Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Kim Alfano, Douglas Hattaway

Aired August 03, 2003 - 11:12   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.


SEAN CALLEBS, CNN ANCHOR: And as the president gets some R&R in Texas, some issues remain red hot in Washington. Among them, of course, the war in Iraq, gay marriages, and there's even been talk that Al Gore might have a change of heart and run for president.
With me now to talk about some of those issues Douglas Hattaway, a former Gore campaign spokesman. He is in Boston. And in Washington, Kim Alfano, a Republican strategist. Thanks very much for joining us here today. Appreciate it.

Let's first talk about Al Gore. Will he really throw his hat in the ring? Would he accept any kind of nomination if there is some grassroots support? Kim, I'll start with you.

KIM ALFANO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I doubt that he will, but if he does, I'd say bring him on. I think that would be great. It's just, I think, further proof that the Democratic Party is scrambling to find someone who is more palatable to the bulk of the American people. Unfortunately, their party seems to be taken over by the far liberal left wing of the party, which is bigger than, I think, even the Democratic Party thought, and they're panicking about it, and they're hoping Al Gore would come back. I think George Bush would take it in a walk.

CALLEBS: Douglas, clearly you have a pretty good relationship with Al Gore. Could he decide to run for president again? Do you agree that the Democrats are simply desperate at this point?

DOUGLAS HATTAWAY, FORMER GORE CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: Well, there are several polls out over the last week which show if the election were held today, most people would not vote for Bush. So I think Democrats are in a good position, and loving this.

I don't think that's going to affect Al Gore's decision. He said he wasn't interested in a rematch. I would take him at his word. A lot of his supporters are frustrated because he got more votes than Bush in 2000. They think, rightfully, he belongs in the White House. But I think he's enjoying what he's doing.

The democrats are going through the process that we have set up, which is to hold primaries. Remember, in 2000 the Republicans had ten candidates going into the primaries, and the big money went behind Bush and froze out people like John McCain. The Democrats don't do that. They're going to let the voters decide. That's what the primaries are about. We've got some good candidates that will emerge through the primary process. CALLEBS: Well, Douglas, it looks like Kim is ready to jump out of her seat there to respond to that one.

ALFANO: Well, no, I'm not going to respond. I think he said exactly what he's supposed to say in the party, and I think he's right. They do have a lot of candidates and they're leaving the party open.

The problem is, the person who's gaining traction in that open system is the farthest left candidate. And it's forcing guys like Lieberman, Kerry, and even Gephardt to run so far to the left where the American people clearly aren't. And I think it's kind of exposing that rock bed -- bedrock liberalism, you know, the far left side of the party. That's why we're going to talk in a minute about gay marriage...

CALLEBS: Let's talk about the gay marriage issue. Douglas, your thoughts on that. President Bush weighing in on that, saying he would be, in essence, behind a measure that would declare a marriage between a man and a woman. Could this come back to haunt him in any fashion?

HATTAWAY: Well, he's being pushed by the extreme right of his party. Most Americans support giving gay and lesbian people equal rights under the law, including couples in committed, long term relationships. And if you take away the word marriage, that's where most Americans are. They think that it's wrong to discriminate.

I think Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place, because groups of voters he needs to win, women, suburban voters, independents, do not like the intolerant wing of the Republican Party. That's what they're hearing from. I think most voters wonder why Bush is even talking about this when millions of people are out of work and we have troops being killed everyday overseas. I think he is being pulled too hard to the right; he's going to have trouble trying to appeal to these moderate voters that he needs to win.

CALLEBS: Kim, Douglas seems to have a point there. Why weigh in on the issue?

ALFANO: The only reason we're talking about the issue is again, I think, because of the liberalism that's coming out of the left side of the party. America is clearly wrong. America is plus 60 against the act of gay marriage. You can't take the word marriage out of it. I think once it's close to becoming a law a lot of people step up who would not have talked about it, but it's been brought to the forefront and many more of these far left liberal issues are going to be brought to the forefront, because that's what the Democratic party is talking about.

Bush did not say that he was intolerant of homosexuals. Bush said that when it comes to codifying something, he doesn't agree, and just because he doesn't agree, he doesn't have to change his position like many of the democrats are to try to be politically correct. I think he's doing what he believes is right, and going with what the American people agree is wrong, which is gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, according to most American people. CALLEBS: OK. Let's move on and talk about the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Kim, how important is it for the president to have some way that they can point to and say, yes, we have found weapons of mass destruction finally in the country?

