Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Is the White House Hyping Terror Threats?; Who Will be Homeland Security Director?; Martin Sheen Comes to Washington
Aired June 12, 2002 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Candy Crowley in Washington. Is the Bush administration using scare tactics to sell its plan to shake up homeland security?
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm John King at the White House. The president says the killers are still lurking and aides say Mr. Bush is just telling it like it is, not that there isn't occasional second-guessing.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm Bill Schneider in Washington. I'll tell you who has confidence in America's Catholic bishops, as they gather for a historic meeting on sex abuse by priests.
KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kate Snow on Capitol Hill, where I talked to the acting president today, Martin Sheen, about a performance here on Capitol Hill today. Was it about politics or about star power?
CROWLEY: Thanks for joining us. Judy is off today. We want to go right to the Pentagon for the latest on a U.S. special operations aircraft that crashed on takeoff in Afghanistan. Here is our CNN senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.
Jamie, tell us the latest.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Candy, the latest information we have is that there are at least some survivors of this crash of an MC-130 special operations transport aircraft. It apparently crashed on takeoff from a forward operating base in Afghanistan, about 80 miles southwest of Kabul.
There were 10 people on the plane, seven Air Force crewmembers and three passengers -- it was not a fully loaded plane -- when it crashed shortly after takeoff. Again, the Pentagon will not confirm that there have been any deaths as a result of this accident. They are saying though that they know there are some survivors now that rescue crews have reached the scene.
The MC-130 is a special operations version of the standard C-130 cargo plane. It's usually used to transport special operations troops through the battlefield. There are several different models of the plane. We're not sure of the specific model involved in this one. Of course, they don't know exactly what caused it, but it is believed to have been an accident. A U.S. central command says there's no indication of hostile fire. They are withholding the names of the service members involved.
They were believed to be members of the U.S. Air Force, at least the seven crew members, would be Air Force crew members, because that's an Air Force plane -- Candy.
CROWLEY: Jamie, any idea where the plane was headed? Was it going -- obviously not going on a mission. There weren't that many people on it.
MCINTYRE: Well, it was part of the ongoing operations in Afghanistan. You know, that whole area is still considered to be a war zone. There's always the potential of hostile activity. But we don't know what kind of mission it was on.
Fortunately the plane was not fully loaded with people or this accident could have been much worse.
CROWLEY: Senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, thanks.
Now we turn to the latest legal action and political maneuvering in the war on terror. Within the past hour, lawyers for dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla have been asking a federal judge to throw out a material witness warrant for her client. But the judge says that warrant is moot now that Padilla has been transferred to military custody and is being treated as an enemy combatant.
In a Boston courtroom, lawyers for accused shoe bomber Richard Reid have been arguing that an alleged confession Reid made after his December arrest should be thrown out. The defense said Reid had been injected with sedatives and did not give full consent to questioning.
Meantime in France, police today arrested five people connected to the investigation of Reid. And in Virginia, a quick decision today by the federal judge presiding over the trial of alleged September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
The judge agreed to a prosecution request to deny Moussaoui access to sensitive aviation security information shared by the government as evidence in the case. And as if those cases don't drive home the continuing threat of terrorism, President Bush pressed the point again today as he met with his homeland security advisory council.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're under attack. That's the way it is. The more we love freedom, the more we espouse values that are decent and honorable, the more we welcome religion in our society, open political discourse, the more this enemy is going to try to hit us.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CROWLEY: Also today, another warning by Attorney General John Ashcroft, about the risk of new attacks. Speaking in Switzerland, Ashcroft said al Qaeda's large terror training operation clearly seemed to have been designed with more than September 11th in mind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We do not believe that al Qaeda maintained camps in which thousands and thousands, perhaps 10- to 20,000 people, were trained, so that they might send 19 individuals to the United States, or 20 individuals to the United States, for one day, albeit a very tragic day, of activity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: Our senior White House correspondent, John King, is here with us now. John, it comes as no surprise to me, and I know to you, that as the president pushes his new homeland security plan and these warnings come up, that some people are connecting the two, saying that these warnings are a little dire and are really intended to give the president some oomph for passing homeland security. I imagine the White House thinks that's not so.
KING: Not a surprising debate in Washington. But when we brought that up in the briefing today, Ari Fleischer, the press secretary, reacting quickly and with some scorn. Ari Fleischer saying -- quote -- "these very few people who want to make such an outlandish political accusation represent the most cynical, among the most partisan, and they're not to be taken seriously."
