CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 2, 2003 Thursday Transcript # 010200CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 8555 words HEADLINE: Can John Edwards Beat Bush? Can the Iraq Crisis Be Solved With Diplomacy? GUESTS: Ed Rogers, Vic Kamber, Rael, Frank Gaffney, Charles Kupchan BYLINE: Paul Begala, Robert Novak HIGHLIGHT: John Edwards has established a presidential exploratory committee. President Bush addressed the hot topics of the day with reporters on a walking tour of his Texas ranch. BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Another presidential wanna-be throws his exploratory committee into the media circus. SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: If the American people want some body who's a lifelong politician to be their president, that's not me. ANNOUNCER: So, is anybody worried? GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That's just going to be background noise. My job is to protect the American people and... ANNOUNCER: But which member of the axis of evil do we need protecting from more? Iraq or North Korea? Plus, the leader of a religious sect says his talk with some extraterrestrials gave him the inspiration for cloning. RAEL, RAELIAN MOVEMENT LEADER: We will be able to live eternally from a body to another body. ANNOUNCER: We'll ask Rael if his group has really cloned a human being. Ahead on CROSSFIRE. From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Robert Novak. ROBERT NOVAK, CNN CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. It's only the second day of 2003 and already we're in Never-never land. In a little bit, we'll ask whether the American people really want a trial lawyer as their president. And if that isn't far-out enough, we've also got his holiness, Rael -- that's what he calls himself -- a guy who says he came up with the idea of cloning humans after chatting with the occupants of a flying saucer. But let's get started with a healthy dose of reality, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert" A third Democratic hopeful jumped into the 2004 presidential race today, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. He called himself a champion of regular folks. And that's quite a trick for a multimillionaire trial lawyer. But for Johnny Edwards to run at all is an exercise in the art of living dangerously. Not only is he a representative of one of the most despised groups in America, trial lawyers, and who have brought so much havoc to the economy, almost all -- almost all his campaign funds come from other trial lawyers. Can he sell this load of beans to the American people, as he has convinced North Carolina juries to feather his nest? PAUL BEGALA, CNN CO-HOST: I love when people bang on trial lawyers. And then they say our current president, he's a man of the people. He's a Texas oilman, who failed and got bailed out by his daddy's friends. I mean, I take John Edwards or any of those Democrats over Bush and Cheney. NOVAK: Well, I'll tell you, Paul, I have never called George W. Bush a man of the people. But John Edwards isn't one either. BEGALA: We'll debate him a little bit later. We'll have a couple of top guys come out and debate him. Speaking of President Bush, he met today with reporters on his ranch down in Texas. He actually tried to convince them, and this is a quote from today -- "I'm not paying attention to politics", he said. Right, and Hugh Heffner's not paying attention to women, either. Mr. Bush called the economy -- and I quote again -- "pretty darn strong." Then he said he'd unveil a new plan next week to stimulate it, nevertheless. The economy, of course, is not strong. It hasn't been since the last time Congress passed a Bush economic plan. The new Bush plan is said to include even more tax cuts for the rich, just like the old plan. Mr. Bush clearly doesn't get it. His tax cuts are what got us in the mess in the first place. George W. Bush calling for tax cuts for the rich is like the captain of the "Titanic" calling for more icebergs. It just doesn't make sense, Bob. NOVAK: Well, you know, Paul, you people have been opposing tax cuts all along. It's the reason you lose elections. It's why you lost the 2002 election. And this recession that started under Clinton's watch can only be driven off by giving some of the tax money back to the people. BEGALA: It actually didn't start under Clinton. Martin Feldstein, who you know well, who was the chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisers, says the highest point of economic activity was March of 2001. NOVAK: Rob Shapiro cooked the books and I'll explain that to you sometime. BEGALA: Bob, no. NOVAK: The new Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, is also a skilled heart surgeon, who from time to time still practices the healing arts. He did so yesterday, about 30 miles from Miami, when he stopped after a rollover accident, identified himself as a doctor, but not as a senator, and helped paramedics and firefighters tend to the injured. Two people died in the accident, but four other victims are alive today, and one paramedic says it was Frist's quick action that saved lives. This is the man who leftists has been calling a racist and vicious right winger. How can anybody do that? Count on Paul Begala and his Democratic friends to do their best. BEGALA: Bob, you're usually a better reporter than that. You look at the current issue of "Esquire," you'll see that there's actually a very favorable interview with Dr. Frist conducted by none other than Paul Begala. Look at the issue of "The Washington Post" there's a scathing attack column attacking Bill Frist by, hmm, Bob Novak. It's the right wingers who are going after Frist, because you're scared he might actually be a human being. NOVAK: I attacked him for not being conservative enough. BEGALA: Yes, you did. NOVAK: I criticized him. I didn't attack him. But if you want to find out what the left is doing, I guess you guys did -- you missed the last meeting in somebody's basement. It was the People for American Way refer to him as a racist. BEGALA: Well, he's certainly not a racist. I have not seen that. People for the American Way is a great group. NOVAK: Oh, it's wonderful. BEGALA: I dispute that. But it's the far right that's going after him. Well, we said earlier John Edwards has begun his exploratory campaign for the presidency. But the one Democrat who leads him and every one else in the early polls has decided to sit it out, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. She begins 2003 as the most admired woman in America. That is an honor usually held by the current first lady. And Laura Bush is an enormously impressive and a very admirable person. So given Mrs. Bush's well deserved, very positive image, Senator Clinton's emergence as the most admired woman in America is all the more remarkable. Perhaps folks admire how she fought for her state after the terrorist attacks in New York City. Perhaps they admire how she champions the poor at a time when others say that greed is good. And maybe, just maybe, they admire her amazing grace in the face of that right wing attack machine. So my friend Bob Novak, let me thank you for your relentless attacks on Hillary to help make her the most admired woman in America. Keep it up another five years, you'll make her president. NOVAK: Well, you know, I do agree. I'm very happy she's winning these phony polls, because maybe you'll be crazy enough to nominate her for president some day and she'll follow in the foot steps of George McGovern and Walter Mondale. One state. But what state would it be for Hillary? BEGALA: Well, she'd follow in the steps of her husband who carried, oh, 37 states twice. NOVAK: The new Republican governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, is turning back his $135,000 dollar salary. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healy is giving up her $120,000. They're working as volunteers. Governor Romney, who was sworn in today, calls this a symbolic move, showing commitment to public service. You know that sets a terrific example in comparison with money grubbing members of Congress who vote themselves a pay raise each and every session. People all over America volunteer without pay to work in charitable organizations, school boards, health care organizations. Why not governors and legislators? And I guarantee you, you wouldn't need term limits if these jobs didn't pay anything. BEGALA: You know what? I couldn't agree more. But what about presidents and vice presidents? George Bush, worth $15 million, never worked a day in his life. He has a $400,000 pay raise -- $200,000 pay raise, and Dick Cheney took $60 million out of Halliburton and screwed all the working people there and he takes his pay. NOVAK: What I admire you, Paul, is that I often wonder how you can turn anything into a vicious attack on the president. BEGALA: It's not vicious. You said... NOVAK: Can I -- you mind if I speak while you're interrupting? I always wonder -- I always wonder how you can turn everything we talk about into a vicious attack on the president of the United States, but you manage it. BEGALA: It is not a vicious attack, Bob. When you said, why don't Congressmen and senators, I simply said why not presidents and vice presidents. That is not vicious. NOVAK: But then you attacked the president. BEGALA: That is not vicious. That is... NOVAK: Saying he never worked a day in his life. That's outrageous. BEGALA: Oh, that's... NOVAK: He did more than you did. He did make a payroll once in his life. BEGALA: No he didn't He got bailed out. He was a total failure in business. He got bailed out three different times. NOVAK: that's ridiculous. BEGALA: Speaking of Novak's point about overpaid public servants, our chief Justice, William Rehnquist, makes $192,600 a year. That is almost five times what the average working family brings home every year, and yet, like the Republican that he is, the chief Justice is crying poor. He's begging taxpayers for a pay rise. Now Rehnquist's greed stands in stark contrast to the outgoing Democratic governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes. Roy Barnes has received million dollar offers to join silk stocking law firms, but he's instead decided to devote the next six months of his life and his enormous legal skills for free to the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. He will be representing poor people dying of AIDS, homeless people living with mental illness, old people being ripped off by corporate con artists. Chief Justice Rehnquist could learn a lot from Roy Barnes, like the meaning of the words above the Supreme Court, words which promise something Justice Rehnquist rarely delivers: equal justice under the law. NOVAK: Paul, I wonder what Roy Barnes is going to do after those six months. That's why that's a phony offer. And I'll tell you something. I would say that Justice Rehnquist is making one tenth of what Paul Begala is making. BEGALA: Shoot, I should make 20 times that. I never stole an election. He ought to be making license plates. NOVAK: Oh. BEGALA: He stole the presidency... NOVAK: Well, you've got... BEGALA: ...from the guy who got the most votes. NOVAK: You're going back to that same -- well, go ahead. Don King has promoted plenty of prize fights in Atlantic city, New Jersey. But the proposal to rename part of Mississippi avenue in King's honor may be fighting for its life today. It turns out they would rather name it after a local priest or businessman who made good and helped the city, not someone who never did anything for the city until he became famous. Tomorrow, Don King makes a return engagement on CROSSFIRE, right here. We'll ask him about boxing politics, and if he'll fight for his name on a street, if they turn down Don King, what about making it Mike Tyson Avenue, or better still, Robert Torricelli way. BEGALA: There you go. Or, the great former governor of New Jersey Christie Todd Whitman now the head of the EPA, if they could name it after her, it would never get cleaned up, but it's a nice name for a nice lady and they could put it in her honor. This is, of course, the first week of 2003. In other words, it's the first week of the presidential campaign of 2004. In a minute, we'll let you know about the latest Democrat who says he can do a better job than our president. Later, we'll compare points on the axis of evil. Should North Korea be a bigger worry than Iraq? And he's talked to the aliens, and they may have inspired him to produce human clones. But is he ready to step into the CROSSFIRE? Stay tuned and you will see. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina is the latest Democrat to file papers forming an exploratory committee for a possible run for the White House. Mr. Edwards is 49. North Carolinians elected him to the U.S. Senate in 1998, throwing out right wing anti-Clinton Republican senator Lauch Faircloth. Edwards says he has fought for regular people all his life. Did it in court as an attorney, does it now as a senator and promises to be what he calls a champion for the people if they put him in the White House. In the CROSSFIRE to discuss Senator Edwards and the rest of the presidential field for 2004, Democratic strategist Vic Kamber and Republican strategist Ed Rogers -- Gentlemen. NOVAK: Vic Kamber, in addition to that commercial we just had delivered by Paul on behalf of Senator Edwards, let's listen to the real mccoy, what Senator Edwards said today in a press conference. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EDWARDS: I would say that I have exactly the kind of experience we need in the White House. Somebody who's close to regular people, somebody who understands their problems, somebody who has ideas, real ideas, specific ideas about how to make their lives better. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Now, this is a multimillionaire, even richer than you guys are, who has -- lives in mansions in North Carolina, and in Washington. How the hell is he close to the regular people? VIC KAMBERS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: If you knew his background, Bob, how he grew up, where he came from. NOVAK: I'm talking about where he is now. KAMBER: That's how he succeeded. That's why he thinks he should be president, because he knows how to succeed. Look, George Bush and Bill Frist has shown us the way. You don't need a lot of government experiences, you just need to be talented in certain ways. Bill Frist is bright, talented, effective, he was a great lawyer, he was a great college student, a great. ED ROGERS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Bill Frist? KAMBER: No, I'm talking about John Edwards. NOVAK: Johnny Edwards, this is part of a tremendous con job. You know, you people haven't figured out how you're going to defend the fact that the trial lawyers are financing the Democratic party. And what you're saying is that you believe the companies, you believe the taxpayers, for all this money to give a few dollars to a few victims. (CROSSTALK) . NOVAK: What you do is you line the pockets of the John Edwards. Can you sell that to America? KAMBER: Bob, if we could sell an oil baron to America, failed oil baron to America, if we could sell some of the people we've sold in the Republican party, yes. But let me say, what John Edwards is doing, John Edwards, and you know this better than anybody, believes he can make a difference. As Republicans who ran sixth or eighth last time ran and believed they could make a difference. NOVAK: Republicans? KAMBER: I said the last election cycle when six or eight Republicans ran of all stripes, they believed they could make a difference. John Edwards believes he can make a difference. He believes he can win. The beauty of John Edwards' candidacy of the other Democrats is seven or eight Democrats are saying we've got a weak, vulnerable president. We can beat him. They're not running for their health. They're running because they believe he can win. ROGERS: They're running because of their own ambition. Baloney. John Edwards when he started this quest four years ago to buy himself a Senate seat and get into the game, he thought there would be a market for a Clinton-lite or for a wanna-be wonder boy. September 11 and the world terrorism has changed all that. Poise, experience, qualifications, matter now. And he has none of the above. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Oh, by any standard he's done real well. Poise, experience, and qualification, none of those words would be used to describe George W. Bush when he first ran for the presidency just a few years ago. ROGERS: By any standard he has proven himself in office. BEGALA: No, by your partisan standard. ROGERS: By any standard. BEGALA: No, sir. Senator Edwards said something a minute ago. He talked about ideas. He said I've got specific ideas. ROGERS: He didn't mention any, but he did talk about them. BEGALA: He mentioned a lot of them. We only played ten seconds of it. Let me go through five on the economy. ROGERS: Please. BEGALA: He pledged a $500 energy tax credit to boost the economy, he promised to cut the federal workforce by 10 percent. Something the last Democratic president did and no Republican has done. Freeze the tax cuts, he said, for families earning more than $200,000 a year. Very tiny percentage, but make tax cuts permanent for middle-class families. And finally greater disclosure of corporate finances so that we can have faith in corporate governance so people can invest again. Those are specific ideas. Where are Bush's ideas on the economy? ROGERS: He, John Edwards, and a host of others, will have a potpourri of cats and dog initiatives that they will be offering up in the months ahead. But this is about John Edwards. His background, his qualifications, make it a farce that he would run for president of the United States. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: What you just said is that ideas don't matter, personal attacks do. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Let me finish my question. You go after Edwards personally, I go after ideas. I don't like Bush's ideas. He's a lovely guy, actually. NOVAK: You attack him. BEGALA: I attack his ideas. NOVAK: You said he's a loser who never worked a day in his life. BEGALA: He never worked a day in his life. That's public records. ROGERS: Look. John Edwards is not going to be the nominee. BEGALA: But you're going to attack him personally, not his ideas. ROGERS: He is a lightweight not ready for prime-time actor who made a bet some years ago that he's going to be the nominee. (CROSSTALK) ROGERS: There are a lot of well credential Democrat wanna-bes who are going to run we are spending to much time. We're spending too much time on John Edwards. NOVAK: Let's get away from this personal abuse. BEGALA: Thank you. NOVAK: You and I don't like to do that. I want to show you a little chart we made. We took it from "Roll Call" newspaper, and Senator Edwards PAC, his political action committee, total contributions, $1.39 million. Trial lawyer donations, $1.19 million, 86 percent. That was about roughly the percentage when he ran for the Senate in North Carolina. He is old, lock, stock and barrel, by the plaintiff lawyers. You think that's a good idea? KAMBER: Well, I first of all don't agree with your statement. The PAC has raised money from trial lawyers. He's gone to the PAC. NOVAK: Eighty-six percent. KAMBER: Yes. And the PAC is to give money to other people. It's not for his own races or campaigns. NOVAK: His own campaign... KAMBER: When he ran the last campaign first of all, Faircloth spent more money than he spent in the last campaign. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: When you have nearly 90 percent of your contributions from one economic class, you are in their pocket. Isn't that right, Vic? KAMBER: No, I don't agree necessarily. They may be people who you support the -- the reason people give money, Bob, you know it and I know it is because they support the ideas you stand for. He is a trial lawyer. He believes... (CROSSTALK) ROGERS: ... the most parasitic element of the American economy today. (CROSSTALK) RODGERS: That's what he is. This is a bold takeover attempt by them and it's not going to work, even within the Democratic Party. BEGALA: I think, Ed, that the reason why -- and you are one of the brightest people in the Republican Party. And the reason why you're going after this guy... ROGERS: Here comes something bad. BEGALA: ... and I don't have any favoriteness (ph). I'm for all of them who come on the show. In fact, actually, I don't like Edwards very much right now because he hasn't been on CROSSFIRE for awhile. If you're not tough enough to stand up to Bob Novak, how can you stand up to Saddam Hussein? So I want to have Edwards come here and debate the way you guys are. But I think the reason that you're, as Clinton would have said, squealing like a pig stuck under a gate, is because you know your guy is vulnerable on this message of not caring about ordinary folks, especially poor folks. Take a look at the Bush budget. This is what Molly Ivins... ROGERS: Oh, Molly Ivins -- please. Tell us about Molly Ivins. BEGALA: Here's what's in the Bush budget. Number of seniors who will be cut off... ROGERS: I'm not going to look. BEGALA: ... thirty-six thousand. Number of families cut off heating assistance, 532,000. Kids cut off after school programs, 50,000. Kids cut off of child care, 33,000. The number of workers who lost their unemployment insurance this week because President Bush and the Republican Congress didn't extend it, a million. This is what the Democrats are speaking to. This is why you all are nervous, isn't it? ROGERS: And if John Edwards had his way, we would have more trial lawyers in charge, more supervision of the economy by this parasitic element, wiping out a lot of the American economy... KAMBER: I'd love to have a debate on trial lawyers and who they defend and the victims they help. That's not the issue here. NOVAK: We just had a little -- we have a little breaking news, just passed the Associated Press Wire. Associated Press tells us that Richard Gephardt is going to file -- Congressman Richard Gephardt, former House minority leader, going to file his papers for exploratory committee. He's going to have an event on January 22. Now I want you to take off your partisan hat. Do you have it on? Yes. And put on your analyst hat. Dick Gephardt, who I like very much, has had a terrific career. But do you think this is the time now where he might be a viable candidate? Or do you think his time has come and gone? KAMBER: I think you're going to have seven or eight Democrats, Dick Gephardt being one, who are going to run. There's no front- runner today. I think... NOVAK: Do you think he's a viable candidate? KAMBER: Absolutely. And I think any Democrat who's been named from Howard Dean to John Kerry... NOVAK: Any Democrat? KAMBER: Seven or eight I'm saying, are going to be viable against George Bush. NOVAK: Can I ask how about my candidate then? KAMBER: I don't know who your candidate is. NOVAK: Al Sharpton is mine. KAMBER: Well that figures. NOVAK: Is he viable? KAMBER: Probably not. NOVAK: Oh! KAMBER: Because we are a racist country that doesn't elect minorities into prime offices, primarily. ROGERS: Dick Gephardt is an accomplished figure who has been well regarded within his party, and has been acknowledged by his peers to be a leader. John Edwards is none of that. It is interesting to note that for the next several months, the candidate to watch is Al Sharpton. He's the only candidate with any personality in the race. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: ... on the Al Sharpton thing. He's going to get a lot of African-American votes. The Democratic primary voters in the South is heavily African-American. Do you think John Edwards can win Southern primaries when he's up for the black vote against Al Sharpton? KAMBER: He has proven he can win -- he's proven he's won primaries. He won the Southern primary... NOVAK: Against black voters? KAMBER: I think there was a black candidate if you look at who ran against him in the primary in North Carolina. NOVAK: You think he can... KAMBER: I think any number of the Democrats can appeal to African-Americans and do very well. Sharpton will get votes. Sharpton will get votes, too. BEGALA: Sharpton has no problems with Democrats. It's a dream for Bob and other people on cable TV like me who put this guy on TV. But he's not a serious candidate. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: The focus of the debate ought to be, if I had my druthers, the Bush tax cut. That's his big idea. Democrats in the main oppose it. The Associated Press just the other day reported a poll, turns out not just Democrats, the entire country now opposes what Bush did. Here's what the Associated Press -- right down the middle. The Associated Press is very fair, and they reported this, their words: "Americans believe by a 2-1 margin that it is prudent to hold off on more tax cuts, a centerpiece of President Bush's domestic policy agenda, an Associate Press poll has found. Even most Republicans said it' would be better to hold off on tax cuts to avoid deeper deficits." I mean you guys are selling something ain't nobody buying. ROGERS: All of that is dependent -- your crowd here notwithstanding, Paul Begala has a lot of family here visiting. BEGALA: I have a big family. NOVAK: This crowd notwithstanding, how you posed the question matters a lot. The question is how do you stimulate the economy? How do you revive an anemic economy? You do that by pumping money into the system. You do that by tax cuts. That's what Bush is for. And that's going to carry the day. NOVAK: That's the last word. Thank you very much. Thank you Vic Kamber, we appreciate it. BEGALA: Vic. NOVAK: A U.S. aircraft carrier has had a change of orders because of possible war with Iraq. Connie Chung has the details next in a CNN "News Alert." After that, we'll look at President Bush's axis of evil, and ask who's worse? The Iraqis or the North Koreans? And later, an interview, we're beside ourselves about getting the founder of a sect that believes in cloning, and UFOs. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (NEWS ALERT) NOVAK: Again today, President Bush told reporters that he believes diplomats can find a peaceful way out of the stand-off over North Korea's decision to restart its nuclear reactors and possibly produce nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the president hasn't been sounding nearly as optimistic about finding a diplomatic way out of the problems the U.S. has with Iraq. Both countries, along with Iran, make up what the president has called the "axis of evil." To help us decide who's more evil, please welcome Charlie Kupchan, a former Clinton National Security Council official, and Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of state -- secretary of defense in the Reagan Administration. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Gentleman, thank you both. I'm going to start, Frank, with you, if I may, and a small piece of videotape from our president today. He was in Crawford. He took reporters on a nature walk. That's his comfortable attire. But he talked about some very serious matters and was asked about the North Korean situation. This is what he had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I believe the situation with North Korea will be resolved peacefully. As I said, it's a diplomatic issue, not a military issue, and we're working all fronts. (END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: Frank, we have -- a psychotic communist dictator with nuclear weapons is not a military issue. If that's not, what is? (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: It could be. I think what the president's saying is it's not right now. And my guess is that he anticipates -- I certainly do -- that it may become a military issue before too long. The big question for all of us is, is it a military issue right now? And if it is, as it happens, probably not coincidentally, it's a military issue at approximately the same time that we have another military issue half a world away, which I think pretty powerfully underscores the absurdity of the arguments that we heard principally during the Clinton administration that we were never going to face the kind of two-war scenarios that we previously used to size our forces to deal with. This is a dangerous world. We are involved in a global conflict against terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism, and I think this particular crisis, the North Korean one, may go military before it's over. I hope it won't until after we're done with Iraq. NOVAK: Charlie Kupchan, a lot of your colleagues in the Clinton administration are very critical now, that, We did right on Korea, and these people are doing wrong. And they're saying a lot of things I don't quite understand. I just want to put up on the screen something that one of your former associates, Leon Fuerth, who was the national security adviser to Vice President Gore, said. He said, "It's unlikely that the United Nations would take meaningful action in this situation since no other power than the United States possesses the means to back up words with action." Now, can you explain what action Leon is talking about? Surely, he doesn't want to take a military strike and start a second Korean war. I don't know anybody that wants to start a Korean war. Isn't it just -- isn't it just kind of just nudging the Bush administration, Why don't you take action? CHARLES KUPCHAN, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: No, I don't think anybody wants war in Korea, neither Democrats nor Republicans, because it would be a disaster. You'd have fissile material, if you hit the reactor, and you'd probably have Seoul getting hit with 10,000 artillery shells, and then you'd have the troops coming south. NOVAK: A million. KUPCHAN: Several tens of thousands. But the issue here is, I think, you need action coupled with containment because right now, I think what Bush is doing is saying we're going to kind of box them in. But boxing them in doesn't solve the problem because it leaves us with what the Bush administration has told us is the nightmare, a rogue nation with nuclear weapons. They have probably two now. They have about 8,000 fuel rods, which they can turn into nuclear weapons, about six this year. And then, if they start their reactor or build new reactors, they could be building five, six bombs a year. We can't do nothing. So we need to box them in, and we need to have a serious negotiating strategy that aims at three things: Get the fuel rods out of the country, get rid of their nuclear reactor for good, and get weapons inspectors in there. But we got to negotiate because we have on our problems the nightmare, a rogue nation with nuclear weapons, exactly what Bush is telling us we can't let happen in Iraq. BEGALA: Frank, let me press the point on the contradiction and read you the comments of another former Defense Department official. I know he served in our Pentagon, as well. This is Kurt Campbell, who told "The New York Times" the following: "You have this huge contradiction. If the Iraqis do anything to impede inspections, the administration says it's cause for war. But when the North Koreans eject the inspectors and restart their nuclear program, they want us to believe that there's no crisis." Our president fancies himself a man who sees the world in stark, clear, moral terms. He has no patience for the ambiguity of foreign policy. Wasn't he wrong to try to say these two nations are exactly equal, when he's clearly not treating them equally? GAFFNEY: I think what he's trying to do -- and I'm -- I don't work for him. I'm not going to try to read his mind. But I think what he's trying to do is buy some time, quite frankly, because I think he does understand -- I certainly sense that the national security team around him understands this is a crisis. Whether you call it a crisis, whether you call it a conflict, whether you call it something else, it is a crisis. And it has the potential, as we've just heard, to become very ugly, indeed. An additional nightmare is that, along with the ballistic missiles, which is the principal cash crop of North Korea, you have Kim Jong Il selling some of the plutonium that he's been presumably gathering. KUPCHAN: Because he needs the money. GAFFNEY: Because he needs the money. The problem really comes down to this. I think the administration is trying to act, as well as to contain. The issue is, is the wise course of action to return to the same process that was so manifestly a fraud before -- more negotiations aimed at providing some incentives? Let's face it, there have to be incentives for the North Koreans to do any of the things. And none of the things that you talked about, Charlie, were in the original 1994 agreement. NOVAK: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) negotiations? GAFFNEY: Well, I'm -- I'm just -- I'm confronted, as I think the administration is, with the utter futility of negotiating with these people for any reason other than kidding ourselves that we're doing something to manage this problem. KUPCHAN: Well, what's the choice? GAFFNEY: I think the choice is containing them. BEGALA: What about the argument -- Congressman J.D. Hayworth was on our program the other night. He's an Arizona Republican congressman. He said, Well it was Clinton who gave them the reactors in the first place. I mean, you worked for the president when that was going on. How do you respond to that? KUPCHAN: Well, Clinton didn't give them the reactors. Basically, what happened is the North Koreans went down the road of building the Yongbyon reactor, and then we said, if this happens in an uncontrolled fashion, they're going to be able to go nuclear. Therefore, we need to get a deal. We need to negotiate with them. Did he break the agreement? He certainly did. He went for uranium enrichment... NOVAK: You agree with that? GAFFNEY: Absolutely. KUPCHAN: All right. But the question is, just to contain leaves them with all their weapons. We can't afford to do that. We've got to take action. Temporarily is the point. Temporarily. NOVAK: Frank Gaffney, I just want to ask you one question on this whole scale of the "axis of evil" and trying to understand it. I begin to see some kind of a scale that the weaker the country is, the more likely we are to use military force. The stronger they are, the less likely we are. It would be sort of like in World War II, we'd avoid trouble with Nazi Germany, but we'd really knock the hell out of Bulgaria. Is that the -- or am I wrong on this? I mean, you're saying that we can attack Iraq because they don't have nuclear weapons, but we can't attack North Korea because they do have them. GAFFNEY: No, what I tried to say, and I thought I had said, Bob, is I think it may come down to having to attack North Korea. NOVAK: But that's isn't what the administration says. GAFFNEY: I wouldn't do it now. The administration certainly doesn't want to do it now. But also just call to mind -- I mean, you use this analogy of World War II. When we were attacked by Japan, we regarded Germany as the first priority. We didn't go directly to Germany. We wound up going to North Africa, then to Italy, and only finally across the Channel. This is a question of strategy. And when you have limited resources, which are much more limited than I would liked to have had them be, you have to use them in a manner that I think maximizes the chances of success and deals, as best you can, with these more dangerous circumstances... (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: ... troops in Iraq. KUPCHAN: I think, Bob, the question goes to the heart of a contradiction in the Bush policy. And that is, you've got one country that's kicking its inspectors out and has nuclear weapons, Another country that has inspectors all over the place, checking under the carpet and no nuclear weapons. And we're being told, we've got to go attack Iraq, and this other problem, well, let's just push it under the table. And something's wrong about that story. (CROSSTALK) GAFFNEY: Dealing with that one is the obvious way to start. (CROSSTALK) (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Charles Kupchan from the Clinton National Security Council, thank you very much. Frank Gaffney, from President Reagan's Defense Department. Thank you both for a very enlightening but frightening debate. Still to come: A straight-ticket Democrat will offer to switch parties if Bob Novak can answer one simple question. That question will come in our "Fireback" segment. But first: The man has followers who call him "His Holiness." The rest of us may be calling him something very different, indeed. He claims to have met with aliens in the 1970s and to have cloned a baby who was born just last week. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University in Foggy Bottom, D.C. If you believe the reports, today marks one week since the birth of the first cloned human being, supposedly, a baby girl named Eve. And why wouldn't you believe the reports? They're only made by a group that's offered no pictures, no scientific evidence, and whose members follow a former French journalist and race car driver who says he flew on a UFO back in the 1970s, where the extraterrestrials revealed they created all life on Earth through genetic engineering. Joining us now from Canada, it is his holiness, Rael, as he has asked us to call him, the spiritual leader of the Raelian movement and who hopes to be known as the father of cloning. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Rael, thank you very much for joining us. RAEL: It's a pleasure. BEGALA: I do hope you'll understand why we are skeptical. Let me read to you from your own organization's Web site, the Raelian Web site. This is how they describe your organization. "On the 13th of December, 1973, French journalist Rael was contacted by a visitor from another planet, asked to establish an embassy to welcome these people back to Earth. The extraterrestrial was about four feet in height, had long dark hair, almond-shaped eyes, olive skin and exuded harmony and humor." If, in fact, we are cloned from these folks, how come we're not four feet tall with olive skin and exuding harmony and humor, sir? RAEL: I cannot hear you very well. I am very sorry. I thought maybe you asked me about the Web site, right? BEGALA: Yes, the Web site says that you met aliens and that they were four feet tall with olive skin and really kind of funny and happy. Why aren't we -- and we are presumably cloned from them. Why aren't homo sapiens four feet tall with olive skin and exuding humor and harmony? RAEL: Yes, these people are not alien. They are the Elohim of the Bible, these extraterrestrial, who came on the Earth a long time ago. And through DNA and genetic engineering, they did create life on Earth. If you check in the original Bible in Hebrew, you don't have the word "God," but "Elohim," E-L-O-H-I-M. It means in Hebrew "those who came from the sky." And the bible is the oldest atheist book, godless book describing the creation of life on Earth by a very advanced civilization, the Elohim. BEGALA: But why don't we look like them? If we are cloned from them, why don't we look like them? RAEL: We look like them. They created us in their image, if that's a question. And they send a lot of messenger, like Moses, Ezekiel in the Bible describe contact with UFO and the Elohim, and Jesus, who was a son of one of them and a girl from the Earth. NOVAK: Sir, I'd like to ask you some very practical, concrete questions. It was -- when you announced the cloning of the baby Eve, it was announced that she would be revealed in eight days. That would be, if my count is right, on Saturday. Will we see the baby on Saturday? RAEL: I don't think so because there was some very bad news two days ago. I heard that -- first of all, I want to be very clear. The cloning company and the Rael movement is completely separate. And the cloning company belongs to Dr. Brigitte Boisselier, who is a bishop in our organization, but it's a private company. And the Raelian movement, our religious organization, is completely separate. There is no link, no investment. I don't know where is the laboratory. I don't know the name of the scientist. I don't know the mother of the child. And I know absolutely nothing. We support her... NOVAK: Tell us what the bad news was. You said you had some bad news a couple of days ago. RAEL: She -- Dr. Boisselier made a public announcement about that. The bad news two days ago was that a judge in Florida signed a paper saying that the baby Eve should be take from the family, from her mother. And when I heard about that, Dr. Boisselier was about to start with Michael Guillen some DNA testing to prove the world that it was true. And I called her immediately because to take away this poor baby from a mother, I think this is completely crazy, just because she was cloned. I understand when you take away children because the mother or the family abuse a child or when there is violence, but just because she's a clone. So I called Dr. Boisselier, and I said, If I was you, I would not test anything. Because for sure, like last year, when she was about to clone a baby already in America, her telephone was taped by the FDA. And then they find the laboratory, and they ask the first customer to cancel the company. And I am sure they will do the same this time and find the baby. NOVAK: So in other words, we will not see the baby or any evidence of the baby on Saturday, correct? RAEL: I cannot hear you very well. But a judge in Florida signed a paper saying that to protect the child, it has to be take away from the mother. And I cannot understand why something like that should happen. And I think every family in America, if there is a healthy baby, even if it's cloned with the mother, I don't see why this would be separated. BEGALA: Well, but Rael, even if that's the case, and if you produced her bodily, she would be taken into custody, why can't you show evidence? Why can't you show tests? Why can't you show photographs? Why can't you show videotape? Why can't you show DNA evidence that would prove this? Because, you know, I'm telling you, you're not persuading a lot of people so far. RAEL: Maybe Dr. Boisselier will do that. But my -- she was about to do it with Michael Guillen, this journalist, and with an independent team, and I don't know what she will do. Once again, she's in Europe right now. I called her, and I said, If there is any risk that this baby is taken away from the family, it's better to lose your credibility. Don't do the testing. Because what is important is the child and not to prove the world that you are right. And I think she agree with me. NOVAK: So I just want to -- I just want to get your connection. You were the founder of the cloning company, were you not? RAEL: I'm sorry. I... NOVAK: You founded the cloning company? RAEL: I cannot understand you. I am very sorry. NOVAK: Did you not found the cloning company? RAEL: At the beginning, I created a company which was canceled by the Bahamian government because it was just a PO box and a Web site, and that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) feasibility because maybe at this time, we're only giving a-- say to people we're against cloning after Dolly the sheep was cloned. And so I created a seed company, if you like, to see the feasibility. And then the Bahamian government canceled the company because there was strong pressure from French government because, as you know, I am French. There is a lot of religious persecution, not only against the Raelians, but against the Jehovah Witness, the Scientology church. There are terrible law in France. And Dr. Boisselier herself lost her job in France because she was a member of our religion and lost custody of a child. I cannot imagine that happening in America, and the judge written on the paper, because you are Raelian, we should take away your child. That's France today, where you have no more freedom. And so the company was canceled, and then Dr. Boisselier created this private company to do it. BEGALA: So -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir, but we're running out of time. So no baby, no proof, no evidence, no DNA. This is, in fact, an enormously successful but publicity stunt, nonetheless, isn't it. It's just designed to get publicity for yourself and your beliefs, right? RAEL: I am so sorry, but the sound is so bad, I cannot hear. (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: Well, let me try again. And I appreciate you bearing with us through these technical difficulties, sir. What else am I to conclude when you cannot offer any evidence of your claim, a rather outlandish claim that you've cloned a human baby, but that this is, in fact, just a publicity stunt, and a damn successful one, at that? RAEL: You know, Dr. Boisselier, one more time, created a private company. And her reputation is at stake, and I think she will do everything she need to make her company. She's Raelian. If she was a Christian, you would not ask the pope. If she was a Jew, you would not ask her rabbi. I just support her psychologically, spiritually... (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: We're asking for proof, sir, with all due respect. If she were -- no matter what her religion or yours, we would ask for proof to back up a claim that you cloned a human being. And we're just not going to get it, are we. RAEL: I am, one more time, not involved in the company. I don't know where is the laboratory. I don't want to know where is the laboratory. I don't want to know the scientists. This is her business. She will make a lot of money, I hope, with that. But we, as a religious organization, don't want to be involved in any company. But we support her. Why do we support cloning? Because thanks to cloning, you will be able soon to give the world eternal life. BEGALA: That will be the last word. I thank you very much. Given that you're going to have eternal life, I want your commitment come back on CROSSFIRE in 200, 300 years. (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: I really do want to thank you, Rael, who joined us, despite technical difficulties, from Montreal. Thank you very much, sir. Coming up in "Fireback," one of our viewers suggest someone they'd like to see cloned, and you're going to love the reason why. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE, fellow earthlings. We are now with our "Fireback" phase, where we will be setting just the phasers to stun. Hunter Piel of St. Louis, Missouri, writes, "I'd like to see Michael Jackson cloned so he could dangle himself out of a window." (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: Wow, Hunter, that is an outstanding idea! NOVAK: The only danger is that he might live forever then, and we'll really be in trouble. OK, Mark McCarrell of Houston, Texas, says, "Bob, you must be made of steel to sit next to Paul and listen to him spew off countless lies and degrading remarks about Republicans. Keep him on his toes in '03." Mark, I know that there are many Texans who are ashamed of Paul, and I'll try my best. BEGALA: You have a steel spine, Bob, that's true. You're a man of steel. Sam Dickens in Van Buren, Arkansas, writes, "We Democrats have numerous excellent candidates for president. It's easy to find someone to replace Dubya because he's the most pathetic excuse for a president our nation's ever had. Hell, I'd choose Homer Simpson over Bush." (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Sam Dickens! NOVAK: Then why do you put down my man, Al Sharpton? (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: There's Homer. Homer in 2004! There we go. NOVAK: OK. BEGALA: You started something, Mr. Dickens. NOVAK: Mike Heater of Tuscumbia, Alabama, says, "Bob, I've always voted straight Democrat in every election. I will vote Republican if you can answer one question. Name me one thing that a Republican has ever done for the working man or woman?" Mike, from your attitude, I know your type. You want a handout for the working man. The working man doesn't want a handout. He wants a right to move up, and be as rich as Paul Begala. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: I'm as rich as Paul Begala because I had a government with public schools and public education... NOVAK: All right... BEGALA: ... and student loans. NOVAK: ... question in the audience. BEGALA: Yes, sir? What's your question or comment? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Matt from Oakton (ph), Virginia. And do you think the Democratic nominee for 2004 might simply be a sacrificial lamb while the party bides its time, preparing Hillary Clinton for a run in 2008? NOVAK: You got that exactly right. That is the plan. They're going to get somebody as weak as John Edwards -- can you imagine that? -- and then preparing the way for the holocaust with Mrs. Clinton... BEGALA: This is the... NOVAK: ... 49 states. BEGALA: This is the biggest myth I've ever heard. George W. Bush is a lovely man and he's a talented politician, but he got fewer votes than Al Gore the last time. Gore not the strongest candidate my party's ever fielded. He will lose in 2004. He was at 90 percent. Now he's at 61 today. And very soon -- you watch -- he'll be below 50 percent. And then he will lose. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Question? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Dominick (ph). I'm from Washington, D.C. And watching Bob Novak ridiculing John Edwards tonight reminds me of how Bob Novak ridiculed Bill Clinton in 1991. When will the Novaks of the world realize that one Southern Democrat in hand is worth two one-term Bushes? BEGALA: Oh! NOVAK: You know, you must... BEGALA: Oh! (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: In the first place, you must -- you must be getting the propaganda from the Carville-Begala machine. I never ridiculed Bill Clinton until he got to be president because I was never ashamed of him until he disgraced the White House. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Oh, that's such a load of hooey! Republicans went around the country, and this is what they called him. The Bush campaign called Bill Clinton "the failed governor of a small state." You know what they called him after that? Mr. President. NOVAK: You find -- you find... BEGALA: That's what's going to happen... (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: I never ridiculed... BEGALA: No, I said the Bush campaign. NOVAK: Oh, all right. BEGALA: I did not attack you personally, Mr. Novak. NOVAK: All right. Thank you. BEGALA: You're my hero. But the Bush campaign made a big, big mistake doing that. They should not have done it. And I think the Republicans are underestimating this Democratic field. From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE. NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 3, 2003 Friday Transcript # 010300CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 9183 words HEADLINE: Gephardt, Sharpton Poised to Enter Election Fray; Should Congress Reinstate Military Draft?; Interview With Don King GUESTS: Donna Brazile, Tony Fabrizio, Don King, Heather Wilson, Charles Rangel BYLINE: Robert Novak, Paul Begala HIGHLIGHT: Richard Gephardt and Al Sharpton will likely file papers later this month to begin their quests for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. Boxing promoter Don King arrives to discuss politics and the other hot topics of the day. BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Look who else wants to be commander-in-chief, but the current one may be too busy to notice. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're acting now to protect the American people and to shape a future of peace. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: In that case, should the U.S. bring back the draft? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: I'm talking about mandatory service. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Tonight, a congressman who says yes. But he isn't war mongering. And, will his next round be a political one? Don King talks boxing, politics and maybe having a street named after him. Ahead on CROSSFIRE. From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Robert Novak. ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE, where it's another day and another presidential wannabe among the Democrats. We'll also ask Congressman Charlie Rangel if he really and truly wants to bring back the draft. And in our main event, we'll go another round with boxing legend Don King. So let's climb through the ropes and start things off with the best political briefing in television, our "CROSSFIRE Political Alert." Congressman Dick Gephardt of Missouri launched his second try for the Democratic presidential nomination -- sort of, that is. Typical of Gephardt's political career, he zigged when he should have zagged. He was supposed to announce a presidential exploratory committee at a fund-raiser January 22, but all surprise was killed when a young aide prematurely faxed invitations to offices all over Washington, including CNN's. And then Gephardt learned that the Reverend Al Sharpton will get there a day ahead, filing his papers for an exploratory committee January 21. The Reverend Al, who has never held public office, said today he was more qualified than any other Democrat. I tend to agree. PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Wishful thinking. You know, as you know, but the audience should know, I worked for Dick Gephardt the last time he ran for president 14 years ago. I think without me he has got a much better chance. So he has been on CROSSFIRE before. I suspect he will be back to defend his (UNINTELLIGIBLE). NOVAK: You think he's too decent a guy to be a Democratic nominee? BEGALA: He's too decent a guy to come on CROSSFIRE, but does it anyway, and that's all I care about. Trent Lott may no longer be Senate Republican leader, but his consolation prize ain't bad either. The Missouri (sic) Republican told the Associated Press today he'll take over the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, bumping aside Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. We shall see, as Senator Lott uses his new position to advance his newfound support for affirmative action and other programs to help African-Americans get a fair shot at the American dream, or if his Republican colleagues believe that the friendlier face of Tennessee heart surgeon Bill Frist as their leader can distract voters from their true positions on issues. I think it's going to take a lot more than cosmetic changes to persuade African-American that Republicans have changed. Katherine Harris and Tammy Faye Bakker combined don't have enough makeup to cover up that record. NOVAK: You know, Paul, when Trent Lott apologized, you accepted the apology here because you wanted to keep him as majority leader to keep pounding him. And now that he's out, you're hitting him again. I knew that what you do is you try to use that issue to try to hurt Republicans. And by the way, Santorum was not bounced aside. He could have kept the position. He did it voluntarily. BEGALA: Of course, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) said set him aside. Second, you don't have any idea why I accepted Trent Lott's apology. I don't like you saying what my motives were, Bob Novak. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: And I didn't attack Lott tonight. I simply stated that he said he's now for affirmative action. I want to hold him to that pledge. NOVAK: The new house Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said today, the Democrats will unveil their own economic stimulus package Monday. Just by coincidence one day before President Bush is scheduled to release his. Now, Congresswoman Pelosi would not give a hint of what she will propose, and as usual she spent most of her time bashing what she thinks the president will say. Yes, she was attacking tax cuts for the rich, what she called "the high end." Democratic leaders come and go, but their Marxist message is monotonous. Let's redistribute income. If you think it might work politically, ask George McGovern, Fritz Mondale, Mike Dukakis and then Fritz Mondale again this year. BEGALA: Well, why don't you ask Bill Clinton, who actually had a tax program that helped working people. Asked rich people to pay a little more to pay off the deficit. Everybody got richer. Poor people and rich people. I mean, I know that must have broken your heart to see poor people get rich. NOVAK: I didn't get richer. I didn't get richer. BEGALA: Oh, you got so much richer, Bob. You did very well under Clinton. But you always do because you work hard. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer yesterday repeated one of President Bush's favorite lines, suggesting that the Bush recession started under President Clinton. There's only one problem with that story. It's false, fictional, it is fabricated. In short, it's a fib. Martin Feldstein was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan. He advised Mr. Bush on his tax cut. He is no liberal, yet his organization, the National Bureau of Economic Research, reports that the recession began in March of 2001, the third month of George W. Bush's presidency. Of course, he would know that if Mr. Bush had read the best selling book "It's Still the Economy, Stupid." George Bush inherited the largest, strongest economic boom in history and he squandered it. Kind of surprising to me, since I always figured if Bush would be good at anything, it would be at inheriting things. NOVAK: You know, the truth of the matter, Paul is that the Commerce Department under our good friend, Undersecretary Rob Shapiro, your friend and mine, they cooked the books. They just -- that's why these economists get mixed up, because they didn't tell how bad the economy was going. But I want to ask you about a little figure. You referred to your best selling book. I checked on Amazon.com and it ranks nationally number 2,624. Is Amazon.com wrong? BEGALA: Well, no, that's just on Amazon. It sold -- "The Washington Post" made the best seller list, made the best seller list of "Dallas Morning News." If everybody who dislikes Bob Novak and disagrees with him buys it, it will be number one in every best seller list. NOVAK: OK. Who was that unusually distinguished and somehow familiar looking linesman at the Orange Bowl football game in Miami last night? Wasn't he talking about favors of the FBI the last time we saw him on television? He was one of the Senate's most distinguished Democrats, Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who is thinking of running for president. Working at the Orange Bowl marked his 386th workday, where he pretends to be a working Joe. Coincidentally, this workday came on national TV, in a game played by the University of Iowa and witnessed by millions of residents of a state, Iowa, where the first Democratic caucuses will be held. Way to go, Bob Graham. BEGALA: Good for you, though. It was a pretty good game. It was a bit of a blow-out, but I think Bob Graham, if he gets in this race, will really bring another dimension. He has great expertise on intelligence matters, on national security matters. I think President Bush is worried about him getting in. NOVAK: I think John Edwards is worried about him, too. BEGALA: I think they are. Well, the Bush administration today announced it will no longer issue the government's monthly report on mass layoffs. Not because there haven't been any. In fact, the last report on Christmas Eve showed that U.S. corporations laid off more than 240,000 workers in 2,150 different mass layoffs. Congressional Democrats are committed to picking up the slack. They've produced a new chart measuring job creation in the Bush administration and comparing it with Mr. Bush's predecessors -- 69,000 Americans have lost their jobs every month since George W. Bush took office. That's 1.5 million in all. By contrast, the economy generated more than 235,000 jobs per months under President Clinton, and 224,000 jobs per month in the second Reagan term. Mr. Bush's answer? Hide the facts, deny benefits for the unemployed, but cut the dividend tax for wealthy investors. After all, if you can't cover things up, help the rich and screw working people, why be a Republican? NOVAK: Let me tell you the way it's going to work, Paul. I know you don't understand the economy very well. But if you will end the double taxation of dividends, good, hard working Americans that own stock will start getting dividends instead of building up the price of the stock. It's the dividend, stupid -- oh, I didn't mean to call you stupid. BEGALA: We will debate that, I think, more in the coming months, because it's an interesting idea. I disagree with it, but at least it's an idea. While President Bush was at Fort Hood today talking about war abroad, my fellow Democrats were lining up to do battle on behalf of the U.S. economy here at home. We'll put all of that in the CROSSFIRE next. Stay with us. And then, later, Congressman Charlie Rangel will step into the CROSSFIRE to explain why he wants to bring back the draft. Then, the rematch you've all been waiting for. Boxing promoter Don King back for more rounds here in the CROSSFIRE. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Senate Democratic leader and possible presidential candidate Tom Daschle is pointing out that under President Bush's new tax plan, millionaires will get a $24,000 tax break while families making between 40,000 and 50,000 bucks a year get all of $76. Don't spend it all in one place. Meanwhile, Congressman Dick Gephardt, my former boss from 14 years ago, the first time he ran for president, says he is ready to form a presidential exploratory committee of his own. First in the CROSSFIRE tonight to debate the new politics of this new year, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio. Happy new year. NOVAK: Donna Brazile, there has been a certain lack of enthusiasm about Dick Gephardt after 14 years coming back to try again. One of your fellow Democratic leaders, the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic committee, Dick Harpootlian, said about Gephardt and Daschle, "I'm not sure about them. They're both good men. I'm not denigrating their integrity, but they just never could punch through and when they did, it sounded whiny. We've got to have some body who can stand tall." Isn't that -- isn't that the trouble with these two guys, who just lost the 2002 election? DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, let me also say, like Paul, I'm also a veteran of the Gephardt campaign in 1988. (CROSSTALK) BRAZILE: Yes. Yes. Everybody worked for Dick Gephardt. We lost, and I think Dick Gephardt has done a fabulous job. He is a seasoned politician. NOVAK: He is seasoned. BRAZILE: Well-seasoned. Not Cajun style, but still Midwestern style. Little pepper every now and then. I think Dick Gephardt will put together an incredible campaign. He already has Bill Caracas (ph) coming back and Tom O'Donnell (ph) and many other people. But the most important thing is that Dick understands the political landscape. He knows what it takes to win the Iowa caucuses and I think he will do a fabulous job. NOVAK: One more -- one question just kind of following up on what Mr. Harpootlian said. Dick Gephardt is unusually -- unusual credentials. He is a five- time loser. Five-time loser. He lost for the presidential nomination. And then he lost the House of Representatives, which the Democrats used to win in their sleep four times. I mean, how many times do you go with this guy? BRAZILE: Well, this may be the lucky year for Democrats in 2004. (LAUGHTER) BRAZILE: Look, it appears that we'll have 10 candidates running for the presidency this year. So, Paul, there are a lot of people you can talk about every week here on the show. An Look, this past holiday season, while most Americans was out there shopping, do you know what Democrats were doing? We were looking at all the fresh new faces that are coming in and hearing all the... NOVAK: Like Gephardt? BRAZILE: Like Dean, Gephardt, Daschle, Lieberman. I mean, more to come. Wesley Clark. Al Sharpton, your favorite. NOVAK: We'll talk about him later. BEGALA: A few other things, Tony -- first, good to see you again. Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. TONY FABRIZIO, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: Good to see you again, Paul. BEGALA: One of the things that I like about Gephardt is that he likes to fight on economic issues and he ain't scared of a good fight. He came on this broadcast to answer tough questions from our conservative hosts. Let me play you a bit of what he said a couple of months ago on the economy here at CROSSFIRE. