in the NFL. Only six of those have been black. That's less than 2 percent. And right now, we only have two African-American coaches, and the statistics show that they have a better winning percentage than do white coaches. And you ask yourself, why is that? Is it genetics? No.

It's merit versus nepotism. Traditionally white coaches have been selected on who they know, and African-American coaches, those few that have been selected, have been selected on merit. And merit wins out in the end. And I think these statistics show that these people should be given an opportunity, and that we should judge the NFL as we judge any other industry. There are 70 percent of black athletes in the NFL. Why should there be not be more black coaches, since most coaches come from the player ranks?

LIN: So, Michael, does this call for a quota system then in the NFL?

SMERCONISH: No, I think that's ridiculous. And interestingly, you know who wants that quota system? Johnnie Cochran. I mean, if we listened to Johnny Cochran, I imagine that O.J. Simpson would be back on the NFL coaching a team before this is all over. I'd like to see more African-American coaches, but Carol, the problem here is that historically, there have not been a great number of African-American assistant coaches, and that is the drawing pool from where you get head coaches.

I think that's going to now level itself out, because more and more assistant coaches happen to be black. But in the NFL, it's all about winning. I mean, you could be purple as long as you are a winner. These coaches are going to give you the tools to get the job done. They don't care what you look like. All they want to do is win the Super Bowl.

LIN: Yeah, but, Lyda, aren't you saying that it's a system that perpetuates itself because it's only natural, where it's the NFL or a corporate boardroom across America that people hire who they know.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, and I disagree with Michael completely. It's not all about winning. If it was about winning, these black coaches would be given greater opportunities. Sixty-nine percent greater chance of taking the team to the playoffs than 39 percent for white coaches, so you are looking at the odds, and if the issue really was winning, you'd be hiring more black coaches.

And the reality is, these black coaches, or all coaches, come from player ranks. And it has nothing to do with assistant coaches, because you have winning coaches who are African-American being fired or not having their contracts renewed, while white coaches keep getting recycled no matter how lousy they are.

And I think that the argument about O.J. Simpson is the perfect example why we need this program. That's absolute race-baiting. That's absolute using a poster child who is a murderer simply because he is African-American, but it has nothing to do with O.J. Simpson being a football coach. It has to do with racism that's institutionalized.

LIN: Michael, you know, I'll give you a quick last word here. We have many, many topics to cover here. Sure, go ahead.

SMERCONISH: Quick final word is this -- sure -- that's ridiculous. Listen, if you want to play a numbers manipulation, if 70 percent of the NFL is African-American, maybe we need a quota system to have more whites in the NFL since African-Americans are not 70 percent of the American population. It gets crazy when you start to play a numbers game. It's about winning.

LIN: All right, let's put that one on the table and talk about this wacky Senate race in Montana. A la -- boy, a la New Jersey here. You have got the situation here where the GOP candidate, Mike Taylor, says I am out of here, because this race has become a sea of sleaze. He is running against the incumbent Democrat Max Baucus. And I want to share an ad with you guys as well as the audience. This is an ad produced on behalf of Max Baucus that apparently Mike Taylor says is an attack. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NARRATOR: State Senator Mike Taylor once ran a beauty salon and a hair care school, until the Department of Education uncovered Taylor's hair care scam for abusing the student loan program and diverting money to himself. Abuse that causes innocent students to default on their loans. Abuse that cost taxpayers thousands and lining Taylor's own pockets. Mike Taylor, not the way we do business here in Montana.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: You know, not so subtle, Michael. I don't know, what are they trying to imply with that?

SMERCONISH: Come on, it has nothing to do with defaulting on student loans or defrauding his students. They are saying the man is gay. I mean, look at him, he's got a leisure suit from the '70s and the hairy chest and the chains and disco music. What they are trying to tell Montana voters is that the man is a homosexual, and of course leaving off the table that he's got a wife and two kids at home. It's a disgusting ad.

LIN: Well, and as Seinfeld would say, not that there's anything wrong with that.

SMERCONISH: Not that there's anything wrong with that, right.

LIN: But you are talking about a very conservative base in Montana.

SMERCONISH: No doubt about it. And I think that what's interesting is that Montana law says if you are within 85 days of an election, you cannot replace a candidate. Nobody is running to the courthouse in Montana the way they did in New Jersey to get rid of Torricelli. I think that's the interesting legal point to be made about this.

LIN: You know, but, Lyda, isn't decision day supposed to be up to the voters? You are supposed to get to the polls in order for the voters to decide. This guy has just completely chickened out and he has pulled out and he said, I have had it, my family can't take this anymore.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That's exactly right. Can't stand the heat so you are getting out of politics. That's absolutely ridiculous. What we do hear is we need to analyze the fact that whether it be Torricelli or Mike Taylor, it is wrong for politicians to get out simply because they decide or their political party decides that they are not going to win.

And so, that clause aside, this ads may be in bad taste, or it may not, but you know what, it's politics, and that's how the game is played. And people need to stand by their convictions and they need to be -- allow themselves to be elected or not elected, and let the voters decide.

And I bet you by Monday or Tuesday, we will have a lawsuit here. Whether it be Torricelli or Mike Taylor, it is wrong for politicians and political parties to use voters as the excuse for allowing these people to get out. The problem with the Torricelli lawsuit in New Jersey was that the excuses the Democrats gave for wanting to replace him on the ballot was that, oh, no, if we don't, the voters are not going to get to speak out on election day.

Well, the reality is that, especially here in Florida, we have plenty of voter disenfranchisement problems around the country, and for politicians to be using the voter disenfranchisement card to replace these lousy losers who want to run away because they're losing is a problem.

LIN: All right. Let's talk Winona Ryder. The girl is going to court on her shoplifting charges, but it looks like the prosecution is backing off on these drug charges. She was supposed to be charged with having prescription drugs without a prescription, but now the district attorney's office is saying, you know what, we have talked to a witness, and this case doesn't look so good.

Do we care about this case anymore, Michael?

SMERCONISH: I don't. I for one does not. It's had so many false starts. I would hope that this week they finally get the thing on already. You know, Winona Ryder's lawyers are saying she is being penalized for her celebrity status. They of course don't want to talk about the fact that at a preliminary hearing, a security official said "I saw her on the floor of the dressing room cutting off the security labels from the clothes."

But there's a different interpretation, and the different interpretation is that law enforcement wants to hold her accountable because in the past, they let her go. There's an allegation out there that previously, she had a five-finger discount, and they let her off the hook. And so this time, they've said no way are we letting go of Winona Ryder.

LIN: Lyda, quick word on this and then we got to go.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I agree, whether it be Winona Ryder or Noelle Bush, the reality is the war on drugs, the war on hypocrisy. We treat stars and famous people and children of presidents and nieces of presidents differently than we treat other Americans. All of a sudden, they are trotting out this thing about the war on drugs should be about treatment, and this is a prime example of why it is that Americans are hypocritical about the war on drugs, and rich people and celebrities get off while the rest of us end up in jail.

LIN: Oh, but we sure love watching it on TV, don't we? Thanks so much. Lyda Rodriguez-Taseff, Michael Smerconish, very good to see you on this Sunday morning.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com