ALFANO: I think it's important, but I think it's mostly important that he continue to make great progress as he has. You know, the American people are not expecting this to be over in 30 minutes like an episode of "The West Wing." I think they're a lot brighter than the opposition is giving them credit for.

CALLEBS: I understand that, but what about the weapons of mass destruction? He made that one of the corner of stones of going in there, and so far, nothing.

ALFANO: I think the American people also understand that the ability to build weapons of mass destruction, to assemble a way of gathering all the materials for weapons of mass destruction in an unstable Middle East is equivalent to, and is as important as, what, you know, showing a particular bomb or a particular piece of evidence. I think that everybody understands that that is a general statement that says we're going to root out terrorism. We're going to stop these people from gathering what they need to build weapons of mass destruction, to commit another 9/11.

CALLEBS: Douglas, two of the big heavies, Uday and Qusay, of course, killed recently. What does that do for the administration in terms of gaining some, I don't want to say positive message over there, because certainly any kind of death is, you know, very horrible -- the way the whole thing played out, but being able to say we have two of the thugs that tormented that country for so long, that's certainly something he can point to.

HATTAWAY: Yes, absolutely. Everybody is glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and that his sons are gone. But I think the problem with the administration is, people who supported the war, including members of Congress, a lot of voters who were behind this, are wondering now whether Iraq really was the threat that Bush said it was.

They didn't say we're going in there to look for weapons programs. They said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. Condi Rice said, repeatedly, they were a year away from a nuclear bomb, and so far there's been no evidence of that. If they find it, good for them.

The problem they're facing with the American public is that our troops over there, we have a shadow of the coalition we had in the first Gulf War, so our troops are the ones bearing the sacrifice. Our taxpayers are paying for this. I think that's the concern the people have.

You can agree, though, it was a good to act against Hussein, but still think it was wrong to exaggerate the threat he posed, to go in there when we could have giving more time for inspections and other methods, rather than sending our troops into harm's way. I think that's the problem with this, it is an unpredictable situation for all. At the end of the day, I think the American public wants our troops out of there as soon as possible.

CALLEBS: OK. Douglas Hattaway, thank you for joining us, and Kim Alfano, always a pleasure. Thanks very much.

ALFANO: Thanks, Sean.

HATTAWAY: Thank you very much.

CALLEBS: Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

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 August 3, 2003 - 11:12   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SEAN CALLEBS, CNN ANCHOR: And as the president gets some R&R in Texas, some issues remain red hot in Washington. Among them, of course, the war in Iraq, gay marriages, and there's even been talk that Al Gore might have a change of heart and run for president.
With me now to talk about some of those issues Douglas Hattaway, a former Gore campaign spokesman. He is in Boston. And in Washington, Kim Alfano, a Republican strategist. Thanks very much for joining us here today. Appreciate it.

Let's first talk about Al Gore. Will he really throw his hat in the ring? Would he accept any kind of nomination if there is some grassroots support? Kim, I'll start with you.

KIM ALFANO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I doubt that he will, but if he does, I'd say bring him on. I think that would be great. It's just, I think, further proof that the Democratic Party is scrambling to find someone who is more palatable to the bulk of the American people. Unfortunately, their party seems to be taken over by the far liberal left wing of the party, which is bigger than, I think, even the Democratic Party thought, and they're panicking about it, and they're hoping Al Gore would come back. I think George Bush would take it in a walk.

CALLEBS: Douglas, clearly you have a pretty good relationship with Al Gore. Could he decide to run for president again? Do you agree that the Democrats are simply desperate at this point?

DOUGLAS HATTAWAY, FORMER GORE CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: Well, there are several polls out over the last week which show if the election were held today, most people would not vote for Bush. So I think Democrats are in a good position, and loving this.

I don't think that's going to affect Al Gore's decision. He said he wasn't interested in a rematch. I would take him at his word. A lot of his supporters are frustrated because he got more votes than Bush in 2000. They think, rightfully, he belongs in the White House. But I think he's enjoying what he's doing.

The democrats are going through the process that we have set up, which is to hold primaries. Remember, in 2000 the Republicans had ten candidates going into the primaries, and the big money went behind Bush and froze out people like John McCain. The Democrats don't do that. They're going to let the voters decide. That's what the primaries are about. We've got some good candidates that will emerge through the primary process. CALLEBS: Well, Douglas, it looks like Kim is ready to jump out of her seat there to respond to that one.

ALFANO: Well, no, I'm not going to respond. I think he said exactly what he's supposed to say in the party, and I think he's right. They do have a lot of candidates and they're leaving the party open.