But the administration says the president talking almost daily now about the warnings, the continuing threat. They say it's one of those debates that they just simply cannot win. On the one hand, they say the president believes it is critical to keep the Congress focused, to keep the American people sensitive to the threat.
Some would argue if the president keeps saying it and nothing happens, the American people will become desensitized. The administration says the president simply calls it like he sees it. And they do understand from time to time, there will be political questions, if not criticism.
WOODRUFF: And yet, John, I take it that the White House does seem to think that having the attorney general announce the dirty bomb case out of Russia may have been not to their liking.
KING: Yes, they do think that. They don't like to talk about it publicly, because this is an administration that prides itself on loyalty. This is an administration making clear, even though there is this little dust-up, everyone here, including the president, stands behind the attorney general.
The initial plan on Monday was to have deputies -- the deputy attorney general and the deputy defense secretary -- announce the arrest and the transfer of the suspect from the Justice Department to the Defense Department here in Washington. Senior justice aides thought it was so important that Ashcroft should do it himself. And it's not so much what the attorney general said. He was traveling in Russia at the time. He made the announcement from a dark studio. Aides here say it came across on television as perhaps too alarming and too ominous.
And they wish, they wish in hindsight, that they had stuck to the initial plan, to have it announced here in Washington. So some second-guessing, some conversations back and forth about perhaps better to handle these things in the future. Administration officials say yet again, another example of how this is all so delicate.
You have to be very careful about what you say. And no matter what you say, someone will probably criticize you.
CROWLEY: John King, thanks so much.
Now to the crisis within the Catholic Church. American bishops are gathering in Dallas to vote on proposals to deal with sexual abuse by priest. At this hour in Dallas, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Wilton Gregory, is holding a news conference. We are monitoring his remarks and will break in if he makes any news.
Right now we want to bring in our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, with new poll numbers. Bill, how does the public feel the church is handling this problem?
SCHNEIDER: Badly. And on that point, Catholics and non- Catholics are in agreement. Three-quarters of Catholics say the church has done a bad job of dealing with the problem of sexual abuse by priests. Not much different from the 80 percent of non-Catholics who feel that way.
And it's been getting worse. The number of non-Catholics who say the church has done a bad job went from 66 percent in March to 74 percent in April, to 80 percent in May.
CROWLEY: Now, one of the things they're discussing down at the bishop's conference is this sort of zero tolerance policy. That is, you know, one mistake, you're out. Where do Catholics stand on that?
SCHNEIDER: Catholics and non-Catholics agree on that point too. Seventy percent of Catholics say priests found guilty of even a single instance of sexually abusing a young person in the past should be removed from the priesthood. That's almost as high as the 79 percent of non-Catholics who support that policy of zero tolerance.
CROWLEY: So it sounds to me like there's a lot of agreement sort of between Catholics and non-Catholics. Is there any area of disagreement?
SCHNEIDER: Yes, and it has to do with this conference of bishops that's now going on. Sixty percent of Catholics expressed confidence that the bishops will deal appropriately with this problem. More than 60 percent of non-Catholics disagree. CROWLEY: Is it just that non-Catholics are more skeptical? What explains the difference?
SCHNEIDER: I think most Americans believe that if you want to change the institution, you have to change the people. After all, if the voters lose confidence in leaders, they vote them out.
But the Catholic Church is not a democracy, so non-Catholics can't understand how the church can change, as long as the same people are in charge. Catholics have seen changes. The lack of mass, meat on Fridays, Vatican II. Catholics believe that the U.S. hierarchy will listen and can change.
The question is, will that be true of the Vatican, which has to ratify any changes made by bishops?
CROWLEY: Bill Schneider, thanks very much.
As the bishops prepare to begin their meeting, the "Dallas Morning News" reported today that about two-thirds of the top U.S. Catholic leaders have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working. We are joined by Brooks Egerton, who co-wrote the "Dallas Morning News" report.
Brooks, thanks very much for being with us. I'm interested first, what sort of reaction you've gotten to this.
BROOKS EGERTON, "DALLAS MORNING NEWS": I've been busy with my phone ringing all day long. All kinds of reaction from mostly people who are very interested in the subject matter and want to know more. So we've been sending them to our Web site at dallasnews.com, where there's a fully searchable database.
CROWLEY: Now, has there been anything that you could separate between Catholic, sort of official Catholic reaction? Have you been in touch with any of the bishops? Have they called?
