Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Walz and Vance Focus on Policy in U.S. VP Debate; Iran Launches Its Largest Attack Ever Against Israel; Israel Strikes Hezbollah Targets in Beirut Suburbs. Aired 4:30-5a ET

Aired October 02, 2024 - 04:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[04:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What's fundamental here is that steady leadership is going to matter. It's clear, and the world saw it on that debate stage a few weeks ago, a nearly 80-year-old Donald Trump talking about crowd sizes.

SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When did Iran and Hamas and their proxies attack Israel? It was during the administration of Kamala Harris.

WALZ: Senator Vance has said that there's a climate problem in the past. Donald Trump called it a hoax.

VANCE: We have a historic immigration crisis because Kamala Harris started and said that she wanted to undo all of Donald Trump's border policies.

WALZ: How is it fair that you're paying your taxes every year and Donald Trump hasn't paid any federal tax in the last 15 years?

VANCE: Kamala Harris has already done it because she's been the vice president for three and a half years. She had the opportunity to enact all of these great policies, and what she's actually done instead is drive the cost of food higher by 25 percent.

WALZ: When Donald Trump said, I've got a concept of a plan, it cracked me up as a fourth-grade teacher because my kids would have never given me that.

VANCE: Honestly, Tim, I think you've got a tough job here because you've got to play whack-a-mole. And you've got to pretend that Donald Trump didn't deliver rising take-home pay, which of course he did. You've got to pretend that Donald Trump didn't deliver lower inflation, which of course he did, and then you've simultaneously got to defend Kamala Harris's atrocious economic record.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR: Just a few highlights from the U.S. vice presidential debate between Kamala Harris's running mate Tim Walz and Donald Trump's running mate J.D. Vance. They made their pitch to voters in their only debate just five weeks out from election day. It was a notably amicable and polite debate, a rarity for modern American politics, though there were a few contentious moments.

Joining me now, Natasha Lindstaedt, a professor of government at the University of Essex. I think I can be impartial in saying it was quite refreshing to see a presidential debate or election debate which was largely focused on policy.

NATASHA LINDSTAEDT, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX: Yes, I would agree with you. And I think that's what a lot of viewers were saying that this was a remarkably civil debate where they weren't engaged in these horrible personal attacks and they were nice to one another. They were shaking hands. They were introducing one another to each other's wives. And at times they even conceded certain points and they seemed to try to understand one another.

But I think that one of the reasons why this was the case is because Donald Trump wasn't on the stage. I mean, he has completely shattered our norms of decorum and decency and has really made politics all about these very vicious personal attacks, as someone recently calling Kamala Harris mentally disabled.

[04:05:00]

So I hope it's a return to more civility. But you can see what happens when you have just two politicians from different sides of the aisle debating about policy. People actually do like it.

FOSTER: I'm wondering how much difference these debates actually make if there isn't a big headline that comes out of them, because there doesn't seem to have been, does there? There wasn't that big soundbite that has gone viral, for example, combined with the fact that many of the U.S. networks were more focused on what was happening in the Middle East.

So how many people watched it? How much will it change things?

LINDSTAEDT: These are all good questions, and normally these vice presidential debates don't really matter that much, even when it is lopsided. And this one was a little bit more even. People could say Vance won the first part of the debate. Walz was much stronger in the second half of the debate.

But usually the second part of the ticket doesn't matter much. I think people are already pretty hardened in their views.

I think it was good for Vance because his approval rating was around 34 percent. It's incredibly low, and he presented a slicker, more palatable image of himself. He was definitely able to articulate the Trumpian views, but he wasn't able to really answer any questions. In fact, I've never seen someone so slick and smooth in not directly answering questions.

What I think this debate did was amplify the support for Republicans, if you're already Republican, and the other way around for Democrats. I think both sides were probably very pleased with how the debate went.

FOSTER: Some of the Republicans who are cheering Vance's performance say his great achievement was actually to flesh out some of Donald Trump's policies so people could understand them better, which was missing from the debates that Donald Trump's been involved in.

LINDSTAEDT: That's right. I think he was very articulate. He obviously is a strong debater and he's able to clearly communicate Trump's vision. He's also able to deflect and not answer questions, and he never seemed particularly rattled by anything. So I'm sure, as I mentioned, on the Republican side, they're probably thrilled about his performance, and he was probably able to resonate with people who are already meaning Trump or are already Republican voters.

Whether or not he was able to change the mind of independent voters, I don't know, because he came across to some people as overly smooth and trying to gaslight people on issues of whether or not Trump would support an abortion ban, whether or not Trump was the one who fixed Obamacare.

And particularly on the last issue, the last part of the debate, when they were talking about January 6th, Vance was saying that there was a peaceful transfer of power on January 20th. I think for people who care about what happened on January 6th, they're not going to buy what Vance was saying about the peaceful transfer of power there.