The problem is, the person who's gaining traction in that open system is the farthest left candidate. And it's forcing guys like Lieberman, Kerry, and even Gephardt to run so far to the left where the American people clearly aren't. And I think it's kind of exposing that rock bed -- bedrock liberalism, you know, the far left side of the party. That's why we're going to talk in a minute about gay marriage...

CALLEBS: Let's talk about the gay marriage issue. Douglas, your thoughts on that. President Bush weighing in on that, saying he would be, in essence, behind a measure that would declare a marriage between a man and a woman. Could this come back to haunt him in any fashion?

HATTAWAY: Well, he's being pushed by the extreme right of his party. Most Americans support giving gay and lesbian people equal rights under the law, including couples in committed, long term relationships. And if you take away the word marriage, that's where most Americans are. They think that it's wrong to discriminate.

I think Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place, because groups of voters he needs to win, women, suburban voters, independents, do not like the intolerant wing of the Republican Party. That's what they're hearing from. I think most voters wonder why Bush is even talking about this when millions of people are out of work and we have troops being killed everyday overseas. I think he is being pulled too hard to the right; he's going to have trouble trying to appeal to these moderate voters that he needs to win.

CALLEBS: Kim, Douglas seems to have a point there. Why weigh in on the issue?

ALFANO: The only reason we're talking about the issue is again, I think, because of the liberalism that's coming out of the left side of the party. America is clearly wrong. America is plus 60 against the act of gay marriage. You can't take the word marriage out of it. I think once it's close to becoming a law a lot of people step up who would not have talked about it, but it's been brought to the forefront and many more of these far left liberal issues are going to be brought to the forefront, because that's what the Democratic party is talking about.

Bush did not say that he was intolerant of homosexuals. Bush said that when it comes to codifying something, he doesn't agree, and just because he doesn't agree, he doesn't have to change his position like many of the democrats are to try to be politically correct. I think he's doing what he believes is right, and going with what the American people agree is wrong, which is gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, according to most American people. CALLEBS: OK. Let's move on and talk about the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Kim, how important is it for the president to have some way that they can point to and say, yes, we have found weapons of mass destruction finally in the country?

ALFANO: I think it's important, but I think it's mostly important that he continue to make great progress as he has. You know, the American people are not expecting this to be over in 30 minutes like an episode of "The West Wing." I think they're a lot brighter than the opposition is giving them credit for.

CALLEBS: I understand that, but what about the weapons of mass destruction? He made that one of the corner of stones of going in there, and so far, nothing.

ALFANO: I think the American people also understand that the ability to build weapons of mass destruction, to assemble a way of gathering all the materials for weapons of mass destruction in an unstable Middle East is equivalent to, and is as important as, what, you know, showing a particular bomb or a particular piece of evidence. I think that everybody understands that that is a general statement that says we're going to root out terrorism. We're going to stop these people from gathering what they need to build weapons of mass destruction, to commit another 9/11.

CALLEBS: Douglas, two of the big heavies, Uday and Qusay, of course, killed recently. What does that do for the administration in terms of gaining some, I don't want to say positive message over there, because certainly any kind of death is, you know, very horrible -- the way the whole thing played out, but being able to say we have two of the thugs that tormented that country for so long, that's certainly something he can point to.

HATTAWAY: Yes, absolutely. Everybody is glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and that his sons are gone. But I think the problem with the administration is, people who supported the war, including members of Congress, a lot of voters who were behind this, are wondering now whether Iraq really was the threat that Bush said it was.

They didn't say we're going in there to look for weapons programs. They said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. Condi Rice said, repeatedly, they were a year away from a nuclear bomb, and so far there's been no evidence of that. If they find it, good for them.

The problem they're facing with the American public is that our troops over there, we have a shadow of the coalition we had in the first Gulf War, so our troops are the ones bearing the sacrifice. Our taxpayers are paying for this. I think that's the concern the people have.

You can agree, though, it was a good to act against Hussein, but still think it was wrong to exaggerate the threat he posed, to go in there when we could have giving more time for inspections and other methods, rather than sending our troops into harm's way. I think that's the problem with this, it is an unpredictable situation for all. At the end of the day, I think the American public wants our troops out of there as soon as possible.

CALLEBS: OK. Douglas Hattaway, thank you for joining us, and Kim Alfano, always a pleasure. Thanks very much.

ALFANO: Thanks, Sean.

HATTAWAY: Thank you very much.

CALLEBS: Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

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