EGERTON: I haven't been dealing with them. I have been doing television all day instead of being with the bishops.
CROWLEY: Well, we appreciate it anyway here, for that. I want to talk to you also about, are there degrees of culpability that you found? I mean, are some of these cases that one could understand, as in OK, there was no civil suit, there was no criminal suit, that the witness wasn't willing to step forward, and something that was sort of just flagrantly ignoring something?
EGERTON: There are definitely ranges of behavior and ranges of allegations and different amounts of willingness of people to come forward. However, it's often hard to tell what really happened, in some case because the church hierarchy actively discouraged the people who were complaining from going to the police. So there wasn't an independent arbiter of what really happened.
CROWLEY: And did you find that you got -- when you -- in your reporting I saw that you did contact a number of bishops and ask for their reaction. I was surprised by the diverse reaction. It seems to me that you got -- on the one hand, people going, well, what did you expect them to do? I mean, the bishops did the best they could with the information. And they you had others that said this is not defensible.
EGERTON: Yes, one of our bishops here in Dallas was the person who said that there are things that we found and things that he knew, indeed already, that some of his brothers had done, that he could not defend, and he wouldn't try to do so.
One thing in particular we talked about was the practice of continuing to reassign people, not after one complaint, but in some cases after five or six. Five or six confirmed abuses, admissions of guilt, repeated diagnoses of sexual disorder.
He said he couldn't defend it. It is very hard to explain. There's been a reliance on therapy experts, and yet sort of increasing evidence that maybe they didn't know what they were doing. Or at any rate, their diagnoses weren't bearing out. And people would go back in the ministry and re-offend.
CROWLEY: Brooks Egerton of the "Dallas Morning News," a lot of food for thought as the bishops open their conference down there in Texas. Thanks for joining us.
EGERTON: Thank you.
CROWLEY: What's it like to be a congressman and a president point man? Up next, Representative Rob Portman tells me whether his alliance with President Bush is a blessing or sometimes a burden.
In our "Taking Issue" segment, the damage created by Bill Clinton's team on their way out of the White House. Does a new report say too little or too much?
And actor Martin Sheen signs up for a tour of political duty on Capitol Hill and tells our Kate Snow why he thinks he can make a difference.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: As the president and Congress begin to consider a new department of homeland security, the White House will look to Congressman Rob Portman for guidance. Portman is an Ohio Republican who serves as chairman of the GOP House leadership. He's also a key liaison between the White House and Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
It seems to me that one of the first questions I have to ask you is, you're described as the first friend on the Hill. Is that a burden or a blessing?
REP. ROB PORTMAN (R), OHIO: I don't know if it's true or not. It's a blessing to be an ally of George Bush, because basically, he agrees with the agenda the House Republicans want to put forward, and we agree with him.
CROWLEY: Always?
PORTMAN: Not always. Sometimes we have our differences. But when you look at what we've been able to get through, the tax relief bill, the education reforms, the trade promotion bill, energy independence bill...
CROWLEY: Does he look to you -- I mean, do you see yourself as pushing the House agenda? Or do you see yourself as pushing the Bush agenda?
PORTMAN: I see myself as sometimes between a rock and hard place, which is not know which one. No, I generally try to push the House agenda. But make sure that the House understands the administration's point of view. And again, it's working incredibly well.
We've got a five-vote majority in the House, as you know. And yet, on almost every issue we've been able to stick together and stick with the president's plan. The tax relief bill would be the best example of that.
CROWLEY: Homeland security. You thought tax cuts were hard.
PORTMAN: Yes.
CROWLEY: It seems to me, homeland security, where you've got all these committees and jurisdictions and powers, not just of the various agencies, but up here. Have you had some meetings about this with your fellow House Republicans? What do you think? What do you hear is the worst problem right now?
PORTMAN: Well, as you know, in Washington sometimes turf is more important than ideology or partisanship. And this will involve shaking up the government as well as shaking up the jurisdictions of the committees that are in the Hill.
So it's not easy. But it's the right to do. And I've been pleasantly surprised that most of my colleagues have embraced it for that reason. They know it's necessary. They know protecting our constituents is the single-most important thing we can do.
So, so far, so good.
CROWLEY: What's good about it so far?
PORTMAN: The reaction has been very positive. And that's the good news. The difficult news is it will take a while to get done, because it does involve some very complicated changes in how the Congress deals with these departments and agencies.