FOSTER: Everyone's assuming, of course, that Walz was pulled in as the vice presidential ticket to appeal to constituencies that Harris couldn't appeal to as effectively, white men specifically. Do you think he managed to do that, specifically if they can swing that vote? That'll be good news for the Dems, wouldn't it?

LINDSTAEDT: I think he managed to appeal to people who are already leaning towards Harris. I don't know if he was going to change anyone's minds with his debate performance. He's likable. He always does come across as likable. His strong suit isn't really debating.

It is when he's on the campaign trail when he's meeting and connecting with voters. That's where he is really the most comfortable. On the debate stage, he started off a little bit rough. He got better as the night went on and he was able to clearly communicate that vision.

But again, I think the reactions to this debate are going to be incredibly partisan. If you already like one candidate or the other, then you're going to be happy with how they performed. It's not clear that this debate performance was able to convince someone that is undecided.

FOSTER: OK, thank you so much, Natasha, after that big debate last night.

When we come back, Israel vowing revenge after Iran's massive missile attack. But Iran is warning things will only get worse.

We'll have more on our top story from Tel Aviv with Becky next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, where the time is 20 to 12:00 in Tel Aviv, here in Israel, 20 minutes before midday. More on our top story this Wednesday.

Israel vowing retaliation and revenge after Iran launched its largest ever aerial attack on the country. Iranian officials say 200 missiles were launched at Israel on Tuesday, calling it a successful operation.

The U.S. and Israel both disagree, saying the attack was defeated and ineffective. Regardless, Israel says it will respond with force.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Iran made a big mistake tonight and it will pay for it. The regime in Iran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and our determination to retaliate against our enemies. We will stand by the rule we established.

Whoever attacks us, we will attack him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Well, meanwhile, we've just learned that the Israeli military says it is sending an additional division to participate in the ground invasion there against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, despite previously saying this would be a limited operation.

Well, Ronnie Chatah is the host of the Beirut Banyan podcast, and he joins me live from the Lebanese capital. There are many, Ronny, in this region who say it is a region that is now in a full-fledged war.

And given what we are witnessing, it is very hard to argue with that, not least from the perspective where you are, which is Beirut in Lebanon. Lebanon does feel like it is the current battlefield in this war, albeit other things going on around. What's your perspective at this point?

RONNIE CHATAH, HOST, THE BEIRUT BANYAN PODCAST: I think you summed it up quite well. And if I could take it over a longer stretch of time, I think Lebanon has been the region's preferred battlefield for the better part of over five decades. And unfortunately, in 2024, 34 years after the civil war ended and 24 years after the Israelis left Lebanon once more in Beirut.

It's a terrifying night. The sounds of bombs and echoes thundering throughout the city. Of course, watching the news as everyone is around the world, seeing ballistic missiles being flown from Iran to Israel.

But in Lebanon, the strikes continue. The southern suburbs were hit again.

[04:45:00] And this is days after Hassan Nasrallah was killed in southern Beirut, the war continues. And I sense, unfortunately, none of this is in Lebanon's hands. And when I say that what I mean is there is no Lebanese voice at the table.

Unlike July and August 2006, when the Lebanese state tried to insist on Lebanese interests, trying to bring Hezbollah from the brink and trying to negotiate a ceasefire deal, which is 1701, which we talk about day in, day out.

Unfortunately, this time Lebanese are in Beirut, Lebanese are in Lebanon, and the diaspora at large around the world are simply watching and waiting and unfortunately expecting more escalation to come.

ANDERSON: Ronnie, what's the risk at this point?

CHATAH: The risk, I think, is twofold. And I'll narrow it to Lebanon, with your permission. The first, obviously, is that civilian casualties will rise.

The Israelis have begun their invasion, albeit they keep calling it a limited scale invasion. It is yet to be determined what the Israelis will do once they effectively cross the border and civilians getting killed in Lebanon, even with Hezbollah being a fairly unpopular party in this country, does bring Lebanese back to the gravity of what we refer to as resistance.

Meaning once the Israelis are in, it's not necessarily the re- legitimization of Hezbollah as Iran's paramilitary force, but it's something else. It's that Lebanese have the right to defend themselves by force.

And I sense this is very familiar territory. This goes back, obviously, to the 1970s as well, before Hezbollah existed, when the Palestinians and the Israelis are fighting it out in Lebanon and Lebanese too.

So that's the first risk, is that this conflict continues and Lebanese veer back to something that is less state-oriented and more sub-state.

The second factor, in my assessment, is that we're witnessing in real time the end of Lebanon. And without serious international engagement and not just words that are tossed around, meaning it's OK to say everyone wants 1701.

My understanding is that Hezbollah at some point would have accepted 1701 under duress as surrender. That's what they did in 2006. And it's fine if the prime minister says it too, or for that matter, the French foreign minister, or the Americans, or whoever, perhaps even Iran, and Israel. That's fine.

But without international engagement, that gives the Lebanese state some political cover. And when I say the state, not the failed institutions, not the collapsed state, I mean the Lebanese army, to actually regain what it lost long ago, which is full authority. Sorry, just to add this, full authority over its geography. Without that type of international action, you will see the end of Lebanon.