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D), MISSOURI: If we had stuck with the economic program we were operating under during the Clinton administration, we would still have a surplus in place that we could use to pay down the back debt and then with the interest we'd save, we could put that over into the Social Security. (END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: See, some people say, Well, he looks like too much of an Eagle Scout. But it seems to me, scout's honor, he's telling the truth. That's what you're worried about, isn't it? FABRIZIO: I -- frankly, I'm not worrying about Dick Gephardt, Paul. I don't know that many in the Republican Party are. Before Dick Gephardt even gets to the point where he could hope to challenge George Bush, he's got to make it through nine other contenders, nine other contenders that -- that while he may be seasoned, others have advantages that he doesn't. It's going to be a long process. Ten guys. Money's going to matter. You know that. You've played this game. And if you don't have to money to stick it out to the end -- and Dick Gephardt gave up being the minority leader, which was one way for him to raise significant money. And you've got Daschle, who's still the minority leader. You got Edwards who has personal money. You have Kerry, who has personal money. That's going to be real tough. BEGALA: This is one of the interesting problems. You're one. The money primary is a big one in the year before the presidential race. FABRIZIO: Absolutely. BEGALA: Another big one, though, is the ideas primary. That's the one I want to talk about more... FABRIZIO: Sure. BEGALA: ...on CROSSFIRE. We'll watch the money. You're right. We'll track that. But he's put out a number -- let me put it up on the screen. A number of new ideas to try to revive this dormant economy. School construction, tax cuts for working people, cutting corporate welfare, banning corporate tax loopholes overseas, a budget summit to control spending, pension reform, increase in the minimum wage. This is a whole -- it's a whole bucket full of new ideas. This is what may party needs, right? FABRIZIO: No question that he's put out ideas. He's been around a long time. He was a minority leader for a number of years. The real question is how does he differentiate himself from his contenders? What is going to be the difference? Can you tell me a Democrat that's running or considering running that's going to be opposed to what's up there? This whole process is about differentiation. You know that. You have to make yourself different. And what the Democrats suffer from now is looking in the mirror, they're looking for their soul just like the Republicans were looking for their soul eight or nine years ago. NOVAK: Donna Brazile... FABRIZIO: You're now looking for their -- your soul now. NOVAK: Donna Brazile, what I said earlier, that Dick Gephardt's going to get trumped by one day by Al Sharpton. He's going to file his papers a day early. Paul doesn't take him seriously. I take the Reverend Al very seriously. He's a fascinating guy. He's got full of -- talk about ideas. This is old stuff. He's got some wild ideas. And you got a lot of... BRAZILE: He'll be coming to you for an apology. He'll be coming to you for a plan for reparations so he can retire early. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: I've said a lot of things that he'll take me up on. But he -- he's going to get a lot of African-American votes in the south, which is going to hurt Edwards. It's going to hurt a guy like Bob Graham. Do you take Al Sharpton seriously? BRAZILE: Well, I take all of the candidates seriously. NOVAK: No, I'm asking, do you take Al Sharpton seriously? BRAZILE: I take them all of them seriously, including Al Sharpton and let me just tell you why. I believe that Al Sharpton will have to prove himself to African-American voters the same way that other candidates will have to prove themselves. He's been out there, but unlike Jesse Jackson who ran in 1984 who had an established base in the civil rights community, Al Sharpton does not have an established base outside of New York City. So it remains to be seen if Al Sharpton can pull together the South, the Midwest and other parts of the country. But I do believe John Edwards intends to talk about issues that impact African-Americans. Joe Lieberman, who had a lot of support in the African American community in 2000, as well as John Kerry and Daschle. NOVAK: But let me ask you this. There seems to be a deficit with Joe Lieberman, with Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle. I call it a charisma deficit. They're real short on charisma. Al Sharpton's got a lot of charisma, doesn't he? BRAZILE: Well, I haven't heard him preach. NOVAK: You haven't? BRAZILE: No, sir, I have not. I have not. NOVAK: Why? Have you boycotted here? BRAZILE: I'm Catholic. (LAUGHTER) BRAZILE: I still say "Hail Mary, full of grace" before a prayer. I haven't gotten to all the other preaching with Al Sharpton. But, no, no, seriously. When it comes to the Democratic party, I think we found our soul. We found it out after the day after the election on November 5. Now we're trying to get our spirit back. Our legs. We did it in Louisiana. We proved that we can win with $20 million against us, running in the Deep South. And I think it's important that the party begin to frame the issues and on Monday, I am proud to say, Bob, that you will find some part of that tax plan that the Democrats will put forward. I think you will be able to embrace some of the things that we're going to talk about next week... NOVAK: I shall... BRAZILE: ...targeted tax cuts... NOVAK: I shall... BRAZILE: ...for the middle class... NOVAK: I sure hope so. I sure hope so. BRAZILE: ....to help stimulate the economy. NOVAK: I sure hope so, but I'm pessimistic. BEGALA: Let me speak up for my friend Donna. She's too modest to say this. One of the reasons we won in Louisiana is we had a native of Kenner, Louisiana... (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: ...and helped her senator, Mary Landrieu. Donna Brazile is one of the big reasons we won that race. One of the reasons also is that at the end of the race, Senator Landrieu, the Democrat, differentiated herself from President Bush. President Bush now trying to get back ahead on the economy has leaked out that he's going to call for a big tax cut on dividends, one of Novak's favorite tax cuts. FABRIZIO: Well, it was one of the pieces of the tax cut, Paul. NOVAK: The most important! BEGALA: According to "The Washington Post" today, the most important. I agree with Bob. NOVAK: Absolutely. BEGALA: Here's, though, what a Republican economist told "The Washington Post" about it today. Said it's just not going to work. Let me read to you from today's "Washington Post." "Even some Republicans raised questions about whether reducing dividend taxation would stimulate the economy. Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute said he favored a cut in dividend taxes, but he said that's a long term policy and not a stimulus." So Bush is really just trying to use our current economic malaise to push through long-term policies to help the rich, but won't help the economy. Is that right? FABRIZIO: No, I don't believe so. I think it's a combination of things, Paul. The Democrats are going to introduce a plan on Monday. Nancy Pelosi talked about it today. And that plan is going to have several planks to it. Some of it is going to be short term, as she called it, and some of it is going to be longer term. And I think that's what the Bush plan is going to be. I think first of all, we've got to wait and see what the Bush plan is. I think one of the things that the Democrats kind of have to get over here is is that for the whole 2002 election or at least the last six months of it you tried to make it about the economy and you tried to tag George Bush with the economy. And you have to recognize that most Americans do not blame this president for the economy. When you ask them who they blame, they talk about a normal business cycle, they talk about the attacks from 9/11, and George Bush is third or fourth on that list. BEGALA: Do you believe that Democrats who ran around saying, oh, I voted for Bush's economic plan, that's all those wussies and wimps and weasels who lost. Do you really think they were making it about the economy? Tony, come on, you were watching that election. FABRIZIO: I was watching it very closely. BEGALA: They ran around the country trying to pretend they were for Bush's plan. That's why they lost. FABRIZIO: Who were the people that were saying for every 100 points the stock market goes down, we pick up another seat in the House? That wasn't us. BEGALA: If you make your argument on the economy. FABRIZIO: That wasn't us. NOVAK: I want to show you what the problem is, and let's listen to the distinguished House minority leader, what she said just today. Today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), MINORITY LEADER: I think what you see is the administration perhaps using the term stimulus as a Trojan horse to wheel in some favorite tax breaks for the high-end that they're so fond of. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Now, Nancy is a very nice, charming lady, but when she talks about the high-end, she's giving the same Marxist gobbledygook about taking money away from rich people. Now, this never works. Why do you keep going back to tax the rich, tax the rich? Why do you keep going back to something that never works? BRAZILE: Because it's wrong, it's unfair and it's un-American. NOVAK: Karl Marx felt that way, too. BRAZILE: And I am so glad to see that Nancy Pelosi is going to put her progressive stamp on the Democratic Party's agenda first thing on Monday when the party sits down and embraces a bold plan to get this economy going. NOVAK: Do you realize the last Democrat from outside the south who got elected president was for across the board tax cuts, John F. Kennedy? Do you realize that? BRAZILE: Oh, absolutely. My family voted for him. NOVAK: And he didn't go for taxing the rich. BRAZILE: Well, look, he went for targeted tax cuts for the middle class that would help stimulate the economy in the short term. NOVAK: We're out of time, though. Donna Brazile, thank you very much. Tony Fabrizio, thank you. BRAZILE: Thank you. FABRIZIO: Always good, Bob. Paul, pleasure. NOVAK: Coming up, streets filled with protesters, police and tear gas. Connie Chung shows us where next in a CNN "News Alert." And then greetings from the president. Is it a time America's young people learn the value of mandatory military service? Plus the world's most famous and infamous boxing promoter. Don King weighs in on the world of politics. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (NEWS ALERT) NOVAK: The U.S. ended the draft and went to an all-volunteer military in the early 1970s, but recently Congressman Charlie Rangel got the attention of a lot of young slackers, went on CNN's "LATE EDITION." He proposed bringing back the draft and requiring mandatory military service for America's youth. Is he really interested in needling President Bush than in beefing up the military, or has he in the process stumbled onto a very good idea? Congressman Rangel joins us from our New York bureau. He won the Bronze Star and Purple Heart as a young Army officer in combat in the Korean War. And in Albuquerque is Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico. She is an Air Force veteran, the first female veteran ever to serve in Congress. Congressman Rangel, let me read a comment made by one of your colleagues, Congressman Nick Smith of Michigan, about -- Nick Smith has wanted a universal military training. He said this about you. Quote, "A member introducing legislation that they don't really support in order to play politics and embarrass the president is disingenuous," end quote. Is that what you're doing? REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: I spoke with Nick this evening. I don't think we're too far apart, in terms of our objectives. And even though I fought in Korea, it was not as a young officer but as an enlisted person. And what I'm saying right now is that it seems as though most people believe that whether we have allies or international support at the U.N., that the United States is prepared to take a preemptive strike against Iraq to liberate Iraq. The secretary of defense says very cavalierly that we can fight two wars at one time. And we've got American troops all over the world, 38,000 in North Korea. We are about to get involved in a war and perhaps a holy war, but we don't have the patriotism. We don't have the concept of shared sacrifice. There seems as though people are relying on the volunteer army to do it because, what, they volunteered. My point is this, that for this great country to be in such a state that we believe our national security is jeopardized to the extent that we are going to start a war, it seems to me that everyone should be prepared to know that our families, our kids, our grandkids, have to put up for America. BEGALA: Congresswoman Wilson, first let me thank you for joining us, as well. How many of your colleagues do have children on active duty in the military right now? REP. HEATHER WILSON (R), NEW MEXICO: I don't know how many. Most of them are grandparents, rather than parents. My kids are still in elementary school. But my husband's in the Air Guard, and he got an e-mail today asking him if he wanted to go on a 180-day assignment to an unknown location. So I think there are certainly members of Congress who have -- and I think it's -- in a way, it's unfair to say that -- as you have, Charlie, in other places that these decisions are made because we don't have enough skin on the game or not every American is at risk because I think all of us know people or have friends or relatives or neighbors who would be at risk. And it's a very, very serious decision that I think all of us who made that vote on Iraq, no matter which side of the debate you were on, no matter which way you voted, it's one of the most serious votes you can take. And I think it was an agonizing one for everybody because we do know people and have friends who will be affected. RANGEL: Well, most of these kids that I'm talking... NOVAK: Charlie Rangel, just to make sure -- go ahead, Charlie. RANGEL: I'm talking about enlisted personnel. I'm not talking about Air Force personnel. I'm not talking about Navy personnel. I'm talking about the people that are going to end up doing the ground fighting. And for the most part, these are poor people -- white, black, Hispanics, rural areas, inner-city areas. And these are the ones that had limited economic opportunity. I'm saying this... WILSON: Well, Charlie... RANGEL: Yes? WILSON: Charlie, an all-volunteer force is main -- they're actually the middle class is more overrepresented in the volunteer army than lower class or upper class. We got -- it's a very highly trained force, more experienced. And the military has changed. We can't expect to put conscripts through a six-months -- six-week training course and give them a rifle and expect them to be able to do the job. The question is national security, and what do we need to do to make sure we keep and get the best possible military we can to defend our country. NOVAK: Congressman Rangel... WILSON: And it's hard to argue... NOVAK: ... I just want to... WILSON: ... with the all-volunteer force's success. NOVAK: Congressman Rangel, I just want to clean up one thing. I had thought you were an officer. You did leave the Army as an officer, did you not? RANGEL: No, I did not. NOVAK: You did not. RANGEL: I left as a high school drop-out, took the G.I. Bill and never looked back. NOVAK: OK, I was wrong on that. I'm sorry. Congressman... RANGEL: No, it's OK. NOVAK: Congressman, I want -- you're a straight shooter and you've always been a straight shooter. And I want to ask you, is this call for the draft, which is not popular -- we took a little poll in our audience, who would like to return to the draft, and not one person out there wanted to do it. Is this just your way of making it unpopular to go to war with Iraq, to show that if you had a draft, we maybe wouldn't go to war in Iraq or in the Middle East? RANGEL: Well, you're right, but I wouldn't say if you had a draft. I'm saying that if we thought that our kids were going to be in harm's way. There's so many people that advocated supporting the president, going to war, stamping out these oil-holders (ph), wherever they are. But when you ask them, would they want their sons to be placed in harm's way or would they have their sons to volunteer to do it, they are just shocked. I am saying there's no connect between who will be fighting the wars. People talk about how high-tech, the smart bombs, it's going to be won by the air, it's only going to take 30 days. I see a possible holy war taking place between Israel, Iran, Iraq. And this can't be just considered a 30-day war. You can't have wars and get in and out. We're calling up troops, a half a million reserve troops. WILSON: Charlie... RANGEL: I'm saying that -- I am advocating not going to war. But if we do have to go to war, that sacrifice should be shared more equitably than the standing volunteer army. WILSON: Charlie, you know, I don't want my husband to go to war. I don't want my friends -- and I have a lot of friends who are still in the service to go to war. But I also know that if they're called, they will serve. And I try to make my decisions based on what the country needs and what's best for our national security, knowing that that decision has tremendous consequences for my friends, for my family and for my country. RANGEL: Heather, we're not arguing. All I'm saying is that more people should stand to be called. You and I know that those people that belong to a more affluent groups, those wealthy people, their kids are not going to be volunteering to go to Iraq. They're not going -- and I'm just saying that... WILSON: Charlie, they weren't under the draft, either. I mean, they -- most of the, you know, rich kids... RANGEL: Well, under my legislation... WILSON: ... went to college or got deferments. RANGEL: ... they won't be able to go to college. Those who are unable to serve in the military would do some other type of public service, much like Nick Smith was talking about, working in our airports, our seaports, our hospitals, our schools, and make certain that they show how much they love the United States, how much they care for the United States by doing some kind of national service. But I am saying this. Not enough people will be called. And if this country thinks that it's that much of a threat to our national security, then we should be prepared to say that we are prepared to serve. WILSON: Well, you know, Charlie... (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: I'm sorry to butt in here, but if I may... WILSON: Sure. BEGALA: Many commentators -- well, let me say a few people -- John McCain, a war hero himself, on this broadcast talked about how little is being asked of the American people in the way of sacrifice. John Kerry, a Democratic senator, another war hero, has made the same point. What are we -- those of us who are more blessed and privileged, those of us who did not volunteer for military service, we're not being asked a thing by this president in this war effort. WILSON: In a way... BEGALA: We're going to get our big, fat tax cut. We don't have to send our kids off to war. I mean, why isn't there -- what is our president asking us to contribute or sacrifice? WILSON: And Paul, that is one of the differences between our generation and the World War II generation. And part of it is the strength of this country is so much greater. You know, I remember -- I remember my mother talking about gas ration stamps and putting the car up on blocks. And in 1942, '43, '44 and '45, there wasn't one car produced in America because they shifted the production lines to aircraft. It took that huge national effort of all of those resources to prevail in that war. That great generation came back and built such a strong America that a smaller percentage of our national effort is required, and so much less is asked from us. I agree with Charlie that I think more young Americans need to feel that sense of service and connection to community, but I don't think the draft is the answer to doing that because we can't show the need. NOVAK: But they don't volunteer, Heather Wilson. Let me just ask you this question, if I might ask you this question. Don't you think that young people like Paul Begala and our executive producer, Sam Feiss (ph), who have never worn the uniform, have missed something in not serving their country in the military that people in my generation -- everybody had to serve when I was in college. Don't you think that they're losing something? WILSON: I think he probably did lose out on an opportunity to serve in one of the greatest institutions in America. But I also think he should have that choice, as long as we can allow the all- volunteer force to work. And the -- I don't -- it's hard to argue with the success of the all-volunteer force. It really has raised -- you know, the volunteer force is more trained, more capable than -- and it demands it, 21st-Century combat demands it. I know a lot of young people. I used to work with a lot of young people, including a lot of juvenile delinquents. I know a lot of juvenile judges who would like to have that option of, you know, Well, you're going to jail or you're going into the military. It changed a lot of young lives for the better. And I still encourage young people to go into the service, but I don't think they should be conscripted. And only 1 out of 10 ever served, anyway. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Charlie Rangel, let me throw a question to you. I'm sorry. It's hard to argue also with the leadership that we're seeing from Heather Wilson, there, a graduate -- a distinguished graduate of that, of the United States Air Force Academy, a former officer in the Air Force. Shouldn't women be drafted, as well? Will your legislation draft women, as well as men? RANGEL: Yes, my legislation would exempt no one, even those that are going to college. But you know, in a time of war, it seems to me they should be a sense of patriotism. In World War II, of course, we were attacked, and therefore, people of all backgrounds were anxious to eliminate the enemy and threat to the United States. Now we are doing the attacking, and I don't see any sense of patriotism by those people who are willing to have themselves or their families placed in harm's way. It doesn't surprise me that your audience would be against my proposal. It is not a popular proposal. But neither is a war a popular way to go. It would seem to me that we could be able to negotiate, that we would be able to work through the United Nations. But if the president believes, and the Congress supports him, that we are in danger, I say patriotism and shared sacrifice should be a priority. I don't see how anyone can say, Let someone else do it, and I'll get the benefit of it. WILSON: Charlie... BEGALA: Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York, Democrat, thank you very much for that. That will have to be the last word. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico, thank you both for joining us, two outstanding military veterans, two outstanding members of Congress. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Thank you for a great debate. Still ahead: One of our viewers wants to know if Bob Novak has time to do a little work on stage. We'll find out about that in a minute. But next: He's promoted some of the most memorable fights in history, but now he's at the center of a street fight in Atlantic City. Don King will be in the CROSSFIRE when we return. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the friendly confines of George Washington University, here in lovely downtown Washington, D.C. And it's time for the main event. I love that sound! Another presidential race is under way. A number of my fellow Democrats are promoting themselves as possible successors to the current champion, President Bush. Maybe they could take a few lessons from the ultimate promoter. Stepping into our corner and the CROSSFIRE, the chairman and founder of Don King Productions, the inimitable Don King. (APPLAUSE) DON KING, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, DON KING PRODUCTIONS: Paul, how are you? Novak, how are you, sir? What a country, huh? NOVAK: Mr. King, we're going to start with some gripping hot news about the attempt to change the name of Mississippi Avenue in Atlantic City to Don King Boulevard. A lot of people don't like it. Now, one of your admirers, Sam Donnellon of the "Philadelphia Daily News," he's a columnist -- do you know Mr. Donnellon? Well, let me read to you what he said about you in today's paper. He said, "What better place to honor a man who has fleeced so many naive and trusting boxers of their hard-earned money than a city that has built and rebuilt tall buildings by doing the same to its many customers? What better place to honor a man known far more for his nonsense than substance than a place that looks far prettier at night than it does in the day? So let's build Don King Boulevard in Atlantic City." (LAUGHTER) NOVAK: Do you have any response to that, sir? KING: That is what makes America so great. The opportunity, the privilege that you have in this country is far beyond anything and anywhere else in the world. And to have a difference of opinion, to have that freedom of speech -- I mean, everyone should have the right to be able to speak, as long as they don't encroach, you know, on you and take anything from you. So that's his opinion. Listen, I respect that. NOVAK: Does that mean a lot to you, to get that street named for you there? KING: Yes, I think it's quite an honor. I didn't ask for it, but since they did decide to do it, I think it's something that's worthwhile, and I think it really humbles me that they would even choose to select to name a street after me. But I am a true Americana, you know, the living attestation to the American dream, you know, not the proud boy that was a Horatio Alger that could marry the boss's daughter. There's no boss's daughter here. You have to come in here and deal with life as it is in this great nation called America. God bless America. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Well, I join you in that salute, Mr. King, but I got to ask you -- not -- I love the -- I love the outfit, but I got to ask you about these buttons. I'm counting six -- one, two, three, four, five different Bush buttons there now. Are you a Bush Republican? KING: I am a Bush Republican because I think that Bush is a dynamic leader. He is decisive. BEGALA: You do? KING: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. (APPLAUSE) KING: He's a guy -- you must understand something about America. He rose to the occasion. When he won the election, it was not by the electorate, it was by the court. But then he said, I promise you one thing. He said, I will earn the respect of the American people. He said, And I will appoint people around me that they can give me their opinion. I will make the decision, but at least I'm going to have it and not going to be where they got to be yes men. That he has done. He got one of the greatest, tightest teams in history, you know, with Karl Rove and Andy Card. And they are really playing very meticulously, tenaciously, and they patiently carried out a plan that swept the nation. So now the man is making decisions. Then comes that terrible, despicable act of terrorism on 9/11. The man rose to the occasion. He didn't know it was going to happen, but since it did happen, he rose. And every American should thank God that they do have a man in the White House that makes decisions that everyone respects. Niccolo Machiavelli said it's better to be feared than to be loved. But if you could have both, great. I think Bush has them both because when he speaks, they listen. That means friend and foe. They have to understand when George W. Bush says something, he means it. You better listen to what he says. So that gives us the respect to hold us in what we're going to do. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: You know, Mr. King, you, I think, are known as what we in politics call a switch-hitter. And that's a good thing in baseball. It's not so good in politics. That means you give to both sides. You were a big Bill Clinton man, too, aren't you? KING: Yes, because what Bill Clinton is... (APPLAUSE) KING: I'm an American man, you know what I mean? I'm a Republicrat. I want to do whatever it is going to be good for my people, the American people. That's what really counts. It's what's best for this country. And when you're dealing with what's best for this country, neither color, race, religion or creed has got to be played in the foreground of that. You got to deal with what's going to be better for the country itself. That means every race, color, creed and religion inclusively. NOVAK: Could it be you're for whoever is in the White House? Is that... (LAUGHTER) KING: You know, I can say this. You ain't going to do too much unless you have access to power. If you have no access to power, you can't help the loser, if you ain't got the winner. BEGALA: There you go. Those who come early get good access. Those who come late get good government, right? KING: But you got to be able to work with it. There's a thing about this country, you know, one land, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We got to work toward that. But at least we have a profound direction, one land, indivisible, under God with liberty and justice for all. Now we got to make that come true, you know what I mean? That's the premise of our great nation called America. BEGALA: How much damage did Trent Lott's comments about segregation do to Republicans who are African-American and to the cause of Republicans reaching out to the African-American community? KING: On the contrary, I think his remarks were great. I'm going to tell you why. Because he focused on something that would have been a closet segregationist. I think the tragedy is of the action, where you can vote for 23 years in leadership capacity, be a segregationist and no, you know -- what we call in the ghetto, laugh in your face when all the time they want to take (UNINTELLIGIBLE) backstabber. When you do that, you know what I mean, all people are losers. I think that what -- God touched Trent Lott. I think that he touched him, and he said -- he said something that he shouldn't have said, but it was what was the truth. Now we have discussion and debate all over the nation and around the world about an ugly, egregious form of racism and that has been existed throughout our country's history. So now how do we change that? You got to be able to change that by working together -- perfect endeavor -- and to be able to exchange ideas and respect one another not because of the color of your skin but for the content of your heart and character. NOVAK: Mr. King, I got a political test question for you, so be ready because it really tells you where you're really coming from because I haven't any idea right now. (LAUGHTER) KING: Well, that's good. At least you're honest, you know what I mean? I always liked that about you. You have always been steadfast and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) NOVAK: Do you think the American people pay too much in taxes? And particularly, do you think people who are successful -- and you're successful -- are overtaxed in America? KING: No. I think that taxes is necessary. What you must understand, first of all... NOVAK: You like this level of taxes we have now? KING: I don't know what the level of taxes are. All I know is I gave a press relief when I paid $33 million worth of taxes in one year. I was so happy and so proud that -- you know, to be able to pay the taxes that I gave out a release that I did. NOVAK: Would you pay some of my taxes? (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: Novak pays a lot more than that. NOVAK: Would you -- would you... (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Would you like to pay some of my taxes, too? KING: You know, it really -- I'm going to tell you something. You know, you can't have the goods and the services and the security and the protection if you don't pay the taxes. NOVAK: You just flunked the test. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: You passed the more important test of patriotism over partisanship, and I salute you for that. Now I'll ask you about a particular partisan concern. Every night, my friend Novak and others promote the candidacy, potential candidacy of the Reverend Al Sharpton from New York City. He's a minister there. Reverend Jesse Jackson was asked about Al Sharpton. He brought your name up in an interview one year ago this week in "New York" magazine. Jack Newfield, legendary journalist, talked about this. This is what Newfield wrote. "The Reverend Jesse Jackson asked me why I hadn't exposed Don King's financial support of Sharpton's organization and urged me to probe Sharpton's ties to Republicans and his endorsement of Al D'Amato in 1986." As a Republican, and presumably, a supporter and friend of Al Sharpton's, is that a legitimate issue for Jesse Jackson to be raising? KING: I don't know why Jesse would raise any issue, but I support all Americans. You know, what really -- what's so great about this nation is that you must understand something. The mere fact that a Reverend Sharpton can be on a ballot, that's a plus for this country. You got to understand something. Whether you look at it with -- you know, with dismay or you feel that... NOVAK: I like Sharpton. I like Sharpton. KING: Well, regardless. The fact of them -- you know, the least of them can be in the "USA Today," and they have all the candidates there, and there's Al Sharpton, I think that's a marvelous tribute. BEGALA: Now, are you for -- are you for Sharpton, though? KING: I'm for Sharpton. I'm for America, you know what I mean? I don't mean he's going to win. I'm for America. NOVAK: I got to get a boxing question in. KING: Yes, you must. You must. We've got a boxing event tomorrow at the D.C. Armory. I'd like for you to come down and see how it really is for the pugilists to, you know, get blows. NOVAK: I've been following the sweet science all my life. Don't we need a charismatic, terrific heavyweight in the boxing right now? Isn't the sport badly in need of a real heavyweight champion? KING: They're lacking that. But I have a guy, the emperor of boxing, who was Lennox Lewis. They just happened to promote him right. But he is a terrific fighter. He's a tremendous, tremendous fighter, but he doesn't catch the magic of the public, the creation of the excitement, like... NOVAK: Like an Ali or... KING: Yes, like an Ali or George foreman or those kind of guys. George Foreman was remarkable, you know what I mean? But the idea of it is, we got to keep working. And they are fighting now in a series, which I call a hard road to glory, you know. And this is a process of champions fighting each other. (CROSSTALK) KING: Oh, that's going to be a super fight coming up on March 1 in Las Vegas, and I welcome all of you CROSSFIRE fans to be there because... (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: ... go out and do CROSSFIRE from Las Vegas? KING: Yes, we want -- we're going to -- I want you there. I want you there... BEGALA: There we go! KING: ... for the whole week. It's going to be super, man, and I think that when you have people that -- listen, Al Campanus -- you know, he makes the -- them type of goofars (ph) helps America because it brings out of the darkness into the light where the medicinal qualities of this great nation can help to cure that disease called racism. NOVAK: That's the last word, Don King. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) KING: God bless! BEGALA: Thank you very much. (CROSSTALK) KING: ... tomorrow night. Chop-Chop Curley (ph) and Randall Bailey (ph), March 1, Roy Jones (ph) and John Ruiz (ph). Only in America! (LAUGHTER) NOVAK: Next on "Fireback," one of our viewers has a comment about our interview last night with the guy who wants to be known as the father of cloning. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Nobody left in the ring but Novak and me. That's why we turn to you, our "Fireback" segment. Let's start with an e-mail. David Genther, Grand Rapids, Michigan, writes, "Paul, my wife bought me your book, 'It's Still the Economy, Stupid,' for Christmas. I've been reading it gleefully, one chapter at a time, and really, really enjoying it." Thank you, David. That's awfully nice. He's enjoying it more than Novak, I bet. NOVAK: I always thought your readers read it one word at a time, you know, mouthing the words. OK. Greg Brown of Sisters, Oregon, said, "Listening to Rael on CROSSFIRE, I think I heard him say Clinton really was good for the military, aliens caused Democrats to lose the 2002 elections, and Al Sharpton will win the Democratic nomination in spite of the DNC." That's right, Greg. And he also told me off camera that he thought Paul Begala would be elected to Congress before too long. BEGALA: No, none of that's -- Rael, for those of us who missed last night's show, will be on Connie Chung's show tonight. He's the guy who claims he met with space aliens in the 1970s and claims he cloned a baby last week. We'll see what he's got up his sleeve for Connie. I can't wait to see that. William Lang in Denver, Colorado, though, writes about another segment we did last night, where Mr. Novak was criticizing the success of John Edwards, a wealthy trial lawyer. "Only Bob Novak and the Republicans would have the audacity to criticize John Edwards for being as rich as a Republican." Well, there you have it, Bob. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: It's not -- it's not how much money you make, it's how you made it. So that's the question. Gina Hayes of San Antonio says, "Hey, Bob. I caught a bit of the movie 'Dave'" -- I'm a star in that movie -- "and I may say you did a great acting job. I wish I would have known you can act because our local community theater put on a stage production of 'It's a Wonderful Life,' and you would have been a perfect Mr. Potter." (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Now, Gina, let me tell you something. I'll give you a little scoop. There's going to be a movie revival of "It's a Wonderful Life"... BEGALA: Really? NOVAK: ... and I'm the angel. (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: Oh! Clarence, the angel! NOVAK: Oh, I... BEGALA: If you have not seen "Dave," you should go out and rent "Dave." I think it's the best -- honestly, best political movie I ever saw. And Novak is in it, and he is great. NOVAK: All right. BEGALA: It's a terrific movie. NOVAK: Question? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, my name is Jonathan Sclarsic (ph) from Massachusetts. NOVAK: What town? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sudbury. All the Democrats running for the president seem to be New Democrats or centrist Democrats. Who's going to be the one to take a position as a liberal to win the nomination? NOVAK: Well, you're from Massachusetts, so you should be excused. But if you think John Kerry is a centrist, you've got dementia, baby! (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: Well, the truth is, John Kerry is very much of a centrist. And I think Howard Dean, actually, will pick up the liberal, the governor of Vermont. But it'll be a good field, and I think we should let them all sort it out themselves. Yes, sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Greg Bentley (ph), Unionville, Pennsylvania. My question is, how telling is it for the Democrats and "The Washington Post" to be faulting the president's expected tax plan for being based on long-term thinking? There's never been a better time for long-term thinking. And how could anything else better differentiate our president from his critics? NOVAK: Well, you are -- you're a very intelligent man. We get very few of them around here. And I congratulate you because what Paul doesn't understand is that people who invest think of the long term. They think what the consequences are going to be 10 years out from now. BEGALA: No, the problem is truth in advertising. The president says it's a stimulus package to create jobs right now. It's not. It's a way to reward his wealthy friends years down the road. He should be honest about it and say, Look, I owe these guys a lot of money. I have to pay them back with my tax policy. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE. NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 6, 2003 Monday Transcript # 010600CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 8946 words HEADLINE: Bush to Unveil New Economic Plan Tomorrow, Democrats Counter With Plan of Their Own; Do Chickens Need More Time With Their Families? GUESTS: George Allen, Robert Menendez, Rick Lazio, Edward Markey, Bruce Friedrich BYLINE: Paul Begala, Robert Novak HIGHLIGHT: Congressional Democrats and President Bush both will be proposiing economic stimulus packages this week, but the two sides appear far apart on how best to kickstart growth. An animal rights advocate challenges Americans' indifference to the rights of chickens. BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: economic fixes. There's the president's way... (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president's plan is a plan that helps all Americans. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: ... and then there's the Democratic Party's way. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: All members of the caucus and leadership of the caucus have worked together for a fair, fast-acting, fiscally sound package. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Our question: whose way will pay political dividends? The Big Apple gets the Republicans. Bean Town gets the Democrats. Whose conventioneers will have the better time in 2004? And it may be finger licking good, but PETA says, have you considered things from the chicken's standpoint? Ahead on CROSSFIRE. From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Robert Novak. (APPLAUSE) ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight: dueling economic plans, dueling convention cities, and a duel between the animal rights crowd and the colonel's chicken. Make mine extra crispy. But the first thing on tonight's menu is our daily special, the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California, the new House democratic leader, is farther left than anybody who ever held that post. And today she lived up to that reputation as she unveiled an economic plan in advance of President Bush's tomorrow. Tax cuts? Handouts would be given to low income people who don't pay income taxes. Unemployment benefits will be extended to jobless workers, removing all incentive to find a job. Healthcare benefits for the poor would go to spendthrift state governments. All of this would further redistribute wealth. What it doesn't do is encourage investment and economic growth. Karl Marx might love it, but Adam Smith wouldn't. PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: The Republican plan -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Groucho Marx or maybe Herbert Hoover -- they don't understand what the Democrats get. If you put cash in the pockets of working people, they're going to spend it. That will stimulate the economy and make us all richer. What's wrong with that? NOVAK: That is a bad idea, and it's been proven that it doesn't work many times. You may as well go up in a plane and just throw the money out. Whoever gets it can spend it. BEGALA: Well, what the Democratic plan actually would do is create jobs. It would boost the economy, which of course, has been sagging ever since President Bush took us from surpluses in growth to deficits and stagnation. The heart of the democratic plan is this: an immediate $300 tax rebate for every working American, not merely the rich. Democrats also plan to aid States whose budgets have been strained by homeland security and Medicaid costs. They'll also cut taxes for small business, but not for huge multinational corporations. All for a total cost that's about 25 percent of the $600 billion Bush proposal. Republicans understandably were upset. They complained that the Democratic plan would put millions of Americans back to work without handing hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich. Analysts say that to gain Republican support, Democrats may have to consider giving more handouts to the rich and screwing at least some of the poor. NOVAK: Well, as you know, Paul, I suppose you're trying to be funny, and failing as usual. But, of course, they didn't say that at all. What you don't want to admit is that the top one half of one percent of the taxpayers pay 28 percent of all income taxes. That's the way this is redistributed right now, and it is really -- this is trying to correct it just a little bit. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, a fabulously rich trial lawyer, began his presidential campaign last week as champion of what he called the regular people. That didn't sit well with a potential rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. "The Washington Post" quotes Lieberman as saying that, as a vice presidential nominee in 2000, he really didn't like Al Gore's theme of the people versus the powerful. Indeed, Lieberman says painting America as us versus them may have turned off swing voters against the Democrats. Will Joe Lieberman be the irregular candidate? Is he asking Democratic politicians to abandon the class warfare that they love so dearly? BEGALA: Those are very good questions. My question is, why isn't Joe Lieberman on this program to answer them? I hope he's not chicken. I hope he's got the guts. Because if he's not tough enough to stand up to Bob Novak, he ain't going to be tough enough to stand up to Saddam Hussein. NOVAK: He may not be tough enough to stand up to Paul Begala. BEGALA: I'll tell you, I love Joe Lieberman, but he ought to come on this show. Most of the other Democrats running have been here. And, as we know, the road to the White House runs right through CROSSFIRE. Well the crisis in North Korea has gotten so bad that this afternoon President Bush was forced to declare at a cabinet meeting, "The US has no intention of invading North Korea." Could it be that this entire crisis was caused in part by a rhetorical flourish in last year's State of the Union address? Well, the "New Yorker's" Rick Hertzberg poses that question, citing a new book by former Bush speechwriter, the man who wrote the phrase "axis of evil" for President Bush, David Frum. Mr. Hertzberg says that adding North Korea was "a (ph) rhetorical affirmative action bussed in to lend adversity to what otherwise would have been an all- Muslim list." Hertzberg and others suggest that Bush's policy of hot but empty rhetoric, disengagement from North Korea and contempt for South Korea, were essential elements in causing the current crisis. Mr. Bush's answer: the fact that a psychotic communist maniac in North Korea may have nuclear weapons is to remind us that Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil man. A lot of good that does. NOVAK: You know, Paul, unlike you, who can find nothing good about George W. Bush, I don't find nothing bad about him. I think that was a mistake to let the speechwriters run away with a policy. But I do believe there is no point and no intention of attacking North Korea and starting a second Korean War. And I'll bet you agree with me. BEGALA: I do. But it is a sad state when our president has to declare that. NOVAK: The Reverend Al Sharpton, who has spent his political career in Harlem, took his presidential campaign on the road to Boston. His first event in a black neighborhood drew only 75 people. Those thousands that stayed away couldn't claim being caught in traffic. The reverend was 90 minutes late for his own event. Democratic big leagues are chortling because Al Sharpton is their worst nightmare, or at least the worst since Jesse Jackson. About 40 percent of Democratic voters in the south are African-Americans. If they vote their race, as they often do for Sharpton in a crowded field, the rev (ph) could sweep the southern primaries. And, Paul, a lousy turnout in Boston Saturday doesn't diminish the Sharpton danger. BEGALA: The only Sharpton danger is that you're going to be his campaign manager, Bob. He got no support in the Democratic -- he supported Al D'Amato, a Republican for the United States Senate, in his home state. You know he's just not a credible candidate. He's a lovely to come on as a guest on this show. I love having him on, but he's not a serious candidate. NOVAK: You're whistling past the graveyard because the serious Democratic politicians I talked to privately are scared to death. BEGALA: They ought not be. They should have a little more spine. The Republican National Committee announced today that their annual -- rather quadrennial 2004 convention will be held in New York City. New York is of course the city where Bill Clinton was nominated for the presidency, where Al Gore got 78 percent of the vote, and the epicenter of the evil bicoastal blue States that went for Gore. So why would Bush choose Sodom on the Hudson? Well, the smart guys at the ABC political note (ph) say it is to link Mr. Bush to September 11. Of course, President Bush was nowhere near New York on September 11. He was inside a mountain in Nebraska. Perhaps that's where he belonged, but for Mr. Bush to trade on the murder of 3,000 Americans for political gain is sad and sick. After all, FDR didn't have his 1944 convention at Pearl Harbor. NOVAK: Paul, as an old friend -- am I an old friend? As a friend, I want to tell you how sick people are of you of denouncing George W. Bush on every story, even the announcement of a convention site. And I remember well when George W. Bush, not long after September 11, went to ground zero and inspired America. I think you should be a little more fair to our president. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: I think I'll attack and criticize this president every single day he's in office because he is screwing up our country. And there is still a democracy; I still have a first amendment right to criticize the president. NOVAK: I think you're hutting your own cause. President Bush unveils his new economic plan tomorrow in Chicago. The Democrats tried to upstage him a few hours ago with a plan of their own. They did not build confidence. The press conference started, surprise, surprise, 13 minutes late, and they didn't have any of their flip charts. And they didn't have any new ideas either. First in the CROSSFIRE tonight are Democratic Congressman Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He's chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. And US Senator George Allen of Virginia, a member of the Senate Republican leadership. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Senator, good to see you. Thank you all both. This is terrific for you to take the time. I know Congress is back. You're both busy men in the leadership of your parties. Senator Allen, I wanted to begin by going through the democratic plan that Mr. Menendez and others put together, but I couldn't resist. I want to play you a sound bite, a piece of videotape, of our president. One of my rules at CROSSFIRE is anytime George W. Bush speaks without a script, I pay close attention, because that's what he is really thinking. Here's what he said today in a meeting of his cabinet. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Listen, we're doing fine. Tomorrow you'll hear me say this economy is one of the strongest in the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: Well, Senator, one of the strongest in the world? I mean, your father was the legendary -- one of the greatest coaches. You inducted him into the hall of fame with one of the greatest speeches I ever saw. Did your father ever say it would be OK if the Redskins were one of the best teams in the NFL? Don't we (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the strongest economy in the whole world? SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R), VIRGINIA: Well, we have a very strong economy and it needs to be stronger. The president recognizes there are a lot of good people across this country who would like to find work. And we would like to find ways to stimulate job creation. And so you can never be satisfied with being the best. You want to be the best, but we clearly can improve. BEGALA: But there is some disconnect when he says -- if he was -- he's a very bright man. If he was as articulate, perhaps, as you were just then unscripted, he would be in better shape. But he said we are just doing fine. Now this is a contradictory -- if we're doing fine, why does he want to spend $600 billion of our money to help the wealthiest five percent? ALLEN: Because we need to do better. There are several things here. I think it is unfortunate when people are always talking about how awful this country is, how awful it is for jobs and investment, and that doesn't help. That doesn't help with psychology for investment or recruiting new jobs into this country if your own CEO is running down your country. He recognizes we may be doing fine, but we can do much better. And I think that the president's plan that will be unveiled tomorrow will be very helpful for all taxpayers. It will be helpful for families, for married couples. It will be helpful for senior citizens. And it will be particularly helpful for those who create most of the jobs, and those are the small business owners. NOVAK: Congressman Menendez, congratulations on your election. That was for chairman of the Democratic Caucus. You didn't unveil your plan until today. But Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, chairman -- new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Republican, must have got an advance look at it. Because yesterday he previewed just what was going to happen. Let's take a look at what Senator Nickles said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. DON NICKLES (R), OKLAHOMA: Some people always want to play class warfare. If you're going to have tax cuts, it would make sense to have tax cuts for taxpayers. And so whoever is paying taxes should get tax cuts, period. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Now this is -- I want you to explain this to me. You're coming out with what you call a tax cut plan. Of course, 37 percent of Americans don't pay any income tax. And what you're going to do is take money out of the Treasury to people who don't pay taxes and give it to them. You call that a tax cut? REP. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D), NEW JERSEY: I think you're not talking about the same plan we unveiled today, Bob. The fact of the matter is, we take individuals who are working and couples who are working and we give them up to 10 percent of the first $6,000 that they've earned. And we give them a tax cut. So up to $600 for a couple, $300 for an individual. For those individuals who had been working and lost their job -- the two million jobs that we lost under President Bush -- we say to them, as you are seeking that job, and you still need to sustain your family, we'll give you the opportunity to sustain yourself and your family as you continue to seek that employment by extending the unemployment insurance efforts. So what we seek to do, in those two regards, we give tax cuts to individuals, all Americans, we give tax cuts to couples. We give an opportunity for those who are seeking to find work but cannot find it simply because we've lost two million jobs under this presidency. We give tax opportunities for small businesses and all businesses under our provisions in expensing, in deductions, in accelerating in investments in 2003. And finally, we give monies to all Americans living across this land in states by helping them on homeland security, by helping them on Medicaid, by helping them in critical infrastructure needs. And that $136 billion, Bob, in 2003, is what this is all about. It is about stimulating the job market, not just necessarily stimulating the stock market. NOVAK: Congressman, you are certainly -- you certainly are entitled to be a Democrat and to like to do things that Democrats like to do. I'm just talking about labeling. When you're giving -- putting out money for people who aren't working -- just a second... (CROSSTALK) MENENDEZ: ... and I say get $600 for a couple, they're working, Bob. NOVAK: I mean, in addition to that -- and you're giving money to the states, to pay poor people for healthcare. Those may be good programs; we can debate that. But they're not tax cuts. You can't call them (UNINTELLIGIBLE). MENENDEZ: Part of them are tax cuts. Those individuals who are working, the $300... NOVAK: I know, but the stuff I'm talking about. MENENDEZ: And the other part is stimulus. NOVAK: Stimulus, oh. MENENDEZ: The only way to stimulate the economy isn't through the double taxation of dividends that you want to give relief for, which ultimately will maybe hurt the economy by having those individuals -- those companies say, you know what, I'm not going to make investments, I'd rather give dividends. And when we look at dividends, average Americans, the 82 percent of taxpayers across the country, who are under $75,000 or under, they're going to get about $24-$40 some odd dollars. And, however, that other point two-tenths of a percent, they're going to get in the $30,000 range. And ultimately, average Americans don't have the dividend issue because, to the extent that they have stocks, they have it in retirement funds for which they don't get dividends. So the real stimulus is about creating jobs in 2003. NOVAK: I think -- I can answer that, but go ahead. BEGALA: I want Senator Allen to answer. First off, half of us don't have any stocks at all. So a dividend tax cut doesn't help us. ALLEN: Which means half the people in this country do own stocks. BEGALA: Yes. And god bless them. They get a tax cut. But what about the other half? They get nothing. It seems to me (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Democrats have targeted tax cuts up and down the line. Everybody gets it. But the bang is where middle class consumers are. And I'm curious, do you believe the economy is more driven by wealthy investors like Novak or by middle class consumers like my grandmother? ALLEN: It's by everyone in this country. People buying products, small businesses. BEGALA: Why cut taxes that only half of us pay? ALLEN: No, the point -- let's go through all since we listened to the Democrats' plan here. As far as dividends are concerned, half the country -- half the people in this country owns stocks. Predominantly, in fact, a majority of that income is by retired people, whether it is in their pension plans, retirement plans and so forth. And, indeed, if you look today on the stock market, "Stocks Rally As Bush Plan Lifts Hopes." That's good. That's good for shareholders... NOVAK: 171 points. ALLEN: 171 points. And the point is that actually helps the states. The states in the retirement systems, they have to fund it for their state employees, teachers, and rank and file employees. That helps the state governments and their budgets. The other thing that you'll see in President Bush's plan that will be unveiled tomorrow is acceleration of tax cuts for taxpayers, all taxpayers. It's especially going to be helpful for those who are married because it is accelerating the relief from the marriage penalty tax. He's going to accelerate also the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child. So if you have a family that makes $39,000 a year and has two children, they're going get relief of about $1,100 to $1,200 a year. This year and the next year and thereafter. That is going to have a great stimulative impact on that family, as well as you have the expensing, the $179 expensing, dandy, it is OK. President Bush is... BEGALA: That's a tax cut for businesses... (CROSSTALK) ALLEN: For small businesses. It is a good one. But you know what? President Bush is going to be -- instead of doubling it, we're going to triple it, which will really help small businesses. NOVAK: Congressman... (CROSSTALK) MENENDEZ: ... fiscally sound, and that's something that the president isn't. The president's plan is too little too late and it is too irresponsible over the long term. NOVAK: Congressman, I want you to address what the senator said. The senator said that this family making $39,000 a year with two earners, four children, a family of four, two children, gets $1,100 in tax relief. Now, under your plan, they get $600. How can you go before the American people and say the middle class benefits from yours and it doesn't benefit from theirs? MENENDEZ: The child tax credits that are upcoming they would still receive. Ours are $600 in addition to that which they would still receive anyhow. So if you want to lump them together, ours is even higher. I'm talking about new money, new stimulus in 2003. NOVAK: This is new. This $1,100 is new. This is new. MENENDEZ: That is aggregate. There's a difference. ALLEN: And it won't just be for this year, it will be for next year as well, because most people would like... NOVAK: Why do you cut it off after one year? MENENDEZ: Because we need to be fiscally responsible. If you continue to go where this administration is headed, which has already squandered $5 trillion, you are putting around the next generation of Americans an incredible yoke of debt, and that debt means interest payments and billions of dollars in interest payments, as my dad used to say, is feeding a dead horse. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense for this economy. Bill Clinton and Democrats showed that when you balance the budget, when you're able to have low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation, you have the greatest peacetime economy and also... (APPLAUSE) ALLEN: And also tax Social Security. BEGALA: Let me read to you what some experts who have analyzed the proposed Bush plan before it was released, so it may be different. You know, we never know. But "The New York Times" talked to some experts, propeller heads, who looked at this. And this is what they said. "Under the Bush plan, the tax benefits flow almost exclusively to the very wealthiest taxpayers because they are the ones who receive most dividends. Calculations by the Tax Policy Center, a nonprofit research group run by the Urban Institute and Brookings, shows that about 64 percent of the benefits will go to the wealthiest five percent of the taxpayers." Now isn't that why yours is $600 billion instead of $136 billion, because you've got to give 64 percent of the benefit to five percent of us? ALLEN: No, that's incorrect. If you only look at the dividends, again, half the people in this country own stocks. Out of those -- if you look at the income from dividends and companies, whether it is General Electric, General Motors, Norfolk Southern (ph), utility companies and so forth, it's predominantly senior citizens. They are not generally wealthy people. They're also not factoring in the acceleration of the child tax credit per child. They're also not looking at the marriage penalty tax or the reduction or the acceleration of reductions in income tax rates. NOVAK: But the Urban Institute is hardly an objective source. ALLEN: Well, the point is... (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Right, they say... (CROSSTALK) ALLEN: ... it is hard to make sure and find out the details of the president's plan. We'll know tomorrow. I was able to talk to him in preparation here. And so when you see the whole plan, I think that you'll see how specious and incorrect that... BEGALA: Well, we will run the numbers again (UNINTELLIGIBLE). If you could hang on just a second, both of you, though, because -- first, a quick reminder. Before we take this break, CNN will have live team coverage of President Bush's economic speech beginning tomorrow, 1:00 PM Eastern. And, in a minute, we will ask our guests about some of the other hot button congressional issues, including human cloning and North Korea. Not together; two different issues. Speaking of (UNINTELLIGIBLE), KFC original recipe, hot and spicy, extra crispy, or maybe with an order of vegetarian-boost guilt. We will talk to the man who (UNINTELLIGIBLE) targeting, Colonel Sanders. And then, the Republicans decided to hold their convention in a nice liberal city in a good Democratic state and I couldn't be happier. Stay with us. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's a brand new world here in Washington, with Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress and both ends of Pennsylvania avenue. With nowhere to hide and no one to blame, will the GOP succeed? To debate that topic in the CROSSFIRE, Republican United States Senator George Allen of Virginia and House Democratic Caucus Chair Bob Menendez of New Jersey. NOVAK: Mr. Menendez, we have had the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or whatever the hell they are talking about claiming of clone (ph) to babies. Whether that is true or not, this is a scary prospect. Isn't it time for Congress to make cloning of human beings illegal? And no worry about embryonic stem cell research. We can do adult stem cell research and have great progress. Forget about trying to satisfy the pro-abortion movement and get rid of this. MENENDEZ: Well, I think that we had that opportunity. I think that there is a bipartisan will in the Congress to ban human cloning. But it cannot be combined with the right wing -- with -- it cannot be combined with the pro-life forces who want to insist that we can't do therapeutic cloning. That we can, in fact, have the embryo research that we can ultimately achieve enormous advances on Parkinson's and on so many other diseases. So I certainly believe that there is a bipartisan will to ban human cloning. But we have to ensure that that legislation doesn't have what the pro-life forces want, which is in essence to undo our ability to do embryonic work to relieve the affliction of millions of people in this country, Bob. And that, the American people want to have the opportunity. They want the opportunity to have the shot on Alzheimer's, on Parkinson's. They want for those who have brain injuries and for those who have had spinal cord injuries to have the opportunity to have a new shot at life. And that is the fundamental issue. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Let me turn it around. Senator Allen, I think Congressman Menendez is clearly right. Both parties agree we should ban reproductive cloning. Cloning of babies to make babies. Why not take that great moral consensus and pass it into law, instead of allowing the politics of abortion to intrude and getting tied up on trying to ban therapeutic cloning, which many people disagree with? But everybody agrees with banning human cloning. Why didn't your party do that? ALLEN: I think you're all getting this confused. That's part of the problem. I think we all agree that human cloning should be prohibited. The so-called therapeutic human cloning is very close to human cloning and easily manipulated into human cloning, even though it is called reproductive cloning or therapeutic. Now, the issue of using stem cells from embryos, I'm very much in favor of research on stem cells from embryos for Parkinson's, for juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's and so forth. Not exactly where Bob is on that one. And I think that from those embryos that could otherwise be discarded or destroyed, I think that we should go forward and research in that area. The research, as far as adult stem cells and tissue stem cells, I think we should go forward there as well. And so I think where the consensus needs to be is, number one, an understanding of the definition, the science and what we're doing. Human cloning should be banned. But it should not stop research on embryos -- stem cells from embryos that can be possibly helpful. It is only a prayer, it's only a hope. Some people say that it is not proven. Well, let's do the research under ethical guidelines. NOVAK: Congressman Menendez, let me ask you another non- controversial (ph) area, and that is the University of Michigan has a quota system on admissions. The Supreme Court is considering that. I want to ask you a question I asked Bill Clinton in 1992. He wouldn't give me a straight answer. I hope you will. Are you in favor of racial quotas? MENENDEZ: I'm not in favor of any quotas. I am in favor for the opportunity, and I hope the Republican Party, post Trent Lott, will show us by actions not by words that, in fact, they believe that every American, regardless of the color of their skin, regardless of their ethnic background, regardless of their agenda, has the opportunity to fulfill their achievements in this country. But what we do need is to affirmatively act to ensure that, in fact, there are no barriers to any American achieving their god given opportunities. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Senator, let me kind of turn that a little to the personal side of Capitol Hill. You were the man who called Trent Lott and told him it was time to go. It could not have been an easy thing to do. Now that he's back -- he's a colleague and still a very powerful senator -- he's pledged to support affirmative action. How is he being received by you and the rest of his colleagues? ALLEN: We haven't gotten back together again. We'll see tomorrow, when we're all together, the swearing in of the new senators and our majority and moving forward. We're going to move forward tomorrow hopefully and pass an unemployment benefits package tomorrow. You're going to see action with the Republican majority now. BEGALA: But it's going to be a tension convention. ALLEN: It will. Yes it will. It will be for me personally. But nevertheless, I think we made the right decision. Bill Frist will give an accurate portrayal of our sentiments and our views and our agenda for the American people. All the people. NOVAK: And that has to be the last word. Thank you very much, Senator George Allen, Congressman Bob Menendez. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: All you doubters about cloning finally have a chance to say we told you so. Connie Chung has details next in a CNN NEWS ALERT. And then they're both in the Northeastern cities, but they sure aren't clones. We'll debate which party made the better choice for its 2004 presidential convention. Plus a big helping of hot air when the people who don't care how your chicken is cooked, just how it is killed. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) NOVAK: The Republicans today opted for post-September 11 symbolism and picked New York City instead of New Orleans or Tampa-St. Petersburg as the site for their 2004 presidential convention. The Democrats already selected Boston which carries a symbolism of all its own. Teddy Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, ultra liberals all. So who's going to have a better time? To help us put Beantown and the Big Apple in the CROSSFIRE, we're joined by Democratic Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts and in New York, former Republican Congressman Rick Lazio of New York. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Rick, it's good to see you. Congressman Markey, thank you to you, too. First, let me congratulate Rick Lazio, your party, on picking a great American city, New York. Let me tell you one of the many things I like about it. Hillary Clinton got about 73 percent of the vote in New York City against you, Rick. You got about 26 percent. Our president did much worse than you. George W. Bush only got 21 percent in New York City. So why are the Republicans moving to left here, Rick? RICK LAZIO, FRM. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: It's shows great confidence in support for New York City. I think it is a tremendous decision by the Republican National Committee and national Republicans and President Bush to come to New York to show support, as he has been showing such extraordinary support since September 11 of last year. This is a great city. The strongest, most vibrant, most diverse city in the world. Over one-third of New Yorkers are born outside of America. So it is showing support for that level of diversity. And you couldn't find a city that is going to provide better rooms, better facilities, more fun, better transportation than New York. I think it is a terrific decision. And the city, by the way, that is governed by a Republican mayor, in a state that is governed by a Republican governor, that has over 2 million more Democrats in New York. So you have Democrats voting for Republicans and I think that's exactly the path that Republicans and George Bush are looking for. NOVAK: Congressman Ed Markey, explain the Democrats to me a little bit. I think a lot of people think that their hopes are in the center but you name the most left-wing person as you can for the leader in the House. And then you have picked the city that is considered the most left-wing city, maybe next to San Francisco, but certainly a state which even, my goodness, even George McGovern managed to carry when he ran for president. Where are you people going? REP. EDWARD MARKEY (D) MASSACHUSETTS: We're going to best city in the United States. And it's the birth place of freedom, Lexington Green, Plymouth Rock, the Kennedy Compound, all of these magical, historical... NOVAK: This sounds like an exciting place. MARKEY: Well for Democrats it will be and we'll be bouncing out of that convention with a huge momentum because Democrats are going to have the best time they've ever had. Remember, the Republicans put the -- they're convention in the year 2000 in Philadelphia and who won Pennsylvania, Al Gore. So predicting the November election based upon where the convention is really is foolhardy. We're just going to give the best possible springboard for the Democratic Party in Boston as the place to be. BEGALA: Congressman Lazio, former Congressman, let me ask you about one point. I agreed everything you said about the city and immigrants and it is a terrific gesture. But I was intrigued because I think you're following the Republican Party talking points. In the first ten seconds, you mentioned September 11. Isn't it sad, isn't it shameful, I said this earlier in the program, to trade on the murders of 3,000 people for partisan political ends? LAZIO: I think we are showing support here. The Democrats had the opportunity to show support for New York City. Democrats support New York City, too. I'm not saying that Democrats don't support New York City. This is just a decision by the Republican National Committee to give New York in a shot in the arm. They are saying this is about -- amount to about 100,000 room nights during August which is a very slow time and a time that New York City needs it. And I think it is terrific for Republicans throughout the country to come to New York City to see the beauty of New York, to show New York off, to be in the national spotlight and to leverage that great publicity for the benefit of New York. I'm very proud of my party for deciding to come to New York. NOVAK: You know, Ed Markey, I happen to like Boston. I was, many, many years ago before you were born, I was stationed at Fort Devons, and we spent a lot of time in Boston. But have really you messed up that city lately. I think the delegates are going to be stunned by the Big Dig. Let me read you what Jane Holtz Kay, the architecture critic of "The Nation," which is a left-wing magazine said. We'll put it up on the screen. "To this date, neither the completion date, December 2004," talking about the Big Dig, "nor the official assertion that the construction is '83 percent complete' is certain. And, as the digging and heaving, bulldozing and backhoeing of the project continue. Bostonians recall Representative Barney Frank's early comment that it would be 'easier to elevate the city than to lower the central artery.'" You made a huge mess of that, haven't you? MARKEY: Well, but it's going to be ready for 2004. And not only that, we even named the Big Dig after one great Republican, Ted Williams. On the other hand -- and it's the greatest transportation -- construction project in the history of the world. NOVAK: The longest. MARKEY: But it is going to be ready and people will be able to move around the city. Meanwhile, the Republicans are going to New York. And while they used to be the party of Lincoln, for 2004 they'll be the party of the Lincoln Tunnel. And for one week it's going to be one huge big gridlock, not Big Dig. And unfortunately when those limousines with wealthy Republicans are packed cheek to jowl along the streets of New York, no Republican yet has proven that they know how to use a subway. So unfortunately they're never going to be able because they don't know how to work in such small denominations and I'm afraid this convention will be a disaster for Republicans. Although it's a great city, New York. BEGALA: Rick Lazio, let me ask you, they going to retro-fit the subways to take $100 bills? Because that's all those Republicans carry. LAZIO: I take the subway every day. I think Ed is a little bit bitter because the last bounce they got for the Boston Red Sox was before World War I, and the Yankees have been 26 straight championships. They're still bitter that Babe Ruth came to New York. You know, I don't think New York needs 10 years to dig a tunnel or bury a road. We're in great... NOVAK: Can I just ask you a political question? LAZIO: I mean, where would you -- where would you guys rather go? Would you rather go to a city that is called the Big Apple or a city called Beantown? (CROSSTALK) MARKEY: I have a response to this. Boston gave the Yankees Babe Ruth. We gave them their mayor, Mike Bloomberg. He's from Boston as well. LAZIO: That shows you how smart you guys are. MARKEY: The philosophy of the Yankees and George Steinbrenner is buy the best team you can afford. And the Republican philosophy is buy the best government that is available as well. LAZIO: Ed, 26 championships, 26 championships. (CROSSTALK) MARKEY: Yankees are the Republican baseball team. (CROSSTALK) LAZIO: I hope you guys get the same balance that you give the Red Sox, that's all I have to say. We'll take the same balance that we give the Yankees. NOVAK: I've got to ask you one political question, Ed Markey. MARKEY: Sure. NOVAK: You have one of the most Democratic states in the union. You have -- the Republicans have just won the governorship for the fourth straight time. Four straight elections, that's for 16 years. Are you guys doing something wrong up there? MARKEY: I think at the end of the day, because we control 90 percent of the House and the Senate, the tradition has always been you need one Republican in some elected office, OK, to just keep an eye on everyone else. (CROSSTALK) MARKEY: But we wouldn't go beyond that. Every other office at every other level is controlled by the Democrats, and it will always be thus. BEGALA: Well, let me ask Rick Lazio a political question. Your Republican governor was reelected. I saw some of the commercials. I like to go fish up in the Catskill Mountains, and he ran ads, never mentioned he was a Republican, and he was calling for repealing drug laws. Your mayor, a Republican, is a contributor to Hillary Clinton, and he supports gay rights and higher taxes. Is that the future of the Republican Party? Because if so, sign me up. LAZIO: You know, you've got two Republicans who do reach out to minorities, who reach out to Democrats and independents, and have been very successful and have learned to govern from the center. And they're widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats. And I think their levels of popularity reflect that. BEGALA: Rick Lazio, good guy, good Republican. Thank you. MARKEY: Can I just say this, Paul. I hope the Republicans don't follow through on their plan to turn Central Park into a golf course for their wealthiest contributors, OK? I think that's a terrible signal to send. BEGALA: That will have to be the last word. Congressman Ed Markey. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Thank you, Rick, from New York. Coming up in "Fireback," one of our viewers suggests a new year's resolution for me. But next, the animal rights people have something for you to chew on the next time you order a triple crunch zinger chicken sandwich with sauce. Stay tuned and find out what it is. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live as we always do from the George Washington University here in beautiful downtown, snowy downtown Washington, D.C. The group called PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is at it again. Today it began a global boycott of KFC, which most of us still remember as Kentucky Fried Chicken. The group says it's hoping to improve the lives and ease the deaths of millions, not KFC customers, but millions of chickens that are on KFC's menu. Stepping into the CROSSFIRE from the hometown of KFC, Louisville, Kentucky, Bruce Friedrich, he's PETA's director of Vegan Outreach. Mr. Friedrich, thank you for joining us, sir. BRUCE FRIEDRICH, PETA'S DIRECTOR OF VEGAN OUTREACH: My pleasure, gentlemen. Thank you. NOVAK: Mr. Friedrich, Kentucky Fried Chicken declined to come on the program, but they did supply us with this statement which I'd like to read. FRIEDRICH: Please. NOVAK: "KFC denies PETA's claims. KFC is committed to the well- being and human treatment of chickens, and require all of our suppliers to follow welfare guidelines developed by us with leading experts on our Animal Welfare Advisory Council. Our suppliers are receiving unannounced audits at their poultry facilities throughout the year. Failure to comply with our strict guidelines would result in termination of our supplier agreement if remedial action is not taken." What's wrong with that statement? FRIEDRICH: Well, KFC suppliers, in fact, boil chickens alive. They sear the beaks off of parent birds with a hot blade which is so painful that many of them starve to death. They genetically breed the animals. If a seven-pound baby grew as quickly as a KFC chicken, she'd weigh 1,500 pounds before she was six months old. The list of categorical abuses of these animals is very, very lengthy. And the reason KFC has declined to come on is that when journalists asked for those very farmed animal welfare standards that you mentioned in that statement, they don't have anything that they can supply. In fact, what KFC does to animals -- and we detail this and have a video on our Kentuckyfriedcruelty.com Web site. It's just www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com. What they do to animals, if they did to dogs and cats, KFC executives could go to jail for felony cruelty to animals in more than 30 states. BEGALA: But Mr. Friedrich, forgive me if a take a bite here, because this -- it's pretty tasty chicken. And people vote with their mouths. They vote with their hands. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), one of our production assistants is in the audience -- who wants some chicken right now? He has got a bucket. Now, this is after hearing your pitch. Is it -- could it be that you're not helping your cause very much? FRIEDRICH: Well, I think a picture is worth a thousand words, and if people could see these animals fully conscious, boiled alive, having their throats slit open while they were still conscious, they could see the animals on these factory farms. I mean, each chicken has about that much space for his or her entire life with the wing span of this. These animals are denied everything that's natural to them. They're more intelligent than cats, they are as intelligent as dogs. They want to spend time with their families, they want to dust bathe, they want to breathe fresh air. KFC denies them everything that is natural to them and categorically abuses them in ways, again, that if this were done to dogs and cats, felony cruelty to animal charges would ensue. NOVAK: Mr. Friedrich, let me quote Richard Lobb of the National Chicken Council. I didn't even know there was a National Chicken Council, but I'll quote them anyway. He says: "PETA's objective is not to improve animal welfare, but to eliminate the use of food from animal sources. A proper concern for animal welfare is already well established in the broader chicken industry." Isn't it true, Mr. Friedrich, that you're not -- what you're interested in is eliminating all eating of meat, of chicken, of anything like that? Isn't that what your real goal is? Not to worry about the poor chickens. FRIEDRICH: Well, with this campaign what we're trying to do is improve the welfare of these chickens on farms, during transportation and end at slaughter. The chicken industry uses three times as many drugs, three times as many antibiotics on chickens as are used on beef cattle, as are used on human beings in this country from the pharmaceutical companies. Wait a minute, let me finish. They do that because otherwise the animals would be keeling over dead from heart attacks and lung clouts and crippling leg deformities. They have to keep the animals drugged up with three times the amount of antibiotics as we take as human beings so that they don't all die in their short two-month lives. NOVAK: Please answer my question, sir. Are you against eating of any meat products, any animal products? BEGALA: Mr. Friedrich, I think we have briefly lost... NOVAK: We lost him. BEGALA: We lost contact with Mr. Friedrich. NOVAK: All right, let me ask you -- are we connected again? I don't think so. BEGALA: Well, as you can tell -- I was going to say maybe squirrels got into the system, maybe chickens did. I don't know. Seriously how many here -- now you heard the spiel. And, you know, there's a lot of good-hearted people that are concerned about this. Can we find nobody in the audience who now is going to be vegetarian? This -- OK, this woman is. NOVAK: Just one conversion. See. BEGALA: The rest of us are going to be eating the chicken. I have to say, even as a liberal, I -- you know what? I love chicken. I loved fried chicken. NOVAK: How many of you are eating chicken. Applaud. You know, I always -- I always thought that the purpose -- every body has a purpose. I haven't figured out what your purpose is yet, Paul. BEGALA: To annoy you. NOVAK: But I think all chickens have one purpose and that's to provide good meals. BEGALA: Well, I was moved. I really hope we get the satellite back because I would like to ask Mr. Friedrich about this notion that chickens want to spend more time with their families. That was a -- that was sort of... (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: They're packed into close quarters there. I'm sure there are issues they're trying to raise. NOVAK: OK. All right. Well, we're sorry that we lost our connection to I guess the chickens -- well, we get into that. BEGALA: Came home to roost. NOVAK: Came home to roost. Yes. Next in "Fireback," how soon they forget. I have to explain Marxism to one of our viewers. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) NOVAK: It is time for "Fireback", when the viewers get to "Fireback" at us. The first e-mail is from Ellen Remore of Old Tappan, New Jersey. She writes, "I have recently become addicted to your program and I believe that both Mr. Begala and Mr. Novak are eloquent spokesman for their respective viewpoints. However, I question Mr. Novak's persistent use of the use of the "Marxist." Ellen, being from New Jersey, you ought to know Marxist very well. It's full of them. And, in fact, if old Karl Marx were suddenly to come back to Earth today, he would say, my God, everything I have worked for almost has been put into effect, including his greatest invention, the steeply graduated income tax which penalizes the successful and rewards the unsuccessful. BEGALA: Of course, I take my inspiration on supporting a high income tax for the rich, not from Karl Marx but somebody who predated him, Jesus Christ, who said, "Of those to whom much has been given, much will be expected." That should be our tax policy as well as our religious policy. NOVAK: You know, as a good Christian I think you should know what Jesus Christ said about the tax collectors. BEGALA: He said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." He said, Shut-up and pay your taxes. That's what he said. NOVAK: He was against the tax collectors. BEGALA: No. Betty Jean Ledbetter of Marietta Georgia writes, "Hi Paul. I am 75 years of age and somewhat housebound. I never miss CROSSFIRE. You've given me so many pleasant hours of being listen to someone who stands up for his principles, has a superb sense of humor and instant wit. Keep it up, Paul. You're a keeper." Betty Jean, thank you. That's awfully nice. That's killing Novak. NOVAK: Why don't you refer to her as Aunt Betty Jean? BEGALA: Aunt Betty Jean. OK. NOVAK: OK. D.W. MacKenzie of Fairfax, Virginia, says, "Bob, keep your fight against Mr. Begala. When I hear his comments on which presidents did the best job of running the economy and see how these comments resonate with the audience, I tremble for the future of this country. No president has ever had the authority to run the economy and hopefully none ever will." NOVAK: D.W., you're right on. you're a good Virginian. But I will say this, Most of the audience -- don't worry about most of these audience. They are pampered, overeducated, undercivilized children going high tuition schools thanks to their rich parents. Don't worry about it. BEGALA: Is that true of you guys? NOVAK: Not this audience. Not this audience. BEGALA: Oh, OK. These are kids at G.W. and other high school students. But we appreciate that, D.W. Russ Clark in Charlotte, North Carolina writes, "OK, Paul. It's the new year now, and what a time to turn over a new leaf. Instead of your relentless Bush-bashing, night after night, how about offering up some fresh ideas that the Democratic Party could pursue? How about it Paul? Let's have a change." Russ, that is a fair point. If you go buy my book "It's still the economy, stupid," you'll see a whole chapter about what Democrats ought to stand for. What it begins with is standing up to Bush. I ain't going to stop, Russ. If you don't like it, tough luck, because Bush is in the office right now. He should be held accountable for what he does and the press corps have been too lazy in holding Bush to account. NOVAK: You're really off a bad start in the new year. BEGALA: I ain't going to stop. NOVAK: The same old Begala. BEGALA: I ain't going to stop. NOVAK: Question. BEGALA: Yes, sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Gabriel Garros (ph), San Angelo (ph), Texas. BEGALA: San Angelo? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: San Angelo. BEGALA: That's a great time. I love San Angelo. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes sir, it is. Is it possible that President Bush wants to bring the Republican convention to New York City to bring money and the spirit of America to the great city, just like Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton wanted to bring the Super Bowl from San Diego to New York as a symbol of the American spirit? BEGALA: I think that is a fair point. That is a good point. And in fact, I will say this for our president. He kept his word. Senator Clinton had to press him, but he kept his word on the $20 billion of aide to New York when others in his party wanted to bail out. What I question, though is when Republicans like Rick Lazio tonight, the first thing they say is we want to associate Bush with 9/11 and I think that is unfortunate. NOVAK: Well I'll tell you why he says that. Because Paul is pure politician and he is worried -- he knows that that association hurt the Democrats in the last election and he's fearful it will hurt him in the next one. So I know what you're doing, Mr. Begala. You can't fool me. Next question. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Tristan Sperling (ph) from Gaylord, Michigan and my question is, How can we justify affirmative action when we are in reality practicing reverse discrimination? NOVAK: I think you're exactly right. I asked Congressman Menendez if he was for the quota system and he wouldn't really give me a straight answer, just like Bill Clinton wouldn't give me a straight answer when I asked him face to face about it. Americans hate reverse discrimination and I hope that this president has the guts to go forward and support the white students who have been discriminated at the University of Michigan. BEGALA: Yeah, right. At the University of Michigan, you get bonus points if your daddy went to the University of Michigan. How do you think Bush got in to Yale? OK? You get bonus points if you're from a certain part of the state. You get bonus points if you can play the tuba or run the 40-yard dash. But if you bring a diverse background, the way Clarence Thomas does to the Supreme Court... NOVAK: All right. BEGALA: Oh, that doesn't count? NOVAK: We're running out of time. BEGALA: Come on. Affirmative action is great. NOVAK: Your question, please. BEGALA: Yes, sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Josh Law (ph) from Atlanta, Georgia. Does it surprise anyone that the party of big business, the GOP, is following the fiscal unresponsibility of its constituents? What happened to the premise of fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party? NOVAK: I'll give you the answer. Big business has no party. They go whatever dog will hunt will hunt with them. The Republican Party is the party of small business. BEGALA: Oh, please. The Democratic plan has a cut for small businesses in it. The Republican Party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of big business from Enron all down. Shame on them. From the left, I am Paul Begala, good night for CROSSFIRE. NOVAK: From the right, I am Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 7, 2003 Tuesday Transcript # 010700CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 8829 words HEADLINE: Bush Announces $674 Billion Economic Plan; CBS Under Fire For Hillbilly "Reality" Show; U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Agency Warns North Korea GUESTS: Ben "Cooter" Jones, Sandy Kenyon, Cliff May, Jim McDermott, Rob Portman, Joshua Marshall BYLINE: Robert Novak, James Carville HIGHLIGHT: Will Bush-o-nomics work? Is "The Beverly Hillbillies" appropriate for today's television? BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You need to know I know we have needs here at home. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: But is Bushonomics the answer to the economy's problem? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: It's an enormous budget (UNINTELLIGIBLE). (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: The president also has a message for one of the countries on the axis of evil. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: We have no (UNINTELLIGIBLE) intent, no argument with the North Korean people. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Tonight, we're asking is North Korea really that evil? And, CBS is still going after "Hillbillies." But is Hollywood just making fun of an American tragedy? Ahead on CROSSFIRE. From the George Washington University: James Carville and Robert Novak. (APPLAUSE) JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, President Bush has finally discovered it's the economy. But is his new plan just plain stupid? Also, the people who know the real hillbillies tell Hollywood to back off. But we're not backing off. Just like every day, we're starting with the best briefing on television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." President Bush claims he's found a cure for what's ailing the U.S. economy. But judging by his speech in Chicago today, what he's actually found is a cure for insomnia. He went on and on and on about a plan that can be summed up in only five words: tax cuts for the rich. The rule of holes applied here. Once you've dug yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. But this administration is too incompetent to see that. They're just going to keep digging the whole country into a deeper hole. New economists think this package would do anything to spur the economy, it's just another handout to the rich who will create deficits as far as the eye can see. ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: James, that's the class struggle. The fact of the matter is that John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan cut taxes, spurred the economy, and I think this is an exciting program that America will grasp and will prosper by. CARVILLE: Well, it is certainly one that we're going to grasp and we're going to argue about here on CROSSFIRE a good deal tonight and many nights to come. NOVAK: Democratic Senator Tom Daschle saved himself a lot of trouble today. Daschle announced he won't run for president in 2004, catching some of his closest aides by surprise. They planned for him to declare his presidency -- his candidacy Saturday. Also surprised was Senator Harry Reid, who just last night expected to succeed him as Democratic leader. Daschle says he decided he wanted to be in the Senate making a difference: to obstruct the president. Or is it no fire in the belly after failing to keep the Senate in Democratic hands last year? Incidentally, former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, who is running for president, said he isn't running for re-election to Congress. It's just Democratic dropouts all over the place. CARVILLE: Well, I'll tell you one thing. I talked to Senator Daschle's staff today. He will not be dropping out from the struggle against this lunacy that the president's proposed. It's going to be a hell of a fight, and I'm glad he's going to be leading the cause. NOVAK: Why did he drop out for president when he... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: Well because he really wanted to run for president, but he thought about his responsibilities to the country and he thought about his responsibility to the children of America, who are being dug into a deep deficit hole and will be paying for this for many years to come. And I think he decided that his obligation to the children of America was greater than his obligation to his ambition. And I congratulate him. NOVAK: That's a nice spin. (APPLAUSE) CARVILLE: Now that the guys that never bothered to serve in Vietnam are sending America's children out to fight a possible war with Iraq, at least one congressman said all young people should share the risk and rewards of national service. New York Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced his bill to reinstate the draft today. Rangel said it might make Congress think about rushing off to war if members knew everybody's children would be doing the fighting. If war is really necessary, Rangel says the children of the affluent who historically avoid military service should have a part in pain and sacrifice. I think the draft bill is a good idea. It's a citizen army that makes this country great. It will make people responsible, and I believe it will make our leaders think about sacrifice involved before rushing off to war. NOVAK: You know, James, I think military service is an honor and is something that really enriches my life. I think it enriched your life. And you may not know this, but Senator McCain got a bill through, it was signed by President Bush, that has a short-term voluntary service for Americans. And I think they ought to take advantage of that. CARVILLE: Well, I think we had a -- you know right now our armed forces are disproportionately black; they're also disproportionately non-college educated. I think if you let everybody get a little skin in this game it would be good. And let everybody have the honor of serving their country. And then we'd see (UNINTELLIGIBLE). (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: James Carville's worst nightmare came true today. The 108th Congress was sworn in. And the Republican Party took over complete control of our government in Washington, D.C. In the House, the GOP has a 229-206 margin over the Democrats. A pickup of six seats. Anything the president proposes, I predict will pass the House. And the final piece of the Republican puzzle fell into place over in the Senate. Republicans have a 51-48 majority, with so-called independent turncoat Jim Jeffords probably feeling pretty lonely. And this means the president's tax cut can pass the Senate on a simple majority vote. James, where's your trashcan? CARVILLE: Well, with all the tax breaks this president's going to give me, I could afford a whole roomful of trashcans. But that's not my worst nightmare. It's the worst nightmare for the children of America; it's the worst nightmare for the working people of America. It's the worst nightmare for the sick people of America. It's the worst nightmare for the people that want to have a country where everybody can grow and prosper. This is a sock to people like me and Bush's campaign contributors and supporters. NOVAK: You know, I liked you better with the trashcan. CARVILLE: Well I'll be able to afford a lot more when they start throwing the money at me. I came to this program last month and forgave Senator Trent Lott for comments that he described as racially insensitive. It turns out that Senator Lott might not be so forgiving. Back in the Senate today for the first time since the controversy Lott greeted Minority Leader Tom Daschle with a hearty handshake, a laugh and embrace. But Lott brushed by Senator Bill Frist without even making eye contact. Senator Frist, of course, is the new majority leader. The job Senator Lott would have had if his fellow Republicans hadn't (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I guess that here in D.C. forgiveness might be OK when it comes to inappropriate racial comments, but when it comes to power, that's a whole different ball game. NOVAK: I guess that's so, and I think it applies to you, too, James. As I remember, you demanded a $1,000 contribution back from Senator Zell Miller because he voted for the Bush tax cut. Is that right? CARVILLE: Yes, I sure did. NOVAK: That's not very forgiving or very nice, is it? CARVILLE: No, I want my money back. Damn right. NOVAK: On this, the opening day of the 108th Congress, the Senate was supposed to routinely pass a five-month extension of unemployment benefits with bipartisan backing. Co-sponsored by none other than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. But when Mrs. Clinton was recognized to speak, she broke the deal by proposing the jobless pay be extended to one million more people. Democrats then tied the Senate in parliamentary knots. This was an ambush to deny newly installed Republican leader Bill Frist even one day in the sun. The original bill eventually passed, but Senate Democrats made clear that in the minority, they'll be even more nasty and partisan than they were in the majority. CARVILLE: Let me get this straight. They've been proposing yearly tax cuts for people making over $1 million, but of $90,000 and they can't extend unemployment benefits? What a pathetic -- you know, it's immoral. They want to put a million more people -- the Republican Party has constituted today with this kind of thing. Somebody needs to look at the morality of this kind of thing, because that's wrong. They should be extending unemployment benefits to anybody that's unemployed at this time. NOVAK: I'll tell you, when you extend unemployment benefits those people don't want to work. CARVILLE: That's ludicrous. You think people out of work don't want to work? They got people standing in line waiting to work and have a job. You know? The Senate reconvened today, and at least two senators are still waiting for an answer to a burning question. On November 19, when the Senate passed the homeland security bill, Senator Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were given a promise. They were told that somehow the Senate would get a chance to reconsider and modify many of the special interest provisions hidden in the homeland security bill. One of them, protecting drug maker Eli Lilly from lawsuits of vaccines. At the time, Senator Susan Collins -- she's on the right of your screen -- and Senator Snowe -- at the microphone -- said the process was so odious, the provision so unjustified, we don't feel we can go forward with the agreement to modify the bill. Only after getting an agreement to do that, Maine senators voted for passage. Now it's up to the new majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, to follow through that purpose. We're waiting, Mr. Leader. So when is the provision going to be removed? NOVAK: You know I know you went on "Meet The Press" and put the heat on Senator Frist to do this. This is a perfectly reasonable provision. It says the people can get the money back from this fund if they have damage from their children from these things, but they cannot go and break -- just a minute -- they cannot break the bank with these trial lawyers. I know you're in cahoots with the rich trial lawyers, which is a basic support group of the Democratic Party. CARVILLE: Let me just say this, they gave these two senators their word. And you know, if we had a press corps from Capitol Hill, which we don't, they would ask about it. And I'll tell you what this is. If they don't follow through on their word with these two senators, you women out there know what the Republican Party thinks of women. They tell them anything to get a bill passed, they lie to them, and then they say -- oh, they're just a couple of girl senators, let them off to the side. We don't have to keep our word to them. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: The commitment was they would consider it and they are considering it. CARVILLE: They said it was odious and they're not going to do a thing (UNINTELLIGIBLE). NOVAK: When Republican Dennis Hastert was reelected Speaker of the House of Representatives today, all the Republicans voted for him. But not all Democrats voted for his Democratic opponent Nancy Pelosi. She lost the votes of four fellow Democrats. Modern Southerns -- moderate Southerners Ralph Hall and Charles Stenholm of Texas, Ken Lucas of Kentucky and Gene Taylor of Mississippi. They just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Ms. Pelosi, who is a San Francisco liberal. All four of them may be the last Democrats ever to represent their districts. James, future prospects for Democratic control of the House are very dim, indeed. CARVILLE: You know, the Republicans all voted for Tom DeLay, who said that Columbine was a result of birth control, the teaching of evolution, and day care. Three things that I support wholeheartedly. I think women ought to be able to take a birth control pill. I think there ought to be day care. And I absolutely think -- I know you don't like birth control. I know you don't like day care. And I know that you think that teaching evolution is some kind of hoax. NOVAK: Well, I'll tell you what I do -- I'll tell you what I do like. I do like Tom DeLay, but he wasn't running for speaker today, it was Hastert. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: They didn't vote anything (ph) today. You ought to read the papers sometime, James. CARVILLE: Right. NOVAK: In a minute... CARVILLE: I'm for birth control. I'm for teaching evolution. And I'm for day care. All the way. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: I'll tell you, when I see you James, I'm for birth control, too. In a minute, we'll put the Republican and Democratic tax plans side by side. And later we'll look at whether the president has proven to not desiring a second Korean War. And we have the latest in Hollywood reality programs. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARVILLE: Way back in 1980, President Bush's daddy told Ronald Reagan that expecting to balance the budget by cutting taxes and increasing spending was voodoo economics. He was right. It's too bad he didn't tell his son. Today, President George W. Bush showed off his plans for another $674 billion of trickle-down economics. It didn't work then, it won't work now, and we can't put Bill Clinton back in office to fix things. What are we going to do? First in the CROSSFIRE, are Washington state Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott and Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Portman. (APPLAUSE) (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Congressman McDermott, you're a psychiatrist by profession, and although you've been on the Ways and Means Committee for many years, with all due respect, I don't think you've learned a lot. So I want to give you a good lesson in economics by somebody who did major in economics in college, and he's going to explain to you why repealing the tax on dividends is important. Let's listen to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: Double taxation is bad for our economy. Double taxation is wrong. Double taxation falls especially hard on retired people. About half of all dividend income goes to America's seniors. And they often rely on those checks for a steady source of income in their retirement. It's fair to tax a company's profits. It's not fair to double tax by taxing the shareholder on the same profits. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Congressman McDermott, can you... REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Is that "Saturday Night Live"? (APPLAUSE) (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Congressman, can you contradict one factual point that the graduate of economics from Yale University and the Harvard Business School gave us? MCDERMOTT: Would you like to talk about how many people have lost their jobs since he took over? I mean, didn't he cut taxes a trillion dollars? He cut it a trillion dollars, and what do we have? More people lost their jobs. We're further in the hole. We're in deficit spending; this guy wants to go to war, which is a drag on the economy. And, at the same time, he wants to cut taxes. Now you can't do that. You cannot pay for a war and also give it out the back door. NOVAK: I just want someone to tell me what he said that was wrong. Do you really feel that the poor people getting dividends from their stocks on retirement, that they wouldn't be better off if they didn't have to pay taxes on this income which has already been taxed at the corporate level? MCDERMOTT: After the corporate corruption that has wiped out people's 401(k)s, there aren't any dividends to be paid to anybody. NOVAK: Oh, that's not true. MCDERMOTT: These people are living off their Social Security. That's all they've got left. CARVILLE: Congressman Portman... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I thought they doctored the tape, to tell you the truth. We could start with a nomenclature problem here. This is not a stimulus package, is it? REP. ROB PORTMAN (R), OHIO: He didn't call it a stimulus package. He calls it an economic growth package. CARVILLE: OK. Well let's argue with this guy. I want to show you a clip of somebody. I want to show you a clip of somebody who claims to know something about economics. Can I show Congressman Portman clip please? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: He makes a mistake when he calls it a stimulus package. His own economic advisers will tell him he shouldn't use that. That's a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) term. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARVILLE: He says it's not a job creation package. NOVAK: I said it's not a stimulus package. CARVILLE: So this has nothing to do with stimulating the economy? PORTMAN: Bob and I agree, actually. This is a job creation package. CARVILLE: Bob says no. Bob says -- I quote, "It isn't a jobs creation program." That's what he said. PORTMAN: Well, it is. CARVILLE: That's what he said. Is Bob wrong? PORTMAN: He could be wrong. Here's what it is. It's not a jobs program. And I don't know which of the six or seven Democrat plans Jim supports, but most of them say let's just take money from the federal government and let's send it back to the states. That's a jobs program for more spending on infrastructure, on transportation. What we're talking about, instead, is creating more growth in the economy to create jobs for everyone. CARVILLE: Let me show you something. PORTMAN: Are you going to do a bridge or a road here? CARVILLE: No. I just want to show you something. That plan, according to what was released today, somebody makes over $1 million a year, like me, it comes to $90,000 in tax savings. NOVAK: You make over $1 million a year? Wow. CARVILLE: That's $45 an hour tax-free that I get. Every hour, eight hours a day, 50 weeks a year, under this plan I get $45 tax free an hour. $36,500, a schoolteacher. You know how much you get under this plan? Eighteen cents an hour. That's your tax break. PORTMAN: James, you're missing the point. CARVILLE: People that make over $1 million get $45 every hour for doing nothing. PORTMAN: You're missing the point. CARVILLE: Tell me the point why I get $45 and he gets 18? PORTMAN: James, two things. One, this is about tax cuts for people who pay income taxes. When the top 10 percent are saying 67 percent of the income tax, the top one percent paying now 37 -- how much would you like them to pay? Second, this is not about those people and their tax cuts. It's about growing the economy. John Kennedy was talked about earlier. A rising tide lifts all boats. This will increase stocks -- where I think the president didn't go far enough in his speech is he didn't talk about what this is going to do for stock prices. Talk to any economist. The White House says it will go up 10 or 20 percent. The economists have different numbers. This will raise the stock market, raise stock prices. That helps everybody. CARVILLE: Congressman, let me ask you something. From 1992 to 1999, the stock market went up 348 percent. It went up from 3,300 to 11,000 -- let me finish. PORTMAN: And wouldn't that be great to get back there? CARVILLE: Great, but they didn't have a dividend tax cut then. The stock market didn't need the help. People out there who are working every day need the help. These people are paying sales tax; they're paying property tax; they're paying payroll tax. Why do we keep insulting these people by telling them that they don't pay taxes? (APPLAUSE) PORTMAN: You don't remember the tax cuts in 1995 and 1996? Those tax cuts were bigger as a percentage of GDP than what he's talking about here. You keep spending under control... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: You want to give me $45 an hour just to sit there? NOVAK: The person he's talking about doesn't pay income tax. But I want to show you something, Congressman McDermott about this dividend tax. We had a little poll in the audience, and they bring a lot of people -- we go and we impress people out of bars to come into watching this program here. So we get a lot of left wingers there. And it's not a good sample. A good sample was taken by the Gallup Poll... MCDERMOTT: I see. It's not a good sample. NOVAK: No -- January 3 and 5. Regular people. These are regular people. Let's look at reducing taxes on dividends. This is national poll. Favor: 58 percent; oppose: 37 percent. That shows you the American people are smart enough to know this is a good idea. McDermott: That's the same poll that says that the people want to go to war. That Bush has the support of 80 or 90 percent of the people that go to war. It depends how you ask the question. If you ask the question in a way, would everybody like to take taxes off, of course they say yes. Does it benefit them or will it stimulate the economy? None of the economists say that. Tonight -- today in "The New York Times" -- you read Paul Krugman (ph). NOVAK: He's a left wing extremist. MCDERMOTT: Oh, right. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: I'll give you an economist. An economic analyst who has been tremendously accurate in predicting things over the years, Gary Robbins (ph). Gary Robbins (ph) says that for every dollar in taxes cut there will be a feedback in GDP between $1.50 and $2. Isn't that worth it? MCDERMOTT: Why didn't it work in the last two years, Bob? NOVAK: It did. MCDERMOTT: It didn't. We're going down. NOVAK: Because we're in a business cycle. Virginia, there is a business cycle. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: A policy of high deficits and high tariffs is good business policy? That's what this administration tells us. What's so good -- how do high deficits and high tariffs help us? PORTMAN: I'd like to know what you guys would propose. Do you think the economy's in good shape? Do you think it's good the stock market's gone down for three years? Do you think people don't need more money in their pockets? (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I'll tell you what. The democratic proposal... MCDERMOTT: The Democratic proposal is $136 billion. And a lot of it is to local government. PORTMAN: A lot of it is spending. MCDERMOTT: Well of course it is. Just give it to them. PORTMAN: You want your tax dollars to go to Washington and then go back to local government? MCDERMOTT: You guys have cut the safety net to shreds and now every state in the country has their Medicaid program in big trouble. PORTMAN: We've increased spending (ph) every year. MCDERMOTT: I'm sorry. The White House came out today and said it's going to be flat funding in the country. PORTMAN: Is that cutting it to shreds, flat funding in the country? MCDERMOTT: Yes, because inflation is going up. And pharmaceutical costs are going up, and all these things are going up. And the president says we're going to get by on the same money next... (CROSSTALK) PORTMAN: ... not taking money in Washington and giving it back to the state. It's doing something to help the economy. It's doing something to help the economy. (CROSSTALK) MCDERMOTT: Now you've got to put money back in to make it roll. NOVAK: Congressman McDermott, I love you because you're such a pure liberal, and I'd like to see if I understand this. We have these local governments, when they were in the upswing of the business cycle, and they were just spending money like drunken sailors, were they not? MCDERMOTT: And the states were doing the same thing. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: So what you're saying right now... MCDERMOTT: Mostly Democrats, but some Republican. NOVAK: .. is we're going to bail these out with federal funds. So instead of having them cut back on these wasteful programs, is that it? MCDERMOTT: You had your irresponsible governors who gave tax cuts and didn't invest the money properly. NOVAK: It's the spending that's going on. MCDERMOTT: I'm sorry? Healthcare is spending? NOVAK: It sure eis. MCDERMOTT: Oh, I see. Oh, well we're going to take that back. That's one of those things we can't afford. We're not the richest country in the world. No other country makes anybody broke because of their healthcare except this one. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: If we had your plan in effect, we would have socialized medicine in America, and I would have to go to the doctor you told me to go to. Isn't that right? MCDERMOTT: You know, every other country -- no, that's not true. They don't do that in England, they don't do it in Canada, they don't do it in Germany. No, they don't. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: ... force you to go to the doctor? (UNINTELLIGIBLE) go to any doctor you want to go to. You call that socialized medicine. What's wrong with that? NOVAK: I'm talking about his plan, the single payer plan. I couldn't have chosen my doctor. MCDERMOTT: Yes you can. They do it in Germany, France, Britain, Canada. NOVAK: We don't want to get on that. MCDERMOTT: OK. I know you want to run away from that one. PORTMAN: Mrs. Clinton tried your plan in 1993 and it didn't work. MCDERMOTT: No she didn't. PORTMAN: Yes she did. (CROSSTALK) PORTMAN: But what does this have to do with the economy, James? You want to put more money back to the states, more money for transportation, healthcare? CARVILLE: Since this administration has come into office, they've had to change the secretary of treasury, they've had to change the chief adviser. They've run the deficit to up to the place that no one even knows where it's going to be. They refuse to deal with reality. No one will talk about what they're doing (UNINTELLIGIBLE), which is an $800 billion problem. When are we going to get some economic sanity? When are we going to get off the high tariff, high deficit economic program that you guys keep promoting? PORTMAN: James, first of all, there's been less turnover in this administration than anyone in recent history. And I thought you liked the fact that there's a change in the secretary of the Treasury. I thought you were applauding that. CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) one guy, the guy that's in is worse. This guy couldn't even run a railroad in Richmond. He's going to come to Washington and run the economy? This has got to be the most inept cabinet appointment in the last 50 years. PORTMAN: He's been a very successful CEO (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but here's the deal. MCDERMOTT: You know why? Because he didn't pay any taxes for three years and got a tax rebate. NOVAK: Mr. Portman is trying to say something. PORTMAN: James, if you want to grow the economy, you've got to do something to get the market back up. You've got to get the consumer back in the market, and you've got to get investment at the business side. All economists agree with that. MCDERMOTT: Stop talking about war (ph). PORTMAN: What are your ideas to do that? Tell me your ideas to do that. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: First of all, we're operating at 80 percent of capacity. So (UNINTELLIGIBLE), we need consumption. The way that you do it -- I can give you an elementary thing here. You asked me, let me finish. You keep asking me what the plan is. PORTMAN: But you haven't given me one. CARVILLE: I'm just giving you a basic lesson in Econ 101. So what you do is, right now you stress consumption. So you take a plan that puts money in people's pocket now that stimulates the economy. Even Mr. Novak -- every economist says this will not help the economy. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Wait a minute. A truth squad. That is not true. I can tell you, I can cite one economist, I can cite a lot more. CARVILLE: Who? NOVAK: Gary Robbins (ph). Larry Hunter (ph) is another one. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: What you need is consumption. Your plan, higher tariffs, higher deficits, is not an economic plan. Incompetent appointees is not an economic plan. You have to learn that. NOVAK: The speech by James Carville is the last word. And thank you very much, Congressman McDermott. Thank you very much, Congressman Portman. The U.S. is taking one more step toward a possible war in Iraq. Connie Chung has the details next in the CNN "News Alert". And then we'll ask a couple of guests about what President Bush plans to do about North Korea. And then we're off to the cutting edge of popular culture, where everything old is reality TV again. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (NEWS ALERT) NOVAK: As Connie Chung reported, the Pentagon is moving senior military planners to a base in the Persian Gulf for a possible war with Iraq. But in an important shift in policy, the Bush administration now says it's willing to talk with North Korea before the North shuts down its nuclear weapons program. Stepping into the CROSSFIRE are Josh Marshall, contributing writer to Washington monthly, and Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: Let's Go, Cliff, right to the editor of "Newsweek International" and see what he had to say and give you a chance to comment. It kind of fits into Bobs lead in here. Soon the administration will turn to a version of the Clinton policy condemned. Officials have already told CNN that while they won't quote, "negotiate with North Korea," they could, well, quote "talk." I suppose it depends on the definition for the world negotiate is. For an administration that claims to know the definition of "is, " what's the difference between talk -- what is the definition of "is," by the way? CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: You guys haven't figured out? I think we need a whole program to discuss the definition of "is." (CROSSTALK) MAY: The real problem goes back, I'm afraid to 1994 when President Clinton under the urging of former President Carter struck a deal with North Korea... CARVILLE: We can go back to 1994. First let's deal with 2003. What's the difference between talk and negotiate? MAY: There is no good answer right now to the problem we have with North Korea. The lesson we've got to learn, once a thug, once a rogue dictator has nuclear weapons you don't have a simple solution. Look, I'm not going to tell you... CARVILLE: You don't have a good answer for the difference between talk and negotiate so you're changing the subject. You're saying I don't have a good answer. MAY: I think you may have to talk, you may have to negotiate. But what you don't want to do is appease, what you don't want to do is reward nuclear armed dictators and terrorists. CARVILLE: We're going to talk to them before they -- that's a nice -- we're going to talk to them before they dismantle but we're not going to appease? I'm very vexed. MAY: We don't have a good solution because for the last eight years we've allowed them to build nuclear weapons while we've given them fuel, oil... (CROSSTALK) MAY: And light water nuclear reactors. (CROSSTALK) MAY: They were building nuclear weapons before the ink was dry on the final of the agreement. CARVILLE: What do you want to say? JOSHUA MARSHALL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, WASHINGTON MONTHLY: Well, that's just not true. You are combining two different issues. One is the plutonium nuclear production plant that they have, and we put on ice in 1994. It was on ice until basically a few weeks ago. And then a uranium which we think started in 1999. MAY: So what your saying -- let me understand what you're saying. MARSHALL: Let me say what I'm saying. MAY: Go ahead. MARSHALL: Nothing's happened on the plutonium one. You're saying they've been making bombs. Everybody knows the uranium program is years away from making bombs. The plutonium is one is months away and now you guys have the plutonium thing back online. How is that better? MAY: Your saying in 1994 we gave them fuel oil food and two nuclear reactors but we didn't really prohibit them from developing nuclear weapons which they were prohibited from developing under the nonproliferation agreement? (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Can I just ask a simple factual question? MAY: I'd love you to. NOVAK: Isn't it true that when President Carter made the deal in 1994, the widespread impression was that this regime would not be around 10 years later? MARSHALL: I think that's probably right. But I mean I'm not sure what the difference is? NOVAK: They never thought that they would have to face the consequences of what they did in 1994 because they wouldn't be around. MARSHALL: I think you're wrong. I don't think that's right. Look, the danger that we faced in 1994 was the fact the they were basically ready to go online, and become a plutonium factory. And they could proliferate it and do all sorts of stuff. We wanted to put that on ice and keep them in the international nuclear oversight program, and we did that. NOVAK: Just a minute. We've been very, you know, I don't want to make this a moratorium on the Clinton administration. I'm really sick of talking about Clinton. Every time we get James next to me we have to talk about Clinton. I want to look at what President Bush said today, and you tell me whether this is not a reasonable approach. Let's listen to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: We have no aggressive intent. No argument with the North Korean people. We're interested in peace on the Korean peninsula. As we deal with the dangers of our time, different circumstances require different strategies. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Now, isn't that reasonable? MARSHALL: It's reasonable but the only problem is it's completely different from what they've been doing for the last two years, so it's reasonable now. But how did they get us into this mess in the first place? MAY: How did they get us into this mess? Look as recently as August they were keeping to the agreement made in 1994 pouring concrete on a light water nuclear power plant. Now, I'm not sure I would have been in favor of that but they were keeping to the agreement, but this agreement was violated. We were betrayed by the North Koreans. And, by the way, Paul Wolfowitz in 1995 said what are you guys doing with this agreement, they're going to violate it. And why was it an agreement not a treaty? Because Clinton did not want to submit it to the Congress for approval? Don't you think the president should consult with the Congress -- Jim. CARVILLE: Let me got to a think here because apparently you're confused. Do you know -- I'm not going to try to give you a test, but do you understand the difference between plutonium and uranium? MAY: I don't want... CARVILLE: No, tell us the difference. MAY: I don't want the North Koreans using anything to make nuclear weapons and neither should you. CARVILLE: Would you explain to him -- because he doesn't understand. MAY: A bomb made from plutonium and uranium, yes. MARSHALL: There's a very big difference. One is several months away. The other is several years away. MAY: Yes. MARSHALL: And up until about a month ago, we had the plutonium still on ice, so basically now, you took us -- the people in this administration... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: Just a minute, Mr. Marshall. We've been through this. You're repeating yourself. You're both repeating yourself. Let me... MAY: We don't want them to have any nuclear weapons in North Korea or Iraq, by the way. MARSHALL: It's months or years. MAY: Years is better. If they can make it for years that great. MARSHALL: You took it from years to months. NOVAK: Let me try as a reasonable person, lower the temperature here and let's listen to what the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said yesterday. Let's listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MOHAMMED EL BARADEI, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, IAEA: The ball is very much in the court right now. I convey to them today the decision by our executive board, 35 members of unified view that North Korea has to come clean. We also told them that if you take the first step, we are ready to engage you into a dialogue. So the board is very much in accord. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: So nobody wants to have a war on the Korean peninsula. That is a reasonable approach, is it not? MARSHALL: I don't think most people do. But the Bush administration has been making threats back and forth the last two years. Ones that it's pretty clear they weren't going to be able to follow through on. MAY: The last two years when they've been building a nuclear power plant for North Korea as recently as august. You tell me what threats they made a year ago? MARSHALL: Putting in the axis of evil, giving all sorts of hints that regime change was our policy and not disarmament? Have you been paying attention -- MAY: The idea that they're doing this because of something Bush said is nonsense. Secondly the reason they're being in the axis of evil... (CROSSTALK) MAY: Let me finish. Because they're wrong if they do. Secondly, the reason he put them in the axis of evil is because they all knew through intelligence sources that the agreements not to build nuclear weapons were being violated. They knew it at that time he said that. I talked to the administration at that time. CARVILLE: Let me read you something. We know why they put them in the axis of evil. Let's listen here. Put it up there. One thing about coming here we can always inform you. MAY: It's wonderful that you do that, James. CARVILLE: And not a completely crazy case can be made the most influential thinker in foreign policy apparatus in the administration of George W. Bush, the first two years was not of -- was not Cheney, Rumsfeld, not Condi, not Rummy, not any of these people. Not Tenet, not Wolfowitz, but rather a 42-year-old Canadian named David Frum, who is a speech writer who in his book said, no one ever tells anything about North Korea. He just -- he needed three things to match so that's how it came out of his mouth. MAY: James... CARVILLE: So we are now running a foreign policy by speech writers. MAY: The quick answer is this. When that happened I called someone in the administration. I said, Did you put North Korea in the axis of evil just so you wouldn't only have Muslim nations? And they said, No, you're going to find out why very soon. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: The last word for you. MAY: Glad to have it. NOVAK: Thanks. MAY: Always a pleasure to see you and be educated. NOVAK: Coming up in "Fireback" one of our viewers wants to know just who's really afraid of presidential wanna-be Al Sharpton. But next, a complaint that TV is frivolous, demeaning, and reinforces stereotypes. Now really is that anything new? (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C. Here on CROSSFIRE we've taken note that CBS television plans to produce a reality show based on the sitcom "The Beverly Hillbillies." Some geniuses think it might be a laugh to plop a family of real hillbillies down in a Beverly Hills mansion and let the cameras roll. But today an ad in some of the nation's largest newspaper asked, How many ways can one TV network get it wrong? The ad blasted CBS for reinforcing the disparaging stereotypes and mocking a group of Americans who have endured poverty, hardships, and inequity. We're going to put this in the CROSSFIRE with our guest, former Georgia Congressman Ben Jones. You remember him as Cooter from the "Dukes of Hazzard" TV series. And with him is "Parade" magazine contributing editor Sandy Kenyon. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Let me see if I can get this right, Mr. Cooter Jones. You are upset about the stereotype of hillbillies being perpetuated by CBS, after you did so much perpetuate hillbilly on Cooter on the "Dukes of Hazzard," where you played a not so bright guy, is that right? BEN "COOTER" JONES, FMR. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: You never watched the show. NOVAK: I sure didn't. JONES: It's been a long time ago. So, I know back when everybody wore three-piece suits, right? And no, we weren't portraying stereotypes. It was pretty much of a Southern show created by Southerners, a wonderful piece of Americana. Good guys always won, nobody got hurt, very healthy, positive, ennobling heroes, in fact. SANDY KENYON, "PARADE": With all due respect, you had a little guy in a white suit and a big fat cigar named Boss Hogg. Now f he wasn't a stereotype, I don't know what was. JONES: But it was for fun and he always lost and the good guys always won... (CROSSTALK) JONES: No, I'm not so sure about this. Here's what I think. I think that, you know, I could care less. I mean he's a coonass and I'm a redneck. CARVILLE: Damn proud of it. JONES: We're very, very proud of this. NOVAK: What's the difference? JONES: What's the difference? CARVILLE: I'm French and he's Anglo. JONES: That's right. CARVILLE: I eat good food and he eats corn pone or whatever the hell it is. I eat jambalaya. JONES: That's right. That's right. He eats hot food and I'm kind of a Celtic mix of some sort. But at any rate we're both from the South, and the South is that place where it's OK to proper us any way you want to. Reinforce those stereotypes, we don't have any teeth, we don't wear shoes and we're all racist. People are getting sick and tired of it. Now I could care less, but I understand where these people are coming from. What Hollywood is doing is saying basically -- that very provincial place -- that media elite in Hollywood is saying, We're superior. Our culture is superior to your culture and we're going to make fun of you and that's offensive to anybody. CARVILLE: I think we'd all agree that if think said, Why don't we take a family of Hasidic Jews in, say, the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn and stick them in the middle of a small all Anglo Saxon Protestant town somewhere in the Midwest or the South and just see how they adjust, we'd all say this is ridiculous. KENYON: Well, I got to tell you, Jim, though... CARVILLE: I mean, I would certainly be against that. KENYON: Yes, but look I've heard a lot of bald jokes in my time. Are you going to organize the people against baldness? Can I say this about "Joe Millionaire," a show that got 30 percent of the young audience. I got a friend in Arizona named Mike Short (ph), who builds houses. What, is he going to be upset because they make fun of this construction worker, the big lug can't dance? You know, this is an equal opportunity offender here. These folks are on TV. I wouldn't do it. You wouldn't do it. CARVILLE: I wouldn't -- look, I wouldn't, I'm just saying is they want to do this and take these people. I know a lot of them. I worked in Kentucky and eastern Kentucky. These are people that have been shot at and missed and basically you know what and hit most of their lives. And I'm saying is, if we did that to a family of Hasidic Jews or we took a black family -- I want to say it. I want to say it. We took an African-American family and we put them there, we would all be appalled. I'm saying this -- I've got a better idea. I'll support a reality show... (CROSSTALK) KENYON: Everybody is getting humiliated if you wait long enough. These reality shows are the hottest thing going. JONES: You've got a great reality show. CARVILLE: I've got a great reality show. JONES: Listen to this. CARVILLE: I want to go to Hollywood and I want to take these producers and I want to take these writers and stick their arses in a coal mine and let them make a living there for a year. Let them live off $6.30 an hour and let's see how they adjust. And the CBS executives. Let's Moonbeam or whatever the hell his name is drop down into a damn coal mine. NOVAK: When I'm with Mr. Carville I become the advocate of fairness. It's very unusual for me. But I want to give these people who are developing this program a chance to say what they're doing. And let's listen to -- let's see what Dub Cornett, who is the new "Beverly Hillbillies" developer says. He says, "We will accomplish the most if we cast it well with people who respect themselves, but seem the humor in themselves. We will end up with a piece that truly has, God forbid, social commentary and maybe we'll enlighten, that's it not all barefoot hillbillies." What's wrong with that? JONES: We've got the cast. Me and you. (CROSSTALK) JONES: Like trying to figure the tax on our stock dividends and stuff like that. NOVAK: Answer. Answer. What's wrong with that? JONES: Hmm? NOVAK: What's wrong with that? That mission that I just read. JONES: What I said was I don't care. I don't think that the lowest common denominator can ever be reached by these geniuses in Hollywood. It is a vast wasteland. They don't have any taste. It is sleaze. They don't care about the heartland of America. KENYON: Then don't watch it. JONES: I'm not going to watch it. Why would I watch it? KENYON: But there are tens of millions of people who are watching this. JONES: They really want to see reality because they don't have anything else to watch. JONES: Oh, come on. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: In all of the creativity out there, and there's a ton of it, and all the people out there, you're telling me they can't think of something to entertain people other than watching poor people -- trying to let poor people try to make fools of themselves or put them in an environment that they're completely ill equipped to deal with? (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I can't believe that in a country like this -- and I saw this "Catch Me If You Can," was a very creative movie, Steven Spielberg, all these people, all these geniuses got to be able to figure out a way that they can entertain young people without making fun of people who have had a hard time in life. That's what we're saying. KENYON: Remember back in the day -- all right. But remember this, you had the Ma and Pa Kettle movies back way back then. Bob remembers, probably. The rest of us don't. But the point is that these were real... NOVAK: I kind of had a thing for them, yes. KENYON: You've got to remember "The Beverly Hillbillies"... JONES: I loved "The Beverly Hillbillies." CARVILLE: "The Beverly Hillbillies" always won in the end. "The Beverly Hillbillies" was a mock on Beverly Hills. They were making fun of Beverly Hills. (CROSSTALK) KENYON: But also remember this, like "The Beverly Hillbillies," the rich people here will be made fun of. It's a fish out of water story. CARVILLE: Let me go -- Peter Weir does the best fish out of water movies I've ever seen. He's a completely creative guy. "The Year of Living Dangerously," "Witness." He's done some of the greatest movies I've ever seen. But let me go back. What is wrong with CBS? They're hitting all big-end supporting of the Masters. Supporting this, of a club that doesn't let women in. They're sitting here making fun of hillbillies. Does this network -- can somebody there -- can somebody get this thing right? Or are they just going to sit there digging themselves in one P.R. disaster after another. KENYON: I think actually they've shown a lot of restraint. I think "Fear Factor," you know, the other networks have celebrities making fools of themselves. Everybody... (CROSSTALK) JONES: Those shows are no more about real people or reality than professional wrestling is. Everybody knows that it's a show. If you're going to do a good show go ahead and spend the money, do it right, use talent. NOVAK: I want to ask you a personal question, if I can. You've got beat by Newt Gingrich in Georgia. You just got beat... JONES: Beat me like a rented mule. NOVAK: And you got beat by some little Republican in Virginia. And are you giving up politics now? JONES: Well, I've -- I never did quite master it anyway, did I? Let's look at it this way. I had to leave politics because of illness, Bob. The voters got sick of me. NOVAK: Cooter Jones, thank you very much. JONES: Thank you. NOVAK: Sandy Kenyon, thank you. Next, the CROSSFIRE version of reality TV, "Fireback." A defender of hillbillies everywhere has already fired off his comments. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) NOVAK: Time now for "Fireback," when the viewers "Fireback" at us. The first e-mail tonight's from Rene Goguen of Fitchburg, Massachusetts. I was stationed at Fort Devons right near Fitchburg. "Bob, you are my kind of guy. To think that the Democrats economic package is the better plan is ridiculous. I have a problem when I, being a taxpayer, have to pay for those who don't pay taxes by choice. It is a sure sign to me of Socialism. Keep up the good work showing our side." Rene, it's great to find one clear-thinking American in Massachusetts. CARVILLE: All right. We'll now attack Massachusetts. A state with a new Republican governor. "CBS's decision to air a reality version of 'The Beverly Hillbillies' is disgraceful. If a network ran a show where blacks were moved into gated communities, people would rightly e outraged. can't we give rural Americans the same respect?" Willie Davis, Lexington, Kentucky. You're right, Willie. NOVAK: All right. Gare Galbraith of Charlottesville, Virginia says, "Novak's claim the Democrats are afraid of what Al Sharpton will bring to the dynamics of Presidential primaries is sadly narrow. Stop projecting, Novie. You're the one who fears these groups having more voice and power." Let me tell you, Gare Galbraith, what they're worried about is that 40 percent of the black -- of the Democratic voters in the South is black. If they all go to Reverend Sharpton, and they got eight white candidates against him, the Democrats are in huge trouble. CARVILLE: You know, Novie, I thought you ought to change your last name to Scotia. All right. "Dear, James, you are so sexy when you get angry at those wrong-headed conservatives. I just want to kiss you. I am 70 years old. Do you like older women?" Betty Sinski, Angleton, Texas. Betty, I love all women. NOVAK: First question from the audience. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I'm Gregory Blant (ph) from Chevy Chase, Maryland. Would the Clintons, Bill, Hillary, Roger, be a good family to star in this new "Beverly Hillbillies" show on CBS? NOVAK: That is a good question. I think it would be ideal. CARVILLE: I think it would be great. I think a guy with an IQ of about 199, went to Oxford, was a Rhodes scholar would be a good representative. NOVAK: Go ahead. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm Josh Mintz (ph) from Richfield, Connecticut. Do you think Senator Daschle would have won the Democratic nomination? Why or why not? NOVAK: He wouldn't have won a thing. That's why he got out. Nobody likes to lose. Cooter doesn't like to lose and Tom Daschle doesn't like to lose. CARVILLE: I think he was going to run, as of yesterday. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and I think he really did decide that he needed to stay as a leader. That he made an obligation to his party. And I think he felt it and I congratulate him for it. NOVAK: Question? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Wade Ewing (ph) from Hershey, Pennsylvania. NOVAK: Hershey, I love the smell of that town. CARVILLE: That's where Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As you can tell, I do, too. I was wondering, why Democrats are always so willing to take credit for all the foreign policy and economic work that Bush Senior and Reagan did, and use Clinton as the vessel to accept that Credit. Yet they don't give the same credit for the bad situation that we're in now to Clinton. Instead they blame it on Bush Junior. NOVAK: Excellent question. CARVILLE: It was Clinton that created $3 trillion worth of debt? Or was it Clinton that solved the problem. It was Clinton that solved all these problems. Wasn't Clinton that inherited $5.6 trillion surplus. From the left I'm James Carville. Good night from CROSSFIRE. NOVAK: From the right I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 8, 2003 Wednesday Transcript # 010800CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 10344 words HEADLINE: Democratic, Republican Economic Plans Unveiled; Anti-SUV Campaign Heats Up GUESTS: Ralph Nader, Bob Walker BYLINE: Paul Begala, Tucker Carlson HIGHLIGHT: Both Democratic and Republican economic plans have been unveiled, but which one will best serve the public? Also, the anti- SUV campaign heats up. BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: it's still the economy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The White House is opened to working with Congress to get something done for the American people. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Whose plan has the better chance? The Democrats? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: What the Democrats problem is, is nothing is good enough for them. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Then how about the Republicans? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: This president has a record of job creation that is zero. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: If you're driving an SUV, are you feeling guilty yet? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I helped hijack an airplane. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I helped blow up a nightclub. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Ahead on CROSSFIRE. Live from the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson. (APPLAUSE) TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Pay no attention to that persistent whining sound you hear from Capitol Hill. It's only Democrats. They finally realized this week that, in fact, they lost the mid-term election. We'll ask tonight's guests, including Ralph Nader, what the Republican takeover of Washington will mean for the economy and for doing business on Capitol Hill. Later, Arianna Huffington will attempt to explain why if you drive a sport utility vehicle you're helping terrorism. But first, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman makes almost every decision more in sorrow than in anger. It's his nature. But next week Lieberman will be doing at least one thing with glee, announcing for president. On Monday, Lieberman will jump into the race for the Democratic nomination. Many would argue that Lieberman never stopped running once Al Gore put him on the ticket in 2000, but it actually goes farther back than that. As proof, Lieberman will launch his campaign at Connecticut's Stamford High School, where he ran for president of the class of 1960, won and simply kept going. Recent polls show that Lieberman is garnering significant support from black voters, which, of course, means he could prove a formidable challenger to the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination: the Reverend Al Sharpton. Why are you laughing? It's true. PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Of course it's not. Lieberman brings a lot to the field. He's most hawkish on Iraq, calling for an invasion of Iraq long before even Bush was. But I'll tell you this, he is chapping (ph) me lately, because he's gone months, maybe, I don't know, a year, without coming on CROSSFIRE and answering tough questions from you and some tough ones from me, frankly. If Lieberman wants to be tough enough to take on Bush, he ought to be able to be tough enough... CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I agree with you. BEGALA: Well, President Bush today -- speaking of our president -- likes to trot out carefully screened and scripted yuppie families to demonstrate the effect of his tax cut. He calls them tax families. He uses them to argue that his tax cut is not only for the mega rich. So I thought in fairness we'd take a look at how two mega rich families fare; specifically, the Bush and Cheney families. The Bloomberg News Service reports that Mr. Bush would have saved a total of $44,500 on his taxes last year if the new Bush tax cut had been the law of the land at the time. Dick Cheney does even better, pocketing an extra $320,000 a year from the Bush tax cut. Now look, none of this is to say that the president and the vice president designed their tax cut to benefit themselves. Rather it just happens that the people who benefit most are corporate kingpins and quick buck artists who get rich my insider deals of looting, failing corporations. When asked by Bloomberg to comment, Mr. Bush noted that his wealth is in a blind trust, then he laughed his ass off. Unbelievable. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Actually, I think that's exactly why he passed the tax cut. It's to make money. I think that's why he ran for president. It's a money making scheme, the president's -- but, Paul, that is absolutely ludicrous. The argument that only Mark Rich and people like -- oh, sorry -- is going to get rich from this tax cut is insane. And, in fact, we'll talk about later in this show, it is rich people who pay the taxes. BEGALA: No, actually it's not. We'll talk... CARLSON: Actually, it is. The FBI is under fire tonight after it was revealed that an all- points bulletin the bureau issued last week was based on a hoax. As it turns out, five members of a terrorist cell did not sneak across the Canadian border into the United States. The men did not exist. There was no plot. How can did the FBI get it so wrong? By getting its information from the Canadian government, which in turn got its information from accused smuggler named Michael Hamdani, who apparently made it all up. The Canadians say they gave Hamdani a lie detector test. American officials, however, point out that a Canadian lie detector test is quite different from the American version. Under the Canadian polygraph system, authorities threaten to feed subjects to a polar bear unless they absolutely promise to tell the truth. Apparently it doesn't always work. BEGALA: Well, you never know. You know, a couple of Molsons maybe loosened him up like truth serum. That could work, too. On this, though, this is a really, really tough call. I'm not a big fan often of the FBI or the Bush administration, but they put the information out, it turned out to be false. Still better I think to try to give us information that we can... CARLSON: I agree with that. But it also points out a potentially weak link in the system, which is other countries. You need to have countries that have their acts together and who are on your side in the fight against terrorism. I'm not sure Canada always is. BEGALA: Oh, of course Canada always is. They're a great allies of ours. Well, the University of Maryland researchers have released a study of almost 6,000 Maryland homicide cases over two decades. They concluded that there is an enormous racial disparity in the application of the death penalty. The study reported in today's "Washington Post" concludes that black people who murder whites are twice as likely to be sentenced to death as white people who murder whites. And black people who kill white people are four times more likely to get the death penalty as black people who murder other blacks. The study's director concluded, "The kind of disparities we're finding are systemic. They cannot be identified on a case-by-case analysis." Still, Maryland's new Republican Governor, Robert Ehrlich, has pledged to reinstate the death penalty and to decided on alleged injustices on a case-by-case basis. CARLSON: Actually, the study itself is sort of ludicrous because it doesn't take into account the nature of the crime, which is key, of course, in sentencing. However, I think there is a real case to be made against the death penalty. It's a case that needs to be made head on. Not through these dumb side channels (UNINTELLIGIBLE). If it's immoral, if the government shouldn't be killing people, just say so. Just make the case. BEGALA: The government shouldn't be killing people, I agree with that. CARLSON: I think liberals ought to make the case directly rather than with these phony studies. BEGALA: This is an important study, nonetheless. CARLSON: One of the last Democrats in the entire American south has announced his retirement tonight. Senator Zell Miller of Georgia released a statement saying he will not run for reelection in 2004. Miller, thoughtful to the end, says he will leave his seat immediately after the election so that his successor will start out with a seniority advantage under Senate rules. Even Democrats can see that Georgia is now a Republican state and that their party cannot even hope to hold on to the seat. And so just one question remains: will the Republican who replaces Miller next year despise the leadership of the leadership of the Democratic Party as much as Zell Miller despised it? That may not be possible, which means that Democrats may be gaining and Republicans may be losing one of their most capable spokesmen. BEGALA: I love Zell Miller, as you know. I worked for him for many, many years. CARLSON: I do too. BEGALA: I'm desperately close to him. He's the greatest governor Georgia ever produced and leaves a terrific legacy. But he also leaves a very deep strong Democratic base. No Democrat ever told you they're going to lose the seat. He has to follow him -- get this list -- Mark Taylor, who is a very able lieutenant governor; Kathy Cox, the Secretary of State, Thurgood Baker, the first African- American attorney general in that state, a huge vote-getter. Maybe Max Cleland will come back after being trashed by the Republicans. Democrats will hold that Zell Miller seat in no small reason because of what Zell Miller did to build the party in that state. CARLSON: If I could just ask the producer to save this tape... BEGALA: Absolutely. CARLSON: ... for November of 2004, so I can mock you then. I look forward to it. BEGALA: You save that tape and you will see how wrong you are. By the way, Republicans want to put up Ralph Reed, the incredibly unctuous, slimy chairman of the Republican Party down there, former Christian Coalition dirt bag. CARLSON: Unctuous, slimy dirt bag. OK. Get him on the issues, Paul. That's where you're strong. Get him on the issues. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Perfect preparation to be a Republican senator. Under cover -- speaking of slimy, under cover of darkness last night, our president sneakily re-nominated all of the proposed federal judges who had been rejected by the U.S. Senate last year. The group includes some of the finest minds of the 12th century. Apparently that's par for the course for Bush. According to a new book written by David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, Mr. Bush's White House is downright hostile to intellectuals. "The Bush White House," Mr. Frum writes, "has a dearth of high-powered brains. One seldom heard an unexpected thought in the Bush White House or met someone who possessed unusual knowledge." A truly frightening revelation about any White House. "Conspicuous intelligence," Mr. Frum goes on to say, "seemed actively unwelcome in the White House." Now Frum calls the president himself, "often uncurious and, as a result, ill informed." No great shock there. But Frum sees Bush's greatest redeeming quality his genial, friendly every man nature as phony. "In private," Frum writes, "Bush was not the easy, genial man he seemed to be in public." Uncurious, ill informed, anti-intellectual and not very nice. That's what his friends say about him. CARLSON: Well I will grant you, Paul, that President Clinton did have what you term unusual knowledge. But I think the fact is that all America is better off that George W. Bush -- whatever his faults -- was president on September 11 and not Bill Clinton. And I think even you deep down know that. And I think most people, Democrats and Republicans, are grateful for that, because they realize his qualities are the ones needed to respond to a crisis at that time. BEGALA: Like Clinton couldn't have found his way to a bunker on the side of a mountain in Omaha? No, the way that Bush and the Republicans try to politicize 9/11 is really, really outrageous. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: It was a terrible tragedy; all Americans suffered. And for Bush to try... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: It's not outrageous to point out that some people are better at dealing with crisis like that than others. And President Bush was the perfect man for that crisis. And President Clinton would have been a disaster. BEGALA: How so? As you yourself wrote -- you yourself wrote a column, Tucker, saying he went and hid in the side of a mountain when Rudy Giuliani went to the site of the World Trade Center. CARLSON: Because, Paul, unlike President Clinton, who would sit unable to make up his mind for hours and hours upon time, years in some cases, clarity of vision is what a leader requires in a situation like that and you know it. BEGALA: So Clinton would still be pondering, maybe we shouldn't strike back, huh? That's such a load. Please. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have unveiled programs to help revive our economy. But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay today said that he considers President Bush's $674 billion price tag maybe a little low. He calls it the floor and not the ceiling. Congressman DeLay says he wants to tack on additional tax cuts. When asked if the price tag could top $1 trillion, the Republican majority leader responded, "Who knows." Stepping into the CROSSFIRE to debate the rival economic plans on Capitol Hill, consumer advocate, former Green Party presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. He is the author of "Crashing The Party: How To Tell The Truth And Still Run For President." With him, former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Bob Walker. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Mr. Nader, thanks for joining us, as always. All the rhetoric -- and undoubtedly we're about to hear some more -- about how this tax proposal is a payoff to the rich, I just want to put into perspective the role of the rich in the American economy. I want to read from a recent editorial from the "Wall Street Journal." Here what's it says. "In 1999, 553, 380 taxpayers -- out of hundreds of millions -- anted up 28 percent of tax revenue. IRS data from 2000 shows that the top five percent of taxpayers (those with incomes of $128,000 and higher) paid over half the total tax revenue. Since it's exactly the rich who disproportionately pay most of the income tax, it would be impossible to lower the taxes without benefiting them disproportionately. It's their money." Isn't this fundamentally true? Rich people are the ones who pay. We keep America afloat. RALPH NADER, CONSUMER ADVOCATE: You've got a bad premise here, Tucker. Since the rich people have grabbed off more of the wealth than they deserve by keeping minimum wage low, by preserving all the corporate tax subsidies, handouts, giveaways, all the tax loopholes, now you want to take that unfairness and use it as an argument to reduce their taxes further? I mean, have you ever taken a course in logic? (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Well so, I guess -- well, I think, Mr. Nader, it's a different kind of logic. Your logic, if I'm hearing you correctly, is that the entire system, that is the United States of America, is so intrinsically corrupt that rich people, no matter who they are, don't deserve to be rich. That money is by definition stolen. That's what you just said unless I misunderstood you. NADER: You don't deserve to have more power and making responsible exercise (ph). : CARLSON: No, we're talking about money, not power, sir. NADER: Power leads to money. CARLSON: OK. But... (CROSSTALK) NADER: No, it's not abstract. If you control Congress through all kinds of campaign money, et cetera, you're going to get Congress to give you all these goodies you don't deserve. Aren't you worried about the 47 million workers in America who work full time who can't earn a living wage? Aren't you worried about... CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but you're still changing the subject and not answering my question. NADER: Well, no, then let's go back to the subject. First of all, all this tax stuff that Bush has put forward is not really designed to lift the burden, it's designed to stimulate the economy. Correct? Why do you have to stimulate the economy when there's huge unused capacity, when there's plenty of capital around, and when interest rates are at historic lows? The issue is to stimulate economic demand. And the way you do that is you start a public works program by getting rid of the -- and paying for it -- by getting rid of the huge hundreds of billions of corporate welfare that CATO and Heritage and other of your think tanks have documented and decried. And second, you the lift the minimum wage. It's $5.15 an hour federal, Tucker. It should be $8 an hour if it was index since 1968, the wave members of Congress have indexed and more their own salary. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Let me get Congressman Walker into this. Let me start with first principles. I do think it's agreed upon that the big problem in the economy is corporate overcapacity right now. Corporations have more capacity than they are able to sell right now. This is why they're operating at -- some of them -- at as little as 75 percent of capacity. That is one out of four of their plants being shut down. Given that, is the best way to stimulate the economy by favoring targeting wealthy investors or middle-class consumers? BOB WALKER, FMR. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Well, it's by giving money to the investment class. And the investment class includes the wealthy and the middle class, because a lot of the pensions, the college funds that people have socked away at the present time are involved in the stock market. And so it's extremely important to give those investors some payback for the risk that they take. BEGALA: See this I think is the heart of the argument. And I think you state it well and honestly. Democrats believe the economy is driven by middle-class consumers, and that the way to tap that capacity is to give more money to the master sergeants and maids and ordinary folks who will actually spend it. See rich people tend to save their money, god bless them. Our folks would tend to spend that money. That would stimulate the economy and make Bill Gates all the richer. What's wrong with that theory? WALKER: But the way in which they get the money to spend is by having a job and having a good job. The way in which they have a good job is to have investment money, risk behind that investment, so that you can, in fact, produce the jobs in this economy so people do have the money to spend. BEGALA: Let me give you a theory -- a hypothetical... (CROSSTALK) WALKER: This is all about growth and jobs. BEGALA: We all agree with that. You're the CEO of the Walker Widget Corporation (ph) and you've shut down one out of four of your plants because you have to. You're not a mean, heartless guy, but you have to because you have too much capacity. I give you a tax benefit of $1 million. Are you going to reopen those plants? WALKER: Absolutely. BEGALA: No, you don't have -- it was the buyer (ph) Widgets (ph), Bob. WALKER: No, that's just wrong. BEGALA: Give your money to Widget (ph) purchasers. They'll buy it and you'll be able to open your plants. WALKER: One of the things that I would want to do is I would want to participate in the global economy in a way that increases my productivity so that I'm competitive worldwide. One of... BEGALA: So you'd open new plants without customers? WALKER: No. The way in which you do that is by having the investment money to put into that kind of productivity. And the investment money comes out of stockholders and comes out of the pension funds and a lot of other people who are investing in the future of this country. Now the problem is, if there is no investment in the future of the country, there is no future. And in my view, it's extremely important for us in the future to ensure the people who are willing to take the risk of putting their money out there the chance to earn enough on that money that they, in fact, then spend money in the economy and also give the middle class in this country an opportunity to have jobs and spend the money in the economy. NADER: But the pension funds are 401(k)s. When they get dividends, they're not taxed anyway. This is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Bush is doing on dividends doesn't effect them. They get tax-free dividends. WALKER: Yeah, but the fact is that what you have is a lot of 401(k)s have become 101ks at the present time because the stock market has dropped so substantially. What this is going to do is raise the level of stock market participation as a result of the tax exclusion for dividends. And that, in fact, will increase the amount of wealth in the 401(k)s, which will be an extremely valuable thing to huge numbers of middle-class families. NADER: You know economists don't agree with that. There's plenty of capital. That's the point. Drowning in capital. The issue is demand. You got to give those workers more money so they can buy more things. WALKER: And the way you give them more money is to have them have a job. NADER: No. You raise the minimum wage to what it should be adjusted for inflation. WALKER: When you raise the minimum wage, it does not do a thing with the big companies that you keep talking about. It absolutely destroys the small businessman, the little guy who is trying to make a living, that in many cases is not making more than about $20,000 a year himself in profits in his company. NADER: So you think there should be a decline in minimum wage, which is what happens when you... (CROSSTALK) WALKER: No. NADER: But it is declining. It's $5.15 when it should be $8. WALKER: I think in a stagnant economy that to impose extra costs on small business will simply drive that small business out of the market and will decrease the number of jobs in the country. That, in fact, will drive us more toward recession and depression. And I think small business in this country is the bedrock on which we build the future economy. NADER: There's a problem with your argument, and that is they've raised their prices -- small businesses -- since 1968. You'll agree, right? But the wages have not been keeping up. And the point is they've been getting a windfall. Minimum wage is designed -- if you work hard in this country 40 hours a week, shouldn't you be able to live on it? WALKER: I think it's extremely important that we produce the kind of, first of all, education system that provides trained workers for business so that they can, in fact, pay above the minimum wage. One of the real problems in business today is the education system isn't working. And so what you end up having to do is retrain workers when they come through the door and that is a cost to the business over and above the minimum wage that they're paying. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Ralph Nader, I want you to respond to the most interesting thing I've seen all week. This is the Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans. And he's explaining the effect of the president's tax proposal. Listen to this, this is interesting. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DON EVANS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: This is a progressive tax cut, which means that those at the higher end of the tax scale will be paying a greater percentage of the taxes after this is implemented than those -- than before the tax cut was implemented. So it's a progressive tax cut. Those that are taking on a larger percentage of the burden now will take on an even larger percentage of the burden after this tax cut is passed. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: So if you follow that, the top five percent already paying more than half of all taxes in the United States. After this plan is enacted, they will pay a higher percentage. I would think that's just the sort of class warfare approach you would favor. NADER: It's like Secretary Evans just finished reading George Orwell. When you have a $350 billion ten-year windfall on dividends, one percent, the top one percent of the people in this country account for about 40 percent of the dividends. And if you knock out the dividend tax-free pension funds, it's even higher than that. CARLSON: Well, wait. Hold on. Please address the core question. What do you think of the fact that, as a percentage of taxes paid, the rich will pay more after this is enacted? That's a very interesting point that cuts exactly against what you've been arguing. NADER: No, the arithmetic doesn't add up. Look, how can you -- if the dividend tax exemption goes to mostly wealthy people, how can you say they're paying more? These people who are bringing in huge dividends from a million shares of General Electric or IBM or whatever, they're not going to be paying any taxes on that. So how can you say that gives them a greater share... CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) taxes on them. WALKER: But where is that money going to go is the question. BEGALA: Bob Walker, let me show you a couple of other statistics from the Tax Policy Center. They looked at two different things. They looked at all of the quintiles. Who gets what out of the Bush plan and the Democratic plan. First, let's look at the middle of the middle class, the middle 20 percent of Americans. Let me put this up on the screen. Under the Bush plan, they get about $265. Under the Democratic plan, more than 20 percent more. They get about $337. So more bang for the buck for the middle class in the Democratic plan. But now let's look at the top one percent. Let's see how they fare. Under the Bush plan, $24,428. Under the Democratic plan, $518. That's the difference. This is why Bush's cost six times more, because he's giving it away to the mega rich. WALKER: Well, you know the point is that I don't know where they started their statistics. Most of the statistics that come up with those kinds of figures start with the idea of including people who pay no income taxes as a part of the overall mix. BEGALA: They're not Americans? WALKER: Well sure they're Americans. BEGALA: I thought we were giving tax relief to all Americans, Bob. If you won't cut the payroll tax, you won't cut the excise tax, you won't cut the property tax, that's what poor people pay. You only cut the rich man's taxes. Why? (APPLAUSE) WALKER: I'm all for cutting payroll taxes and doing some of those kinds of things too. But I will tell you that this is an income tax issue. And so you cannot look at who doesn't pay income taxes at all. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why the numbers that Tucker was citing work is because you end up having people who are now paying taxes who are no longer going to pay income taxes. They drop completely off the rolls, when the number goes down, as they do in the Bush plan. Again, if you take a look at the figures that include all of the taxpayers, the figure that the Bush administration has is that a middle-class family will receive over $1,000 of tax benefits out of this plan. That's a pretty good return for a middle-class family to get $1,000 back. For most middle-class families, $1,000 is worth a lot of money. BEGALA: We started this discussion with you saying -- this is your phrase, not mine -- that the economic plan should be targeted at the investor class. Now you're saying, oh, all of a sudden, now the Bush plan helps the middle class, even though I think... WALKER: But I included the middle class in the investor class. They are a part of the investor class at the present time. BEGALA: But their investments are already tax free. (CROSSTALK) WALKER: ... well, they're doing that. But there are also middle-class people out there, Paul, who actually buy stock. NADER: But, look, this is an assortment of gimmicks and tips is the Bush plan. If you want to create good paying jobs, distribute them throughout the economy, especially in the inner city. You have a public works program to start repairing America, the schools, the clinics, the mass transit, the buildings. Wait. And how do you pay for that? How do you pay for that? Just what the CATO and other institutes are showing the savings are. Huge military boondoggles condemned by retired admirals and generals, including Secretary Rumsfeld, said he can't get rid of some of these Soviet-era weapons systems and hundreds of billions... WALKER: But he's trying. NADER: But he failed. Because of Congress and the Lockheed Martins of the world. WALKER: He's working at it. NADER: But he's admitted failure. But anyway, the other thing is the corporate welfare. You should be against corporate welfare. The mining subsidies, the Bermuda tax havens. CARLSON: Will you answer one question quickly before you go on? Everyone is against corporate welfare. (CROSSTALK) NADER: But that's where you get the money to create those jobs. CARLSON: You're holding up -- it's very clear you're holding up to increase the minimum wage as a panacea or at least as a way to boost the economy. What percentage of Americans employed full time receive minimum wage? Do you know? NADER: About eight million. Number one, eight million. CARLSON: Eight million? Now what percentage of the American workforce is that? NADER: But if you raise the minimum wage to where it should be if it was indexed... CARLSON: It's tiny. NADER: It would 25 million at $8 an hour. CARLSON: I understand. We're just going to take a quick commercial break. We'll be right back. In just a minute, we'll ask our guests about some of the other challenges that the Republican Congress is enacting, including a new way of slicing the pizza rule, whatever that is. Later, the candidates and the calendar. Ready or not, the 2004 presidential race is off and running. And when you fill up your SUV's tank, are you also filling up the terrorists' wallets? That's doubtful, but we'll hear from someone who is worried nonetheless. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back. Now that the Republicans 108th Congress has come to town, things are going to be done a little differently. House Republicans have already changed ethics rules, including the so- called pizza rule. It allowed lobbyists, charities, too, to send free food to members of Congress and their staffs, but not in excess of $50; hence, pizza. The new rule should enhance the quantity and quality of food in congressional offices. Tonight we chew it over with consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader and former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Bob Walker. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Bob, first, it is telling that the Republican Congress, which won't raise the minimum wage, drags its feet on extending unemployment benefits so that at Christmas time a million Americans lost their unemployment benefits. Moves, as General Patton would have said, like poop through a goose. He didn't exactly use that word, but you get it. To change the ethics rules just to lighten their burden just a little bit. This pizza rule that Tucker pointed to is just to me more emblematic than the bigger one, which is they passed a rule that now says any group that can register as a charity can fly a congressman to a resort and wine and dine him or her. And the chairman of the Ethics Committee, a Republican chairman was not even consulted on this. And this is what Joel Hefley, the Republican chairman of the Ethics Committee, told "The Washington Post." "Hefley said he, too, has concerns about the measure to allow charities to pay for congressional travel to resorts. 'It does open the gates to abuse,' he said." Why are they doing this? WALKER: Well, I have concerns about it. And I think the Ethics Committee will look into it. And I think that's probably the right thing to do. But the fact is that, for some charities, members of Congress are an attractive thing to have come to their events and so on, and it helps them get people there. It helps them raise money for the charity. If in fact there are strict rules put on it that assures the charity itself is actually paying the bills and that you do not have corporations who are paying for a lot of this travel, and that all of the money from the event goes to charity and doesn't go somewhere else, I mean, there may be a way of writing rules that actually makes that into a useful kind of thing. But I think it's something that has to be looked at. But the pizza rule, in all honesty, is one where the members of Congress aren't going to benefit from that. It's going to be some young staff that stays in there late at night. And instead of being charged $50 against their limits for the pizza, it's going to be... (CROSSTALK) NADER: Corporate food stamps. CARLSON: But wait a second. These guys work a lot longer hours than you and I do, and they get paid a lot less than you and I do. And why are you trying to make life as unpleasant for them as you possibly can? Why not let them have their pizza? Who cares? They are public servants; they deserve it. NADER: There's petty corruption. All kinds of nice fruit baskets and mild liquor comes up there. The main thing is what Bob pointed out. It's these corporate sponsored charities which become golf tournaments in fancy resorts, and the members of Congress and their families are ferried out, all expenses paid to schmooze. And this led to scandals in the early 90s to national television exposes. And watch this. It led to 99 percent of the House putting these rules into effect which they're now starting to unravel. So 99 percent... CARLSON: Are you saying congressmen can be bought with a fruit basket and a round of golf? Is that what you're saying? NADER: It's all part of the matrix, isn't it? A little bit here, a little bit there. WALKER: But I asked the question on the Hill today. I said, you know, will the corporations be able to pay for the members of Congress to participate. And the answer is no. I mean, the charity itself is going to have to actually put the money up in order for this to happen. BEGALA: But Bob, what's to prevent the Arsenic Information Institute, lobbying for more arsenic in the water -- which President Bush supports. What's to prevent them from registering the charity with the IRS? It would be a nonprofit, it would be a charity, and flying all of us out there? (CROSSTALK) WALKER: Could you ask the question in anymore of a pejorative way? BEGALA: If I could, I'd come up with it, because I think that's legalized (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I think you make a good point about the pizzas, but... WALKER: But the point is they have to qualify as a 501C3 (ph). BEGALA: But anybody can as long as they make... WALKER: Well, they've got to be able to show that they actually put the money toward a charitable cause. BEGALA: You watch how fast the tobacco skags do this. WALKER: But... NADER: But the donors are the corporations. See the main thing is the decline of ethics. In 1995, 99 percent of your colleagues, Republicans put these rules in place. WALKER: Well, I helped do it, so I mean that's the reason why I'm interested in this. NADER: Why are they, why... BEGALA: You have a very strong argument (ph)... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: We're almost out of time, but very quickly, tell me the Democrats who -- and the people on the left are so upset about this -- where were they when Senator Torricelli was getting free suits and antiques and watches... (LAUGHTER) NADER: Good point. CARLSON: ... where were they, though? NADER: They were looking the other way. CARLSON: That's appalling, isn't it? NADER: Absolutely. CARLSON: Aren't you ashamed and kind of disappointed? NADER: Ashamed? What are you talking about? You think the Democrats are on my back? CARLSON: That's the spirit. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: That's why we like you, Ralph Nader. BEGALA: Let's drive Torricelli out of the Senate. Ah -- already been done. Bob Walker, former congressman from Pennsylvania, thank you very much. WALKER: Thank you. BEGALA: Ralph Nader, former Green Party presidential candidate, thank you both very much. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Next, in the CNN "News Alert," Connie Chung will give us the latest details on the investigations in to a pair of air tragedies. After that, we will consider the ever growing field for Democratic candidates in the primaries and caucuses. Before we drive off in to the sunset though, Arianna Huffington asks, "What would an al Qaeda terrorist want you to drive?" Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: As we reported at the top of the show, sources tell CNN that Connecticut Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman will join the field of Democratic presidential candidates next week. And if all of this talk about 2004 seems just a tad early, consider this. Today's edition of the political newsletter, the Hotline, reports that Iowa Democrats may set their caucuses as early as January 17 of 2004, just a few days more than one year from today. And the New Hampshire primary could be January 27. Here to talk about the already steamy presidential campaign, Democratic consultant David Axelrod and Republican strategist, Terry Holt. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Guys, thank you for coming. (APPLAUSE) (CROSSTALK) (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: David Axelrod, thanks for joining us. I want to read you a quote particularly, I thought, thoughtful quote about the problems that Dick Gephardt might have if he runs for president... DAVID AXELROD, DEMOCRATIC AXELROD: Yes, yes... CARLSON: Let me go through the motions any way. I love this part. (LAUGHTER) "The question is can he get the stench of Washington off him? The challenge for Gephardt is how much is he seen as the heartland populist candidate and how much is he seen as institutional Washington candidate?" AXELROD: Right. CARLSON: The genius behind that of course was you. AXELROD: Thank you. CARLSON: Tell us about the stench of Washington on Dick Gephardt? AXELROD: Well, it was more a commentary on Washington than Dick Gephardt. (LAUGHTER) I want to make that clear. I feel a little like Ralph Cramdon (ph) and my big mouth and all of that. But you know, I think that the great -- I was around in 1988 and Paul was as well when Gephardt ran for president. I was working for another candidate. I was impressed by the campaign that he ran. He was a very, very convincing populist from the heartland. If he can recapture, I think he can be the nominee of the party. But the challenge is to be seen as that, and not as the former minority leader. And that's really the point I was trying to make. CARLSON: Well, here's the problem. I would submit that there's another problem with the Gephardt candidacy and that he's seen, at least here in Washington, as someone who is so annoyed by the loss of the midterm, that he sort of took his marbles and went home. He's announced that he's not going to run again in 2004. I want to read you a quote from him, himself. Mr. Gephardt, "I wish we had won seats in the midterm. If that had happened I likely would have stayed in the leadership." Now what, I mean, this is a man who is asking us to vote for him for president, but showing no resolve. "You know, if you, my party, isn't in power, I'm leaving. I don't want to play." AXELROD: Yes, but you know the fact is that out there in the real world people aren't concerned about this stuff. This is an inside Washington deal. People are concerned about their health care. They're concerned about educating their kids. They're concerned about their jobs themselves as you guys just talked for some period of time. And if he speaks convincingly on those issues, I don't think people are going to say, "yes, but you said that you would have stayed on as minority leader." I think that's inside baseball. BEGALA: That's a good point. Terry Holt (ph), let me ask you about Joe Lieberman, who today let it be known to our sources anyway, that he's going to file papers to become a presidential candidate. He was all of the papers today. Let me read you a quote in the Baltimore Sun talking about the president's economic plan, the kitchen table economic issues that Mr. Axelrod was just talking about. Here's what he said. "President Bush's plan is an irresponsible, ineffective, ideologically driven wish list that is obvious" -- oblivious it should be, typo -- "to the particular problems our faltering economy is facing." That's music to my ears as a Democrat. This is exactly the case that you're worried about Democrats making against the Bush economic plan, isn't it? TERRY HOLT, REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT: Well, I'm not worried too much about this field of Democrats at this stage. I mean, the Democrats don't seem to have made any progress since the last election where they were all over the place. They didn't have an agenda. And they had a horrible election day. You know, this guy changed every position he ever held to run for vice president last time, whether it was school choice, tax cuts or... BEGALA: He did win, came in first, got more votes than Dick Cheney. HOLT: ... there's another gentlemen sitting down at the White House. Whereas, the Republicans have been focused. They've had agenda... AXELROD: Why don't you ask Ralph Nader about that. (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: I'm sorry, go ahead. HOLT: Well, the fact of the matter is that the Republicans are united behind this president. He's been consistent. He's had a pro- growth, national defense message that's getting out. People like him and trust him. And this crowd doesn't stand for anything. That's a big problem. BEGALA: This is even more music to my ears that Lieberman getting on a more populist economic program, because it is the tell tale music of hubris, my friend. The guys running Bush's political operation are long time friends of mine. They are brilliant, but you know, they're starting to believe their own press, aren't they Terry. You're not scared of any of these Democrats, are you? Tell me that. Make me happy. HOLT: Well, I'll tell you, they're all liberal as the day is long. BEGALA: Sure, they can't touch Bush. You just relax. Eat right and exercise. Bush will get reelected, brother. HOLT: I will tell you, Paul... BEGALA: Don't worry. HOLT: I love to have elections about differences. And this will be a great election about differences. The president is for less taxes. Dick Gephardt, who I think is the strongest candidate in this race right now, has voted for every tax increase in his career, and voted against every tax cut. So I like those differences. AXELROD: That's actually not true. I mean, he in fact voted -- one of the issues that was raised was that he voted for the Reagan tax cut in '82, which you probably applauded... HOLT: Darn wrong. It was 20 years ago. AXELROD: Here's the music... HOLT: I apologize... AXELROD: The odd music that I heard you say is that he's running on a pro-growth platform, and we've lost two million jobs. (LAUGHTER) ALELROD: I don't know how much more growth we can stand. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: Well, wait. I want to read you a quote from my... (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: ... I may differ here a little bit. Actually I like some of the candidates, one in particular running on the Democratic side. I want to read you a quote from one of them, the Reverend Al Sharpton. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: "I'm qualified, probably more qualified than any other person who is expected to be in the Democratic ticket in 2004 because actually I have a following and I speak for the people." David Alexrod, do you take Al Sharpton seriously? AXELROD: Well, I think he's going to be a serious player in the sense that he will arrive at the convention and he will have delegates. And I don't think anybody should kid themselves. He does speak to and for a constituency. And I've done races in New York. I've seen Reverend Sharpton. He is a smart, clever person. I think he's been on this program probably. And you've seen it yourself. But you know, will he be the nominee? Obviously not. Will he be a player? Yes. CARLSON: Will he have a prime time speaking role in Boston at the Democratic convention? AXELROD: Well, I don't know. CARLSON: What do you think? AXELROD: So far as I know, they haven't worked out the speaking arrangements. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: But if he has delegates, he'll have to speak, won't he? AXELROD: Well, he will probably have to speak. And you know, I don't think that it's any different than past conventions in our party or your party. People of different ideological stripes get a row. HOLT: And you have to have charisma to get elected president. And there's a charisma deficit in this group. Al Sharpton has plenty of charisma. You ought to think about that. CARLSON: Amen. HOLT: That's right. BEGALA: Al Sharpton is going nowhere fast except on to CROSSFIRE where we love having him. But you know, he just had his first event in New Hampshire. And he drew 75 people. HOLT: That's great. BEGALA: Come on. CARLSON: That's actually not that unusual. BEGALA: They got to hang a pork chop around the guys neck to get the dog to play with him. No, he ain't no where except to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). HOLT: Living room discussions. He can't 75 people... CARLSON: He's listening to the people. Paul, look, the people. BEGALA: The CBS -- a rival network -- the CBS news folks to conduct a poll this week. And they asked people -- this is the Achilles heel of Bush -- that's why he is going to be a one-term wonder like his daddy. They asked people this question, "Who do the Bush administration policies favor?" Fifty-nine percent of us say the rich, 11 say the middle class; only 2 say the poor and only 23 say everybody. Sixty percent of Americans say Bush favors the rich. This is the Achilles heel for him, isn't it? HOLT: Well, let's go for the class warfare when we don't have an agenda. I mean, the fact of the matter is the president has passed an historic education reform package. If we didn't have Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt running... BEGALA: Did he fund that? It was a year ago today? Did he fund it? HOLT: ... running the Democratic Party of Congress -- of course. BEGALA: No, he didn't. HOLT: There was a 9 - 10 percent increase in education funding. BEGALA: He didn't fund it. He broke his promise. The law says how much money should be in. Bush underfunded it by billions of dollars. HOLT: Well, we have increased funding for education every year the Republicans have been in the majority in Congress. I think that says more about... BEGALA: Well, that was because Clinton was in the presidency for most of those years. HOLT: ... our priority in education than... CARLSON: David Axelrod, very quickly, we're almost out of time. Edwards, John Edwards of North Carolina, a year ago being talked up as this great force. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Really. I could show you the polls; we don't have time. He's really fallen in the estimation of fellow Democrats. Why is that? Why has he blown up so early? AXELROD: Well, because we're all -- we play the inside game. He had a bad few minutes on Tim Russert's show and that got the chattering class going. I think he recovered a little bit last week on Stephanopoulos's show. And you know, your poll of yesterday was somewhat surprising to me, because he was doing pretty much as well as everyone else. I think Edwards is a resourceful guy, and wouldn't count him out of this race. His problem is the experience issue, and he's going to have to find a persuasive way to deal with it. CARLSON: Oh, it's going to be fun to watch. David Axelrod, Terry Holt, thank you both very much. We appreciate it. BEGALA: Very good job. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) AXELROD: Thank you. CARLSON: A viewer who has almost graduated from Saturday morning cartoons has found some new super heroes. We'll get to that in our "Fireback" segment. But next, a commercial you may be seeing over the weekend isn't designed to get to you buy more beer or as it turns out more SUVs. We'll show it to you. We'll be right back. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you, as we do every night, from the beautiful, wonderful, George Washington University here in downtown Washington, D.C., home of the Colonials. The biggest trend in the auto industries are all on display this week at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. And sport utility vehicles are so hot that even Porsche is getting into the act. The Porsche SUV is perfect for off-roading to your children's soccer games. If you're in a hurry, it goes zero to 60 -- get this -- in seven seconds. Chances are Arianna Huffington will not be driving one and not because they go for $58,000 grand a pop. She is a syndicated columnist, the author of the soon to be published book, "Pigs At the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining America." She joins us from Los Angeles to discuss her concerns with SUVs. Arianna, thank you for joining us. ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, DETROIT PROJECT: Thank you. CARLSON: Arianna, I want to show you something you've doubtless seen because you're behind it, but I'm not sure all of our viewers have seen it yet. It's so over the top I want to put it up. This is one of the ads against SUVs. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED CHILD ACTOR (voice-over): This is George. This is the gas that George bought for his SUV. This is the oil company executive who sold the gas to that George bought for his SUV. These are the countries where the executive bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his SUV. And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his SUV. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Now I guess, Arianna, one of the many things that bothers me about this spot is the moral equivalence it implies. It implies -- you know, "drive an SUV, hijack an airliner; in both cases you're committing terrorism." That's just silly and wrong, isn't it? HUFFINGTON: Do you think that the Bush administration's drug war ads are silly and wrong? Because the moral... CARLSON: Yes, yes, I do. I do think they're silly and wrong. HUFFINGTON: Well, I haven't heard you say that before tonight. But the point is that they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to equate smoking a joint with funding terrorism. We are making an infinitely more credible link because the truth is that driving an SUV is a lifestyle choice. And to have the sale of SUVs go up by 6 percent in the last year at the time when we are being told by the administration that we're at war, that we need in increase our oil independence, that we should not be beholden to terrorist harboring nations. It doesn't make any sense at all. BEGALA: Well, Arianna, let me ask you a more fundamental question. Why this crusade? Homelessness is up. Poverty is up. The uninsured is up. We've got enormous problems in this country. Why did you pick this? HUFFINGTON: Well, we can have multiple crusades. Right now we believe that the time of the of September 11th is for us to increase our oil independence. I mean, look at the way we're kowtowing to Saudi Arabia. We are actually basically allowing a nation that's harboring terrorism that subsidizing suicide bombers, that's sending quote unquote "charitable contributions to hijackers." We're basically allowing them to get away with everything just because we need to continue to be -- to feed our oil addiction. And you know, isn't it amazing that the McCain-Kerry bill was defeated in the last Congress, that would increase our fuel efficiency standards? Isn't it amazing that the administration is suing the state of California for daring to impose more fuel efficient standards? CARLSON: Wait, Arianna... HUFFINGTON: It doesn't make any sense. CARLSON: But Arianna, nobody is defending Saudi Arabia or its role in terrorism, et cetera. I just guess I object to the singly out of SUVs. Because as you know, pickup trucks don't get any better mileage than SUVs. The elderly cars, cars that were made 20 years ago driven mostly by poor people, they get even worse gas mileage. But of course poor people can't afford to buy fashionable and very expensive hybrid cars. Why pound on poor people just because can't afford it? HUFFINGTON: Tucker, I'm driving -- Tucker, let me get the facts straight. I'm driving a hybrid car. It's cost $17,000. It does 52 miles to the gallon. If you want to buy a hummer (ph) on the other hand, at $50,000 -- that's how much it costs. It's nine miles to the gallon, and they can't keep in stock. And there is a... CARLSON: But your car can't drive over anything though, can it? (LAUGHTER) HUFFINGTON: OK, here... CARLSON: I bet it can't. HUFFINGTON: ... is the other fact. There are -- it's true. Some people who need to go off road. It's an infinitesimal proportion of the people who drive SUVs. You know why? Because there's a ridiculous tax loophole that basically means you can depreciate two- thirds of your SUV like you can depreciate $25,000 of a $37,000 SUV. CARSON: Really. HUFFING ton: And this unfairness -- absolutely. CARLSON: I'm going to do that. I had no idea. (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: Let me ask you about -- sorry to cut you off, Arianna. OK. HUFFINGTON: Yes, just let me say one more thing. The reason why is that in 2000 alone the three auto makers spent $37 million in lobbying. You have Andy Card, the chief of staff, who was the chief lobbyist for the auto makers. Basically, once again special interests have tromped the public interest. BEGALA: Well, let me ask you though, about the safety issue. That ad, it like the drug ads, which I think are moronic because they're too attenuative (ph). OK, you're asking -- you draw this linkage and here's George and there's an oil executive and then there's Saudi Arabia and then there's terrorists. You're asking somebody to make all of those linkages and see the safety threat of terrorism and then ignore the obvious safety threat of putting then in a little $17,000 hybrid tin can. I mean, peole are safer with their kids in SUVs, aren't they? HUFFINGTON: You are way behind the curve. I highly recommend you read Keith Bradshaw's book. He was the New York Times Detroit correspondent. And his book is phenomenal. It actually explains step by step why the SUVs are actually much more dangerous. They're four times as likely to roll over as ordinary cars. And they are three times as likely to kill their passengers as ordinary cars. This is one of the myths that Detroit has perpetrated, the safety of SUVs. I would like to actually read the facts. BEGALA: Well, I'm going to read your book. I don't know if I want to read Bradshaw's. CARLSON: Arianna, really quickly, can you give us three other crusades that you might undertake in the future to save energy, to say asking people to live in tents or can you take it one step... (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: ... beyond the SUVs? Quickly. HUFFINGTON: Actually, let me just say what we are going to do. We are going on this crusade because all we need is a critical mass of people and then we're going to be as successful as the designated drive campaign. Do you remember that campaign? CARLSON: Oh... HUFFINGTON: Before the campaign, it was very chic and very macho to drink and drive. After that, it because socially irresponsible. We want the same change with SUVs. CARLSON: Well, we will still like you better than the ladies from MADD though. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: You have more of a sense of humor. Arianna Huffington, thank you for joining us from Los Angeles. HUFFINGTON: Thank you. CARLSON: We appreciate it. Thanks. BEGALA: Coming up in our "Fireback", one of us gets a less than friendly invitation from some Canadians, that country to the north, the frozen north. We'll explain. We will be right back. (APPLAUSE) (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's time for our "Fireback" segment. We invite you go completely bananas and write us e-mail, and you do. First up tonight is James Snell (ph) of Hanford, California. "I'm tried of hearing the Democrats pull this class war crap," he writes elegantly. "The Democrats have no vested interest in generating real economic growth as long as the economy can be used as an issue in the 2004 presidential election, and it shows." (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Well, I sort of agree with that. They do have an incentive to want the economy go bad. BEGALA: The Democrats under President... CARLSON: Now admit it. BEGALA: ... generated 23.8 million new jobs. The Republicans under... CARLSON: Yes... BEGALA: ... Clinton have cost us 2 million -- I mean under Bush -- have cost us 2 million. CARLSON: It's totally untrue. I mean, you say it every night, doesn't make it any truer. BEGALA: No, Democrats are proven they're better at running the economy. CARLSON: I've noticed, yes. BEGALA: Maryland (ph), the last name, Princeton, New Jersey writes, "Paul, do you think President Bush read your book? Maybe he'll stop beating the war drums and do something with our economy now." And I don't know that the president has time. I know he's a busy man. I may send him the Cliff Notes, maybe a comic version or something. He's too busy to read my book. I don't blame him. CARLSON: How do you tell the Cliff Notes apart from the regular version? (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: No, sorry. No, I'm a fan. I'm not beating up on you, Paul. Look, I'm not beating up. I'm in the book. BEGALA: Tucker is in the book. CARLSON: Yes, I am. Buy the book. Jason McGredy (ph) of Sidney Mines, Nova Scotia, Canada, that's the foreign country to the north of here, writes, "Your comments about Canada, a foreign country to the north of here, citing that the U.S. needs another parking lot are totally out of line. Our prime minister punched out a fellow who bothered him, so lose your bow tie and head north to a place where men are men. Bring some friends." (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Whoa. Sounds like Jason is a little lonely. That's quite an invitation. That invitation makes me a little nervous. "Men are men. Bring some friends." Thanks, Jason. BEGALA: Men are men, bring some friends." IT's lonely and cold in Sidney Mines. No, no. Here is Steven Krueger (ph) in Winnipeg, another terrific Canadian city, writes, "CROSSFIRE is my favorite show." Clearly an intelligent man, obviously a Canadian. "When I was eight or nine I would watch super hero shows, and CROSSFIRE reminds me of one of them. James Carville is Bald Boy, lovely, and Paul Begala is the Clinton Caper. They fight the evil, Novak and Attack and his trusted side-kick, Tucker the Terror. This would be the perfect show if someone had some sort of super strength and lightening power." Steven, it's obvious you haven't been watching. I do have super strength and lightening power. You just haven't been watching. CARLSON: Steven is sitting alone in his bedroom with Spock ears on. I can just picture him. Yes, sir a question. BEGALA: May the force be with you, whatever that is. Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You indicated earlier the eight million people in this country are earning minimum age are insignificant. Those are your words. CARLSON: I didn't say that. And I think it's fewer than eight million. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, well, either way. Do you really think the people who bag your groceries, wash your car, and cook your meals in Georgetown, are they really insignificant? CARLSON: It goes with out saying that they're not. I didn't say that. And that's quite a demagogic point to make. And I appreciate it. What I was saying was that the number of people in the economy who rely on minimum wage jobs as full time employment is very small. Doesn't mean that they're insignificant. It means raise the minimum wage is not going to change the economy. BEGALA: Well, but the key... CARLSON: It's an economic fact. BEGALA: ... no but Tucker, the key weasel word there is "full time jobs." Corporate America gives them these crummy -- I almost used another word -- crummy part time... CARLSON: Actually, it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) labor unions as (UNINTELLIGIBLE). BEGALA: ... jobs without benefits. That's why so many minimum wage workers are working part time because corporate American don't want to pay them benefits either. We ought to raise the minimum wage, have a health care plan that provides for them. (APPLAUSE) Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our dependence on oil in the Middle East is something that needs to be changed, but calling it terrorism if you drive an SUV is just crazy. CARLSON: I agree with that. I think we tried to point that out to Ms. Huffington. If fact, it desensitizes people. I mean, it may be a good thing to drive SUV, maybe a bad thing. It's a subtle conversation. There are nuances of valid ones. But to call everybody who drives an SUV an accomplice to terrorism sort of dulls our senses, I think, and is a bad idea for that reason. BEGALA: Speaking of dull senses, from the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE. CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for yet more CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. Have a great night. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 10, 2003 Friday Transcript # 011000CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 9071 words HEADLINE: Political Season Starts Anew; Did Chinese Discover America First? GUESTS: Peter Fenn, Charlie Black, Gavin Menzies, Molly Reilly, Christine O'Donnell BYLINE: James Carville, Tucker Carlson HIGHLIGHT: Political season begins anew in Washington. Then, were the Chinese the first to discover America, 50 years before Christopher Columbus? BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: the Congress, the candidates, the White House, the economy. Let the games begin. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We urge Congress to act swiftly and pass this package. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not going to work. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: In 1421, the Chinese came here just for one. In 1492 sailed the ocean blue. Did it take until 2003 to straighten out the history? Plus, is this anyway to sell beer? Ahead on CROSSFIRE. Live from the George Washington University: James Carville and Tucker Carlson. (APPLAUSE) JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE and happy Friday. It's been quite a week. The new Republican Congress came to town, President Bush proposed a new give away to his fat cat friends, and the lineup of the Democratic primary has got a little clearer. We'll discuss all that, as well as new book that says Columbus didn't discover America; the Chinese did. And then eye-popping take on those less filling tastes great debate. Can they show that on TV? But first, let's start with something we dare to show on TV every night, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." Take it away, Tucker. TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: New Mexico governor turned diplomatic troubleshooter Bill Richardson reports his talks with a pair of North Korean diplomats have been frank, but are going well. There was a surprise addition to the agenda today. Pyongyang's announcement that North Korea will completely pull out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Back in Washington, a clearly outraged Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters that "North Korea thumbed its nose at the world." Apparently North Koreans are promising to behave if the Bush administration reaffirms a Clinton era communique saying the United States has "no hostile intent toward the north." In other words, now that we're threatening the entire world with nuclear weapons, reward us by promising that you won't do anything about it. Previously the administration fell for a variation of that scam/blackmail, pinning its opens on the honesty of North Korea even if it paid off the criminal regime in Pyongyang. The result: North Korea is far more dangerous than it ever has been. There's a lesson here, and let's hope it's been learned. CARVILLE: The reason that it's dangerous is because this administration pulled out and gave them the keys to the plutonium. And so now they're even months or weeks ahead on nuclear bombs... CARLSON: They spent the entire Clinton administration building nuclear weapons, as you know. CARVILLE: Uranium -- in 19 -- it's even doubtful they started in 1999. When they pulled out they went to plutonium. And you've got to bone up on it. CARLSON: You know as well as I do that's true, and it's embarrassing for you, I imagine. CARVILLE: President Bush would like to portray himself as a straight shooting Texan. But when he gets around to saying all the people who pay taxes should get a tax relief under his plan he seems to be a little bit off. It's like 39 million people off, if you call that off. According to today's "Washington Post," that's how many people get no benefits at all from Bush's tax plan. It's about a third of the nation's taxpayers, and most of them are low-income workers. On the other hand, "The Post" cites several studies, including one of Bush's own Treasury Department that show two-thirds of the tax plan's benefit go to the super rich. Now, the minute anyone points it out, the Republicans start screaming class warfare. I have got news for you, Mr. President. It does sound like class warfare, and you and your rich friends started it. CARLSON: Actually James, even a budding economist like you ought to be able to understand that people don't pay income taxes won't get an income tax cut. But, in fact, this makes the percentage that rich people pay of overall taxes higher. It's more progressive than any Democratic plan, as you know. That's a fact. CARVILLE: It is not... CARLSON: It's just true. CARVILLE: Many call it class warfare or generational warfare. This administration has declared war on the middle class and has declared war on young people. I am not an editorialist for "The Washington Post." CARLSON: James... CARVILLE: I'm not going to be intimidated by these people. I am not cowardly back in the bunker. I'm going to engage in this. I am going to defend working people and I'm going to defend young people. CARLSON: You're throwing out... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: ... is a damn shame. When this administration and its fat cats declare war on the youth of America, James Carville is going to side with the youth of America. CARLSON: I don't think anybody buys your stupid slogans anymore. That's ridiculous. CARVILLE: I'm not a cowardly editorialist. CARLSON: In news from the West Coast tonight, California Governor Gray Davis has been inducted into the Joe Biden public speaking hall of fame. Davis has been accused of plagiarism after portions of a speech he gave earlier this week were found to have been lifted almost verbatim from a speech that then President Bill Clinton delivered 10 years ago. "When presidents speak to the Congress and the nation from this podium they typically comment on the full range of challenges and opportunities that face us," said Clinton in his 1993 State of the Union Address. "But these are no ordinary times." "When governors speak from this podium, they ordinarily discuss a range of issues," said Davis in his 2003 state of the state address, "but these are not ordinary times." Ouch. In other words, not only did Davis apparently plagiarize. He took the most boring but lifeless lines he could find. No surprise in either case. CARVILLE: Tucker, I'll tell you what, I wish this administration would plagiarize the Clinton administration and put its economic policies in place so we could get this country moving again and get rid of this deficit... CARLSON: But it's interesting, James. CARVILLE: I'm all for plagiarism... CARLSON: If you look in "Bartlett's," do you know what the only quote that's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from Clinton? It's about Monica. They guy had no good rhetoric and its pathetic. CARVILLE: We all know the Bush administration has wrecked the national economy. It's wrecked the surplus, it's wrecked any hope of paying off the national debt. So what's left to wreck? How about your 401k plan? An article in today's "USA Today" reports the president's idea of abolishing the tax on dividends would undercut the 401k system. One of the most attractive thing about the stock dividends is that they are not already taxed under that system. 401ks are one of the great success stories of the late 20th century, and the only thing a lot of workers are doing to save money for retirement. Leave it to President Bush to find a way to make it less attractive so fewer people will participate. You think he and his rich friends care more about anyone's retirement than their own? They don't. CARLSON: I must say, the logic deficit in there is kind of amazing. 401ks were an economic bomb shelter people used to hide from taxes. Now those taxes have been eliminated and you think people ought not to move back into the House; they ought to stay in the bomb shelter. CARVILLE: No. CARLSON: That's ridiculous. CARVILLE: No. There's only one little part of that. That's the tax on dividends. You're going to take all these people -- I don't know why you people dislike working people so much. Everything that you want to do is to... CARLSON: Actually, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) benefit from it, James. CARVILLE: Of course they're not for benefit. I can show you a person that makes $36,500 a year gets 18 cents an hour under here. I get $45 an hour. Every day under his plan they're going to give me $45 an hour eight hours a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year. Dick Cheney is going to get $300 an hour every day under this by doing nothing. By just by being Dick Cheney. CARLSON: If you could just stop (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the show will continue in a minute. A family of four making $40,000 gets its taxes cut from $1,100 to $75 (ph). In any case, as anyone who lives in America knows, there's nothing that bothers Democrats more -- I mean nothing -- more than the idea that someone somewhere might be enjoying a cigarette after dinner. The very concept drives liberals insane with anger, so naturally they attempt to outlaw it. And in many cities they have. Now the neopuritans have set their sights on Chicago, where working people still dare to smoke in restaurants. The liberals would probably succeed if it weren't for former Bears coach Mike Ditka. In an interview today, Ditka, now restaurant owner, pointed out that the attempt to criminalize other people's dinner table habits is really a form of class war waged by finger-wagging liberal yuppies against people who don't have trust funds and don't drive Volvos. "If you don't want to come in this restaurant," Ditka said, don't come in. If you don't want to go where people smoke, don't go. Ditka's logic may carry the day and it should. Mayor Richard Daley is said to be reconsidering the ban. And James, why do liberals want to control every little vice that people have? Why don't you leave people alone? CARVILLE: If you're a coach... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Why don't you leave people alone? That's ridiculous. Why do liberals want to control every little thing in people's lives? Leave people alone, that's my point. CARVILLE: You know what? Let me tell you this. Do you know what irritates liberals? Discrimination. Do you know what irritates liberals? Lack of opportunity irritates liberals. CARLSON: Then why don't you get off the secondhand smoke garbage? CARVILLE: You know what irritates liberals? When people don't have a chance to succeed. You know what... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Why don't you just address the question? CARVILLE: I'm just telling you. I know what irritates liberals because I happen to be one. You're not, so don't tell me what I think. Some Republicans who just can't be pure enough, far right enough or even loyal enough. Take Senator John McCain of Arizona. He's up for re-election next year, and believe it or not, he isn't good enough for some members of his own party. "The Washington Wire" and today's "Wall Street Journal" report says (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake -- what an appropriate name -- into challenging McCain in the Republican primary. The report identifies the man begging Flake to get in, promising to raise a million dollars to his campaign is Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. The same Stephen Moore some White House officials say has no credibility in this administration because of his attacks on the president's new economic chief adviser. So if Moore has no credibility in the White House, I'm sure the White House will be thrilled to back Senator McCain, right? Yeah, we're waiting. CARLSON: If I could understand that, I would criticize that. CARVILLE: OK. Well the reason that you can't understand it is because it's intelligent. CARLSON: I'll give you a pass. After you. CARVILLE: The games begin in Washington this week. And the great Republican overreach is underway. President Bush and his cronies are off to loot the treasury, while congressional Republicans are acting like a tiny majority (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are still a huge national mandate. First in the CROSSFIRE, Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn and Republican Consultant Charlie Black. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Peter, thank you for joining us, as always. PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Glad to be here. CARLSON: We'll get to the economy in just a second, but I want to start with something... FENN: Oh, I thought you were going to start with that. CARLSON: We'll get to it. I'll question you in just a moment. But I think we all agree that the pressing issue tonight is North Korea. And the response from liberals, hawkish and everything else, is that this president has pushed North Korea somehow into having nuclear weapons because of his cowboy talk. I want to put up on the screen a quote that I think is truly responsible for where we find ourselves today. It comes from Bill Clinton, October, 1994. "This agreement" -- the agreement that was signed with North Korea and the United States -- "is good for the U.S. good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region." Well, that turned out to be criminally naive, criminally stupid. And we're living with the effects of it now. FENN: It worked until this December, when they broke it. Until you had to deal with this Bush administration. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: He doesn't understand the difference between plutonium and uranium. There's no sense in arguing with him. He doesn't understand the difference. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: No, no, but let me... CARVILLE: We had a whole show on it and you missed it. CARLSON: But in what sense -- are you saying the North Korean government has built a nuclear weapon in one month? Is that what you're saying? They did not build it during the Clinton administration? FENN: Look, I got three words for you: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. Go to these guys, verify negotiations, make sure that they stick with it, put that weight of the world on them, don't take any nonsense from these guys, but do it just exactly as this administration -- laugh -- administration did it. CARLSON: Well let me show you the fruits of what you just said. This is a poll that asks Americans where they think -- which party is better on these topics: terrorism, Iraq, and world affairs. Fifty- five percent of Republicans: we're better on terrorism; Iraq: 53 percent; world affairs: 51 percent. This terrible and dangerous numbers for your party and they're also an accurate reflection why people think democrats are not credible in foreign policy. FENN: We're going to turn this around in the next election. No problem at all. You'll see it. (APPLAUSE) CARVILLE: Charlie, I'm not going to argue this, because Tucker doesn't understand that plutonium was turned over -- they gave the keys to the plutonium reactor during the Bush administration. CARLSON: James, I have no idea what you're talking about. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I want to put something on the board. CHARLIE BLACK: They spent the last eight years working on... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: But, Charlie, I don't want to... BLACK: They fired a missile during the Clinton administration over Japan. CARVILLE: Look, Colin Powell was praising the Clinton administration this week for its efforts. When the Bush administration said they would negotiate, they kicked the U.N. inspectors out and got in the plutonium plant. No one knows when they went to build whitewater uranium. It takes years to do that. It probably started during the Bush administration. But let's move on... BLACK: They did it before there was a question of negotiation. CARVILLE: All right. I want to show you something about the president's tax plan up there. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) "Children's Defense Fund President Marian Wright Edelman today noted the cost of the Bush administration's divided tax cut proposal is enough to provide comprehensive health care for all 9.2 million uninsured American children and a head start for all of the under served eligible and disadvantage preschool children in need of comprehensive services." Now, let me ask you. What would Jesus do? Would Jesus vote to give every child health insurance and head start and a chance at life, or would Jesus vote to give people like me over $1 million, $100,000 a year tax break? What would he do? (APPLAUSE) BLACK: It came out in first John (ph) that Jesus is a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So... CARVILLE: You're saying that if Jesus was in the Congress... CARLSON: Are you really using as a testament for your political ends... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I know Charlie's a deeply religious guy and I'm curious. BLACK: We'll argue the New Testament because it's easier than this. But, the fact is that we have a slow growth economy. We do have a deficit because of the war on terrorism and other demands and the Clinton recession, which started in the last quarter of 2000. The way to get more economic growth, which always produces more revenue for social programs, is to cut taxes and spur investment in consumer spending. (APPLAUSE) FENN: This past month we lost 100,000 more jobs. We have more people permanently unemployed than we have had in 17 years. Announced today. Now, here's the problem with this plan. BLACK: That's why we need a huge tax cut. FENN: Listen, if this tax cut would work, Charlie, I'd be for it. But the problem is, that this tax cut won't work. $24,000 of this goes to those who make over $375,000 bucks. Twenty-eight percent of this thing goes to the wealthiest Americans. It's not going to stimulate it. BLACK: In the last 40 years, there have been five significant tax rate reductions. And every single one of them produced growth and produced more revenue, not less. Including -- we were in a recession. It's not ludicrous. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: It's something I know something about. The highest growth we've ever had, the most dynamic growth we've ever had was from '93 to '99. Let me show you something here. The Bush plan... (CROSSTALK) BLACK: We didn't do that after the Reagan tax cut. CARVILLE: Not near as close as we did under Clinton. Not near as close. Let me show you this. Middle 20 percent of taxpayers: $265 under the Bush plan; $337 under the democratic plan. Let's take the top one percent. BLACK: Which Democratic plan? There's a dozen Democratic plans. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: ... the top 1 percent, $518. Call me a class warrior. Call me a class warrior. (APPLAUSE) BLACK: You can be a class warrior, but a rising tide lifts all boats. And the fact is that everybody who... CARVILLE: He lifted (ph) more votes than anybody. His day... (CROSSTALK) BLACK: Everybody who pays taxes is getting a tax cut. There's another part of the plan that will help the unemployed get a job quicker. It will spur investment and consumer spending and you will have more jobs. CARLSON: Hold on. Before you go on, my deep prayer, since James has made this a religious program, my prayer tonight is that you will respond directly to the sound bite I'm about to show you. This is Commerce Secretary Don Evans; what he says is true. And I want your take on it. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DON EVANS, COMMERCE SECRETARY: This is a progressive tax cut, which means that those at the higher end of the tax scale will be paying a greater percentage of the taxes after this is implemented than those that -- than before the tax cut was implemented. So it's a progressive tax cut. Those that are taking on a larger percentage of the burden now will take on an even larger percentage of the burden after this tax cut is passed. (END VIDEO CLIP) FENN: What is he smoking? If this is -- let me just say, if this is a progressive tax plan, this guy's got a full head of hair and you're bald. CARLSON: No, let me -- then respond to the following fact. Then why don't you respond to the fact that Americans -- wait, hold on -- Americans who make $100,000 or year currently pay 72 percent of all federal taxes. Under this plan, they will pay 73 percent. They will pay a higher percentage of all taxes. That's a fact. That is progressive. Why won't you admit it? FENN: Look, here's what you have to do with this. You have to look at what happens to the middle class and what happens to lower mild class, number one. Secondly, you have to look at is this going to affect the economy. Is this going to lift all... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: That's kind of what I just said. FENN: Well, because you know what's -- here's two things I do agree with. I think we should have small business tax reduction from the 25 to 75 that's in there. And I have no problem with it with the child benefit increasing. CARLSON: The rich are paying more. FENN: No, no, non -- the rich are paying more? Look, we made more millionaires under Bill Clinton than have ever been made before. CARLSON: You need professional help. CARVILLE: We can't get over it because it was so successful. And you all undid it. BLACK: If you're in the lowest bracket, 15 percent, you get a one-third tax cut. If you're in the highest bracket you get a 10 percent tax cut. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: You know what, you guys, I don't know if you all do this because you don't know better or you do it because you're just addicted. Thirty-nine million tax filers get nothing, as they pointed out today. CARLSON: Because they don't pay income tax, James. Come on, James. Get real. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: They pay payroll tax. They pay (UNINTELLIGIBLE) taxes, they pay (UNINTELLIGIBLE) taxes. CARLSON: But that's the lock box. The fabled lock box. You want to break into the lock box, buddy? Break into the lock box. (CROSSTALK) FENN: Hey, hit the bell, will you? Hit the bell. I'm going to hit the bell. Here's the point. Look, is there going to be money for the states -- is there going to be money for the states to help them under this plan? No. Is there going to be money to invest in education and infrastructure in cleaning up our environment with this plan? No. CARLSON: Those are (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We're talking about numbers here. (CROSSTALK) FENN: I'll just make this point. I talk too much. George Bush wants to set a new record. He wants to pass the record that his father established, which was a $280 billion deficit. And with this plan, he's going to beat it. He's going to beat that deficit. That's going to be his record. (APPLAUSE) CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on the younger generation. CARLSON: But I wonder this -- I want you to listen to what the vice president said today. This is actually the core of what bothers me. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: This is what Dick Cheney said today about the Bush economic plan. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHENEY: Lower taxes, sensible regulation and more freedom. That's the way to lift wages and to build prosperity all across the country. That's the way for businesses to grow and to produce value that attracts investors. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Now that's the conservative idea. You may not agree with it or not, but instead of disagreeing with it, Democrats attack the motives. And they say they want to pay off their rich buddies. Why not just attack the Republican ideas rather than motives? FENN: I just wish they had one answer for this economy. One answer that wasn't tax cuts. That's all they ever come up with is tax cuts. BLACK: Why are Democrats for tax cuts if that's not... FENN: We are for some tax cuts. I said I was for some. The Democrats... (CROSSTALK) BLACK: If there's a consensus that tax cuts will spur economic growth, why not go for a big comprehensive tax cut? Get more growth. FENN: Good tack cuts will, but these tax cuts won't. BLACK: What are you talking about? CARVILLE: Charlie, name me one person that's for this that you wouldn't expect to be for it. Who's one guy out there that's looked at this and said, you know, this is not some typical right wing down the line Republican (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Who is somebody that's come out for this and you go, gee, this is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). (CROSSTALK) BLACK: Let me give you an example. All right. (CROSSTALK) BLACK: I don't know that I've got a good talking point I can get in. Pete Domenici, former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, the biggest deficit hawk hates deficits, loves surpluses. CARVILLE: Oh come on. BLACK: Pete Domenici came out -- Pete Domenici pointed out that in a $10 trillion economy, $100 trillion over 10 years, that you got to have a significant tax cut to spur economic growth. That's one of the president's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) program is the right approach. FENN: Pete Domenici is the most down the line hard Republican there is. CARLSON: OK. In just a minute, we'll ask our guests about the Democratic elbow throwing to be first in line for a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) President Bush in 2004. Later, we'll go back in time about 600 years and ask if everything you know about the discovery of America is wrong. And then, a titillating but harmless distraction coming up during this weekend's football madness. You won't want to miss it. We don't want you to miss it. But now we're going to go to New Mexico, where former Congressman and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson is giving a statement about his recent meetings with representatives of the government of North Korea. Here he is. GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: ... we had about two hours of discussions, five hours of discussions today. The talks have been in a very good atmosphere. Talks have been positive, frank, and candid, too. We've discussed a whole variety of bilateral issues. I want to stress again I am not a special envoy or a negotiator for the administration. I am trying to just help my country. And I have had experience with North Koreans. They were in touch with me. The administration wanted me to follow up. I have had extensive discussions with Secretary Powell all throughout the day. I will be having more discussions with Secretary Powell this evening and tomorrow morning. An additional meeting is planned tomorrow morning with the North Koreans here at the residence at approximately 8:30 in the morning Mountain Time. They will depart tomorrow after this last meeting. And that's right now all I wish to say. QUESTION: Sir, can we ask a question anyway? RICHARDSON: Yes. QUESTION: The fact that you're having this meeting, this extra meeting, strikes some as remarkable and goes beyond what you contemplated. Is that because there are things actually being achieved at these meetings? RICHARDSON: Well, my hope is that the end of the meeting there will be positive results. But I can't -- I don't want to speculate that there are any breakthroughs. I am not an envoy of the administration. This is the administration's province. And I am simply an (UNINTELLIGIBLE) meeting with an ambassador who I dealt with when I went to North Korea during the Clinton administration to release some American pilots and American hostages. But we've discussed a whole host of issues, almost seven hours worth. Hopefully my talks will be positive. But still remains to be seen. QUESTION: To follow up, you talk about a whole host of issues. Can you delineate them, sir? We know you talked about the nonproliferation treaty. RICHARDSON: Well, obviously I'm concerned about North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT. I support the administration's policy. I think it is a sound policy. The administration, I believe, through Secretary Powell, has conveyed to me some strong views. And I have conveyed them to the North Koreans. But again, we're going to have the final meeting tomorrow. And I will have a press statement to all of you tomorrow when that concludes. QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) because you're not a member of the Bush administration? RICHARDSON: Who, the North Koreans? Well, I know them. I have had long relationships with them. I'm out of the foreign policy business. I'm governor of New Mexico. I was governor most of the day today, except for this morning. But I believe that, you know, to resolve problems, you got to talk. And when they sought out meetings, I reported it to the administration. The administration contacted me to go ahead with the meetings. But I want to make it clear, I'm not representing them. I don't represent U.S. policy in America. I'm a governor who's had experience. And the administration felt it was useful to send the North Koreans here, allow them to come, special access to come to Santa Fe. We've also -- I have shown them a little bit of Santa Fe, a city that I'm very proud of, my home city, New Mexico. They've eaten some New Mexico green chili, enchiladas. The ambassador asked for trout tonight. New Mexico trout, which apparently was brought by missionaries to North Korea. So we will be having a working dinner tonight, and then concluding with a meeting tomorrow morning. QUESTION: Oh, you are meeting again tonight? RICHARDSON: Well, we're having a working meeting. CARLSON: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson in his statement. We'll take a quick commercial break. We'll be back with more CROSSFIRE. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARVILLE: Welcome back. While the Republicans are acting like they now own the White House and Capitol Hill, the Democratic Party is gearing up to take Washington back. The games have definitely begun. So let's talk presidential politics with our guests, Republican Consultant Charlie Black and Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn. CARLSON: Peter, we don't have is a whole lot of time, so I want to get to something that I have been thinking about all day. FENN: Oh good. CARLSON: Dick Gephardt is running against for president. He last ran in 1988. We learned today that Gary Hart, who also ran in 1988 is running again. Of course you saw Frank Lautenberg and Walter Mondale run in the past mid-term. I see a theme here. Do you think it's possible -- open your mind -- possible that Mike Dukakis would run again? FENN: I think that one's off the charts. No, I think the reason you have so many candidates in this race is that there's such a good chance of beating George W. Bush in 2004. (APPLAUSE) FENN: We have so many senators right now, we might as well have is a baseball team. The Washington senators could come back here in this... CARVILLE: Seriously -- I mean, I guess on one sense (ph) you say Bush has some high poll numbers. Certainly they're going to be able to raise a money. And you think why are there so many Democrats running. BLACK: Well, I think a lot of people want to be president. And a lot of people learned the lesson of 1992, which was a lot of prominent Democrats decided in '91, when the first President Bush's poll numbers were very high, not to run, to take a pass on the race. Bill Clinton had the guts to run, as did Paul Tsongas and a couple of other people, and Clinton got the nomination. It turned out to be worth something. Look, I think we have a very close, competitive two-party system in this country. I think President Bush is going to plan on having a worthy opponent and a close election. Who knows who it will be that comes out. We're not going to take anything for granted. I do think we're a strong favorite, but we're going to plan on a close race. CARLSON: I totally agree with that. But Peter, and you can't read, of course, too much into the site of a convention, but you can read something into it. The Democrats have chosen Massachusetts. Now, typically you approach these things by thinking, what do I get out of it? And I guess I look at it and I say, well, if the Democrats think they need to have a convention in Massachusetts because they're not going to win it otherwise -- if you don't win Massachusetts and you're a Democrat, it's really time to sell insurance, isn't it? FENN: As you know, Tucker, Massachusetts is the birth place of American liberty, so we will put American liberty back in 2004. CARLSON: So it's the liberty race. No, is there a real -- is there a logical reason to have it in Massachusetts? FENN: I guess just not to do it in New York with the Republicans in charge there I think is the best reason I can think of. Let the Republicans go to New York. We'll go to Massachusetts. BLACK: Republican governor of Massachusetts... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: Actually, I'd say I have a pretty good idea why they did that. I think they put up a lot of money to have it there. Charlie, you and I have been together and been doing politics for a long time. In fact, we go back to 1984. And between the two of us, we have a lot of experience. Have you ever heard of anyone voting in a presidential election based on the site of the convention? An exit poll, somebody walks out, says, well, I voted for him because I did not like where it was. I mean, Tucker said -- he said Al Sharpton (UNINTELLIGIBLE) stay at the Four Seasons hotel. CARLSON: I said -- I said you can't read too much into it, but it says something. CARVILLE: It reads nothing. BLACK: I think it's highly overrated. It does, though, send some signals and helps you cultivate an image. You want an example. Ronald Reagan, who was a Westerner, a lot of people on the East Coast thought he was too conservative. They didn't think he could compete in the Northeast and the Midwest. We had the convention in Detroit, a blue-collar town, a swing state, in the Joe Lewis Arena. And it told people something about Reagan, that he was there to compete everywhere. Just like, I think, us having this convention for the Republicans in New York says that we're going to compete everywhere. We're not afraid of the Northeast, we're not afraid of New York City. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are out of time. Peter Fenn, Charlie Black, thank you both very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. Are the opening shots in the war against Iraq being fired over the Internet? Connie Chung has details next in a CNN news alert. Later, a man who says the history books have it wrong. If he's right, we may have to cancel Columbus Day. Not that anyone would notice. And why would anyone want to cancel a commercial like this? We'll debate it. Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (NEWSBREAK) CARLSON: In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, but a dark cloud of doubt now hovers over history as we know it. Author Gavin Menzies (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Christopher Columbus and his crew got to America 71 years too late. His book, "1421," sets out to prove that Chinese voyagers commanded by eunuchs, we'll get an explanation on that, got here first. So is it time to cancel Columbus Day? We take our own voyage with Gavin Menzies here in the CROSSFIRE. CARVILLE: Have a seat here. GAVIN MENZIES, AUTHOR, "1421": Thank you. CARVILLE: All right. I read a piece in the Sunday "New York Times" magazine. I'll be very candid and upfront with you, I have not read your entire book. Having said that -- and I'm kind of a born skeptic. Give me the single best piece of evidence that you have on hand to convince me and people throughout the country that what you claim is true? MENZIES: Sure. Well, if my claim is true, the first Europeans who got to America should have met Chinese people. And they did. When Jean Devarexama (ph), who was sent by the king of France, Francois I, to try and find a northwest passage, when he got to New York, he found Chinese people in what is now New York. Further down the coast in Florida... CARVILLE: Did the Jews take their daughters out in Florida to a restaurant on Sunday night to eat? MENZIES: This was 500 years ago. CARVILLE: I'm just joking. Go ahead. MENZIES: Further down the coast, the first viceroy of Florida, who is a Spaniard called Pedro de Menendez, when he arrived he found Chinese junks in the North Atlantic on the Florida coast. Going further south, Vazquez de Coronado, who was the first European to get to Arizona and Colorado, he found Chinese junks with gilded sterns and he found Chinese people. CARVILLE: Could this be why I have slanted eyes right now? CARLSON: Mr. Menzies, that's very detailed. But I want to read you something that's even more detailed. This is from "The Daily Telegraph." This is a claim that you made. These junks you refer to, "these ships were really quite comfortable. They're incredibly well designed. They've got methods of de-salinating water. They had all sorts of vegetables on board, which were grown in tubs. They had pigs, chicken coops and tubs of frogs. They even had otters, which drove fish into nets that were then kept alive in tanks in the hold. This meant that people on board always had fresh fish to eat." I guess my question would be, A, how do you train otters to do that, and, B, how do you know this, this level of impossibly detailed fact that you have? MENZIES: Well, to answer your question, this is a method of fishing, which is an extensive use today in South China and Bangor in the Indian Ocean. It's been carried on for centuries. CARLSON: But how do you know that the Chinese in 1421 did this (UNINTELLIGIBLE) United States? MENZIES: Because where they went, for example, if you take the fjords, the southern fjords of south New Zealand, where one of these huge Chinese junks were wrecked, the early settlers found otters. And there were no mammals in New Zealand. CARLSON: Well, that's interesting, but that doesn't mean necessarily, I guess, that Chinese junks came over in 1421 with otters acting as fishermen. I mean, there is a leap logically, isn't there? MENZIES: Of course not. I entirely accept that. But that's one of about 25 pieces of evidence. Everywhere that I say that the Chinese junks went, whether it's Australia, New Zealand, American Pacific Coast, American Atlantic Coast, Mexico, there is a multitude of different evidence. I have never put anything in the book on its own. For example, where Chinese porcelains been found (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I have not put it in the book unless it's collaborated by many other things. Finding Chinese animals, Chinese plants, Chinese people, Chinese wrecks, jade and so on. So nothing whatsoever that I claim in the book relies on one piece of evidence. And I might say, I fully accept that some of my pieces of evidence might be wrong. It's a very complex subject and I don't claim that I'm 100 percent correct. What I do claim is that my thesis that the Chinese discovered the Pacific coast and the Atlantic coast of North America before Europeans is 100 percent correct. There's no doubt about it whatsoever. CARLSON: I must say you may be alone in that. I'd hate to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But I just want to read you a quote from Felipe Fernandez-Armesto a professor at Oxford. Quoted in the "Sunday Times." Here's what he says, "Menzies originality consist in taking all the nonsense that has ever been aired about these voyages and stuffing it into a single volume. How does he do it? Ignorance, madam, pure ignorance. Allied to outrageous chutzpah, shom of critical intelligence. The result is heroically defiant in the face of logic, evidence, scholarship and sense." He's not a fan. MENZIES: No. CARLSON: But that is not a unanimous opinion in the book. Does anyone else agree with you? MENZIES: Does anyone else agree with me? My book has been sent to, in round figures 300 professors and professional historians. Eighty-five percent of them agree. I have just come back from China where over 100 Chinese professors crawled through my evidence for three days. At the end of it they were kind enough to say, you are completely right as far as we can see. There are no major flaws in your argument. Now, to turn to Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, to put it mildly, he is not exactly an unbiased critic, because he spent his life writing about Columbus. And if you've spent your life writing about a person, whether he landed up on Western Puerto Rico, Eastern (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And you suddenly realize it's irrelevant, because he had a chart showing him how to get to America, which is in my book, then your apple cart's been overturned and you're not pleased, which is understandable. CARVILLE: My guess is, and you'll find a lot of people in America is going to be displeased with you, particularly some of the sons of Italy and some of the Italian organization. I spent all my rhyme, and 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. I don't know, I might still be in there, too. One of the criticisms that are used is you're not a professional historian and you're a self-promoter. MENZIES: I am certainly not a professional historian. I accept that fully. On the other hand, it is quite difficult for a professional historian to write a book like this, because you do tread on many, many toes. You cover many different fields and most historians are very polite. They stick to their own patch. CARVILLE: I don't mean unpolite and tell you we have to go to an ad, but we're going to hold your book up and tell people if you want to purchase this book and decide for yourself, you've heard what he had to say. MENZIES: Read the evidence and judge for yourself. CARLSON: As long as they don't try and take the country back, it's fine with us. We sure appreciate having you. In a little bit one of our Democratic viewers fires back. A lament shared by many others in his party. But necessary revealing insights on the less filling tastes great debate. You won't want to miss a moment of it. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University in downtown Washington. After months of meaningless barely watchable fare the pro football season has reached the playoffs meaning we finally get commercials that are worth tuning in to see. This year Miller Lite has one that's guaranteed to get your attention. Who after all can resist sex and beer? To put it in the CROSSFIRE we're joined by Christine O'Donnell president and founder of the Saviors Alliance For Lifting the Truth, SALT for short, and Molly Reilly, marketing communications manager for the Miller Brewing Company of Wisconsin. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: OK. Molly, let's -- let's show the ad here. So everybody can see what it is that we're talk about here that's causing all of the chatter. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doesn't Miller Lite taste great. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, but I drink it because it's less filling. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now that would make a great commercial. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who wouldn't want to watch that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Life is best told over a great tasting Miller Lite. The place, called Miller Time. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARVILLE: All right. Now, we have an after 9:00 when it's just like 14-year-old boys watching football games. And 12 and 15-year-old boys that -- we have this kicker here. Can we see it that comes on after. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who wouldn't want to watch that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Life is best told over a great tasting Miller Lite at a place called Miller Time. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let's make out. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARVILLE: OK. So 14-year-old little Johnny sees that. What does he want to do? Do his math homework? What are you trying to tell these kids with that? MOLLY REILLY, MARKETING COMM. MGR., MILLER BREWING COMPANY: We're not trying to tell kids. This is on television over 70 percent of the audience is over 21. So we're fishing where the fish are. We're going for the guys who can buy the beer. CARVILLE: What are you telling a 22-year-old? REILLY: We're telling them that we're in on the joke. We know what they're talking about at the bar. And we are in on the joke. We think it's funny. We're making -- just making fun of the situation spoofing on things that guys talk about at bars all the time. CARVILLE: I tell you one thing, I will say this, that it is brilliant, because every guy has a fantasy about watching two girls make out in mud. CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, SAVIOR'S ALLIANCE FOR LIFTING THE TRUTH: I disagree. I completely disagree. CARLSON: But Christine, is this ad honest. The subtext, of course, is if you drink beer, you'll have sex. It will be easier for you to have sex. But that's true, isn't it, in the end? So, this is not a misleading ad. Beer actually does help you have sex with people you don't know that well. O'DONNELL: When you give the girl lots and lots of beer unfortunately, tragically, it does. But I just want to make a comment -- disagree with what you said about all men do fantasize about that. That's not true. I know a lot of guys... CARLSON: Straight. O'DONNELL: I know a lot of straight men who don't find that attractive, who aren't attracted to women who behave like that. And not even from a conservative point of view, but from a female point of view, I find that utterly offensive. And I just, from one professional woman who's trying to make it be taken seriously in a men's club to another, I ask how you can honestly promote that. Because how does it make men look at us? I mean, are you guys expecting me to lunge across the table and... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I mean, here, got a Miller Lite somewhere. That's all right. You know. REILLY: This is so over the top. This is so tongue and cheek. Everyone is in on the joke. And you see the girlfriends looking at the guys and they say, wouldn't everyone want to see this? And they're like, I've heard you talk about this so many times. We're in on it. We're talking to the 21-year-old guy in the same way he's talking to his friends. (CROSSTALK) O'DONNELL: This is a parody, but it is mocking something that is very true. The way that beer commercials do... REILLY: Women wrestling? O'DONNELL: No, the way beer commercials truly do objectify women. I mean, the woman comes out there in her bikini and everything like that, you know, drink my beer. CARLSON: Don't you admire the directness of it? I mean, for years people attacked ads for their subliminal messages. This is really telling you this. There's really nothing subliminal about this. I mean, the mud and the -- literally, it's mud wrestling. Don't you absolutely admire that, the frankness? O'DONNELL: I don't admire it. I mean, it's something you would expect on "Saturday Night Live" and not on CNN. REILLY: It's good entertainment. CARVILLE: Just out of curiosity, I drink beer. O'DONNELL: Right. CARVILLE: Why can't you just tell me that your beer tastes good? Or why can't you tell me that at the end of a hard day, you want an ice cold beer? (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I think the ad is brilliant. I think the guy ought to get a MacArthur grant that did this. He is a genius. Now, let me show you another one here. This is a Miller beer spin the bottle. And so you're at a party. And it's one of the things that you can do -- I like this. Identify your date while blind-folded by patting them down. OK. Here's another one. Because they're in on a joke is change underwear with the person sitting next to you. REILLY: Which is good fun. CARVILLE: That's fun? O'DONNELL: And you hope the person sitting next to you is wearing underwear. CARVILLE: Now, this is one hip woman. CARLSON: I was about to say... (CROSSTALK) REILLY: That's very relevant to the 21- to the 28-year-old guy we're talking to. CARVILLE: Are 21- and 28-year-olds that stupid? I mean, I understand. It is relevant. I mean, look, I'm a 58-year-old and I like the ad, OK? O'DONNELL: But if I can unfortunately take a serious tone, stuff like this is why America repeatedly scores very low when compared to other countries in our academics. (CROSSTALK) O'DONNELL: Because we say this is what we expect of the men of our country. We don't expect them to have anything -- any kind of intellectual prowess greater than this. CARLSON: OK, in England people kill each other at soccer games. OK? I mean, I was sort of on your side until -- no, that's literally true -- until you started saying this is emblematic of our country. O'DONNELL: We don't expect anything greater. We don't expect anything greater of our college students. (CROSSTALK)_ CARLSON: Miller is not saying you ought to swap underwear with the person in class. Right? I mean, there is... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I'll give you credit -- you are a social conservative. You're the only one I have seen. All these pontificating social conservatives, if it's a rapper or someone in Hollywood, they all get aghast. But if it's a corporation, and this, by the way, is a tax subsidized ad. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: All they do is attack them. But Miller beer, it's all fine. I want to know where is the conservative cultural community that is so aghast at the declining standards in America where we have a spot saying switch underwear with the person next to you. O'DONNELL: I'm offended. REILLY: It was an ad in "Playboy." So it fits the tone of the publication. This isn't in "TIME" magazine. CARLSON: Real quickly, we're almost out of time, just tell us yes or no, you said that this speaks to people who actually drink Miller Lite. Do you know people who swap underwear at parties? REILLY: From a couple of years ago, and college maybe. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: Where did you go to college? REILLY: Madison. CARVILLE: Madison, University of Wisconsin, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are out of time. Christine O'Donnell, Molly Reilly, thank you both very much. We appreciate it. Next, your chance to fire back at us. Tonight we've received an e-mail from a self-proclaimed igloo dweller from the far frozen north. That, of course, you guessed it, would be Canada. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Now for the part of the program that gives you a chance to take a shot at us, our favorite part of the program, "Fireback." And you're firing away. Here we go. "W.'s economic program last year only made matters worse. This new one will do much more damage. You know the definition of idiocy -- doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome." Judy Simmons, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Actually, Judy, I take issue with you calling the president an idiot. I like buffoonery better. Call him a buffoon. CARLSON: Actually, some analysts say that the first economic program got us out of the recession. CARVILLE: It did not. It just put us deeper. CARLSON: Next up is David Hershey of San Diego, California. He writes: "It is unfortunate to think the only way we Democrats will win back the White House is if Hillary would run." And the saddest part, thank you for admitting that, David, is that many Democrats actually believe that. That's my -- do you think Democrats actually believe that, don't they? CARVILLE: I think we got a pretty good field right now. I do. "I see that King George has called in Mr. Richardson to handle the crisis in North Korea. Now if he would only call in Robert Rubin to handle the economy. We might have a winner." Jeanne Cloutier, Rochester, New York. There's always hope. Calling this guy Friedman has seemed like a pretty good man. So maybe he'll help. CARLSON: OK. Next up is Kip Beckman writes -- "Last night Tucker threatened to invade Canada and turn us into a giant frozen parking lot. He forgets that Canada defeated the United States in the War of 1812. We will do it again. Just because our currency is weak and almost worthless doesn't mean that we are. Kip Beckman, in my igloo in Ottawa, Canada." Which is the country's capital. That's the capital of Canada. Did you know that? CARVILLE: Ottawa. I did. Ottawa. So what's wrong with that? (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Some facts to know and share, that's all I'm saying. Ottawa. Yes, ma'am. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello, my name is Simone (ph). I'm from Washington, D.C. And I wanted to know what our chances are of seeing a Tucker-Carville mud wrestle? CARLSON: I'd say about zero, yes. But then, I don't know. CARVILLE: If somebody paid enough... (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: We wrestle here every night. Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, my name is Dominic (ph), I'm from Washington, D.C. As a New York sports fan, I can assure you the only enjoyable part of watching the Giants collapse last week was the Miller Lite mud wrestling commercial. And now you want to take away even that. Have you no shame? CARVILLE: Actually, I thought it was an interesting thing. If I was the Giants fan when I watched that collapse, I would have been pretty sad. The other thing is I want to say, we need to stop talking about the referee's call. That happens all the time. That's football. Got to get over it. CARLSON: OK. Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tom Noak (ph), Richmond, Virginia. If we acknowledge that the Chinese discovered America, my question is, will we get another holiday? CARLSON: There you go. You know what, we get holidays, a new holiday I would say about every year. I'm not necessarily against that. CARVILLE: We've got to give one to the Vikings, too. That's a good question. CARLSON: A Norse holiday. CARVILLE: A Norse holiday. CARLSON: What would you do on a Norse holiday? CARVILLE: What would I do? CARLSON: Wear fur clothing and beat people up. CARVILLE: Sit around and drink schnapps or something. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: You know, my ancestors are from Denmark. There is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE. CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again next week for yet more CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. Have a terrific weekend. We'll see you later. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 13, 2003 Monday Transcript # 011300CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 9070 words HEADLINE: Is Lieberman a Republican in a Democrat's Clothes? GUESTS: Ralph Nader, Stephen Moore, Robert Shapiro, Kiki McLean, Joanne Doroshow, Donald Palmisano BYLINE: Tucker Carlson HIGHLIGHT: Is Joe Lieberman a Republican in a Democrat's outfit? Are lawyers responsible for the recent doctor's strike in West Virginia? BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: debating Bush-o-nomics. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: It's not just a stimulus bill, it's not just a tax bill. It is a jobs and growth package. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Do the Democrats have a better way, or any way at all? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I think the Bush economic plan is a stimulus for the rich and a sedative for the rest. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: As of today, he's Joe candidate. Can he become Joe president? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I intend to talk straight to the American people and to show them that I'm a different kind of Democrat. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: And who is to blame for the high price of everything medical, the doctors or the lawyers? Ahead on CROSSFIRE. Live from the George Washington University: Tucker Carlson. (APPLAUSE) TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight: Republican tax cuts and Democratic obstructionism. We'll debate it, as well as Joe Lieberman's entry into the presidential race. Now that have everyone's health insurance premiums have gone up with the new year, we'll ask who is to blame, the doctors or the lawyers. But first, we have a special guest sitting on the left tonight. Please welcome consumer advocate Ralph Nader. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Thank you, Ralph, for joining us. We really appreciate it. RALPH NADER, CONSUMER ADVOCATE: Thanks for inviting me. CARLSON: This is going to be more fun than a presidential campaign and less dangerous to all involved. And we'll begin in just a minute. But before we do, we start off, as we always do, with the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." Here it is. Senator Joe Lieberman today returned to the high school where he was once elected class president to announce that he was taking the next step and running for president of the United States. Lieberman began by boasting he is "a different kind of Democrat." He went on to sound almost perfectly conventional. Lieberman criticized the Bush administration's plan for a tax cut and he promised to put money in the pockets of consumers. He said he would strengthen homeland security, protect Social Security, make health care affordable for everyone, fix our failing schools, and "bring back the prosperity of the Clinton-Gore years." Lieberman didn't mention the sacred lock box or join the side of the people versus the powerful or even brag about inventing anything. But give him time. Before long he'll remember those slogans too. And I can't wait until he does. This is like Gore (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and I'm excited to see it. NADER: Tucker, which part did you see he was seeking the nomination of? CARLSON: Apparently the Democratic Party. NADER: Oh, I see. All right. Most everybody figures President Bush would like to make total war on Iraq before spring. But things aren't going the administration's way. The United Nations weapons inspectors are making noises about needing more months to finish their job. Prime Minister Tony Blair agrees, while French President Jacques Chirac is repudiating unilateral action by the U.S. Meanwhile, the peace movement, including retired veterans, clergy and labor, keeps growing in the U.S. and western Europe. The White House says President Bush has no timetable for how long the U.S. buildup in the Persian Gulf will last. But time is money. In this case, big money from taxpayers and consumers. And if anybody in officialdom has considered the innocent casualties in geopolitical trouble, it would come in the aftermath of a Desert Storm II. They aren't talking, and that could be the real disaster, Tucker. CARLSON: Ralph, I know, as you do, that Bianca Jagger has gone over to Iraq. And I find that compelling, too. Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, they move my heart as well. But the fact is, there is a real threat from Iraq, and it is the duty of government, no matter how much it costs, to protect its citizens from threats. And if you think Iraq is a threat it doesn't matter how much it costs. (APPLAUSE) NADER: Well, you know, General Zinni head of the Marine Corps, retired, doesn't think this is a wise thing to do, along with most of his fellow retired officers, according to an October report in "The Washington Post." I hear that even George Bush's father is very, very concerned about going to war. That's one reason why he didn't topple Saddam Hussein in 1991, because of the aftermath. CARLSON: Well there are real arguments against it. There are honest people on both sides; fewer on one side than on the other. But the fact is that the cost of the war I don't think ought to be a factor. The question is, is it a just war, is it a necessary war? Not is it an inexpensive war. NADER: And of course most Americans think that President Bush hasn't proven that there is a real threat from a dictator who is surrounded by three hostile enemies more powerful (UNINTELLIGIBLE), who has control of one-third of his country, and who is lucky to find a place to sleep tonight. CARLSON: Well look, I would feel sorry for him, too. Bianca Jagger is there, as I said. But that doesn't mean he's not a threat. In news from the states tonight, Democrat Paris Glendening is finally stepping down as the most unpopular governor in the history of the state of Maryland. During his eight years in office, Glendending nearly destroyed his state's economy, boosted its budget deficit to over $1 billion, and left his wife for a much younger member of the staff. Now with two days left in office, Glendening has committed one final indignity. This weekend he gave high-paying state jobs to his few remaining friends. One got a judgeship, several more got seats on the University of Maryland's board of regions. The Democratic House majority leader's live-in girlfriend got appointed to a particularly lucrative state position. She'll make more than $1.5 million over her term, et cetera. Critics howled, Glendening ignored them. Saying his only regret was not being able to pardon a fugitive financier or two before leaving office. NADER: Well, you know, your Republican successor, Governor to be Ehrlich, wants to open slot machines at tracks and maybe around other places in Maryland. Thereby giving Marylanders the opportunity to bet on the future instead of build a future. CARLSON: Well, no that's -- I mean, look, I'm against gambling because I think it is unfair to Democrats who disproportionately gamble and lose. I think it is a bad idea. But at least it is hard to imagine the incoming governor giving various friends and girlfriends high paying state jobs. That is sleazy. I think you'll agree. NADER: It is quite a choice, isn't it? CARLSON: Yeah. NADER: All right. The Pentagon is getting ready to go to war perhaps against Iraq, but certainly against the environment. According to "The Washington Post", the U.S. military is set to ask Congress to relax a whole series of environmental laws. The services want to conduct combat training and live wire exercises and not bother with incidentals, like the endangered species law, the Clean Air Act and the hazardous waste laws that could be in the way. Nor do they want to worry about having to clean up the pollution and toxins, including unexploded shells left behind. The Pentagon and its big corporate contractors on these military reservations have already made a huge and costly mess of the environment over the decades. And that's when the corporations and military brass were supposed to obey the regulations. Imagine what they can do with a free hand, Tucker. CARLSON: Look, Ralph, training is important. It saves the lives of soldiers when they go into battle. Now I, too, share grave concerns about the future of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And I want the spotted owl to have as much unimpeded land as it can use. But those are not the most important things in a time of war. Training is the most important thing. NADER: Just remember you don't want our military to destroy what it is supposed to be protecting. And the water underground, which is contaminated by a lot of these toxins, the air, and the unexploded ordinance in the -- no, in other words, look, they got along with it without these exemptions for years. We're the most powerful military in the world. They can adjust to the environmental laws. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Ralph, you're making it sound like rural Cambodia. Unexploded ordinance? Like they're leaving landmines behind? Come on. It is the U.S. military. I mean, please. NADER: It is a matter of record. By the way, you know these military reservations are 25 times more than the size of Connecticut. You're talking about a lot of land here. CARLSON: That's an interesting fact. I'm not sure what it means. I'll keep it in mind, though. Readers of "The New York Times" this morning discovered what viewers of CROSSFIRE have known for months. The Al Sharpton for president campaign is more than a sideshow; it's a colossal problem for Democrats. Despite the Democratic Party's slogans about diversity, Sharpton is its only black presidential candidate. Which means he could win the South Carolina primary and arrive in the Democratic convention in Boston with delegates and a prime speaking role. No matter what he does, Sharpton's fellow Democrats will be terrified to criticize him. They're afraid of Al Sharpton, but the feeling is not mutual. Over the weekend, Sharpton called on party Chairman Terry McAuliffe to resign, questioned Senator John Kerry's record on race relations, and had this to say about former trial lawyer and current presidential candidate Senator John Edward: "This guy got rich fighting for the regular guy, so I'm going to ask him at the debates, name one regular guy you fought for that you didn't get paid for." Which is a great question. And notice the mention of the debates. Al Sharpton is going to be in them. Thanks to him, it's going to be a fun campaign. NADER: It sure is. The votes Al Sharpton gets are going to overwhelmingly come from the Democratic Party, unlike my votes. CARLSON: I like that. NADER: My votes for -- my votes came -- half of the people who voted for me who would not have voted, 25 percent would have voted for Bush, and more would have voted for Gore. CARLSON: And I'm not attack your voters, Ralph. But you've got to admit that some of the people who voted for you weren't aware that there was this thing called "voting" before you ran. NADER: Yeah. We tried to get out over a million votes. CARLSON: Yeah. Well good for you. NADER: wait until you get Al Sharpton on this program. You're going to see how sharp a debater he is. CARLSON: Al Sharpton has been on this program many times. We are proud to have him. He is a true Democrat. He speaks what most Democrats are afraid to say. NADER: And you're rooting for him, right? CARLSON: I am absolutely rooting for him. Plus he loves CROSSFIRE. NADER: All right. OK. Remember the war on crooked accounting? It has been a little slow getting started, but the new Accounting Industry Oversight Board had its first meeting last week and made some very important decisions. Such as they voted themselves annual salaries of $452,000 each a year and even more for their chair. That's $52,000 a year more than the president of the United States makes and almost $300,000 a year more than fed chair Alan Greenspan makes. It is more than three times what the chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission makes. By the way, it is still Harvey Pitt. He resigned in November, but he's still on the job. CARLSON: I'm not going to defend that -- you know $475,000 a year -- but I have to say this story ought to make you reassess your world view, your whole political philosophy that the call for a new government agency or panel or working group in response to every problem always winds up with groups of people voting themselves $475,000 a year. It's just axiomatic. That's what happens. NADER: That's because of Congress. For the first time in American history, they allowed public officials to vote themselves salaries comparable to the private sector. Those big shot accountant executives that caused the problem the first place. Now they can make a transition into Washington without losing... CARLSON: But Ralph, not to get too deep on you here on cable, but it is the nature of government, OK? Government always makes itself bigger; it always works to the benefit of those who work in it. I think it is time to rethink your sort of affection for -- your sort of naive view of government. NADER: It is the nature of corporate government. The big corporations got this through. You know that. They got it through the Senate and then they got it through the House. But you can never understand how corporations take over government. All you can understand is how government allegedly takes over corporations. CARLSON: So government does something, bad but you blame corporations. OK. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Speaking of, the Democrats spent the weekend signaling they'll take every possible opportunity to obstruct President Bush's tax cut. We'll debate that next. Also, Joe Lieberman gets into the presidential race. Is it all downhill from here? And later, you get sick, the lawyers profit. Is this fair? That is our final debate. More with Ralph Nader. It's going to be a great show. We'll be right back. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to our once in a lifetime Ralph Nader edition of CROSSFIRE. Over the weekend, President Bush declared "We cannot be satisfied until every corporate wrongdoer is held to account and every part of our economy is strong and everyone who wants to work can find a job." Unfortunately, Democrats have already appointed themselves the job of obstructing the president's every move. Stepping into the CROSSFIRE tonight to debate it: former Undersecretary of Commerce Robert Shapiro. He's now a fellow with the Brookings Institution and a columnist for "Slate." And with him is Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute and the Club for Growth. (APPLAUSE) NADER: All right, Mr. Moore. I have a question for you. Obviously, the president's tax cuts are not designed just to cut taxes. They're designed to create jobs. The American Society... STEPHEN MOORE, CLUB FOR GROWTH: I'm glad you got that part of it, Ralph. NADER: Designed, designed. The American Society for Civil Engineers just put out a report card of the crumbling works in our country. $1.3 trillion will be needed to deal with repairing bridges, transit, aviation airports, schools, drinking water systems, waste water systems, dams, solid waste, hazardous waste, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) water waste and energy. Now wouldn't this money be better used, and wouldn't it be decentralized throughout all America, if we launched a public works project to repair our country? And to do what Jerry Wilson (ph), the CEO in Portland, Oregon once said in "The New York Times," restore the basic capital for our public enterprise and private enterprise systems? That would create jobs everywhere in the cities, in the rural areas, in the suburbs. MOORE: All right I get it. NADER: OK? MOORE: First of all, Ralph, thank you again for running for president in 2000. I have to run... NADER: Get to the point, Steve. Get to the point. MOORE: Look, it is not surprising that these engineering firms that are going to get these huge contracts are in favor of more spending. But all we have seen over the last two years, the only part of the economy that's been growing over the last two years, Ralph, is government. We have seen a huge expansion of federal spending, but private sector spending is falling. So we don't need more government spending. In fact, we need less of it. What we need is incentives for businesses to hire more workers. We need tax cuts to get the stock market up. By the way, the stock market already has responded favorably, just the idea of a dividend tax cut. There are 80 million of us, Ralph, who own stocks. Some of them are your voters. (CROSSTALK) ROBERT SHAPIRO, FMR. UNDERSECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Steve, government is bigger, and what party holds the White House and what party controls Congress? MOORE: Well, that's true. I mean, both parties are spending money like drunken sailors. No doubt about it. NADER: Steve, who's going to repair it? The private business will not repair all this public works. They're not going repair clinics and schools and libraries. Wait, just let me finish. They're not going to do that. You know from your historical background, Steve, that our country was built with these kinds of public infrastructures that facilitated private enterprise. So who is going to build crumbling infrastructures that Americans experience every day? MOORE: What you are endorsing, Ralph, is what I call the Japan economic model. Japan has been in a depression for 10 years. They have paved over that entire country with concrete public works programs and it hasn't got than country out of a depression. We don't want to use the Japan model. We want to use the Ronald Reagan model, which is tax cuts to stimulate the economy. And then when we do that, by the way, Ralph, we'll have enough money for the infrastructure improvements that you want to see. CARLSON: Now Robert Shapiro, people -- we have been talking about this for four minutes already, and nobody has thrown out the charge -- Ralph has not thrown out the charge this is a tax cut for the rich. I'm assuming you will. I want to beat you to it. I want to read you from a Larry Lindsey op-ed from "The New York Times" the other day. Larry, former economic adviser to the president. "The tax cut is almost exactly proportional to taxes paid. Under current law, families making more than $200,000 would pay 45 percent of the income tax, will get 40 percent of the tax cut. Families making less than $100,000 will pay 28 percent of the income tax this year and will get 34 percent of the tax cut. Not only that. Bush's plan would provide bigger tax cut for middle income families." The bottom line is you get back what you pay. And if you're rich, you get back a little bit less than you pay. SHAPIRO: Well, no. The bottom line is that the one part of the tax code where high-income people pay a disproportionate share, which is to say the income -- the personal income tax is cut, while the real burden or most working people comes from the payroll tax, and that's not cut. But, you know, the distributional issue is not the key issue. You know, I don't know whether the problem with this program is that it is shameless or that it's reckless, but it is clearly both. It is shameless because they call it a stimulus, when even the administration says in a year it will create 190,000 jobs. In the Clinton administration, we created 200,000 jobs a month for eight years. So it has almost no stimulus... (CROSSTALK) SHAPIRO: And it is also reckless. And it's also reckless because it increases the deficit, which reduces business investment, which reduces productivity. CARLSON: Wait. One charge at a time. Mr. Shapiro, your fellow Democrats -- you actually, to your credit, gave a fairly, no more correct, but certainly more sophisticated analysis than most Democrats. But Senator Daschle, Mr. Gephardt, among others, are getting up and saying this say tax cut for the rich. I want to show you one other really interesting statistic which gets right to the heart of it. This is from the Treasury Department. Distribution of income taxes: income, $100,000 or more, people who make that pay 72 percent of taxes now, after they still pay 73. SHAPIRO: That's interesting because, you know, it is $100,000 or more. Why don't we look at the top one percent, $500,000 or more. CARLSON: But wait, that's not rich enough for you? I mean, wow, you're really... SHAPIRO: No, in fact it's not. Because, in fact, this tax cut is weighted not to the upper middle class but to the very, very, very rich. In fact, to the top two-tenths of one percent, who receive 15,000 times as much of a tax cut as an average American family. And that's from the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute. (CROSSTALK) MOORE: So the $100,000... CARLSON: So that's not rich enough for you? All your friends are much richer than that. I think I know what you mean. (CROSSTALK) SHAPIRO: It is not rich enough for George Bush, who wants to give most of the benefit to the top two-tenths of one percent, not to the top five percent, which is $100,000. NADER: By the way, there is something of a job creation in this plan. It is so complex. Deemed dividends, what do you think of that one? Try that in a sound bite. It is so complex it is going to create more jobs for tax lawyers and accountants. (CROSSTALK) MOORE: The dividend tax is easy, you pay zero. What's hard about that? NADER: Can we put the Gallup poll up? OK. This is what the American people think of Bush's tax cut. Fifty-six percent: it favors the rich; 24 percent: middle class; two percent: it favors the poor. When Bush's first tax cut was enacted in June 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. It is now six percent. 2.2 million more people out of work. I ask you, Stephen Moore, don't you think one way to stimulate consumer demand, which will stimulate supply side activity, is to raise the minimum wage in real terms to where it was in 1968 when the economy was half as large per capita? MOORE: Ralph, we didn't have to increase the minimum wage in the 1980s. You know why? Incomes went up so fast, the minimum wage became irrelevant. That's what we have to do right now, get jobs back. Now you mention this idea about how the rich are getting a huge portion of the tax cut. Guess what? When you look at the people who are paying the highest income tax bracket, the people that apparently Rob doesn't like, he doesn't want to give tax cuts to those folks, two out of every three of those people are small business owners, Ralph. You cannot have more jobs without employers. You got to give employers an incentive too hire; this plan does that. SHAPIRO: I miss the days when Republicans cared about business investment. When Republicans... MOORE: This is small business investment. SHAPIRO: This is not. MOORE: Getting rid of the dividend tax cut? SHAPIRO: This is not pro business investment. It will raise long-term interest rates by increasing the deficit. It will also raise long-term interest rates by making it more expensive to invest, by reducing retained earnings, which go directly to investment in favor of dividends. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: How much do (UNINTELLIGIBLE) get? (CROSSTALK) SHAPIRO: In fact, long-term interest rates have come down almost not at all. Despite an 80 percent cut in short-term rates, long-term rates have come down only 20 percent. (CROSSTALK) NADER: He dodged the question. Millions of people are making less today in real dollars than they made in 1968, in 1973. MOORE: And the way to solve that problem is through tax cuts that puts America back to work. NADER: The way is to restore their minimum wage to at least what it was in 1968. MOORE: If we have your program, there will be no jobs, Ralph. CARLSON: OK. Speaking of programs, ours has to take a quick commercial break. We'll be right back. President Bush isn't the only one with an economic plan. Ralph Nader and our guests will be right back. Later, Joe Lieberman makes it even harder to tell the difference between the U.S. Senate's Democratic Caucus and the feel for the presidential primaries. And is the prescription for high medical bills as simple as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) several million lawyers and call us in the morning? Of course it is. We'll debate it anyway. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to the Ralph Nader edition of CROSSFIRE. A new poll shows President Bush has a sales job to do on his jobs and growth plan. Only 42 percent of those responding to a new CNN-"USA Today" Gallup poll favor the president's plan. Thirty-seven percent are opposed and 21 percent say they are unsure. Tonight we address that 21 percent. In the CROSSFIRE are former Undersecretary of Commerce Robert Shapiro and Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. And still with us on the left, as we alluded to earlier, is former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Well, Mr. Shapiro, we talked -- you have talked in fairly harsh terms about the president's plan. Let's just talk very quickly, because there is not a whole lot to say, about the plan put forth by the House Democrats. The centerpiece of which -- and I'm not making this up -- is the idea that every person in America ought to get a check for $300. Is this going to stimulate the economy? They don't even make the case. It's just a pure pander, a pure payoff to voters. It's about the most vulgar thing you can imagine. You can't defend that, can you? SHAPIRO: Sure I can defend it. It is a one-year stimulus. The notion here is that the economy will grow stronger if there is more demand. And the way to increase demand is to put money in the hands of people who will spend it. That is, people who don't have a lot of discretionary income, and that's average people. It is a one-year stimulus. I think it is a good insurance policy against another dip in the economy. The fact is, you know, the National Bureau of Economic Research still won't say that the recession is over. They said -- they say they're not sure. That, in fact, the economy could go down again. It is an insurance policy. As a one-year program, I think it has... MOORE: These tax rebates, they didn't work for President Ford, they didn't work for Carter, they didn't work for Bush two years ago. Why do we keep thinking tax rebates are going to work? You have to cut tax rates to give incentives for businesses to hire and for people to work. SHAPIRO: Well, in fact, what you need to do is -- you're right that the core of the problem... MOORE: All right. He wants to cut tax rates. SHAPIRO: No. That the core of the problem is to get business investing again and that requires two things. That requires lower drops (ph) in real long-term interest, which we do not have. And it requires... (CROSSTALK) NADER: Steve obviously thinks rebates works for General Motors. That's OK. Now, the prospects for the Bush plan getting through are almost nil. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill said that the Bush plan will do little or nothing to improve the economy. Senator Voinovich, Senator Grassley, the senators from Maine and the senator chief (ph) in Rhode Island are all very skeptical. This thing is not going to go through. What makes you think it's going to go through, when the whole lobbying power of Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, and all those giant Silicon Valley companies who don't want pressure from their shareholders to put out dividends -- we're going to fight this. MOORE: Ralph, you should be in favor of companies paying out the... (CROSSTALK) NADER: No. What is your political prospect to this getting through? MOORE: This is a populous proposal to make sure that companies are giving the money to the shareholders. So you and I should agree on that. But in terms of why it's going to happen -- and I'll tell you. For the last week, the Democrats on Capitol Hill: Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, have been hyperventilating. And the reason they're hyperventilating is because they know if President Bush -- I should say when he gets this plan passed it almost guarantees him reelection. It is going to help stimulate the economy in the short and long term. And once he's solved the economic problems... NADER: But his own Republicans are against -- he's got leading Republicans -- Grassley is chair of the... MOORE: I will bet you right now he get all the Republicans in the House and only a couple in the Senate won't go along with it, like John McCain. But he's going to pick up seven or eight Democrats in the Senate because they're 19 out there... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: How about some body else? Wait a minute. Robert Shapiro, we're almost out of time. But, as you know, because you worked there during the Clinton years, Clinton people always held up Alan Greenspan. Greenspan is for -- he's our -- you don't hear Greenspan much. He endorsed the first Bush tax cut. I think he had lunch with the president today. If he comes out and one way or another says I'm for this, will you say, You know what? I was wrong all along because I... SHAPIRO: No, I will not say that... CARLSON: Why not? SHAPIRO: The fact of the matter is that the chairman of the federal reserve never comes out publicly against a president's economic program. There is not one case. CARLSON: He came out against Clinton's program. SHAPIRO: He did not. He supported it. He supported it vociferously against the Republicans. CARLSON: So he's a phony? (CROSSTALK) SHAPIRO: He's not a phony. That's just the way the relationship between the Fed and the presidency works. CARLSON: OK. Well, unfortunately we're out of time. Robert Shapiro, Stephen Moore, thank you both very much. We appreciate it. Coming up, he would be vice president but for Ralph Nader's presidential campaign. That's what he thinks anyway. Will Joe Lieberman have any better luck if he heads the ticket next time? And then the people responsible for sky high doctors' bills and it isn't necessarily the doctors. It is, of course, the lawyers. We'll tell you more. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington. Senator Joe Lieberman wants to be your president. He officially entered the race today. But he is running away from his own party as well as for the White House? Does he have any shot at all and can he convince his party that he's not just a Republican in disguise? To answer those and other questions we're joined by Democratic consultant Kiki McLean. Now Kiki, I'm so glad you and Ralph can be together again. In fact, if it weren't for Ralph, you might be secretary of agriculture. KIKI MCLEAN, DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANT: That's true. I could have a good job this cycle. CARLSON: But I want you to -- of all the explanations I've seen for the debacle of 2000, this is perhaps the most poignant and not to say pathetic. Joe Lieberman, in "The New York Times" this summer, here's what he said, trying to explain why he and Mr. Gore lost. "The people versus the powerful," that is the slogan, "unfortunately left that track and gave a different message, which may have been caused by the pressure that the Nader campaign was giving us. But I think it was not the new Democratic approach." In other words, our rhetoric was terrible and it didn't work, but we had to do it because Ralph Nader made us. Isn't this the worst kind of whining and don't you want to apologize on the behalf of Mr. Lieberman to Mr. Nader? I got to tell you Tucker, and with all due respect to Ralph here, I have to say that you and I both know that Joe Lieberman got more votes than Dick Cheney for vice president of the United States and it would probably be Joe Lieberman tonight who was in an undisclosed secure location somewhere if it weren't for Mr. Nader. So, in fact, what I would suggest to you... CARLSON: But the whining -- you're not embarrassed at all about that? MCLEAN: I don't think Joe Lieberman whines. I think Joe Lieberman is a thoughtful man who's not afraid to talk about what he's thinking about, to talk about what he's trying to understand. I think that's why he's a great candidate for president; because I think he's somebody who is independent in the way he thinks and not afraid to talk about what he thinks. I think he's somebody who believes in ideas and it's important to have that kind of dialogue. And I think you would have to agree, of all the candidates you know, this man has a level of integrity that is unquestionable. NADER: Well, here we go. Personal point of privilege, Kiki. MCLEAN: Well, you're going to have to have a lot of privilege. NADER: It was clearly not Tennessee; It was clearly not Arkansas, it was clearly not the southern Democrats in Florida; it was clearly not his wooden performance on the debates; It was just all those Green Party voters. But anyway... MCLEAN: You know, the amazing thing is some day Ralph, you'll want to take credit for the votes you siphoned off. But that's a whole other inside baseball game debate. NADER: Let's ask a simple question. MCLEAN: Sure. NADER: You know, Joe Lieberman is my senator. He's personally a very nice person. He's very polite. But he's kind of -- sometimes he's a cruel (ph) man with a smile. But let me just ask you this: I've never seen... MCLEAN: This must be a very unique experience you have with him. NADER: You know, I mean, has Joe Lieberman ever seen a weapons system he doesn't like. On four key areas, what is the difference between Joe Lieberman and George W. Bush? Foreign policy, military policy, the insurance companies and globalization. MCLEAN: OK. Joe Lieberman believes that we ought to have a strong United States. Joe Lieberman doesn't believe we ought to go out with unilateral policy. Joe Lieberman believes that people need health insurance and he's fighting to make sure that we can get our kids health insurance. NADER: Universal health insurance? MCLEAN: That's a big difference from what George W. Bush. NADER: Universal health insurance? MCLEAN: And in the end, Ralph, Joe Lieberman believes that the solution may not be absolutely black and white; that we've got to find the right answer. And you know what? There are all kinds of positions you can take in life and never see any progress. But he's somebody who is about making progress. NADER: Foreign policy? MCLEAN: Foreign policy -- Joe Lieberman... NADER: Different than George Bush? MCLEAN: Joe Lieberman believes in several areas, like I just said, about the war on Iraq. You can't move unilaterally but you have to take a strong stand on our national defense and on our foreign policy. It's important. CARLSON: You know, Kiki, I know you indicated a minute ago that Joe Lieberman has -- what's the term you used? --- progressed. I think that's the... MCLEAN: He believes in making progress. He believes in actually making things happen. CARLSON: Yes, or changes his mind on issues. MCLEAN: This is a guy who as a attorney general decided it was important to fight deadbeat dads and make sure moms got... CARLSON: Well who doesn't think that? Come on. No, Kiki, please... (CROSSTALK) MCLEAN: Here is the difference. Here is the difference. Not only does he believe it ,he did something about it, Tucker. He didn't just sit on your show and talk about it. CARLSON: That's like coming out for toddler. Now I want you to respond to this quote, however. This is from "USA Today." Nobody says Lieberman didn't say this. March 10, 1995. Lieberman said, "The DLC has no specific position on the review of affirmative action under way by the White House, but he said he feels group preferences are," quote, "patently unfair." So, the guy's against affirmative action. So am i. But I'm not running for president as a Democrat, am I? MCLEAN: Here's is what he has said about affirmative action. And here is the position he's taking; he's been very consistent about this. There were, as you know, Supreme Court rulings which question the constitutionality about how some affirmative action measures were being enacted. And he agreed that there were some question. He supported President Clinton's review of affirmative action. President Clinton came out in the end and said, We need to mend it, not end it; We need to fix it so it works right, so the opponents like you can't tear it totally apart. And that's the position he's had all along. Pretty simple. CARLSON: So he hasn't changed a bit. MCLEAN: He's been very consistent. It's killing, Tucker. You know, anybody I support for president, Tucker can't stand it. (CROSSTALK) NADER: Al Sharpton is likely to siphon votes away from Joe Lieberman, if Joe Lieberman gets the nomination. MCLEAN: What will happen? He'll have to work that much harder to get that many more so it doesn't happen again. NADER: Now let me ask you this. What do you think of Al Sharpton's candidacy? Mark Green thinks Al Sharpton is a very skilled debater, if he gets on a debate. MCLEAN: Yes. NADER: What do you think of his candidacy and would you want him on the primary debates with the Democratic candidate? MCLEAN: Well, I'll tell you what. That's a tactical issue and I'm not here as an official representative of the campaign. NADER: No. It's a question. It's a question. MCLEAN: I think it's important to have all kinds of people in the campaign because I think it moves the debate. I think it raises issues that may not get raised necessarily and think it's important. He's obviously a skilled debater. He's an orator. He's an ordained minister, who is a professional preacher. That's an important skill in a campaign for a candidate. NADER: So, if I ran again, would you -- would Joe Lieberman have me on the debates... MCLEAN: I don't know about that. That's up to his campaign debate. I wouldn't be in favor of it but that's my personal opinion. NADER: You wouldn't be in favor of it? MCLEAN: I'd be... NADER: You just said you want diversity of views. MCLEAN: I think the chances are -- that's right. I think the reality is, Ralph, you and I both know you have enough people following you and enough participants in the Green Party that probably makes your participation more legitimate. CARLSON: Wait,be fore we break -- we're out of time. But you're going to run, then. Are you announcing here on the show... NADER: I said "if." MCLEAN: We could be making news. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Boy, we just -- we're making more news than we normally do. MCLEAN: You know, Tucker, some day you'll come over from the dark side. It will be all right. CARLSON: I don't think so. Kiki, thanks so much. We enjoy it. Appreciate it. In a little bit, another of our delusional Canadian friends, and we have ,many gets to vent his frustrations. That's in our "Fireback" segment. But next a sure cure for the high cost of going to doctor. Will Ralph Nader and the Democrats ever take the correct medicine? One of our questions. We'll ask it. we'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back. Doubtless many of you noticed your paychecks got smaller when the new year started as health insurance deductibles took and co-payments took another great leap forward or backward depending. The year also started with surgeons in Pennsylvania and West Virginia going on strike to protest the absurdly high cost of malpractice insurance. Perhaps the prescription would be a cap on damage awards or even a surgical strike on trial lawyers. Wouldn't that be great? We're going to operate on that now with our guests, attorney Joanne Doroshow who's with the Center for Justice and Democracy. And joining us from Macon, Georgia is Dr. Donald Palmisano, the president- elect of the American Medical Association. NADER: Dr. Palmisano, let's lay the factual predicate for this controversy very briefly. The Harvard School of Public Health Physicians estimated a number of years ago that about 80,000 Americans die every year from gross negligence and malpractice in hospitals. Not counting clinic and offices. The health insurance industry, the malpractice insurance industry takes about $6 billion in premiums from physicians in this country. And the payout is about $4 billion or so. Now I want to put the -- on the screen the first statistic that is relevant to this question and your role as the forthcoming head of the American Medical Association. Statistics show in September 1990, 5.1 percent of the doctors in the United States accounted for 54.2 percent of the number of malpractice payouts. Please put the second statistic on if you will. "Only 7.6 percent (one out of 13) of those doctors who have had two or more malpractice payouts against them have been disciplined in the last 12 years." Now, you will be the head of the biggest doctor's group in the United States. Why aren't you spending enormous energy backing up the majority of good doctors in this country to crack down on the bad doctors or the doctors who are so totally incompetent in giving their patients decent and safe treatment? I don't see you lobbying the state legislatures on that, beefing up the state licensing boards, lobbying Congress, putting ads on TV. Instead you're trying to take way the rights of your patients from having their full day in court. DR. DONALD PALMISANO, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMA: Is there a question in here? NADER: That's it. PALMISANO: Well, thank you for the opportunity. I can't see the statistics but I did hear you. First off that study showed that there was no correlation between payments on claims and negligence. And one of the lead authors, Troy Brennan (ph), has recently affirmed that to me. There is no correlation there. There is only correlation between disability. The current broken medical liability system does not identify negligence. All it does is cause many suits to be filed. We have escalating awards and we know that 70 to 80 percent are closed no with no payment whatsoever. This system is not very effective. It does not enhance safety. The American Medical Association supports strong medical boards. And if there is a doctor who is bad, we want to remove that doctor. We have to define what a bad doctor is. Certainly being sued -- 75 percent of the obstetricians in this country that have been sued. They can expect to be sued 2.5 times in their career. This system is broken. We say it. The American public says it. President Bush says it. Secretary Thompson says it and this study that they published at HHS.gov affirms what I'm saying. Thanks. NADER: The basis of the malpractice crisis malpractice. You didn't answer the question. What is the AMA going to do root out the bad and incompetent and sometimes actually crooked doctors? CARLSON: Wait, before you answer, Doctor, let me go to Joanne here. And possibly the basis of the malpractice crisis is of course greed. Greed of the trial lawyers. But I want to put a human face on that greed. I want to show you an ad put out by a doctor's group that shows what happens when slick greedy trial lawyers run doctors out of town. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (AUDIO GAP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... victim to a crisis in health care. My husband was in an accident. He was rushed to the hospital but the surgeons who could have helped him were no longer there. Lawsuits against doctors and hospitals have made it too expensive for them to practice. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: The man's name was Tony Dice (ph). He was in his mid 40s, he two kids. It was last summer in Mississippi. He was in an accident and the nearest neurosurgeon was six hours away. Why? Because neurosurgeons left Mississippi in huge numbers because of massive malpractice insurance costs. It's absolutely true. JOANNE DOROSHOW, CENTER FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) there is an insurance problem. There are a lot of people, a lot of doctors out there that are being price gouged by the insurance industry. But the solution to their problem and all the other insurance problems is to reform the insurance industry. What you don't want do is take away the rights of people like Steven Olson (ph), who is a brain damaged and blind child in California who requires 24-hour care, who is a result of a horrible cap on damages, a cruel law in California. His family has a fraction of the amount of money they need to take care of that child. CARLSON: Joanne, the idea -- I want to show you a -- I think, a fascinating chart. The only interesting insurance chart I've ever seen that shows the difference -- the fact that trial lawyers are behind the premium spike. Florida, general surgeon pays 110 grand a year in 2000, $174,000 a year purely in insurance. In California since tort reform, he pays $57,000. DOROSHOW: First of all, in California there is the strongest insurance regulatory law in the country which has kept premiums down to the extent they are down. But you look at a situation like Missouri, which has the similar law as California and has been in effect for 17 years, a hard cap on damages, lots of tort reform, they're suffering one of the worst insurance crises for doctors in that state's history. So much that the governor has appointed a task force to deal with it. The cap on damages and so-called tort restrictions are not the answer. The only answer is to reform the insurance industry and I do not know why people like Dr. Palmisano and the rest of the AMA do not join with consumer groups like ours to advocate for strong reforms of the insurance industry... (CROSSTALK) PALMISANO: What we need to do is to look at the statistics. Pennsylvania Medical Society just did a study, a critique of the Center for Justice and Democracy, Robert Hunt (ph) and Joanne Doroshow study and it points out that the methodology is flawed. Caps do work. When you talk about caps, you need to talk about a cap like California that is on noneconomic. You get all the economic damages. And when they talk about a child who has been injured and an award has been given and they frequently say it has been reduced -- in one case, the child got $40 million. It's sad that anybody has in injury. But the child got $40 million in California for economic damages. What we need is a system that allows patients to have doctors. We don't want doctors that retire early, limit their practice or move to states where they have stable liability climates. We want all of Americans to have doctors. NADER: Dr. Palmisano, caps are extremely cruel. That child that Ms. Doroshow pointed out got a $7.1 million verdict for pain and suffering, his life expectancy, 60 years. His parents have to take care of him now 24 hours a day, and it was cut back because of that vicious statutory cap to $250,000. I met that... PALMISANO: Well, that's on the non-economic... (CROSSTALK) PALMISANO: And again, I don't have the case and I'm having trouble hearing the name. But the case I described in California got $40 million in economic damages. And this is what legislators have to decide. Do you want to have jackpot liability, unlimited awards and have the rest of the population without doctors? Would you rather have a lawyer available to be suing for unlimited damages, or would you rather have a doctor when you need to deliver a baby or... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: The average trial lawyer gets half -- or the average plaintiff gets half. The average trial lawyer gets a third of the settlement. DOROSHOW: And they get nothing if they lose the case. CARLSON: But do you think it's fair if a child is gravely injured through the fault of a doctor, why should some trial lawyer with his own private plane get a third of the settlement? That's outrageous. DOROSHOW: These cases are extremely expensive to bring, and that's why so few people do sue. Only one in eight people who are actually injured by medical malpractice bring even a claim for compensation. They have to put up huge amounts of money to prove these cases. NADER: This whole thing is bogus. Here's the key thing. You take the entire premiums doctors have to pay to those insurance companies. Not only is it less than what we spend on dog food, $6 billion, but if you divided $6 billion by all the practicing doctors in America and spread the risk, they would pay less than $9,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums. This is a manipulation by overclassified medical specialties in order to put it to the obstetrician to get that kind of thing. CARLSON: Dr. Palmisano, you get the last word. PALMISANO: Thank you very much. Well, it's important in medicine to use science, and if somebody has a claim you need to validate it. I would tell you to go to the Medical Society of New Jersey and see the latest study by Tellinghas (ph) regarding that caps do work, $250,000 non-economic cap. Go to the Pennsylvania study, go to the hhs.gov Web site. What we need to do is have reasoned debate. So if Mr. Nader, Miss Dorishow, they have figures. Let other experts look at it. What we're saying is their analysis is not credible. What we're concerned about is the patient. Let's not forget the patient. Let's make sure we have doctors. You can't go to the store later and say I'll take six obstetricians and 15 neurosurgeons. They don't come that way. NADER: To prevent 80,000 death a year by bad doctors... CARLSON: Dr. Palmisano, thank you very much. Thank you very much. NADER: Joanne Doroshow, thank you. CARLSON: I'm sorry that we're out of time. Next, it's your chance to fire back at us. A lot of tonight's e- mail, as you would imagine, is aimed at Ralph Nader. We'll let him answer some very disgruntled Democrats next. They're always disgruntled; tonight, more than usual. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for our "Fireback" segment. We invite you to tell us what you think. Still some hard feelings from the 2000 election, apparently. Ralph Nader has been joining us tonight. Some people are still mad at you, Ralph. First up, Jack Rose in Monterey, Tennessee writes: "Mr. Nader, how do you justify allowing the Democrats to lose in 2000 when you knew you could not win?" Have I thanked you for that, by the way? NADER: Yes. Many, many times. CARLSON: Thank you. Thanks again. NADER: When you're building a new political movement, it is not just the next November. It's for the long run. That's what this country needs, a viable third party. OK. "I never really liked a lot of Ralph Nader's positions until he was recently on your show and said we should raise wages to at least $8 an hour," which is an inflation-adjusted terms what it was in 1968. "I think... CARLSON: I may have heard you say that, yes. NADER: "I think he's right, because if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you give him," or her, "a fishing pole, he can eat indefinitely." That's true. CARLSON: But you know, I think the original... NADER: I'm going to get the fishermen's vote. CARLSON: I think the original aphorism is a little different. He can eat indefinitely. I don't think that was in the original one. But I like it. Bram Cohen in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, foreign country, writes: "Canadians are awfully sick and tired by all your insults. I only wish we could cut the 49th parallel and send you adrift to and beyond the Gulf of Mexico. Stay at home and leave us alone." You know, that's pretty hostile, Ralph. And I think we need to talk about adding Canada if not to the axis of evil, at least to the axis of unpleasantness. NADER: Now, wait a minute. Over 10 years ago, I co-authored a book called "Canada First," showing all the great ways Canada has pioneered. They gave us credit unions, for example, universal health insurance. Keep Canada independent. CARLSON: And John Candy. See, this is why I knew -- yes. NADER: It was a best-seller. OK. Next one. "Everyone should read Ralph Nader's book 'Crashing the Party,' and then pass it on to at least 10 of their friends. As Americans come to realize which members of Congress literally sell their votes to the big corporations over and over again, a groundswell of anti-corruption will occur." You can't possibly disagree with that. CARLSON: I would love to see -- oh, there is the cover of the book. "Crashing the Party." You know, but Ralph, I would like to see what a groundswell of anti-corruption would look like. NADER: It would look like being tough on corporate crime, from the grassroots prosecutors all the way to ex-Harkin audit director George W. Bush. CARLSON: Guillotine,, Ralph. Yes, sir, a question. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Josh Kolsky (ph) from Rockville, Maryland. I wanted to ask Mr. Nader if he's going to run for president in 2004. If you do, I'll quit my job to work on your campaign. CARLSON: The person has spoken. NADER: Yes. It's too early to say. Sometime later in the year I'll decide. CARLSON: Well, you know ... NADER: Thank you for your offer. CARLSON: Ralph, we've only got about, say, 20 seconds left, but that's enough time for you to say, you know what, I've heard the people, they've spoken and I'm going to bow to their will. I'm going to run. NADER: You think I'm going to give you that? CARLSON: Yes, I do. NADER: No. No, no. CARLSON: We've got 10 seconds left. NADER: No, focus on Joe Lieberman tonight. It's his day. CARLSON: You don't want to spoil it for Joe Lieberman? NADER: Yes. From the progressive left, I'm Ralph Nader. Good night from CROSSFIRE. CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again next time for yet more CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. See you tomorrow. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 15, 2003 Wednesday Transcript # 011500CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 8946 words HEADLINE: Bush Says Schools Should Not Discriminate For or Against The Basis of Race; Sex, Not Gambling Approved for Sale During Super Bowl GUESTS: Terry Jeffrey, Maria Echaveste, Oscar Goodman, Steak Shapiro BYLINE: Paul Begala, Tucker Carlson HIGHLIGHT: The president said today that schools should not discriminate for or against race, Also, sex but not gambling is approved for sale during the Super Bowl. BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: the president, the university and the race factor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Diversity can be achieved without using quotas. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: The Bush administration is just about to take sides. Will it be the winning side? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The talk is there in terms of civil rights, but the walk is not there. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: They'll let you watch this during the pro football playoffs. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great test. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: So what's wrong with a commercial for one of the world's most popular tourist destinations? We'll ask the mayor why the NFL sacked Las Vegas. Plus, we've seen cameras in the courtroom, but how about in the jury room? Ahead on CROSSFIRE. Live from the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson. (APPLAUSE) PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, President Bush takes a stand on one of the most divisive issues in the country. But is his position driven more by good politics or good policy? Also, pro football makes a play for the high moral ground. And should TV cameras be allowed in a place many consider hallowed ground? But before we start deliberating, here comes our opening statements: the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." President Bush weighed in today on affirmative action. After making politically correct noises about equality, Mr. Bush said he opposes the University of Michigan's affirmative action admission system. He called it a quota system. Now many people of good conscience believe that racial diversity in education is essential to both the quality of education and the opportunity that society should offer to us all. Others with just as much principles see racial discrimination when they look at affirmative action. President Bush, however, seems not to be operating on principle, at least if his aides are to be believed. According to today's "Washington Post," "Both administration officials and conservative opponents of affirmative action depicted Bush's planned (ph) position as a political compromise forged amid intense negotiation." So there it is. On a matter of principle Mr. Bush has decided to be political. Mr. Bush plans on telling us the rest of his deeply held beliefs as soon as his political consultants tell him what they are. (APPLAUSE) TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Well, I think there was actually a lot of wrangling going on at the White House. And I think it was mostly political. But the bottom line is that the president did the right thing today and articulated a principled stand. Now there have been many people throughout the history of American politics, Lyndon Johnson to name one, whose legislation and political ideas don't match their personal beliefs. But it doesn't matter in the end, and you should be the first to know that. BEGALA: What Bush did we can debate the merits of. But it is stunning when his aids say it's just a political (UNINTELLIGIBLE). CARLSON: Well it is a political issue and they took a political look at it. But they did the right thing in the end. Next week, for the first time ever, the top six Democratic contenders for president will appear together under one roof. What issue could bring so many competitors to a single place? Well, there is only one in the Democratic Party: abortion. On Tuesday the candidates will gather to celebrate the millions of abortions that have been committed since Roe v. Wade was decided 30 years ago. The dinner will be sponsored by NARAL, an organization that fights tirelessly for your right to abort your child literally up until the minute she is born. It of course promises to be a festive evening. There will be passionate testimonials to the positive good of late-term abortion. Perhaps a toast to partial birth. Watch it yourself on C-Span. If you're looking for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, you'll find it right there at the NARAL Dinner. BEGALA: You know in the main the Democratic Party is the pro- choice party and they make no bones about it. In the main, the Republican Party claims to be the pro-life party. But with the singular exception of Terry Jeffrey, from Human Events, who's going to be out here in a minute, I heard no pro-lifer raise questions about the fact that Dr. Frist, the new Senate Republican leader, owns $25 million of stock in a company that performs abortion. CARLSON: And Paul... BEGALA: Now I mean if you're a pro-life party, why do you have a leader who profits from abortion? CARLSON: That's only -- first of all, we can debate the specifics of your charge. But that is just one of many examples of the Republican Party selling out on abortion. But it doesn't compare to having your top six contenders meet at a NARAL function. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) abortion rights, and they're public about it. CARLSON: No, it's not just abortion rights. Late-term abortion up to the moment of birth. That's inhuman, it's amoral, it's amazing it even happens in America. And it's unbelievable that all six are meeting at NARAL. I don't normally talk about it, because it's too unreal. BEGALA: It is just as unreal that the party that claims to be pro-life says not a peep, and elects as its leader a man who profited off of what pro-lifers claim is murder. If it's murder, why profit off of it? CARLSON: So is every shareholder in that. And I'm not defending the Republican Party's weaselly positions on abortion, and they are weaselly sometimes. But it doesn't compare to your top six -- the only six announced candidates meeting at a NARAL function. BEGALA: They support abortion rights. So does NARAL. What is wrong with that? CARLSON: No. They support abortion up until the moment of birth. And that is -- it's inhuman. It's grizzly. BEGALA: I know for a fact Dick Gephardt voted for the partial birth abortion. CARLSON: And now he's apologizing for it today in "The Washington Post," as you know. BEGALA: We will debate this, believe me, more during the coming months. When the national review board of leading Catholics appointed by the bishops to study the crisis of sexual abuse in the church came here to Washington they were welcomed by our cardinal, Theodore McCarrick. He personally celebrated mass for the panel. Not so in New York, where Cardinal Edward Egan has been downright hostile to the reformers. Cardinal Egan has declined to celebrate mass for the board, refused to allow them to attend a dinner for the Knights of Malta, which is a Catholic fraternal organization. He even interfered with the speaking event for the executive director of the panel, former FBI Agent Kathleen Machesney (ph), preventing her from accepting an invitation to address concerned Catholics at St. Ignatius of Loyola Parish in New York. The conduct of Cardinal Egan, who, according to court documents once encouraged a priest who admitted sexually abusing a teenager to remain a priest, calls to mind the shortest passage in the bible: the gospel according to St. John, Chapter 11, verse 35: "Jesus wept." CARLSON: Paul, I want to thank you, again, as a life-long Episcopalian, for making me feel better about my church, about which I have despaired so many times in the past 10 or 15 years. BEGALA: I love the Catholic Church with all my heart, and it breaks my heart to see this going on. CARLSON: Yes, but it does make me feel better. So thanks. The law enforcement community is quivering tonight with disappointment, after it was announced that the state of Utah is eliminating its obscenity and pornography complaints (UNINTELLIGIBLE), otherwise known as the porn czar. Studies show that pornography is unusually popular in Utah and for the last two years porn czar Paula Houston (ph) has tried to do something about it. Quote: "She's worked very hard," the states attorney general told reporters today, apparently without giggling. "Alas it wasn't hard enough." Or something. In any case, the position, if it can be called that, again, without giggling, is being (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as they say in Utah for budget reasons. That's the official reason, anyway. Privately, state officials concede they just couldn't look at the porn czar with a straight face. BEGALA: Now to save money in the tight budget times -- I guess you didn't see the latest wire story. An American has stepped forward and volunteered to do it for free. Justice Clarence Thomas, the new porn czar in Utah. CARLSON: But really, Paul, I mean what is a state without a porn czar? You know what I mean? BEGALA: That's a good point. That's a very good... CARLSON: Someone's got to watch that stuff. BEGALA: Well President Bush likes to tell us -- apparently with us a straight face -- he doesn't focus on politics. Right. And the girls on "Joe Millionaire" don't focus on money either. The Associated Press reports that far from ignoring politics, the Bush White House is spending an extraordinary amount of time and effort on it. In fact, the president is planning to travel to Pennsylvania tomorrow to call for protecting big insurance companies from having to compensate people who are killed or injured by incompetent or even drug-addicted doctors. White House aides have dubbed the event "Bash John Edwards Day" in the hopes that they can tar Senator Edwards, who as a lawyer successfully sued corporations that killed or maimed children. The election is 22 months away. Perhaps some think we should be spared from too much politics so early. I don't. All I want to be spared from is Mr. Bush's sanctimonious and mendacious denials of his political attentions. CARLSON: Actually, John Edwards, as you know, made millions suing people. But I guess the real threat -- and I think you know this -- to American health is the fact that in some places, Wheeling, West Virginia, for instance, there are no neurosurgeons. In Las Vegas last summer the trauma center for the entire city shut down. Why? Because doctors couldn't afford to work there. Why? Because trial lawyers sued them out of business. This is a major problem, Paul. BEGALA: It is a major problem. The last why is wrong. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Why? Because insurance companies jacked up the rates. Insurance companies that lost money in the stock market are screwing doctors right now and their patients. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Paul, let me just ask you a question. You've met people who work in insurance. Do you really believe the insurance companies invest in the tech stocks in the stock market? They're invested in bonds. In fact, the St. Paul companies, which is the single biggest underwriter of medical liability, lost almost $900 million last year on its medical policies. Why? Because they kept losing in court, that's why. BEGALA: No -- well, if they lose in court, then juries found incompetence or malpractice on the part of a doctor. I tell you what, if some doctor who is stoned on drugs or incompetent cuts up somebody I love and does a bad job, you bet your ass I'm going to sue them.. And I want the best lawyer I can get. And I don't want George Bush to protect them from the consequences of their incompetence. CARLSON: Paul, I totally agree. And you know it. And so does every person in America, including the president, that bad and neglect doctors ought to be punished and they ought to pay money for their negligence. However, when trial lawyers for their own enrichment, who fly around in their own planes, who are worth hundreds of millions of dollars wreck the health system to make money, that's -- come on, Paul. BEGALA: No, it's the insurance companies. CARLSON: From our "Where are they now?" files tonight, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Glenn Braswell is back in court. The 59-year-old convicted swindler is being held without bail in Miami on charges he cheated the federal government out of millions of dollars using an offshore accounting system. If Braswell's name sounds familiar, it should. He was one of more than one 100 drug dealers and corporate criminals former President Bill Clinton pardoned on his final embarrassing day in office. One of the string of embarrassing days. Braswell, who had served prison time for peddling phony hair growth products, bought his pardons, bribing President Clinton's family with a check for $200,000. Braswell offered no comment today from his jail cell, though sources close to him say he is desperately trying to remember Hugh Rodham's phone number. BEGALA: Now let's have a little test. I will agree with you, and I'll grant you, that pardon and many others were terribly wrong. Let me finish my sentence. This is important. That was terribly wrong. CARLSON: Yes. BEGALA: Wasn't it just as wrong for President Bush Sr. to pardon Elliott Abrams, a man who was convicted of two crimes, lying to Congress, during Iran-Contra. Bush pardoned him on Christmas Eve, Bush Sr., then Bush Jr. became president and named Elliott Abrams one of the top aides in the White House. A convicted criminal, pardoned by his old man. Now that's an outrage, isn't it? (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Actually, there's no comparison, as you know. And without getting into the details... BEGALA: I can admit that the Clinton pardon is wrong. You can't admit that the Bush pardon... CARLSON: But they're not. Here's the key distinction, and there are many distinctions. BEGALA: Bush is going to hire some more criminals? CARLSON: Here's the key distinction, Paul. Bush's family did not get a check for $200,000 to get him off. BEGALA: No. Bush's family got guys not to testify against him because they didn't go to trial. That's why those pardons -- Casper Weinberger was ready to call Bush Sr. as a witness in his trial. Then Bush Sr... CARLSON: I know. I know they all do it, Paul. All presidents take bribes to get people off the hook. BEGALA: No, no. I said Clinton's pardons were wrong. You won't say Bush's were wrong. And Bush hires them for the White House. CARLSON: I know they do. Next: the White House weighs in on racial preferences in education. Later, something you've never seen on television before. We'll debate whether you should ever be allowed to see it again. It's pretty shocking. Speaking of things you won't see, what's so bad about a commercial for Las Vegas during the Super Bowl? We'll debate that, too. We'll be right back. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. After Trent Lott stepped aside as Senate Majority Leader last month, there were fears the Bush administration would back away from a controversial affirmative action case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. This afternoon, however, the president said he plans to oppose racial discrimination regardless of the potential political costs. Tomorrow the White House will file a friend of the court brief arguing against the University of Michigan's system of racial preferences. President Bush calls the program "fundamentally flawed, a quota scheme that's divisive unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution." Stepping into the CROSSFIRE tonight, Maria Echaveste, who was deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, and Human Events Editor Terry Jeffrey. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Good to see you again. Thank you, both. Terry, let me begin by playing a brief sound bite from our president today. And then I want to read you a different -- from a different source. Bear with me for two things. First, here is the president today at the White House. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: In these states, race (UNINTELLIGIBLE) admissions policies have resulted and levels of minority attendance for incoming students that are close to and in some instances slightly surpassed those under the old race-based approach. (END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: Now he was talking about California, Florida, and Texas. Three states which he said have done a better job with a non-race- based approach. But this is what the U.S. Civil Rights Commission says about those same three states from the federal government's Web site of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "The three states, California, Texas, and Florida, that have implemented percentage plans automatically admit to state schools students who rank within an established percentage of their high school graduating class. Analysis of admissions in these states reveals that no significant improvement has been made in the rates of minority enrollment at the undergraduate or graduate professional levels. And in many cases, rates have declined." Now why is the president misleading us, Terry? TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, HUMAN EVENTS: Well I don't know, Paul. I haven't studied those statistics. To tell you the truth, I think even the president's approach on that problem might have a problem with the 14th amendment. Because if you're going to have a single equal standard and treat everybody in the state equally under the law, then they should have the same admissions standard for the state universities. But what the president has done is he said we're not going to consider race, we're not going to discriminate for or against people on the basis of race under any federally funded program, including admissions to universities. So I think that's a morally correct position that the president has taken. BEGALA: But we also take into account -- Michigan does -- takes into account geography, if you are from a county that doesn't have a lot of people in it. Or from another state, it takes into account socioeconomic status. It takes into account whether your mom and daddy went to the University of Michigan. So we take into account all kinds of things. We can't take into account one of the most central issues in American life, race? JEFFREY: Paul, this has been one of the longest-running debates in our country, whether or not we're going to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin or whether we won't. We have the 14th amendment, which says that statements get equal protection to everyone. Then we have the civil rights act of 1964, which says that federally funded institutions cannot discriminate by race. Now liberals have to decide do they really believe in this principle, the one that Martin Luther King articulated, we're going to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, or do they want the University of Michigan and other public institutions to say we're going to discriminate against this person because of their skin color and we're going to discriminate in favor of this person because of their skin color? CARLSON: Now Maria, let's get right to the case that's going to be debated before the Supreme Court, the University of Michigan, its admission standards. I want you to take a look at its admission standards, two of them. If you apply to the University of Michigan and you have a perfect SAT score, you're awarded 12 points. If you have the correct school-sanctioned skin color, you get 20 points. You get almost twice as many points. In other words, the color of your skin matters more than how hard you work in school. That's immoral, isn't it? MARIA ECHAVESTE, FMR. WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: Actually, no, because you get 80 points based on your GPA. What that reflects is what a lot of us know and people have come to understand, that SATs are not the sole predictor, or even a good predictor of how people are going to excel in school. And when you say correct skin color, you know you can you also get 20 points for being an athlete. Twenty points for being socioeconomic characteristics. Twenty points because the president decides that he needs more art majors or history students. So 20 points because your mom and dad went to the school. So to say you get 20 points just and only just because you're a minority, is just simply inaccurate. CARLSON: Well actually, as you know, I'm not saying that. I guess with the exception of legacies, all of the other factors you cited are things over which individual students have control. ECHAVESTE: Socioeconomic? CARLSON: And that's the key difference. Whether you're in the band or not. And I want to put up a quote from Ebony Sandusky who went to the University of Michigan. This is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) affirmative action has on the students. "It makes me angry," she said, "that students were rejected even though they were qualified. If I had known my grades had been raised half a point just because I'm black, one of my application essays would have been why I didn't want my grade point to be raised. It implies that minorities are not as smart." That's painful to read. ECHAVESTE: It is. It is very painful. And it's actually one of the pernicious effects of the backlash against affirmative action. No, seriously. Because people who succeed know that they walk into a room -- I can walk into a room and there will be people in the room who will decide that I got to where I was solely and only because I was Hispanic, a minority woman, and totally disregard that I went to a good undergrad, got a law degree, worked my tail off as a corporate lawyer. There are people who will have those assumptions. The fact is, this is about opportunity. And right now, in 2003, this country still has not met its promise of equal opportunity under the law. And what Michigan tried to do was put race as one of the many factors that people look at in trying to have a diverse student body, which, as we know, the world is incredibly diverse. If you want more athletes, you want more artists, you want more musicians, you want all kinds of people in your freshman class, and you also want them in graduate school. BEGALA: Terry? JEFFREY: But Paul, you mentioned earlier, you were talking about the Catholic Church and the problems in the Catholic Church. I think that there's a value to the Catholic Church and other Christian churches represented here that ought to be reflected in U.S. law. In fact, I think that's what Dr. Martin Luther King said in the civil rights movement, man's law must reflect god's law. In my parish in northern Virginia, Queen of Apostles, I think it's the most multi ethnic institution I've ever seen. When I go to mass there, there are people of every national origin, every ethnicity. And I know that god is going to treat them each on their merits. And that's what I think we have to do in American society. We don't want to Balkanize our society among different racial and ethnic groups, where your grandparents came from. We want everybody to be treated equally under the law when they apply for any benefit or privilege by government, be treated according to their merits, not according to their skin color. That's a profound, moral principle. BEGALA: Let's take it beyond that. Because President Bush, of course, is one of the great beneficiaries of affirmative action. He went to Yale, one of the great schools in America. He went to the Harvard Business School after being rejected by the University of Texas, my alma mater, because he didn't have good enough grades. I was looking at the "World Almanac's" biography of Bush today. Here's what they say. The "World Almanac" not a liberal source. It's pretty straight. They say, "At Andover, Bush's grades were mediocre." Terry, how did he get into Yale? JEFFREY: Well, that's a good question. Let me say this. BEGALA: With affirmative action. No, it was affirmative action for the ne'er-do-well children of the wealthy eastern elite, wasn't it? (APPLAUSE) JEFFREY: Right. Look, I'll say this. I think that... BEGALA: But he was. He was an affirmative action baby. (CROSSTALK) JEFFREY: If you look at the case of the University of Michigan, the University of Michigan and their point program does, in fact, give points to people for being related to alumni of the school. I believe that's wrong. And I think it ought to be illegal for a public school. Now Yale and Harvard and these ivy league schools are private institutions. And some private institutions I think will reach out to people for good reasons. Some will reach out for bad reasons. BEGALA: But isn't he being a hypocrite? Shouldn't he be ashamed? JEFFREY: The question is where the government should come in and try and interfere with private action to avoid discrimination. I think we settled that in the 1964 civil rights act. And the University of Michigan is directly verbatim violating that act. CARLSON: Maria, let me ask you about the University of Michigan. You said that its effort are an attempt to enhance diversity. Certain minority groups get extra points, but not all. ECHAVESTE: Right. CARLSON: Black students, Hispanic students, American Indian students. Asian students do not, Jewish students do not. But of course Jews have been discriminated against in this country in a systematic way for hundreds of years. Don't you think Jewish students should benefit from affirmative action? ECHAVESTE: Well, I think when you look at both -- the long history of discriminations, why quotas is such a -- everyone is opposed to them. And I really resent when even President Bush tries to equate affirmative action with quotas. There is no person on the left... CARLSON: But answer my question. Why shouldn't Jewish students be included? ECHAVESTE: Because, in fact, there is no need to make a special effort to diverse. There's a sufficient... CARLSON: There's too many already? Is that what you're saying? ECHAVESTE: No, never. And I'm Jewish, so I resent that. CARLSON: Then what's your point? I'm wondering what your point is. ECHAVESTE: What I'm saying is that there isn't a need to make an extra effort to make sure that you have got a good mixture of people. The same way -- look, Asians... CARLSON: Well why isn't there a need? I'm totally missing this. ECHAVESTE: Because you're going to have Asian... (CROSSTALK) ECHAVESTE: No, no, no. You look at California. In California Asian-American students for all kinds of reasons that are wonderful to try to explore and emulate and try to see why can't we get other groups to excel in studying, are -- have huge success rates in applying to the university. And to go back to your point about why equal protection is such an important goal, I totally agree. But what you're negating and what you're ignoring is that this country, right now, as we sit here, does not provide that equal opportunity. Because if you are a space alien... BEGALA: That's certainly true. We don't provide all of our children equal opportunity. Do we Terry? JEFFREY: We don't. And it's because of what the University of Michigan does. Let's look at a specific case. One of these women, Jennifer Gratz (ph), who applied to the University of Michigan, had a 3.8 GPA in high school. She had a 25 on the ACT. According to the facts presented to the Supreme Court, a minority in one of the preferred groups, there's only three preferred groups, blacks, Hispanic, and Native Americans. If you are an Arab American, you don't count. If you're an Asian-American, you don't count. A person in one of those preferred groups would have automatically gotten into the University of Michigan. She didn't. She did not get equal protection. That's the point. ECHAVESTE: And I wonder how many white students had 3.8 and still beat her out for that spot. JEFFREY: Why do you care about the color of her skin? Why are you so obsessed and concerned of the color of her skin? ECHAVESTE: No, actually, the fact is that our society is obsessed with it. And... JEFFREY: No. I say let's forget it. Let's be colorblind. ECHAVESTE: You're trying to pretend that the last 400 years didn't happen. That suddenly all of a sudden everybody -- there's equal opportunity. And when you look -- look, someone could come from outer space right now and they would see that actually there is a much greater chance you're going to be poor, you're going to be black. You're not going to graduate from high school, you're going to be Hispanic. You're going to be in all kinds -- drug infested (ph), you name it. There's a racial component to it. BEGALA: I'm sorry to do this. This is a great debate. But we're going to have to go to break. I'm really sorry. Terry Jeffrey from Human Events, Maria Echaveste, my pal from the Clinton White House, thank you both. Sorry, but we've got to go to a break. We will tell you in a minute why security is extra tight at tomorrow's scheduled launch of the space shuttle. Aaron Brown will have details next in a CNN NEWS ALERT. And then a Texas judge is letting TV cameras not only into his courtroom, but into the jury room as well. Later, the NFL acts to protect its integrity. Not by telling the beer ladies to stop fighting and get out of the pool and put their clothes back on, but by stiffing Las Vegas. We will put that it in the CROSSFIRE, and you make the call. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (NEWS ALERT) CARLSON: Next, lights, camera and the verdict, but should it be against the law to put a jury's deliberations on television? And then we'll ask the mayor of Las Vegas if the NFL is out of bounds for declaring commercials for his city off limits. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from beautiful downtown Washington, the George Washington University to be specific. The PBS program "Frontline" recently asked a Texas judge to permit cameras in the jury room to videotape deliberations in a capital murder trial. To everyone's surprise, the judge said yes. The district attorney went ballistic predictably. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals heard arguments on the decision today and Texas lawmakers are working on a bill to outlaw cameras in the jury rooms from here forward. And to deliberate this weighty topic with former judge and Court TV host, Catherine Crier, she joins from New York. Her latest book, by the way is called "The Case Against Lawyers." With us here in Washington, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. (APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Jeffrey Toobin, there are not cameras in the men's room and there are not cameras in jury rooms. And with a few exceptions, there never have been. Why do you suppose that is? JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Because the tradition in our legal system has been one of great secrecy and keeping the public out. And in virtually every case, when cameras and scrutiny and journalists and outsiders have been able to look at how our system works and expose it, it gets better. Because as Justice Brandeis said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," and it is -- it will be here too. BEGALA: Catherine Crier, a former state district judge in our beloved Texas. The judge in this case, Ted Poe, said this. "I believe we have the best system there ever has been. We shouldn't be ashamed of how it works." Now grammar aside... (LAUGHTER) CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV ANCHOR: Now don't you dare. That's just fine in Texas, now, Paul. BEGALA: Absolutely. You and me both. Now why -- I know you were a judge, but why should you run Judge Poe's courtroom for him? If he wants to let cameras in the jury room, why not? CRIER: Well, I think that we're comparing apples and oranges. To go into a system that is supposed to operate in a certain fashion with rules of evidence and certain behavior by attorneys and judges, and we want to make sure that that is comporting, that's fine. But do we want to do into say a grand jury proceeding that is supposed to be secret... BEGALA: Yes. CRIER: ... just because they agree to let us in? Do we want to go into the jury room if they agree when in fact I'm not so worried about their behavior being altered as I am an opportunity then to raise all sorts of what will often times be frivolous issues on appeal because we're beginning to dissect people's mental processes. I think that's wrong. We don't have rules governing how people think, and yet we'll come up with some if we start televising these deliberations. CARLSON: Now Jeff Toobin, I want to put on the screen, the least true sentence uttered this year so far. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: The year's early. And that's the sentence. Here it is. This is from a trial lawyer -- surprise, surprise -- quoted in the Houston Chronicle arguing for cameras. He says, "When you put a spotlight on people, they become more noble, just, fair, compassionate." And I know that's a lie because I work in television. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: And so do you. And in fact when you put a camera on somebody he's apt to become less fair, less compassionate. I mean I could give you the examples. You know them. TOOBIN: Yes. I am... CARLSON: Well, there may be others at this table. But the point is you don't want that to happen to jurors, do you? TOOBIN: The argument that is reflected that you're making that cameras change behavior is exactly the argument that's been used to try to keep cameras out of courtrooms. And as Catherine knows at Court TV, they have shown that these cases are generally better, if not the same, with cameras. And it just shows that scrutiny makes people behave better, use better arguments, act more fairly. And I think it's just a false argument that you suddenly are diminished by having a camera on you. CRIER: Jeffrey though, Jeffrey just imagine though, if you've got a very tense situation, political environment, Houston case death penalty known for those verdicts, and the jury will feel the pressure of the community if their faces are going out there, if their deliberations are going to be telecast. And you may actually get altered verdicts. You bet you change the way they behave. When it's supposed to be private, their deliberations private, it should stay private. TOOBIN: But Catherine, that's why the context of this case is so interesting. Harris County, Houston, if Harris County were a separate... CRIER: Oh, Judge Poe is an interesting judge. TOOBIN: If this were a separate state, it would have the third most executions in the country after Texas and Florida. Tremendous number of executions there. Why? Because of what goes on in those jury rooms. I don't know what it is. CRIER: You know darn well it's the selection of those case... (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from there. They're rednecks. They want to kill them all. CRIER: ... by the prosecutor. BEGALA: Let God sort them out, Catherine. What's wrong with letting cameras in there and taking a look at what those rednecks are saying in the deliberating room. CRIER: Paul, wait a minute, you're barking up the wrong tree, baby, because if you read my book, I oppose the death penalty. So that's not my problem here. It's must more once you go into this, and start opening up the deliberations, I can see the clogged appellate courts as somebody says, "Well you could tell he was biased because of his behavior, or because of some word that he used." Or, "This wasn't fair for some legal reason that we will now manufacture," when what we're talking about a common sense pragmatic approach which is the whole purpose of using a jury. BEGALA: But Catherine... CRIER: You can't regulate that. And that's what's going to happen. TOOBIN: When I was an assistant U.S. attorney we had a rule. As in if you got a conviction you were never supposed to talk to the jurors afterwards because you could find out something terrible. That they convicted the guy because he was black or they flipped a coin. That was a good way to preserve our convictions. Isn't that a little disturbing? isn't it disturbing that we don't want to know what goes on in the most important place? CRIER: No, no, if we want to get rid of the jury system, a jury of our peers where 12 citizens are asked to get together, listen to evidence and make their own -- their private deliberations, then let's get rid of it and have a judge do it on the record. They write the brief, we can analyze it until kingdom come. That's not the jury system. If, in fact, there is one aberration here or one aberration there and a problem, we try to ferret them out. But let's not reason to destroy the entire jury system. Cameras in the courtroom will change what we have had for centuries and what the people of this country seem to think is a valuable service in the criminal justice system. CARLSON: Jeff, don't you think you would have the reality TV problem here, where the shows themselves... TOOBIN: Is there a problem with reality TV? CARLSON: There is. Where the shows themselves self select, they draw a certain sort of person who would, say, want to date someone on television. This would draw a certain kind of juror. And I suspect that's not the kind of jury you want making weighty decisions. TOOBIN: That is a potential problem. But I think the benefits outweigh it. I don't think... CRIER: What are the benefits, Jeffrey? TOOBIN: The benefits are public scrutiny. The benefits are... CRIER: That's so broad I could drive a truck through that. What are the specific benefits? TOOBIN: It's a broad benefit. That's even better. BEGALA: Shouldn't be there some place in government for private deliberations? Shouldn't Supreme Court chambers, Congressmen meet with their aids, judges in their chambers? Used to be the president could meet with their aids in private until Ken Starr came along. Shouldn't be the jury room be another place where people can meet in private? TOOBIN: You know I don't think so. When there is consent of both sides -- and here is where I disagree with what the judge did in Texas because the prosecution objected. I think this should be only done when both sides agree. I don't think the judge should be able to impose it. But it is a good idea. CARLSON: Unfortunately we are out of time. Jeffrey Toobin here in Washington, Catherine Crier, thank you both very much. One of our viewers has fired back a suggestion that would be certain to make the 2004 presidential debates more entertaining. We'll get that in a bit. But next, the NFL is running an ad for Miller beer with women wrestling in their underwear. Thank heaven. But they're rejecting an ad for Las Vegas tourism. What's going on? We'll show you both ads and tackle the apparent hypocrisy. Stay with us. By the way, we'll show you the Miller beer ad, and we'll have the ad. More ads. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. If you are a football fan you have no doubt noticed the NFL has nothing against interrupting games to show commercials featuring nearly naked women mud wrestling in order to sell beer. Nonetheless, pro football's higher-ups want you to know that they do have standards. So when you watch the Super Bowl you'll be spared from having to see a commercial that asks you simply to visit Las Vegas. We're going to review that call. Joining us from the replay booth in Las Vegas is the mayor, Oscar Goodman. And at CNN Center in Atlanta is radio -talk-show host Steak Shapiro. (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Steak, let me start with you. First, I'll show our audience a brief clip of the offending ad. No, not the mostly naked chick, we'll play them later. This is the Las Vegas Travel Tourism ad. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Airport? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, my name is Jim. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just love the smell of your limo, Jim. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yeah? Well it's a new car. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love the new car smell. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wish it was mine. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Smells so good, Jim, this leather. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here we are. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'll be at Poland after 2:00, OK? Yes. I know, I know. (END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: Now, how great is that? First off... STEAK SHAPIRO, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Very entertaining. BEGALA: ... there's nothing more exciting than a trip to Las Vegas and nothing more boring than an NFL game. The only people that watch NFL are gamblers and wife beaters. Why are they chasing away half of their audience? They'll just be left with the wife beaters. SHAPIRO: I think I've heard that, considering the NFL's the most popular sport in the entire world and most people aren't sitting at home on Sunday's watching them. Everybody knows who follows professional sports there's nothing more taboo, ask Pete Rose, than having professional sports attached with gambling. Is it a hypocrisy on some level? Yes. But it's very clear in the rules, the NFL does not want to be directly correlated -- Las Vegas is the only town in America that -- the only town in the world that takes professional sports gambling. And all the NFL is saying is, We don't want to hit you over the head with it. We don't want the Super Bowl next to an ad for the town that takes sports gambling. It's real simple. Oscar should not bite the hand that feeds him. The NFL brings so much action to Vegas, the Lions bring a ton of money to Vegas. Just take it easy. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. And relax. It's only one ad. CARLSON: Oscar Goodman... (CROSSTALK) MAYOR OSCAR GOODMAN, LAS VEGAS: Don't talk about the hands that feed me right now. Without Vegas, the NFL would be broke because probably every game would be fixed. We're the only regulators that make sure that the sport is kept honest. Let's be serious about this now. CARLSON: Wait. Mayor Goodman, if that's true, then how can you account for the following statement faxed to CNN this afternoon from the NFL. This is part of it. It's quite a disapproving statement, by the way. "The public perception of the integrity of our game is critical and this type of advertising," meaning your type of advertising, "on our game telecast has the potential to negatively impact that perception." In other words, a sport in which men in tight clothing grapple with each other is looking down on Las Vegas. This is like O.J. Simpson not wanting to be seen with you in public. It's insulting. GOODMAN: As far as I'm concerned, as a member of the convention authority board, I directed our attorneys to research whether or not that kind of action is defamatory. And I think it is. And I'll throw a lawsuit against the NFL. Hopefully when we own them, we'll have some honest refereeing. BEGALA: Let's talk about the NFL's reputation. Twenty-one percent, one in five, more than that, 21 percent of NFL players have been charged with a serious crime. They include Rae Carruth, who was, of course, convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Nate Newton of the Dallas Cowboys, convicted of drug trafficking. Dwayne Goodrich has been charged, not yet convicted, or two counts of vehicular manslaughter -- that was today. Cosey Coleman was charged with battery. I could go on and on and on. Why, when they have nothing but a game full of thugs, are they worried about a few people rolling the bones in Las Vegas? SHAPIRO: Well, first of all, I mean it sounds like a circus. This is -- first of all, the mayor, good luck with your suit against the National Football League. The one thing that affects the integrity of professional sports is even the thought of gambling. That's why it's outlined in every locker room, the first thing you see, is about the dangers of gambling as it relates to the integrity of the sports. A bunch of half-naked women does not affect the integrity on the field. And by the way, you are kidding about football being a bunch of Neanderthals. It's the most popular sport, the most highly marketed, and it is the American past time. BEGALA: Losers and couch potatoes and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and wife beaters. (CROSSTALK) SHAPIRO: What are you doing on Sunday at 4:00 this week that's so -- you going to the opera, you going to ballet? What are you doing... BEGALA: No, I'm deer hunting, Steak. I'm shooting deer like a real man. I'm not sitting there beating my wife and watching the NFL, the most boring thing on television. SHAPIRO: Guys who watch the NFL -- you make it sound like the most pompous commentator in the history of television. Watching the NFL is one of the great joys American men have. You might want to try stop watching "Ally McBeal", for crying out load... (CROSSTALK) BEGALA: This Sunday, Steak, I'm going to be out deer hunting in South Texas, which is what real men do. Not watching a bunch of murderers on the screen. SHAPIRO: I think the deers are going to have an easy time of it. CARLSON: Let me suggest, what sort of ad, Oscar, as mayor of Las Vegas you should have run. I'm going to put up on the screen. Purely for clinical reasons, an ad the NFL does accepts and does run. Here it is. This is for Miller Beer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doesn't Miller Light taste great? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, but I drink it because it's less filling. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling! UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste! UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling! UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste! UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling! UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, man, now that would make a great commercial. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who wouldn't want to watch that? ANNOUNCER: Life is best told over a great tasting Miller Light. At a place called "Miller time." UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling! (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Now what can you -- what can you learn from that? GOODMAN: Well, for guys who don't like to watch football, they'll certainly be watching that ad, that's for sure. To me, our ad is, it's sensuous, it's edgy, it's thought provoking. That borders on the obscene. CARLSON: It's basically too much vulgar for Las Vegas is what you're saying. GOODMAN: No, what I'm saying is this. What I'm saying is let's be honest about this whole thing. Why does every newspaper in the United States have a Las Vegas line on? Because people want to find out what the score is? No. Because they want to bet. So how can the NFL be so two-faced about this? They want to have it that way to get everybody in the world interested in betting on their games all over the country. There will be more bets taken in San Diego at QualComm, probably, in the books here, because people aren't going to watch a football game without betting on it. That's why it's absurd. BEGALA: In fact, Steak, shouldn't the NFL be worried? Because those girls tackle a lot better than the ninnies in 40 pounds of pads in the NFL. SHAPIRO: Well, I just wish Warren Sapp could get 30 seconds with you in the open field. But let me this. BEGALA: Bring it on, baby! Bring it on, Warren! SHAPIRO: Let me this: the reason that ad, the ad -- this is not about tastefulness and commercials. Walk into a locker room some time and look at the first thing it talks about: gambling. Now, is the NFL being hypocritical? Somewhat. But when you're the most powerful league in the world, you can say, We don't want gambling next to our product. That's what they're saying. It's not about tastefulness. It's not about -- by the way, half- naked women is legal in the NFL for players, but gambling is not for players. GOODMAN: But Steak, there's nothing in that ad that even suggests there's gambling. It's from Las Vegas. It shows hat when people come here, they have freedom, they don't have to worry about some jerk next door neighbor looking at them and being critical of them. They can come out here, they can have their fantasies and desires. It has nothing at all to do with gambling. SHAPIRO: But it's also the only town... BEGALA: Mayor Oscar Goodman -- I'm sorry to cut you guys off. May Oscar Goodman in Las Vegas, my favorite mayor in America, thank you for joining us. Steak Shapiro from Atlanta, thank you as well. Terrific fun. Good debate. Thank you, guys. In just a minute, some of CROSSFIRE's fans are going to get a chance to fire back at the NFL. We'll see what they have to say, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time now for "Fireback," when you get to "Fireback" at us. And no, I'm not worried about NFL fans taking me on. They're too stupid to work a computer. Let's go to the e-mail box. Mary Walker of San Francisco, California says, "Between bad calls and players getting arrested, you would think the NFL would have bigger things to worry about than banning Las Vegas ads. Get a life." I'm with you, Mary. CARLSON: All right. BEGALA: Get a life. CARLSON: A number of our viewers have noticed the Miller Light ad we've been forced by journalistic ethics to keep putting on the air. Donan Freitag writes, "The day that Miller Light beer commercial aired the disturbing fight between two sexpot girls wrestling in the pool and mud in their bikinis, I ordered the kids not to watch and my husband now drinks Corona beer, since I also control the shopping." BEGALA: What ad is that? CARLSON: I don't know. BEGALA: What ad is that? CARLSON: We should put it on again, to remind the viewers. BEGALA: Howie (ph) our director, what's this ad she's writing about? I'm not familiar with it. We got any video of that ad because I'm not -- oh, they're not going to play it. John Adams, the second president of the United States, writes in from Quincy, Illinois, fitting enough, "I nominate the intelligent and humorous Begala and Carlson to do the '04 presidential debates. I like the dueling powerpoints on the screen behind the debaters. It's hard to spin when faced with sourced and dated quotations." BEGALA: This is why they won't let us host the debates, I suspect, Tucker. CARLSON: Yes. Even when those sources are made up. Next up -- oh a Canadian viewer. Joey Adams of Banff, Alberta, Canada, writes, "I love your show guys, but I wish Tucker would stop his anti-Canada crusade. The only difference between Canadians and Americans is that we play hockey better." And build better igloos. BEGALA: That's a real sport, by the way. CARLSON: This is a concern in Canada. Our friends from the Canadian embassy came by today and dropped off this Canadian gift bag. I'm waving the Canadian flag to show that we have no animos toward Canada. I would sing "Oh Canada" but I don't know the words and that's another difference between us and Canadians. BEGALA: You know what? Their national anthem has better words than ours. Sorry. CARLSON: If we only knew them. BEGALA: Yes. CARLSON: Yes, sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm Michael Clifford (ph) from Arlington, Virginia. I'm wondering how can a jury be impartial when they're going to be judged by their neighbors on television and by Tucker Carlson. CARLSON: Well, that's exactly right. No, but it is true. I mean, people are different when they're on television. I mean, I wish you could come back and see Paul before the show. BEGALA: No, it is a -- I do think, you know, we had a good debate on that. But I would leave the jury room alone. Yes, sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. Kevin Campbell (ph) from Lincoln, Nebraska. My question is, why would the NFL be so concerned with Las Vegas advertising during the Super Bowl, when many of the teams a part of the NFL, are in states that sponsor lottery or other forms of gambling? BEGALA: Good point. In fact, Mayor Goodman pointed out, in Las Vegas they bet $80 million on the Super Bowl. Eighty million. Legally. And the rest of the country, illegally, people bet $4 billion illegally. I mean, who is the NFL fooling? CARLSON: And Las Vegas would like a piece of that. Yes, sir? Yes? BEGALA: Yes, sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello, my name's Todd Marlett (ph) let from Arlington, Virginia. And my question is, if the University of Michigan system is held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, should the University of Michigan be required to pay reparations to all the students denied admission? CARLSON: I guess I'm against reparations in each and every case. No, it doesn't seem like a tall order to stop discriminating on race. I mean, that was something that was supposed to be settled 49 years ago but apparently hasn't been. BEGALA: It's a difficult question, but the truth is, having gone to the University of Texas, where they stopped affirmative action, we went to almost zero minority law students at what was once one of the great educators of minority law students in America and that's not fair. CARLSON: A principle still worth defending. BEGALA: From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE. CARLSON: And from the right, I am Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for yet more CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. Have a great night. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 16, 2003 Thursday Transcript # 011600CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 9768 words HEADLINE: Was Today's Find in Iraq the Elusive "Smoking Gun?" GUESTS: Scott Ritter, Ken Adelman, Tony Coelho, Bill McCollum, Alex Castellanos, Chaka Fattah BYLINE: Paul Begala, Robert Novak HIGHLIGHT: U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq reveal they have found a stash of warheads, but still many don't believe this is enough to constitute the elusive "smoking gun." Republicans and Democrats in the Senate reach an agreement on funding in the narrowly GOP controlled chamber. BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight, the weapons inspectors have found something. Iraq's trying to explain. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And time is running out. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Iraq's in the CROSSFIRE again. Show Uncle Sam the money. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are taking 18 cents or more of every dollar earned by every American in federal taxation. And that ought to -- that's pain enough. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: But it isn't enough. The deficit is getting worse. Would tax cuts stop the red ink or make it worse? A diversity of racial problems. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)] BUSH: I strongly support diversity of all kinds. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: From university admissions to the Confederate flag to judicial nominees and Trent Lott too, an equal opportunity debate on the race factor tonight on CROSSFIRE. Live from the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Robert Novak. (APPLAUSE) ROBERT NOVAK, CNN CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, on the 12th anniversary of the start of the Gulf War, U.N.'s weapons inspectors in Iraq find empty chemical warheads that are, they say, in excellent condition. We'll also debate the politics of the budget deficit and some deficit predictions the administration assures us are nothing to hyperventilate about. Also, just who is playing the race card in U.S. politics? But first, it's time for us to lay our cards on the table. Here comes the best political briefing in television, our "CROSSFIRE Political Alert." U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq today nearly found a smoking gun. Well, one that once was smoking, they think. The inspectors reported finding a number of empty chemical warheads that are still in excellent condition. One warhead is still being evaluated. Iraqi officials call this a matter of finding old weapons that have been forgotten. And the leader of the U.N. inspection team in Baghdad said, "It was not a smoking gun that would substantiate violation of U.N. resolutions." The White House agreed, but said the find was still important. Would President Bush go to war on such flimsy evidence? Stay tuned. PAUL BEGALA, CNN CO-HOST: Stay tuned, indeed. We're going to have one of the U.N. weapons inspectors, a guy who was in Baghdad just a few months ago, Scott Ritter, and Ken Adelman, one of the defense policy review board guys from the Pentagon who's quite hawkish. NOVAK: I think they need more evidence than that. And they ought to have more evidence than that. They may go to war without more evidence than that. BEGALA: Rarely do I do it, but I have to say Novak is right. It will never happen again, though. President Bush visited Mercy Hospital in Scranton, Pennsylvania today and called for a maximum punishment of $250,000 for doctors or hospitals who kill or maim. In a bit of poor timing for Mr. Bush, the hospital he visited today is affiliated with one in nearby Wilkes- Barre, Pennsylvania, which along with two doctors, announced on Monday that they would pay $7 million to Dorothy Thornton. Ms. Thornton is the widow of Frank Thornton, whose brain damage and death were allegedly caused by Mercy Hospital in Wilkes-Barre and its doctors, when they allegedly inserted a ventilating tube into his esophagus instead of his trachea during surgery. Under Mr. Bush's proposal, the widow Thornton in this case, would only be entitled to $250,000 for the pain and suffering she has gone through, even though the lawsuit she filed against the doctor and the hospital has cost her more than that. Think about it. If an incompetent or drug addicted doctor causes brain damage and death to the one you love, George W. Bush thinks that that life is worth a whopping $250,000. Why? All to protect greedy insurance companies who jack up their rates to cover their losses in the stock market. NOVAK: You know, Paul... (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: ... Paul, the designation of greedy insurance companies comes in the ATLA and North American Trial Lawyers Association briefing papers, and we know what all of this is about. The trial lawyers are the major source of campaign funds for the Democratic Party. And they get greedy, they get rich. They really are despoiling the doctors of America by stopping medical service. And you ought to be ashamed of yourself for supporting that process. BEGALA: If some, God forbid, if some butcher hurt you Bob, I hope you got $250 million, not just $250,000. Your life is worth a lot more than that and so is the life of every one in this audience. NOVAK: It's about political... BEGALA: Shame on George W. Bush. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: ... it's about political contributions. At about 8:15 last night the great Senate crisis ended, not with a bang, but with a whimper. Without dissent on terms that could have been had nine days earlier but the Democrats had come something without precedent -- holding up for nine days the mandate of the 2002 election, turning over control of the Senate to the Republicans. Democrats in the minority actually conducted hearings, even tried to hold a confirmation hearing. Senate Democrats were following the advice of Barbra Streisand, James Carville and Paul Begala. What a threesome -- obstruct, obstruct and obstruct a little more. Just because it didn't work in 2002, they figure, doesn't mean it won't work in 2004. BEGALA: First, the Democrats only wanted the same level of funding in the minority that the Republicans had when they were in the minority. Simple fairness, that's all they were asking, and they pretty much got it. Good for the Democrats. Finally, Dr. Frist and the Republicans came around. It was their fault. They could have had this nine days ago as you said, if they would have only agreed to be fair. NOVAK: That is just untrue, Paul. I wish you would do a little reporting sometimes because they had offered this to the Democrats before. They finally gave up. It was an outrage, an outrage to have Fritz Hollings, who had the lost control of the Senate, conducting hearings by the Senate Commerce Committee. BEGALA: I thought you said they were obstructionists. He's conducting hearing. He's trying to move the business of the Senate. Now here's where we're obstructionists. The Senate Republicans today put their partisan politics ahead of your personal security. In a remarkable and irresponsible vote this afternoon, Republicans killed a Democratic amendment to bolster America's homeland security. Democrats wanted to help the immigration service track foreigners in our country, help the FBI respond to terror attacks, help the Customs Service inspect cargo in our ports, help out hometown heroes in the police and fire departments and more. Republicans stopped them. Many experts say that all of these steps and more are needed. And America is still very vulnerable to terrorist attacks, which are more likely if, God forbid, President Bush does go to war in Iraq. So why did the GOP sell out our national security and our homeland defense? Not because of the deficit. White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels says that even a $300 billion deficit is no big deal to the president. So the choice is clear. If you want something said about homeland security, ask a Republican. If you need something done about homeland security, you need a Democrat. NOVAK: That's a good Democratic slogan, Paul. But the matter of the fact, as somebody who didn't know what you were talking about would have thought that you were saying that there was some substantive proposals involved. It wasn't. It was just money. The Democrats... (LAUGHTER) ... the Democrats always want to spend more money. And let me tell you something... (APPLAUSE) ... the Republicans want to reduce the size of government, the size of money. And this homeland security is just an excuse of more spending. BEGALA: So what are you going to pay cops wit? What are you going to pay FBI agents with? What are you going to five them Fruit Loops? What are you going to give them a nice -- we've got to pay them money. They earn their money. They ought to be keeping us safe. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: You just take all of the spending caps off, and that's what you want. I know what you want. BEGALA: No, what I want is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). NOVAK: Democrat Mike Snow appeared to have lost his seat in the Georgia House of Representatives November 5 by 195 votes. But a Democratic judge invalidated the results, possibly preventing the House speakership in Georgia from being turned over to a coalition of Republicans and maverick Democrats. The new election shows -- get this -- a 64 vote win for Mike Snow. But look at Snow's yard sign, showing Georgia state flag with a confederate emblem and saying, "Mike voted to keep our flag. Let's vote to keep Mike!" Wasn't it the Democrats who whined that the flag issue elected Sonny Purdue a Republican as governor of Georgia? Actually, Purdue never said a word about the flag unless he was asked. Who's the hypocrite here, Paul? BEGALA: Here's the flag, Bob. Here it is. NOVAK: Who's the hypocrite? BEGALA: This is the Confederate battle flag that used to be on the Georgia flag. Roy Barnes, a great hero, had that reduced, because it's an insult to millions of Americans. But here's what happened. First off, shame on Mike Snow. He should never (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that Democrat or (UNINTELLIGIBLE). NOVAK: Thank you, hallelujah, said from a veteran Democrat. BEGALA: Your reporting, Mr. Novak, is in correct. Sonny Purdue raised the issue. I went and looked on his campaign Web site. The flag was one of only six issues on the whole Web site that he raised, and the flag was on there. NOVAK: Never, never mentioned it in his speeches, only when asked. BEGALA: No, the guy got elected on this dirty flag and he ought to be ashamed of himself. NOVAK: You can't even accept it when you get beat, that the Republicans actually are the party of the future in the South. BEGALA: No, they're the party of racism. In this case on this issue, shame on the Republicans. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Well, the Bush administration today filed its brief, asking the Supreme Court to halt the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. President Bush did not take questions from reporters on the subject today, nor did he yesterday, and for good reason. A few hours before Mr. Bush spoke yesterday, ABC News White House reporter Terry Moran asked press secretary Ari Fleischer the following question. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TERRY MORAN, ABC REPORTER: A question about his feeling about fairness in America. When he was 18, he got into Yale University, which had and still has a policy of granting very special preferences to children of graduates like him. Is that preference OK? To give him a leg up, but other preferences... ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: I think you're getting... (END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: But Fleischer declined to respond directly, as did the president. Why? Because in George W. Bush's America, only the right people receive preferential treatment. When a Hispanic or a black kid gets a let up, Mr. Bush wants to make a federal case out of it, literally. (APPLAUSE) Of course, Mr. Bush himself is the beneficiary of a very special kind of affirmative action, preferences that help the hard drinking, underachieving near-do-well (ph) children of the Eastern moneyed elite. (LAUGHTER) That's affirmative action for you. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: You know, that's racist and it is plain class struggle. And I'm always amused when reporters ask questions straight out of Paul Begala's Democratic briefing book. Let me tell you this, that what is involved in the Michigan case are white people being denied admission because of racial quotas. And that's what the president is against. BEGALA: Who was denied admission because Bush, an unqualified man, went to Yale? NOVAK: That has no relevance at all. BEGALA: No relevance at all. Of course it does. NOVAK: It's demagoguery. BEGALA: No it's not. It's the issue. Well, as we have reported earlier on CNN, U.N. weapons inspectors issued a terse statement today saying that they had found a number of empty chemical warheads that they say are in excellent condition. An Iraqi government spokesman quickly dismissed any allegation that the find is significant, calling the material forgotten. A U.S. official said, the find -- quote -- "Raises lots of questions, but is not a smoking gun." Joining us from Albany, New York, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector himself, Scott Ritter. Scott, thank you for joining us, sir. (APPLAUSE) SCOTT RITTER, FMR. CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: My pleasure, thank you. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Mr. Ritter, how do you evaluate this finding? It is of any importance? Is it a sign that, "Ah, hah, we were right, they have been hiding the real goods on us?" RITTER: Well, the way I evaluate it is A, to note that inspections to do work contrary to what the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration have been saying that, "You know we can't expect the inspectors to accomplish anything in a country the size of Iraq." Guess what? Today they found something. Now it's not a huge smoking gun. In fact, I believe it's indicative of the accounting problem I've always said exists in Iraq. But the inspections can work, and I think we have to continue to give them our full support. The other thing we have to take note of is no American service members died today. We're not at war. You know, we solved a problem simply by allowing the inspectors to do their job. NOVAK: Mr. Ritter, I appreciate you saying that it works, it's not a smoking gun. But tell me what it is. You were an expert on this. When you find all of those empty, empty weapons in good condition, what does it mean? Does it mean they're getting ready for a chemical attack? That they're preparing for some kind of chemical warfare? Or does it mean nothing? RITTER: Well, first of all this is early on in the process. They weapons were just found today. So I think we have to allow the inspectors to you know, do a very thorough investigation to answer these very legitimate questions. And believe me, there should be questions asked. The Iraqis should not be allowed to simply sweep this under the rug and say, "Ooops, we had an accounting error." But let's put this in perspective. This -- the Ukadere (ph) ammunition storage depot is a place I've been to many times. It's a huge facility. It was extensively bombed during Desert Storm. Munitions were scattered all over the desert. And you know, there are boxes and boxes full of munitions. When we went into these facilities, we carried special detection equipment to look for chemical agent. We didn't open these boxes because we didn't find any evidence of chemical agent. The inspectors today opened the boxes and found weapons Iraq had purchases in 1988. The boxes have been sealed since that time. I believe what we have here is an accounting problem. But we have to investigate furthermore. I think what this shows is that when Hans Blix says the Iraqis have to start being more proactively cooperative, this is why. You can't have inspectors finding this. The Iraqis today should send military officers to every ammunition depot and open up every box to ensure this never again happens. They have to give a full accounting of their programs to the inspectors in accordance to the rule of law. BEGALA: Well, I'm glad you raise that, Scott. Let me press that point. It is the Iraqi's obligation to disclose this. They didn't do that. Isn't that a material breach? RITTER: Well, first of all, they did declare this. If you read the declaration, and I have, they did declare that this shipment of 122 millimeter artillery rockets was received. And you know, they gave the numbers of rockets received. The problem comes as they said, "We can't account for them all. You blew up some of them during the war. You know, we buried some. Hundreds of thousands of them were turned over to inspectors and destroyed." The Iraqis said, "We received them. This is how many received, but we can't tell you what happened to everything." So what we have here is an accounting problem, not a material breach. No American should be called to go to war and die because we found 11 unfilled chemical munitions. BEGALA: Well, Scott, let me ask you when they should be? Guys like you, guys like me, said for example, through this long process, President Bush had to go to the Congress. Well, he did. Then we said he had to go the U.N. Well, he did. Then we said he had to let the weapons inspectors in, and he did. And you've got to give them a chance. And they've done so. And what point, what level of breach will it take for Scott Ritter to support war to change the regime in Baghdad? RITTER: I think you're going to have to find a viable active weapons of mass destruction program. You know, empty warheads are meaningless unless you have the agent to put inside them. If you find evidence that Iraq is attempting to procure or attempting to manufacture or in fact has manufactured and is hiding active chemical agent, now we've got a problem. If more than 10 years after the international community has banned these weapons, these chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, and we find evidence that Iraq has continued to pursue these programs, we have a right to presume ill intent on the part of the Saddam Hussein and hold them into account. But right now we have an accounting problem. Inspectors are there. They're receiving the full cooperation of the Iraq government. You know, they went into this facility. All doors were open. The Iraqis have cooperated throughout this process. This is not a casus belli. NOVAK: In that connection, Scott Ritter, I'd like you to listen to something that President Bush just said about the inspection process. Let's listen to the president. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: So far the evidence hasn't been very good that he is disarming. And time is running out. At some point in time the United State's patience will run out. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Is what the president is saying that unless the Iraqis say, "OK, we can confess," that the bombs will start falling on Baghdad? Is that how you interpret that? RITTER: Well, it appears the Bush administration won't accept, you know, any response from the Iraqi government that doesn't include an absolute confession of guilt that they have these weapons and here they are leading them to them. I'm not giving the Iraqis a clean bill of health. They're going to have to earn it. But I'll tell you what. We need to let the inspectors do their job. It may take six months. It may take a year. It will be a frustrating process. But at the end of the day, if the inspectors find nothing -- and today they proved they are viable -- if they find nothing, we may have to accept the fact that there may not be anything in Iraq to find. And the president shouldn't be rushing off to war. I would ask the president to start practicing writing letters to the families of service members who will die in this conflict and make sure he can write a darn good letter that explains why they have an empty seat at Thanksgiving, why there's an empty stocking at Christmas. It better be a good letter. And I'll tell you what, 11 empty chemical warheads simply isn't going to hack it to the family of those Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen who are out there defending our country right now. BEGALA: Scott, let me ask you briefly about a story that Time.com has broken today, and that is that Saudi Arabia may in fact be trying to encourage and engineer a coupe in Baghdad. Is that the best alternative? Is that the best solution? RITTER: I think Saudi Arabia, like many of the neighbors surrounding Iraq, are scared to death about this -- the possibility of war with Iraq. An American-led invasion of Iraq will be disastrous for the entire region. And the Saudis understand that President Bush has invested so much political capital into the concept of regime removal and it's virtually impossible for him to back away regardless of the justification for war. The military buildup has taken on a life of its own. It will reach critical mass sometime next month where we're simply not going to be able to pull back, even if there is no excuse. So Saudi Arabia is desperate for anything that will prevent a war. And at this point in time they understand that maybe the only thing that will prevent a war is getting rid of Saddam Hussein. So they would prefer a coupe over an American-led invasion. NOVAK: Scott Ritter, thank you very much. RITTER: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Despite Iraq's denials, does today's discovery mean the U.S. is closer than ever to a Desert Storm II? In a minute we'll ask someone who has the administration's ear, Defense Policy Board Member, Ken Adelman. Later, the flag their either love or hate down in Dixie. Are the Democrats really that hard up for an issue for an issue against George W. Bush? And in a $10 trillion dollar economy, what's a few more billion dollars worth of evidence (ph)? (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Iraq says that empty chemical weapons found -- warheads, rather -- found today by U.N. weapons inspectors are simply forgotten leftover from a decade a more ago. And even a U.S. official says that today's discovery is not, quote, "A smoking gun." But will the Bush administration hesitate very much longer before it unloads on Saddam Hussein? Joining us how, Ken Adelman, the director -- former director of the U.S. Arms Control Disarmament Agency under President Reagan. He is now a member of the Pentagon's prestigious Defense Policy Board. He also writes for Defense Central.com. Ken. (APPLAUSE) (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Ken Adelman, you've heard Scott Ritter say that finding these 11 empty warheads still the inspectors have to do their work, but it doesn't tell you much. Do you think it tells you much. KEN ADELMAN, FMR. DIRECTOR, U.S. ARMS CONTROL DISARMAMENT AGENCY: I have minimum regard for Scott Ritter, let me just say because... NOVAK: You don't want to hear (UNINTELLIGIBLE)... ADELMAN: No, no, but he is the one addressed the Iraqi parliament under an million picture of Saddam Hussein. He's the one who's taken $400,000 from an Iraqi agent... BEGALA: He's not here to defend himself... ADELMAN: No, no, but I mean... NOVAK: Can we go to the substance. Can we go to... ADELMAN: ... yes, but let's label him as a spokesman for an Iraqi government. NOVAK: All right, you've done that. ADELMAN: Fine. NOVAK: Let's go to the substance. ADELMAN: The substance is that we are not talking 11 warheads right here, even though that is a material breach. That's clearly not allowed in the U.N. declarations and resolutions. What we're talking about is a pattern of behavior over 12 years that's unmistakable. NOVAK: Now I'm going to show --give you a little soundbite by CNN's national security analyst, Ken Robinson. And I really hope that after you listen to him you don't an ad hoc, ad hominen attack on his background. ADELMAN: He's not a paid by the Iraqi government. NOVAK: Let's listen to Ken Robinson. ADELMAN: OK. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KEN ROBINSON, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I can't believe that any one is going to jump to a conclusion that this is all of a sudden a smoking gun. The Iraqis were expert at deception, and the locations where munitions were destroyed, went in a lot of different directions and some of them were covered up in the sand. And you know, we'll be finding stuff in that desert probably for the next 10 years. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: It's irrelevant, isn't it, this find? ADELMAN: No, it's very relevant. It's relevant because it shows what the pattern of behavior has been for the last 12 years. And let say this about smoking gun. Guns smoke because they've been fired, OK. That's not what we want to have happen here. The only smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud. And I for one do not want to... NOVAK: Ken Adelman, they don't have a nuclear bomb. Come on, Ken. ADELMAN: They certainly have chemical weapons. They certainly have biological weapons. And Bob, they have had a most vigorous nuclear weapons program, and if it weren't for the Israelis in 1981, taking out the Oserick (ph) plant, they would have had nuclear weapons... NOVAK: That was (UNINTELLIGIBLE)... ADELMAN: ... in the mid-1980s. And then think of what the Middle East would have been like had Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. BEGALA: Let me play you a piece of video tape... ADELMAN: Sure. BEGALA: ... from an equally dark analyst of the situation, one who matters an awful lot, our vice president. This is what he said back in August about the likelihood of inspectors being successful. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with the U.N. resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow back in his box. (END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: Now a few weeks later, to his credit, his boss the president overruled him and supported inspectors. Doesn't Dick Cheney owe President Bush and the rest of us who supported inspectors an apology? ADELMAN: No, I think Dick Cheney was absolutely right. BEGALA: They found the stuff today. ADELMAN: They found the stuff because there are, you know, unmistakable ways that you're going to run across things like this. BEGALA: But that's not what Cheney said. Cheney basically said they couldn't find their butt with both hands. ADELMAN: No, Paul... BEGALA: These guys are over there, and they have found 11 warheads. ADELMAN: OK, but they stumbled across 11 warheads. What Hans Blix, who is a very nice man. I worked with him in the '80s in the U.N. What he did was wrong. What he did was the opposite of what he should have done. What he should have done is take the new authority of the resolutions to take scientists, Iraqi scientists out of the country with their families, and then find out. And then go after facilities. You go people first, and then facilities. You don't go facilities because then you're running around like a chicken with your head cut off in a country of 23 million people, the size of France. NOVAK: It's hard to think that anybody could be more incorrect than my good friend, the vice president. But I want to play you a soundbite... ADELMAN: You have more soundbites tonight... NOVAK: Yes, from CROSSFIRE, Mr. Adelman, that's even more wrong than the vice president. Let's listen to it. BEGALA: The vice president was right. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ADELMAN: Hans Blix is a very nice man. I worked with him many years in the '80s. But the fact is once his team gets into Iraq, I can't see a way that they are going to find any violations. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: So you were just a very low level... ADELMAN: Right... NOVAK: ... you were absolutely wrong because you said they just found a violation. ADELMAN: They stumbled on something and... NOVAK: Oh, they stumbled on it. ADELMAN: All right, Bob, they were better than I thought they'd be. NOVAK: All right. ADELMAN: OK. BEGALA: Well, good for you. But let me ask you also. A moment ago you said this is a material breach. ADELMAN: Sure it is. BEGALA: Good for you. I agree. Our president, however, began this process articulating a policy -- this is the President of the United States who says "zero tolerance," his words, not mine. Now we know since then according to our president, the declaration was deceitful. Now you say that these chemical weapons, warheads, are material breach. Why does our president stake out positions that he does not later back up? Why does he talk so strong and then wimp out? ADELMAN: Give him time. I don't think there's going to be any wimping... BEGALA: I don't want him to go to war, but I just don't think frankly... ADELMAN: Well, what to you want him to do, Paul? BEGALA: I want him to not run his mouth. ADELMAN: I mean, what's the alternative? BEGALA: I want him to shut up and let Cheney run things. And what I really want -- he scares me when he talks without a script, Ken. He's not... ADELMAN: OK... BEGALA: ... up to this. ADELMAN: Yes, he is, and he's been very, very good wartime leader. I think he's done a super job, to tell you the truth. BEGALA: OK. ADELMAN: I think that if you're looking for more moderation and don't want to go to war, then what you want is the people of Iraq to remain repressed and oppressed. What you want is the Middle East to be run by the likes of Saddam Hussein. You want the weapons programs that he has to continue. BEGALA: I just don't want... NOVAK: Mr. Adelman, let me... ADELMAN: I want a world without Saddam. I want a world of democracy in the Middle East. NOVAK: Mr. Adelman, let me... ADELMAN: And it's certainly not weapons of mass destruction. The only way to get rid of them is to get rid of Saddam Hussein. NOVAK: Mr. Adelman, I want to show you a... ADELMAN: Another one. NOVAK: ... commercial, a TV ad. Let's listen to it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: War with Iraq, maybe it will end quickly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... three, four. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe not. Maybe it will spread. Maybe extremists will take over countries with nuclear weapons. Maybe the unthinkable. Maybe that's why Americans are saying to President Bush, let the inspections work. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: That's pretty strong, isn't it? ADELMAN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) pretty (ph) offensive (ph). No, I find it (UNINTELLIGIBLE). BEGALA: But you just a moment ago you raised the specter of a mushroom cloud -- two minutes ago. ADELMAN: If we don't do something about Saddam Hussein, I am not fearful of liberating Iraq. I am fearful of keeping Iraq so that madmen in the world like Saddam Hussein get a hold of nuclear weapons and become like North Korea. BEGALA: Stalin had nuclear weapons for 50 years, and we contained him. ADELMAN: Stalin did not have nuclear weapons for 50 years. Stalin had... BEGALA: The Soviets had them for 50 years and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) too. ADELMAN: OK... NOVAK: We will debate Stalin... BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). OK, we're (UNINTELLIGIBLE). NOVAK: ... another time. Thank you, Ken Adelman. I appreciate it. BEGALA: I appreciate it very much. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Coming up, when in the world did Democrats become deficit hawks? And will it help them any more than it did the Republicans for about 60 years? Later, the Bush administration infuriates Democrats by insisting that equal opportunity really does mean equal. ANNOUNCER: Join Carville, Begala, Carlson and Novak in the CROSSFIRE. For free tickets to the live Washington audience, call 202-994-8CCN. Or e-mail us at CNN@GWU.EDU. Now you can step into the CROSSFIRE. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University in Foggy Bottom, D.C. The budget deficit is growing, and true to form, Democrats are trying to make a federal case about it. White House Budget Chief Mitch Daniel's figures the shortfall will exceed $200 billion this fiscal year. Bigger than expected. But as he puts it, nothing to hyperventilate about. Stepping into the CROSSFIRE, former Congressman Tony Coelho, Democrat of California, and former Congressman Bill McCollum, Republican of Florida. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Please take a seat. Mr. McCollum, let me start with today's news. Just -- in fact, a few hours ago, Senate Republicans killed a Democratic amendment to increase our homeland security. This is some of the things that were in the bill. Just some. Let me put it up on the board for you. Assistance to state and local authorities to combat terrorism, border security, airport security, port security, nuclear facilities security, mass transit, federal law enforcement, clean water security. The Republicans killed it all. Why? BILL MCCOLLUM, FMR. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Well, my guess is that it was done because of the fact that they didn't agree with the basic approach. They have an alternative. You know that's usually what happens, as Tony and I have debated that many times when we were in Congress. You have a Republican alternative, you have a Democrat alternative, what the president wants. And so it isn't killing homeland security. It's getting -- first of all, we need to see orderly process over there. They're right now beginning a new Senate. They've got issues over who controls the Senate. We haven't had the change of power that you'd expect now. They're still arguing over the details. So you're going to see a lot of crazy things the first couple of days. And it's a budget issue. BEGALA: But the experts all say that our facilities are unsafe. We are at risk. We may be going to war in Iraq, which the CIA tells us increases the terrorist threat here at home. And it seems to me that Republicans are simply playing politics here. MCCOLLUM: Well believe you and me, nobody can be more concerned about politics in a study like that than me. Because that's the area I dealt with the whole time I was in Congress. BEGALA: But you know we need to do these things to protect our... MCCOLLUM: Well you need to do some of those. But I don't want to argue the specifics of this proposal because I'm not familiar with all the details of the argument of why or why not. I just know from experience of being there that, in fact, those are usually the reasons that I gave you why those kind of amendments don't go through at that time in this setting, dealing with this budget at this moment. BEGALA: So that's an alternative issue. NOVAK: Tony Coelho, I've been trying to understand Democrats all my life, and it's not easy. But you've been one of them... TONY COELHO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: We've been trying to understand you, too, Bob. But it's all right. NOVAK: You've been one of the great interpreters of them. Explain to me that you're all running around like chickens with your heads off crying budget deficit, budget deficit, budget deficit, and then the first debate of the new Congress, the Democrats all got up and said we have to spend more money. Now how do those two things relate to each other? COELHO: I don't know what you're talking about. NOVAK: Well, you say that the budget deficit is too big, therefore we have to spend more money. COELHO: I don't know what you're talking about. BEGALA: This amendment on homeland security. COELHO: But is that all you're talk talking about? I mean, that doesn't make any sense. NOVAK: I know it doesn't. That's why I want you to tell me how it does (ph). COELHO: No, it doesn't make any sense what you're saying. I just -- what you have, you have basically -- is you have a Republican Senate and an administration that wants their cake and eat it too. They basically want to reduce the revenues to the government, and they want to go ahead and spend exorbitantly. And we're starting with these surpluses all over again. And what the Senate Democrats are going to do are going to make them face priorities. Where are they going to put their money? Where are they going to spend their money? These are the choices that need to be made now. NOVAK: Just -- if I could just follow that up. You know, Tony, I was watching the debate. The amendments by the Democrats, as Paul quite clearly said, were for more spending. COELHO: Of course. NOVAK: And so how can you say we're deficit hawks if you want to spend more money? COELHO: I think the issue is -- the issue is where do you want to spend the money? That's what the Democrats are saying. Where do you want to spend the money? That's the issue. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: But Bill McCollum, the Democrats want to spend the money on the things that make us safer, first and foremost. Their first priority, homeland security and things that make us smarter like education. Our president, however, wants to spend the money on an enormous tax cut for the hyper-mega grossly filthy, Novakian rich. And even Republicans... MCCOLLUM: Wow. Isn't that a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to put it. What a Democratic brush stroke that one was. BEGALA: I was kind of proud of that. Even Susan Collins, a Republican senator, is troubled by how much Bush wants to spend on his tax break. Here's what Senator Collins had to say. "I'm concerned about the size of the president's package at a time when we have pressing needs and we are possibly on the verge of a second war with Iraq. I question whether this is truly stimulative." This is a Republican saying a Republican plan is not good. MCCOLLUM: Let me tell you what the problem with the economy is right now. It's different than any time in my memory. You have a problem from September 11, you have a problem from the fact that we had the Enron scandal last year. You have a business community that's not investing and there's no growth. We're right now on a track for two percent GDP growth over the next five or 10 years. If we don't get off that track we will continue to have deficits because of the war and other things that are going on as far as the eye can see even if you do every pruning anybody would imagine doing. What we need to do is get to three percent growth or four percent growth. And the way you do that is by having tax cuts, especially the thing like eliminating the double taxation of dividends. Give confidence again in our stocks and companies and in investment and in investing and finding ways to form capital, create new jobs, and have more taxable transactions to bring the revenue in that will then grow this economy. NOVAK: Tony Coelho, Mitch Daniels, the OMB director said -- can we put it up on the screen -- "We ought not to hyperventilate about this. By any historical measure, these are manageable deficits." So I thought I would take a look at the historical measure, and we find this is a percentage of gross domestic product. 1983, when there was a tremendous surge of economic activity, look at that, it was six -- the budget deficit was six percent. In 1986 the economy was really humming, five percent. In 1993 we were coming back from a recession. The recession -- actually the recovery that started in '92, three percent. The estimated 2004 with the tax cut is only two to three percent. That's not much of a deficit. COELHO: I always find it fascinating how you Republicans can twist things around. NOVAK: Explain that. COELHO: Well, it's very easy. I have been on this show where you used to kick my so and so because we were spending too much money... NOVAK: Still do. COELHO: ... and we were in deficits. And here we are now, you're talking about -- deficits are all right if they're Republican deficits. And it makes no difference if they're Republican deficits. (APPLAUSE) COELHO: I don't understand that. I don't understand that. And even Bill was the author of amendments to try to cut the budget and cut things back, we're spending way too much money. Now you guys say it's all right if we spend it, though. NOVAK: Just to defend my own -- from a personal attack, Tony, I never -- you never heard me talk about deficits. NOVAK: Bob has always been a deficit (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I'll back you up on that. NOVAK: I'm a deficit dove (ph). I'm against spending, but I don't care about deficits. MCCOLLUM: First and foremost, Tony, we need to get to growth. And the reality is, you know Robert Reich, your former Democratic secretary of labor, believes that we need to have deficits now. Where he disagrees with the Republicans, and you probably do, too, is on the question of how you form the taxes, how you form the spending and the composition. The reality is we need to grow this economy right now. We need to grow the economy. BEGALA: Let's take a look. This is what our president and his fellow Republicans told us two years ago when the Congress enacted his economic plan. And let's take a look at the unemployment numbers since then. The day that President Bush's plan was enacted, June 7, 2001 there were 6.4 million Americans out of work. Today there are 8.6 million. 2.2 million of us have lost their jobs since we put Bush's plan in. We ain't growing. We need a new direction. MCCOLLUM: Well, Paul, you and I both know the reason for that. It's September 11, it's the Enron scandal. BEGALA: It's Bush's tax cut. No. No sir. MCCOLLUM: No, it has nothing to do with the tax cut. We need to have implemented that tax cut much faster. His problem with that tax cut is it doesn't take effect for quite a few years. And that's why the new bill is out there to speed it up so it will get into the economy so that you will have the opportunity for that money to be there for the growth to occur. If you don't do this, there won't be any growth. You don't have the growth in the economy, you don't have new jobs created. You don't have more taxable transactions. You'll never get out of the system. Why did you have balanced budgets eventually? BEGALA: Because Bill Clinton was president and he knew how to expand the economy. He knew what the hell he was doing. (CROSSTALK) MCCOLLUM: Because of the Reagan growth years got that started. That's why. Because Ronald Reagan had a way to get growth going and Clinton benefited from it. That's what happened. BEGALA: I like that myth. Bill McCollum, Republican of Florida, thank you for joining us. Tony Coelho, Democrat of California, thank you both for a good, fun debate. We'll have lots more of these, believe me. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Well at least one pro football fan also watches CROSSFIRE. Maybe he has a friend who explains it to him as the show goes on. He's fired back a question today for the audience, which we will ask them in just a bit. But first, how does a man who got into Yale on his daddy's name oppose a leg up for minority kids trying to get into college today? Well, with an appeal to the Supreme Court, that's how. We will put the politics of race, the president, and affirmative action in the CROSSFIRE next. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) NOVAK: Hours before President Bush announced his opposition to the University of Michigan's policy for giving special advantages to minority advocates, no less a Democratic icon than Teddy Kennedy rushed to the podium to declare that, in terms of civil rights, the Bush administration "talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk." But there was no news media condemnation of Kennedy and the Democrats for playing the race card. Only complaints that President Bush and Republicans are racially insensitive. Put this in the CROSSFIRE with Democratic Congressman Chaka Fatah of Pennsylvania, who joins us from Philadelphia, and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: Congressman, thank you for joining us from Philadelphia. I'll start with Mr Castellanos here. Alex, I'm going to play you a piece of tape I ran earlier in the program, in case you missed it, from the press briefing yesterday. An ABC News reporter asking a question of the spokesman of the president of the United States. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MORAN: ... question about his feeling about fairness in America. When he was 18, he got into Yale University, which had and still has a policy of granting very special preferences to children of graduates like him. Is that reference OK? To give him a leg up but other preferences are not? FLEISCHER: I think you're getting... (END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: Why is it OK for Yale to let George W. Bush in because his daddy went there, but it's not OK for Michigan to help poor kids who are black or Hispanic? ALEX CASTELLANOS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: There are a lot of factors that universities consider. And if someone has a special relationship and heritage and the university means something to him, a lot of universities use that for black and white students. BEGALA: But if your parent is this big money Eastern elite named Bush, that's OK. But if your heritage is Hispanic or African- American, no? CASTELLANOS: No. But the issue... BEGALA: He's a hypocrite on this issue, isn't he, Alex? CASTELLANOS: Of course not. BEGALA: He ought to send back the diploma. CASTELLANOS: No. The issue in the University of Michigan case, which we all know, is that they have a policy that says you get 20 points because of the color of your skin. But say you get a perfect SAT, you only get 12 points. Now we live in a country that -- where the civil rights revolution has succeeded. Where we've changed a lot of hearts and minds. And most people in America believe you should not get a job or admission to a university because of the color of your skin. This is racial profiling in education and it's wrong. We have a chance to do something about it. And that's what this president is trying to do. NOVAK: Well I have a great deal of admiration for Alex, Congressman Fattah. But I think -- I want to give you somebody who said what he said, but I think he said it a little better than you did, Alex. Let's listen to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: At the undergraduate level, African-American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African-American, Hispanic or Native American. To put this in perspective, a perfect SAT score is worth only 12 points in the Michigan system. (END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Is that fair, congressman? REP. CHAKA FATTAH (D), PENNSYLVANIA: What is unfair, Bob, is that every person who has said what the president just said is purposely misleading the American public about what the affirmative action program is at the University of Michigan, how it works, and the fact that it's very similar to every other college, selective college in the country. It does not provide 20 points just because you're an African-American. The president, maybe he was misinformed. But nonetheless, is misleading the American public. And I would invite the fact checkers at CNN, maybe they can do a service. Tell us whether or not this is a quota system, and tell us whether or not you get 20 points just for being an African-American. NOVAK: I think you do, Congressman. FATTAH: It's not true. It is absolutely misleading. Let me finish my point, Alex. Alex, if I could, let me just finish my point. There are 13 different categories under which you could get these 20 points. You could be from a rural area. You could be economically disadvantaged. You could have some special contribution to make. You could be a member of a group that had been discriminated against for admissions at the university in its past. That is, an African-American or Hispanic. The point that needs to be made -- excuse me. The point... CASTELLANOS: Well actually, Congressman, you need to study this a little bit more, too. FATTAH: The president went on to say that this was a quota system. NOVAK: Let Alex respond. FATTAH: Can I finish my point? CASTELLANOS: What they actually did, Congressman, is reverse -- as soon as I can help you with it. Because what they actually did is reverse engineer quotas. What they had was a... FATTAH: Quotas are illegal in this country. CASTELLANOS: They did. And so the University of Michigan still wanted to have their quota. They changed the word to "target" and "goal," and said how can we get there? Ah-ha, we'll give points on race. That's wrong. That's racial discrimination. BEGALA: How many points did Bush get from Yale. You never answered the question. How many points did Bush get from Yale? (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Let's not talk about Bush, Paul. BEGALA: How many points -- Bush did not qualify to get into Yale. Some qualified kid was turned away so that the son of a moneyed elite could go there . And now he's saying that other kids shouldn't get a leg up because they're black or Hispanic? (CROSSTALK) FATTAH: Bob, if I could just say something here. NOVAK: Go ahead. FATTAH: The first thing we need to do as a nation is provide an equal educational opportunity K to 12 before we turn away affirmative action at the college level. Kids aren't born and then show up. (APPLAUSE) FATTAH: Kids are not born and then show up for college admission. NOVAK: Maybe Congressman, if you would... FATTAH: Let me finish my point, please. Kids are not born one day and show up for college admissions the next day. They go to public education systems in our country in which everyone, including President Bush, has reminded us are unequal and unfair in terms of poor youngsters getting a quality education. NOVAK: Go ahead, Alex. CASTELLANOS: Then clearly, Congressman, would you support equal opportunity in education in lower schools? In other words, letting parents of poor kids, middle class kids, black or white, would you support letting their parents choose the best school for them with their tax dollars, public or private? Would you support real equal opportunity in education? Republicans do. FATTAH: Alex, if you would let me answer the question, I will. I would support -- I'm going to be filing a brief in this case. And I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to take notice of its decision 50 years ago in Brown (ph), where it said that wherever a state is going to provide a public education they have to do so equally. What we need to have is quality public education K to 12, and then we won't have to have a situation where kids who don't get qualified teachers, don't get updated textbooks, get the most crowded classrooms and President Bush recognizes this. The federal government says there are 8,000 failing schools, but yet we want to somehow not provide any opportunity for these kids to go to college. NOVAK: Chaka Fattah, I want to get back to the University of Michigan. I want to ask you this. There are people who filed a lawsuit, white people -- there are white people in the world who have been abused and discriminated against, and they -- can you imagine, can you sympathize, empathize with them that they have applied for school, their marks are very high, they have great attainment, they're very good on all kinds of testing, and they're knocked out because they're white? Is that fair? FATTAH: When Jackie Robinson was allowed to play major league baseball, was there some other ball player who happened to be white that could suggest that because he was allowed to play, they were not allowed to play? Did you support Jackie Robinson being able to play major league baseball? NOVAK: Nobody was better than Jackie Robinson. (CROSSTALK) FATTAH: But the point here is that in order to include those people who have been excluded, you want to suggest that somehow of the thousands of seats at the University of Michigan that the ones that displaced these particular plaintiffs happened to be the African- American or Hispanic kids who, for in our country unfortunately by law for a long time could never even go to school. BEGALA: Because -- this is why I have a whole lot more respect, Alex, I love you personally. But for your position and for Mr. Novak's position if you all would acknowledge what is evident. Mr. Bush didn't... NOVAK: Well let's lay off the damn point. BEGALA: See, you won't do it. NOVAK: Well it's ridiculous. You turn everything into a bashing of Bush. BEGALA: No Bob. NOVAK And I'm getting sick of it. I am really getting sick of it. BEGALA: No Bob. You reap -- I'm sick of you saying -- crying alligator tears for some kid who doesn't get into Michigan. NOVAK: I'm not crying alligator tears. I have some sympathy for them. But we're sick of this Bush bashing. (CROSSTALK) FATTAH: Bob Novak, can I just ask you one question? CASTELLANOS: And I have a question for you. Will you acknowledge, Paul, that the Democratic Party has become the party that is for racial discrimination in this country? BEGALA: Certainly not. CASTELLANOS: In other words -- no it's all right if Democrats do it? It's all right if some people do it? BEGALA: How about the Republicans in Texas calling... (CROSSTALK) CASTELLANOS: The Democrats have the same position on taxes. Tax cuts are all right for some people, but if you work too hard or make too much money, no, no, no. We'll decide who gets what. Why is the Democratic Party becoming the party of discrimination and the Republican Party the party of equal opportunity? BEGALA: Why does he support references for the elites, but not for minorities? Why does he? CASTELLANOS: Oh, come on, Paul. There's no such thing. BEGALA: There's no such thing? (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Last word from Congressman Fattah -- go ahead. FATTAH: What we need is an equal opportunity for young people to learn. The Supreme Court should order that as the law of the land in K to 12, and then you would not need affirmative action at the time that kids apply to college. (APPLAUSE) BEGALA: That will have to be the last word. Congressman Chaka Fattah from Philadelphia, thank you very much. Alex Castellanos, here in our studio in Washington, thank you, as well. Well one of our viewers thinks he has a reason why everyone should stop picking on the confederate flag. We will let him fire back at us next. Stay with us. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) NOVAK: Time for "Fireback." When the viewers "Fireback" at us. The first e-mail is from Paul Dickey of Arp, Texas. You know Arp, Texas? BEGALA: Arp? NOVAK: "Why do we pick on the Confederate flag? If we eliminate the confederate flag, what from the past will we choose to pick on next? Perhaps George Washington. Paul, like most Texans, you're a little behind the curve. We're already picking on George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, every white man in the 19th Century is under attack by the left." BEGALA: This is not from the 19th Century. This was placed on this flag in 1956 to protest the integration of the public schools. It was wrong, it was racist. Georgia corrected it under Democrat Roy Barnes, and god bless him for doing it. And he lost his job because of it. Karen Bassey of North Carolina writes: "Why does Bush just hit and run? Like, yesterday, he gives this little speech on affirmative action, and instead of answering questions, he runs. Why is that?" Well I think you saw in that last segment, he can't answer the question about... NOVAK: Can I respond? BEGALA: You respond and then I will. Fine. NOVAK: Oh yes. He doesn't answer the questions because he gets these left wing tilted questions from people like Terry Moran of ABC, which comes straight out of the left wing play book. BEGALA : It's a legitimate question to ask the president, who today opposes affirmative action, if it was fair for him to receive it when he was a college student. That's a fair question. NOVAK : On a later (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Dan Stewart of Hickory, North Carolina says, "Hope you enjoyed your dinner in Winston-Salem last night. How about those Wake Forest Demon Deacons?" I had dinner -- he spotted me, obviously. I had chunky barbecue at Pig's Pickin' (ph) in Winston-Salem. The meal was great, the game was bad, my beloved Maryland Terrapins went down. But in the ACC we have two games; we'll get Wake Forest and College Park next month. BEGALA: Now that's a sport worth watching. And the Maryland Terrapins, of course, Bob's team. The defending national champions. David White in Houston, Texas writes about a loser sport: the NFL. "Regarding Begala's statement that 'The NFL is boring and only wife beaters and gamblers watch the games,' just a quick question to the audience. Could Begala possibly be a bigger dork?" NOVAK: Well, no, you couldn't. Because, I'll tell you, I don't beat my wife, you know that. And I don't gamble anymore. I never beat my wife. And I love NFL football. BEGALA: No, I could be a bigger dork, like these losers who sit and watch the NFL on Sunday afternoons. NOVAK: I watch it and I'm not a loser. Question? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I don't think you're a dork. But I do think there's been a lot of talk about this smoking gun theory. And I do want to say that I'm not looking for a smoking gun. What I'm looking for is an itchy trigger finger . And it's the future that matters. I just don't see any immediate threat in these eleven empty warheads. NOVAK: Well I couldn't agree with you more. And I'll tell you this, I think this country's going to be in trouble if that's the kind of evidence we're going to cite for an act of war. I really believe it. BEGALA: I agree. And the most troubling thing I heard today was Scott Ritter saying that when you deploy this many troops -- we're about to have six aircraft carriers and maybe 200,000 men and women there -- that when you deploy that many, it becomes a critical mass. And nothing stops a war from happening. I pray to god that that's not the case. From the left I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE. NOVAK: From the right I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2003 CNN SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:00 January 17, 2003 Friday Transcript # 011700CN.V20 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 9179 words HEADLINE: Polls Show Bush's Approval Rating Up, Percent Who Will Vote For Him Again, Down; Interview With David Frum; Mayor Bloomberg Vetoes Ban on Cell Phones at Public Performances GUESTS: Dee Dee Myers, Susan Molinari, David Frum, Phil Reed, Gary Shapiro BYLINE: James Carville, Robert Novak HIGHLIGHT: While recent polls show Bush's approval rating is up, others show that the percent of people who will vote for him in 2004 is down. Mayor Michael Bloomberg vetoed a ban on cellphones at public performances. BODY: ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: there's a lack of money. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Frankly, I believe we should have cut across the board (ph). (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: But there's no lack of controversy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Misguided budged policies, the dismantling of affirmative action policies... (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: And did anyone mention a possible war? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And obviously the discovery of 12 chemical warheads is proof that he has not disarmed. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Tonight we're inspecting for the week's political winners and losers. Plus the man who wrote the line... (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... axis of evil. (END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: And New York City tries to tell mobile phone users shut the cell up. Tonight on CROSSFIRE. Live from the George Washington University: James Carville and Robert Novak. (APPLAUSE) JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE tonight. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) week's political winners and losers. Although with President Bush's crowd in the White House, you can probably guess where poor people and minority college students ended up. Also, the speechwriter who came up with the great line and now he's written a controversial book. But first, our very own controversial lines, the best political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." Everyone's talking about Iraq. We're told President Bush finds it, "troubling and serious" and that U.N. weapons inspectors discovered 12 empty chemical warheads in Iraq on Thursday. Saddam Hussein gave a speech accusing the United Nations of seizing on the discovery as a pretext to launch a U.S.-led war on Iraq and warning that any attackers would, in his words, "commit suicide at the walls of Baghdad." Secretary of State Colin Powell told a group of journalists that by the end of this month the U.S. will have a pervasive case that Iraq is not cooperating with weapons inspections. But Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (UNINTELLIGIBLE) President Bush for giving the U.S. the image of a belligerent bully. Byrd says that that's because the Bush administration is ready to pick on a weak state like Iraq, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE) North Korea. ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: You know, James, only Bob Byrd, the old Ku Klux Klanner from West Virginia, could turn me into a hawk on Iraq. But I really do hope that the president comes up with a little better evidence than these empty canons. CARVILLE: I would like to point out that Bob Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1930s. NOVAK: And he still believes in it. Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge was approved today by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee for confirmation as secretary of homeland security. No Democrat voted against him. How could that be when the Democrats are intent on attacking the president's record on homeland security? It amounts to saying Tom Ridge is a good guy but his policies are terrible. The top Democrat on the committee, Senator Joe Lieberman, claimed that America is as vulnerable today as it was on September 11, 2001. Governor Ridge strongly denied Senator Lieberman's claims, and then Lieberman praised Ridge and voted for him. That's politics in Washington, folks. CARVILLE: Well you know this homeland security thing was an idea bred by a Clinton commission championed by Senator Lieberman who introduced it, voted out of committee nine to eight on a straight party line by all the Democrats. So they ought to be doing this because of the Democratic initiative and the Democratic idea. And I salute the Congress for having this, and I hope Governor Ridge does a good job. NOVAK: Maybe that's why... (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Maybe that's why I'm suspicious. James, there's a developing story out in Modesto, California. Kim Peterson, a spokeswoman for the family of missing pregnant woman Laci Peterson is holding a press conference. (BREAKING NEWS 19:03) KIM PETERSEN, FAMILY SPOKESWOMAN: The family knows that the police are doing their job and understand that they can't tell them everything, and that's fine with them. They don't want to do anything that can hurt their chances of finding Laci. And they won't give up until they do so. Her family cares a lot about Scott's family and what they're going through. They have become very close to them throughout this nightmare. They can't begin to express how thankful they are to everyone who has been supporting them through this horrific ordeal. Their family, friends, volunteers, the Modesto community, the police department, as well as people around the world who have sent them cards and e-mails as well as their prayers. You'll never know just how much your support is helping them. They ask that all of you continue to search for Laci, and they'd like to put out an appeal to farmers and those who live in rural areas to continue to search their fields, barns, et cetera, as well as to hunters and fishermen and also realtors who may be showing empty homes. We ask that you would search all of those areas looking for Laci. We would ask that you respect the family's privacy and allow them some quiet time together as a family. Laci's family will not be conducting any interviews until possibly the end of next week, unless there's a major break in the case prior to that time. We ask that all of those... NOVAK: If there are any further developments, we'll be back with this story in Modesto, California -- James. CARVILLE: All right. One of the things Americans revere in our leaders is the ability to do the right thing when times get tough. To stand up to adversity. Well, in this time of war and economic uncertainty, President Bush has shown just what kind of moral fortitude he has. He's standing up to poor people. "The New York Times" reports that the Bush administration is giving managed care organizations permission to limit emergency-run medical services to Medicaid patients. This reverses a Clinton era regulation that says hospitals had to treat Medicare patients in a situation "a prudent lay person would regard as an emergency." Now some 20 million poor people could find themselves turned away from the emergency door. The administration calls this move, "to facilitate more appropriate use of preventive and primary care." Yes, that's right. Let's call it what it really is, a sin, a moral sin. Somebody is going to have to face their maker for this. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: That's more anti-Bush than... CARVILLE: You're right, it is. NOVAK: Wait a minute. Do you mind if I finish my damn sentence? That's more anti-Bush demagoguery, which I'm getting sick of and so is the rest of the country. CARVILLE: You're going to hear a lot more of it tonight. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Congress was supposed to be in recess next week, with many members ready for overseas junkets. So Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist did not make friends today when he ordered the Senate back into session Tuesday to continue work on appropriations left over from last year. Why did he do it? Because Democrats are slow walking this new session of Congress, trying to prevent Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress and the presidency from getting much done. That explains the delay in organization of committees and now the lugubrious pace of considering appropriations. However, Bill Frist is showing he's wise to the game of stall ball. CARVILLE: Well I'll tell you one thing. These Republicans are in a hurry, and the deficit has already gone to $350 billion a year. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it will go to $500 billion a year. Who cares? Charge it to the next generation. NOVAK: It's smaller than the first year of the Clinton administration. CARVILLE: That's right. The first year of the Clinton administration he inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus. You people are -- what you're doing is entirely wrong. Rich old people are passing the general on to -- bill on to young people, and that's wrong. NOVAK: That's class warfare. CARVILLE: No it's generational warfare. NOVAK: That's all you know is class warfare. CARVILLE: It's my generational warfare. It's my generation fighting young people, and I'm with these young people, who you are trying to tag the bill with. Every now and then a man does something that shows he's just as smart as we are to have to do a CROSSFIRE NEWS ALERT on it. Today's genius is Paul Krugman, who had the brains to document in today's "New York Times" the sheer hypocrisy of the Bush administration's position on the deficit inflicted on this country. And basically proving it shows that the president's bean counters have track records of saying you can't cut taxes and increase spending and pay off most of the government's debt all at the same time. Then he shows how they changed they're tune and are now telling us it's good to run up the budget deficit as far as the eye can see. Krugman sums it up this way, and I quote, "As a drunk it's to alcohol what the Bush administration is to deficits." (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: James, Paul Krugman is a disgrace to the economics profession. The only question I have for you, is he on your payroll? Is he on your payroll? CARVILLE: Let me tell you something. He's won the most prestigious award a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He is on the faculty of Princeton University, he was on the faculty of MIT. He was on the faculty on Stanford. He is probably the brightest economist in the country today. NOVAK: He's a left wing (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And it's a shame he's on the editorial pages of "The New York Times." Former Democratic Senator Carol Mosley-Braun says she will not, not try to get back her Senate seat in Illinois next year. Instead, she's thinking of running for president. That's a double dose of bad news for Republicans. First, Senator Mosley-Braun, who's six years in the Senate was tainted by scandal, would be the weakest Democratic challenger against Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, who defeated her in 1998. Second, as an African-American, her presidential candidacy would hurt the Reverend Al Sharpton, who is being counted on by Republicans to mess up Democratic southern primaries. I wonder who talked Carol into this strange move and what's in it for her. CARVILLE: I wish I could take credit for it. But I can't. Today, the "Washington Reporter" has a report on something it calls "a perfect melt of politics, television and celebrity." Something it calls "one of the best entertainment values in town." This is usually where we put pictures of what we're talking about. But in this case, you're looking at it. All this praise is for CROSSFIRE, as done live five nights a week right here at the George Washington University. The paper also notes while there has been no (UNINTELLIGIBLE) commentary during the show, some of the funny exchanges take place off camera during the commercial breaks. In this case, you can believe what you read in the papers. We want you to keep watching, of course. But we really want you to come here in our live audience. And I want to invite all of our viewers to the biggest nightly event in Washington history. In Washington history. That's it. It's like that. In Washington history. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: There's just nothing like it in Washington. CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Washington history. I think there have been some pretty big nights in Washington history that haven't been CROSSFIRE nights. NOVAK: Coming up: the hostage crisis the liberal media managed to miss this week. Oh it was only the United States Senate held hostage. Later, the author of an insider's account of the Bush administration. But just how much of an insider was he? And then hold the phone. You won't believe who just told big brother to back off. (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARVILLE: Welcome back. The Bush administration can really be proud of itself this week. The president socked it to poor people, minority college students, and the victims of incompetent doctors, while at the same time serving notice the budget deficit is out of control and who knows how high the numbers will go. What a great week. But let's pick out some specific winners and losers. Here are former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers and former New York Congresswoman, Republican turned strategist, Susan Molinari. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: Dee Dee, the Democrats were dancing around town drinking champagne, smiling, because there was a poll that showed the president was all the way down to 50 something percent. Today, I've got bad news for you. The Gallup poll -- we'll put it up there -- "How is Bush handling his job as president?" Approve: 61 percent, disapprove: 34 percent. He's still popular, isn't he? (APPLAUSE) DEE DEE MYERS, FMR. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You know he gets a good approval rating. He has ever since 9/11. Before 9/11 it was a different story. But the most interesting thing in the last series of polls was the number of people who said that they were certainly going to vote for President Bush again in 2004. And that number was as low as 39 percent, which is very interesting. And yes, that heartens Democrats. There's no question about it. And as we see, there are already six getting ready to challenge him. And as James pointed out, they seem to be -- the administration seems to be giving Democrats a lot of fodder these days. SUSAN MOLINARI, FMR. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Except I've seen in every poll that I've seen, where there's a match up against the Democrats who have declared their intentions to run for president versus President Bush, we're kicking their... CARVILLE: But he can't get over 50. NOVAK: No, that's not true. He gets way over 50 on a head to head. You give them the real... (CROSSTALK) MYERS: Well that's true. But these Democrats haven't had a chance to introduce themselves to the country yet. You all know how it works. MOLINARI: No it only worked with Howard Dean. I think that's the one that gets a pass on that. CARVILLE: Congresswoman, let me -- because I think this president is doing an awful job, but let me show you something that was written by Ron Brownstein in the "Los Angeles Times" and I want to get your reaction to it. "Old Question: What did you do during the war, Daddy? New Answer: I pocketed a large tax cut, honey. Pause. And then I passed the bill for the war on to you. That is essentially what this generational transaction established by the sweeping tax cut President Bush proposed last week." Congresswoman, why in the middle of a war am I -- oh, I'm sorry. "The proposal commits Bush to a goal unprecedented in U.S. history: cutting taxes in war time. Forget the guns and butter; Bush is now offering bombs and caviar." Why are my children paying for my bombs and caviar? (APPLAUSE) CARVILLE: Why are we at war with the young generation? MOLINARI: Because, first of all, I find this so ironic, because up until 1994, when the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, it was the first time in a generation where people even talked about balancing a budget. Now the Democrats have the religion (ph) on balancing a budget. CARVILLE: Congresswoman Molinari, the Clinton 1993 budget was the most dramatic budget cutting -- was the most dramatic thing in... NOVAK: Now budget cutting. CARVILLE: Why are we at war with these kids out there? I'm on these kids' side. I'm not on rich people's side. (APPLAUSE) MOLINARI: Well then, you know what? Maybe you should have talked to President Clinton a little more carefully during the time he was president and told him that he shouldn't have been basically starving the United States Army to a point now where we have to go into deficits to prepare this country and its military. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: It was a Republican Congress in there. The Clinton long-term budgets were bigger than that. Don't blame President Clinton for your fiscal irresponsibility. (APPLAUSE) MOLINARI: The fact is... CARVILLE: What you're doing is you're giving tax cuts... NOVAK: James. MOLINARI: We're giving you a tax cut. And if you want to take it to save for your children, isn't that the American way, instead of the government saying we're going to take care of your kids for you? MYERS: You always talk about we trust the people. You trust the government. We trust the people. You trust the rich people. You want to give all the money back to people who already have plenty of it. And then you say class warfare. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: I'm the only person here who is interested in the news instead of all this screaming and yelling. MYERS: We think this is news. NOVAK: It's news. There's something that's been happening -- happened in the last nine weeks that just wasn't reported. I have been around a long time. I have never seen anything like it, where the Democrats refuse to let the Republicans take over control of the committees. I want to put up on the screen what Rick Santorum, a member of the leadership of the Republican Party in the Senate said. He said, "They have reached new levels of obstruction. They've been balking something that's never been balked in the history of the Senate, and that is appointing people to their committees." That's inexcusable. MYERS: First of all, it seems like the Republicans have taken perfect control of the Senate to me. And second of all, which party was it that shut down the entire Congress -- which party was it First it was over some budget-related (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But then it was over the then speaker of the House not getting the seat he wanted on Air Force One. MOLINARI: No that is not true. MYERS: Yes it is true. NOVAK: Can we possibly... (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Wait a minute. James, control yourself. MYERS: I agree it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. MOLINARI: That is not what happened. And what happens now is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Democrats in the Senate -- do you know the Democrats in the Senate this January were calling hearings when the will of the people put the Republicans in charge? NOVAK: Let her talk. CARVILLE: I just want to ask her a question. How can you sit here and look at the American public, when you voted to shut the government down twice to stop paying people in the middle of Christmas and accuse the Democrats of being obstructionists for holding up the city for two days. I mean, it's so brazen it's beyond comprehension, Congresswoman. MOLINARI: Because -- I was there. It had nothing to do with the fact that Newt Gingrich didn't get a seat on Air Force One. That trivializes what was a very important national debate between the two political parties. (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Why are we debating the shutdown of the government eight years ago? It's ridiculous. Let's move on. Dee Dee, we had a news event. Senator Joe Lieberman came out, announced his candidacy for president. And "The Washington Post," which is a great newspaper -- don't you think it's a great newspaper? MOLINARI: I read "The New York Times," but, yes, I do think "The Washington Post" is a great newspaper. NOVAK: They run my column. And here's a comment on him. He is leading the polls, the Democratic polls now. And "The Washington Post" said "Many of his fans were surprised to see him during the heat of the campaign appear to modify past positions on tort reform, school vouchers, the entertainment industry, privatization of Social Security and affirmative action -- issues on which he once struck a course that was at variance with that of his party's liberal wing." So I have this question for you: Is Joe Lieberman a hypocrite, or is the real Joe Lieberman a prisoner in a sanitarium in Upstate New York? MYERS: Oh, come on. You know it's a long tradition in American politics that the guy running for vice president lets the guy running for president drive the train. That was certainly true, and Senator Lieberman was Al Gore's running mate. Now he's his own man. And you know what, it's up to him to establish his positions... NOVAK: Is he going to back to -- is he going to be the old Joe or the new Joe? MYERS: You know what? Ask Joe Lieberman. I am not his press secretary. NOVAK: Well what do you think he ought to do? MYERS: I think he ought to speak his mind, tell the American people what he believes. NOVAK: Which way should he go? MYERS: To tell the American people what he thinks. And I think he's perfectly capable of doing that, Bob. And I think he would be a very good candidate. CARVILLE: I would point out that this editorial board of "The Washington Post," which consistently supported Ken Starr, who (ph) let "The Washington Post" off the hook, doesn't care about anything but giving cocktail parties. This crowd doesn't care about anything other than getting invitations to cocktail parties and trying to act like they're in the in crowd. They've got about that much courage in them, this whole outfit. NOVAK: I think it's a great newspaper. CARVILLE: It's a fine newspaper. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I don't have anything against the newspaper. What they have is a mealy mouth editorial page that all it wants to do is please rich people. That's its whole mission in life. Congresswoman Molinari, I want to put out something -- no, it's generational warfare. I'm taking up for young people. I'm taking up for young people who want a chance in this world. I want to show you about young people. Cost per student and affirmative action. D.C. public schools: $6,419; Montgomery County: $9,302. Where President Bush went, Andover boarding tuition: $28,500 a year that gets spent on them. Tell me... (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Did the government spend that? CARVILLE: Tell me what merit got George W. Bush into Yale? Affirmative action -- he says we've got to do everything merit based. What merit got him into Yale? MOLINARI: There was a point that he, in fact, had decent grades. (LAUGHTER) CARVILLE: He got into Yale. NOVAK: Can I explain. MOLINARI: Was he on the low rung of people who got into Yale? No, absolutely not. CARVILLE: Did he take a test? NOVAK: Wait a minute. Can I explain what's going on here. Can I explain? (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: What's going on right now is that there is... MOLINARI: George Bush (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the majority of people who went to Yale and got accepted. MYERS: I don't think that's true. NOVAK: Can I just explain what's going on? We are having a serious debate in this country over quotas. And the president of United States is against quotas. And so Paul Begala and James Carville and these vicious people who make up this Bush-bashing clique, they say, what we've got to do is bring up how did George Bush get into Yale? That is so ridiculous. MYERS: But you know what's ridiculous? You using the word "quota" in conjunction with the University of Michigan and Michigan's policy. It is not a quota. Explain to me how it is a quota. NOVAK: Because they want to get so many blacks in. MYERS: They don't have a numerical target or a numerical goal. Explain to me why it's a quota. It's a very cynical... CARVILLE: When Bush got into Yale he couldn't pass gas. OK? And now he wants these schools to try to get some diversity. They're sending $6,400 a kid in D.C. And I don't understand why -- what is it about black people going to college that so offends these guys? MOLINARI: You know what offends them is to just make the initial assumption that black people going to college need help to get into college. That is offensive. (APPLAUSE) CARVILLE: You know what, a lot of them do because they're funded by the property tax. And you know good and well that the average money that they spend on poor kids in school -- you're damn right. (CROSSTALK) MYERS: Let's go to -- here's Secretary Colin Powell on this issue. "Some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helps a few thousand black kids get an education. But hardly a whimper is heard from them over affirmative action for lobbyists..." (CROSSTALK) NOVAK: This was at the convention? MYERS: ... "preferences and special interest at the Republican National Convention in 2000 (ph)." Thank you. MOLINARI: And Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, who (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Stanford University is against quotas. But, in fact, implemented a policy to increase African-Americans... (CROSSTALK) MYERS: The majority of African-Americans, including Republicans, are for affirmative action. NOVAK: We had another presidential candidate raise her head this week. I can keep a straight face on this. Carol Mosley-Braun, the scandal-tainted senator from Illinois is going to run for president. And so they asked Donna Brazile, who was the Gore campaign manager, also an African-American, a friend of Carol, and they asked, what do you think of her with all these weaknesses? And this was the endorsement. "Every candidate starts out with strengths and weaknesses. Her flaws should not rule her out." I like that. (CROSSTALK) MYERS: That was very diplomatic. If Carol Mosley-Braun wants to get into the race, go for it. It's a short campaign. NOVAK: Isn't that what I said before? This is a plot by the Democratic secret government that they're trying to hurt Al Sharpton so Al Sharpton won't take votes in the southern primary. Isn't that right? CARVILLE: They're losing... NOVAK: Let her answer. (CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: ... about generational warfare. And losing the argument (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by George Bush's preferential treatment getting into Yale. But (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about Carol Mosley-Braun. MYERS: It's too silly to answer. Democrats -- first of all, you know the Democrats -- you always accuse us of not being able to organize a one-car funeral. And now you're saying there's a secret plot to -- come on. NOVAK: We're out of time. You got more time than anybody, Carville. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. The "axis of evil" is one of the most memorable lines so far from the Bush administration. In a minute, we'll ask the man who helped write it. Later, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg ends up on the side of personal freedom. Would you believe it? (APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARVILLE: One of the hottest books in the country right now is called "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush." It's number 27 on amazon.com's best seller list to author David Frum, presidential speechwriter, giving credit for the line describing Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "axis of evil." Despite his title, reviewers have noted the book is only generally complimentary. Frum calls the president an "impatient and quick to anger, sometimes glib, often uncurious. And, as a result, ill informed." He all says the Bush White House has a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of really high powered brains. Let's pick his brain for a while. Please welcome to the CROSSFIRE David Frum. (APPLAUSE) NOVAK: David, I would like to quote from earlier in your book, page four. We're going to put it up on the screen. Talking about how you got the job (UNINTELLIGIBLE) speaker, you said, "I had no connection to the Bush campaign or the Bush family. I had no experience in government and little of political campaigns. I had never written a speech for anyone other than myself. And I had been only a moderately enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush." "I was not excited about Bush. No, it was worse than that. I strongly doubted he was the right man for the job." Now, on top of that, you are a Canadian citizen. The summer of the election year of 2000 you were writing for newspapers. What you didn't have in this book David, you never tell how in the world did you get there in the White House? DAVID FRUM, AUTHOR, "THE RIGHT MAN": You know, it was one of these serendipitous things. They invited me. I don't know all their thinking. I think they thought I could do a job for them. I tried to do my best. That's how I got there. NOVAK: Well, you know, do you think perhaps that you are not on the top of their hit parade? We just had a quote from Ari Fleischer. You know Ari Fleischer. He said -- and we'll put that up too. He said -- they asked you about the book, "The Right Man." He said, "I will add it to the list of books I don't have time to read." (LAUGHTER) FRUM: Well Bob, I know you read it because modesty has prevented you from mentioning you're rather a major character in the book. NOVAK: We'll talk about that later. What do you think about that reaction from the White House, though? FRUM: I think that they are not a book reviewing service. It's not their job to provide endorsements or disendorsements. CARVILLE: Let me ask you something, David. If they're not a book reviewing service, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) sometimes I've written books and people (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Has anybody from the White House hosted a book party for you? FRUM: Not in this frugal White House. No, they're not going to do that. CARVILLE: What have people sort of -- because I have heard some rather -- fine, if you want to be uncomplimentary to Bush, I'm not going to get in your way. But I have heard some uncomplimentary things about your book from Republicans. Have you heard the same thing? FRUM: Opinions are mixed. This is a book, though -- it's a candid book. And people who don't like candor, people who don't want to hear it the way it is, they may object to that. But it's a generally respectful book and it's a supportive book by somebody who does believe that, in the end, George Bush did prove to be the right man. CARVILLE: Bob, go ahead. NOVAK: Mr. Frum, with all due respect, I don't think your book would be getting much attention if it weren't for one incident. And that was that you identified yourself as the principal author of the "axis of evil" line in his State of the Union speech last year, where he identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the axis of evil. You originally said the axis of hatred and it was changed to axis of evil. And your wife, you say, e-mailed it to a few friends. I heard it was to several friends. We're not going to quibble on that. But isn't that -- did you -- was this all taking this job and exposing yourself as the writer of the president's lines? Was that an effort to publicize this book? FRUM: No. When I went to the White House, I actually had a lot of doubts that this would be a successful administration. And I was not going to write about it if it were not a successful administration because I would not have been able to bear it. I was very emotionally worried about the state of the Republican Party in the 1990s. That's the thing that motivated me to take the job. I don't know why they asked me. That's why I took it. And had it not worked, it would have been painful to me. But you're absolutely right. My wife did write an e-mail to some friends. It wasn't (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And a number of journalists who object to the president's strong foreign policy made a very big deal of it. You were one of them, as a matter of fact. And so, in a way, I may owe it all to you. NOVAK: And a serious thing, more important than whether you get a best selling book, I hope you get a best seller like everybody I know to have best selling books. But do you kind have trouble sleeping at night wondering wh