But I think it's on track. I think the momentum is there, and we ought to move quickly on it.
CROWLEY: It seems to me that we've heard sort of two things that don't quite go together, contradictory things. One is, gee, that's another big bureaucracy, do we really need another big bureaucracy?
And, hey, how come the CIA and the FBI are not in it? Do you hear those two things?
PORTMAN: I do. That means we've probably ended up in just about the right place. It's too big or it's not big enough. I think the reality is that we need to figure out a way to take 100 different government agencies a have them work better together.
And so it is a matter of consolidating and streamlining hundreds of different accountable agencies into one truly accountable agency, that really focuses on this issue. The CIA and FBI issue is a difficult one. But those are agencies that have very distinct responsibilities.
CROWLEY: I want to go back to your relationship with George Bush, because we're running out of time here. Tell me about that relationship. Do you talk to him every day? Do you talk to him once a week? Does he call you and say, you know, I really need you on this?
Are you his sounding board? Are you his listening ear?
PORTMAN: I'm probably one of many, many sounding boards he has on the Hill and off the Hill, including his father. Now, I attend meetings with our Republican leadership group at the White House on about a weekly basis. I'm in touch more with the staff.
CROWLEY: Last question: would you rather work on this side of Pennsylvania Avenue or that side of Pennsylvania Avenue?
PORTMAN: I think this side is the best place for me. This president has been very successful in his legislative agenda so far and obviously, in his response to the horrific events of September 11th. He's shown the American people what a leader really is.
But ultimately he will be judged, I think, by what we get done over the next two, and I hope the next six, years. In terms of legislative accomplishments, Medicare reform, Social Security reform, fixing our tax system. Some of the big issues.
And that's where I think I can be most helpful, right here on the Hill, helping to promote that agenda.
CROWLEY: Congressman, so we'll come up and talk to you in another couple of years.
PORTMAN: I look forward to it.
CROWLEY: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
An update on the crash of the U.S. military plane in Afghanistan, next in our "Newscycle." Plus, new developments this afternoon in the case of Elizabeth Smart. Police identify a man the say could have information about the missing girl.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Among the stories in our "Newscycle," a U.S. special operations aircraft crashed on takeoff today in eastern Afghanistan. Seven Air Force personnel and three passengers were on board.
The plane was an MC-130, similar to the ones seen here. Pentagon officials say there is no indication the turbo prop plane was brought down by hostile fire. There was no word on possible casualties, although Pentagon officials confirm there are survivors.
The largest wildfire in Colorado history has burned its way to within 35 miles of Denver. Officials say it's possible the blaze could grow from its current 90,000 acres to more than 200,000 acres. So far more than 5,000 people have been forced to evacuate their homes.
There are new developments to report in the case of 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart. Utah police have identified a man they say could have information about the girl's disappearance. Standing by for us with the latest is CNN's Frank Buckley in Salt Lake City.
Frank, what is the latest out there?
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Candy, at this point, police are looking for this man for questioning. They are not describing him as a suspect. They are not saying he is the abductor but they want to talk to him.
Let me show you his picture. He is 26 years old. His name is Bret Edmunds. He's described as a transient who is living in a green 1997 Saturn car with Utah license plates. He is wanted on two outstanding warrants, including assault on a police officer and fraud.
Police believe that he is the man who was seen early one morning a day or two before Elizabeth Smart's abduction, sitting in a car cruising in the neighborhood around the Smart residence. He was spotted by a milkman.
Police went back to that neighborhood yesterday. As they said, they were narrowing their investigation to those who had access to the neighborhood. A local TV station, KUTV, has interviewed that milkman who said that he spotted the suspicious car and man in a car. Here is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE MILLER, MILKMAN: I was reading an article about the little sister and what she described the person. The guy that I had seen in this car actually fit that description. He had a white cap, like a baseball cap, kind of. And he fit the small profile, low demeanor, sitting in the seat, not a big person. And so I thought, you know, while I was there, I would just feed this information to the authorities and just let them go with it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BUCKLEY: And police, in fact, investigated this report last week. They were telling us at the end of last week that the license plate that they had was a 266 and then it had a series of three letters.
Now they believe that the license plate that they were looking for all along is 266-XJH, belonging to this 1997 green Saturn with Utah plates. The number that the milkman gave them was different than the 266-XJH. That plate that the milkman originally gave them did not come back to any vehicle registered in the state of Utah.