ANDERSON: You're certainly suggesting here that effectively Lebanon has been hung out to dry. And you name-check the U.S. and France, other European countries. Of course, in the past, there was support for institutions, not least the Lebanese armed forces by Saudi, which has been absent of late, as has other GCC countries.

One thing that really has changed significantly, and I just wonder whether you want to just close with this, is the absence of Syria and Assad, once an arbiter in Lebanon. Let's be quite frank here. What do you make of the near silence from Assad and the Syrian regime in all of this?

Of course, the presence of Hezbollah on the ground in defense of Assad and his government during the past decade or so has proved significant in his staying in power. We are hearing an almost absent narrative from Syria at this point.

How do you read that? And what does this say about the sort of tectonic sort of power shift in the region at this point?

CHATAH: I appreciate this question, because this allows me to take us back in time as well. When Syria once occupied this country, and there was a paramilitary force, albeit much smaller, called Hezbollah. There was Iranian influence, albeit micromanaged by Syria.

And this also is a group that could not do more under Syrian tutelage. I think it's often mis-framed in that Syria and Iran, Hezbollah and Assad are one in the same. That's not true.

[04:50:00]

The Syrian regime was the determining force in Lebanon until 2005, when the Syrian army and intelligence left Lebanon under pressure following the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. This is nearly two decades ago. Since then, Hezbollah has gradually inherited what Syria left behind in Lebanon. But of course, it's not just that.

2011, 2012, and for the better part of nearly 13 years in total, Hezbollah fighters left Lebanon to fight on behalf of the Syrian regime and protect it. Protect it from falling. This is Lebanese soldiers, Lebanese militiamen in Syria, battling out a war that has nothing to do with Lebanon, but the survivability of the Syrian regime.

My understanding of Bashar al-Assad today and the Assad regime at large is that like most thuggish rulers in this part of the world, the regime's survivability trumps everything else. And Bashar al-Assad's survivability may, in the long term, require a certain distancing from Iran's security needs and perhaps reclaim some lost leverage via the conflict -- vis-a-vis the conflict we're seeing unfolding right now.

Now, perhaps it's premature to see what the Syrian regime can do in its current state, but long term, long term, and if I can wrap it up with this sentiment, the whole reason we have 1701 and before that, 1559, but I'll focus on 1701 here, is that the Lebanese army -- Lebanese army alongside UNIFIL, an expanded UNIFIL force, can request international assistance, not just to monitor the southern border with Israel, but to also monitor the eastern and northern borders with Syria. And what is that meant to do? Prevent the type of tutelage we once saw in Lebanese history for nearly three decades return.

ANDERSON: I'm going to have to push you to finish your thought here, yes.

CHATAH: That's the whole key to this resolution and the spirit of the resolution. Thank you.

ANDERSON: And thank you for joining us. It's fascinating to listen to you. I know that you have deep insight into what is going on in this region and we do wish you all the best. Ronnie Chatah is in Beirut. Thank you -- Max.

FOSTER: Becky, still ahead. Helene becomes the second deadliest hurricane in the U.S. mainland in the last 50 years. We'll have the latest on the recovery and President Biden's plans to visit those areas affected.

[04:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: The death toll continues to rise in the United States from Hurricane Helene. At least 162 deaths have now been reported across the southeastern U.S.

President Joe Biden believes the recovery costs will be in the billions and is asking Congress to approve more disaster relief, saying that states must have every available resource. The president is set to take an aerial tour of western North Carolina in the coming hours and visit with first responders in both North and South Carolina.

Almost 850,000 customers across those two states still don't have electricity, according to PowerOutage.us. The World Central Kitchen has served more than 64,000 meals to residents in four states and Helene is now the second deadliest hurricane to hit the U.S. mainland in the past 50 years, behind Hurricane Katrina, which killed more than 1,800 people in 2005.

Dock workers at U.S. ports on the eastern and Gulf coasts are on day two of their strike and in Miami, members of the Longshoremen's Union took to the streets to make their case. Workers are demanding higher wages. The U.S. Maritime Alliance offered a nearly 50 percent increase over six years, but it wasn't enough to stop the walkout. The economic impact could be significant and cost the economy billions of dollars, depending on how long this strike lasts.

A wide variety of goods could face shortages. Port workers who stayed on the job during the pandemic say their dedication deserves to be rewarded. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TYREKE WELLS, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION: When the world went home, they couldn't go nowhere, the Longshoremen, we worked these docks night and day. Night and day, non-stop, no matter if it rained, cold, to move the world, bring all the medical supplies, all the PPE. They didn't even have masks in this country, but we did everything we could. All our members went to work and we sacrificed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: The White House says President Biden and Vice President Harris are monitoring the strike but Mr. Biden says he won't force an end to the walkout using presidential authority.

Thank you for joining me here on CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Max Foster in London. CNN "THIS MORNING" is up after the break.

[05:00:00]