But this person, in a green Saturn, has been spotted here in the Salt Lake City area. And so now police want to talk to him -- Candy.
CROWLEY: Frank Buckley in Salt Lake City. Thanks, Frank.
With us now, Margaret Carlson of "TIME" magazine, Tucker Carlson of CNN's "CROSSFIRE." Now to go from a really heart-breaking story and get back to something we can all talk about, which is politics.
Top of the hour we talked to John King about the whole business with Ashcroft showing up from Russia and, you know, issuing a rather dire warning of what the dirty bomber might have been up to. We had today the president talking about, you know, the terrorists are everywhere.
And then I wanted to -- something showed up in the Marine (UNINTELLIGIBLE) which is, "the American president strums on our nerves to help his popularity and retain power." So the question is out there. And you know, people are connecting these dots.
That is, that there's all this sort of talk of terrorism, and the president is trying to put through this security plan. Is there a link, Tucker?
TUCKER CARLSON, "CROSSFIRE": Well, it's a pretty heavy charge for a Marine (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to make, I think, that this is a "Wag the dog" scenario. I mean, it's weird coming on the heels of criticism last week, that this White House didn't do enough to warn people of possible terrorist threats.
So there really are two simultaneous arguments that conflict with one another, both coming from Democrats. I do think it's interesting, though, that the White House has essentially cut Ashcroft off at the knees when he's traveling in Hungary. He's out of the country and a number of White House officials, on and off record, stood up and said, you know, for whatever reason, he overstated this case about the dirty bomber. It makes Ashcroft look terrible, and there's something going on. CROWLEY: First of all, is there something going on? And I want to say that, isn't Tucker right? You can't win for losing on this subject.
MARGARET CARLSON, "TIME" MAGAZINE: No, you're too hot, you're too cold. It's hard to get it just right.
Ashcroft did exaggerate, at least according to the technical people that have described the dirty bomb, as to what the dirty bomb, how much danger we are in if one does go off. But, as far as the terrorists, we just don't know. And it seems to me that saying that they're out there and they want to kill us and whatever is not an exaggeration of the situation that we are in.
CROWLEY: But is it hype? I think that we sort of sensibly know that there are people out there that want to do us harm. It is hype, I guess is the question, to sort of promote policy?
M. CARLSON: Maybe the number of times you say, it seems like hype. But nothing's changed. And, in fact, the more we learn, the more heightened I think the danger is, because the network is still there. We haven't gotten to the heart of al Qaeda. Defeating the Taliban has not gotten us necessarily safer.
Ashcroft, on the other hand -- and I think he was cut off a bit -- is so interested in expanding the powers of the Justice Department to detain people that his agenda may be slightly different than the Bush one. And that may be why....
CROWLEY: Well, and also, I mean, this is a department that has gotten pummeled. So, isn't it nice to come out and say, "We got one"?
T. CARLSON: And, moreover, the whole purpose...
M. CARLSON: Even if it is not a big one.
T. CARLSON: Well, the whole idea of creating a Cabinet-level position for homeland security is that it is in response to this imminent threat out there. So, it is natural that the administration would make the case, we need this because there is a threat. So, they talk about the threat. There's nothing weird about that.
CROWLEY: Let me move you on to a somewhat lighter topic, a GAO report on whether there was vandalism in the final hours of the Clinton administration. We're going to take you back a little while.
Let me tell you what Bob Barr had to say about what happened: "The Clinton administration treated the White House worse than college freshmen checking out of their dorms."
I just want to contrast it with Jennifer Palmieri, who is the spokeswoman at the DNC: "The real scandal here is how much time and money the House Republicans and the White House wasted during a time of war, all in a failed effort to tarnish the Clinton administration."
So, it's sort of politics as usual. And I would never expect to see Bob Barr and Jennifer Palmieri agreeing. But what happened here? Did the Clinton administration do anything different from any other exiting administration?
M. CARLSON: Well, in issuing its report, finally, the GAO says this may be what has happened in the past.
The Clinton administration diminished what happened. And Ari Fleischer and the Bush administration exaggerated what happened. And it was somewhere in between. It strikes me that $19,000 worth of damage is beyond a prank. It may be that they're paying government prices to have the things fixed in the category of the $600 toilet seat. But if it was anywhere near $19,000, that crosses a line into serious damage.
T. CARLSON: Well, I think that...
CROWLEY: Tucker, you get one line, because I have run us up against the time.
T. CARLSON: Well, I would just say, the real scandal here is that the Clinton administration was not required to put down a deposit when they moved into the White House. Obviously, in retrospect, that probably would have helped.
CROWLEY: Tucker Carlson, Margaret Carlson, the Carlson twins -- not really. They're not related, OK?
T. CARLSON: Thank you, Candy.
CROWLEY: Thank you very much.
M. CARLSON: No mail. No more mail.
CROWLEY: The "Inside Buzz" on Capitol Hill is coming up next. Are lawmakers confident that Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge will be tapped for a promotion to the Cabinet?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: On Capitol Hill, consideration of the president's plan to create a new Homeland Security Department has become a top priority. And that is generating plenty of "Buzz."
Our congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl is with me.
Jonathan, when I talked to Congressman Portman, he said, "Well, it is going to take a while to do this." How long is a while?
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'll tell you, we had the first of many sales calls up here by Tom Ridge, who is the guy that is trying to shepherd this through Congress.
He talked to members of the House of Representatives on the floor of the House today in a closed session. It went on for about an hour and a half, with many members bringing up very specific concerns about things like border security and whether the FBI should be in the new agency, and on and on.
And, at one point, Zach Wamp, a Republican from Tennessee, got up and made this impassioned plea, saying, "Let's not set any artificial deadlines." As you know, Dick Gephardt has said: "Let's get this done by September 11."
Wamp, echoing the opinion of many Republicans and many Democrats, said: "Let's not pretend we can get it done by then. Let's hope we can at least get it done by the end of the year, but this is big task."
And then Ridge raced right back to the White House to meet with committee chairmen, key committee chairmen in the House and the Senate, for yet another meeting on this. One of those chairmen, Joe Lieberman, says that he hopes to start hearings on this in his Government Affairs Committee possibly as soon as next week, with the lead-off witness being Tom Ridge.
CROWLEY: Jonathan, since you're talking about Tom Ridge, let me ask you this. It has always been assumed that he would be the secretary of this new Cabinet, whenever they get it created. What are you hearing about that?
KARL: Well, a very interesting ally for Tom Ridge in that respect is Robert C. Byrd. Robert C. Byrd, of course, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, who has been complaining about Tom Ridge all year on his unwillingness to testify, talked to Dick Cheney on Thursday, the vice president, and says that he thinks that Tom Ridge is the guy to be secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security. But Tom Ridge is not saying that he is even interested in the job or that he will get it.
Another person that there's a lot of speculation about is Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York. I spoke to J.C. Watts up here. And he said, if Rudy Giuliani wanted the job, that he would hold the paper. Somebody else can hold the pen. Sign him up right now. Rudy Giuliani, though, we called his office today. His office said that he is simply quite happy sticking in the private sector. He's making a lot of money there. And he, at this point, has not been talked to about the job and is not interested in it.
One other name, though, that I want to throw at you that has been speculated on about here is Bill Frist, senator from Tennessee, very close to President Bush and the Bush White House. We caught up with him. Frist told CNN today that he has not been talked to about taking the job of secretary of homeland security, but if the president asked him that he would certainly consider it, although he added he's quite happy right where he is in the United States Senate.
And, of course, Candy, you don't even have a department yet, so it's kind of hard to talk about who the secretary is going to be.
CROWLEY: It is, but it's kind of fun.
Jon Karl keeping his ear to the ground -- thanks, Jonathan.
KARL: Sure.
CROWLEY: The national focus on homeland security has taken attention away from many of the president's other programs, including the faith-based initiatives he talked about before September 11.
Judy Woodruff caught up with the new head of the faith-based program, Jim Towey.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Jim Towey, thank you very much for joining us today.
JIM TOWEY, DIRECTOR, FAITH-BASED & COMMUNITY INITIATIVES OFFICE: I'm very happy to be with you.
WOODRUFF: Now, you've been at this job four months. The president seems to be spending the vast majority of his time on the war on terrorism. Are you confident that what you're doing, this whole idea of faith-based community initiatives, is still a priority for the president?
TOWEY: Oh, I think it is. I think it's very close to his heart.
When he talks about welfare reform or when he's giving various addresses with members of Congress, one of the first things he'll talk about is the faith-based legislation. And he sees it connected to the war on terrorism, because he said one way for us to respond was to strengthen America from within.
And a lot of times, that means reaching out to our homeless and our hungry and our addicts and people that often are forgotten when you talk about America and terrorism. So, no, I think the president has been very focused on the faith-based initiative. And it's kind of a pet project of his.
If it weren't for his leadership, it wouldn't be going anywhere, I don't think.
WOODRUFF: As you know, when the president -- when this legislation that is now in the Senate was first talked about, there was a component to it, charitable choice, very important. That's not in there anymore in the Senate version. Haven't you lost sort of the guts of what the president originally wanted in this legislation?
TOWEY: Not at all, because you have protections under existing civil rights laws that have existed for 38 years, which provide religious organizations an exemption when it comes to how they hire. And so charitable choice was an expansion on existing civil rights laws. So, those laws remain in place. Protections are in place.
No, I don't feel the president has lost anything. I think what he is focused on is: Here are some real-world barriers that groups face, if they have a religious name, if they have governing articles that are limited to a certain faith. To be a Baptist -- Baptist organizations want to hire Baptists -- and to say you can do that and still compete for federal money.
WOODRUFF: So, you are not personally disappointed that this is not in there?
TOWEY: Oh, not at all. I think the charitable-choice debate, Judy, is going to take place in this country for years to come, because we are going to always have to make sure that we're respecting our Constitution, separation of church and state.
We are also going to have to recognize that we have our poor and many programs that are most effective are faith-based operated. And we have to find ways to get them further engaged and expand these programs, because they are reclaiming lives. We're excited that President Bush's legislation looks like it's going to get its day in the Senate now. People a year ago declared it was dead, and it's not.
And I think that's because, out in America, these relationships between United Way and faith-based groups and county and state governments have already been woven together. So, I think President Bush's legislation, with the leadership of Senator Lieberman and Santorum and J.C. Watts and Tony Hall, you have got bipartisan support. So, it looks like(r)MD+IT¯ (r)MD-IT¯its time has come. So, I'm hoping it gets through.
WOODRUFF: You've named all the key players.
Jim Towey, thanks very much.
TOWEY: Thank you, Judy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: Checking now the headlines in "Campaign News Daily": Two Republicans are headed for a runoff in the primary race for South Carolina governor. Former Congressman Mark Sanford came out on top in yesterday's primary with 39 percent of the vote. Since no candidate got more than 50 percent, a runoff is scheduled for June 25. Sanford will face Lieutenant Governor Bob Peeler, who ran a very close second, with 38 percent of the vote. The runoff winner will face incumbent Democrat Jim Hodges in November.
The crowded primary races for Maine's 2nd District House seat came down to the wire. On the Democratic side, Michael Michaud appears to have squeaked to victory over five other candidates. At last check, Republican Kevin Raye led Tim Woodcock by about 400 votes with 99 percent of the ballots counted. But Woodcock has not conceded defeat.
The Arkansas secretary of state predicted low voter turnout yesterday and she was right. The people you see here could be honorary residents of Garland County, Arkansas, because, at two precincts in that county, not a single person showed up to vote. Only one statewide primary runoff was on the ballot. Statewide turnout was a paltry 7 percent.
Think your know your stuff when it comes to politics? Well, match wits with Jeff Greenfield when we return. Among Jeff's questions: What major-party nominee received the fewest electoral votes for president? Hint: CNN was not around to cover his campaign.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: We think the INSIDE POLITICS viewer is a cut above when it comes to political knowledge.
Now prove it against our own Jeff Greenfield.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Call me madcap, but I have got a feeling that a lot of you who watch this broadcast find American politics compelling. And a lot of you probably pride yourself on your political knowledge.
OK, let's see just how much you know or don't know.
Question one: How many times has the Democratic Party put a Californian on its national ticket? Well, the two parties have treated Californians very differently. Republicans have often turned to that state. The party's very first nominee, John Charles Fremont, in 1856, was a Californian. So was Herbert Hoover. So was Earl Warren, Dewey's 1948 running mate. So was Nixon and Reagan. But the Democrats? The answer is never. Of course, if Governor Gray Davis wins reelection this fall, he may have a notion to change that.
Question two: Who was the first Republican to serve two terms as vice president? Well, Abe Lincoln was the first Republican elected president. The party pretty much dominated the White House for nearly half a century. So, this answer may surprise you. It was Richard Nixon in 1952 and 1956. Of course, since three of the first five GOP presidents were assassinated, they never got a chance to have a two- term vice president.
Question three: Who won the biggest presidential landslide? Now, we're not counting George Washington here, who got all the votes. But, in modern history, the last 150 years or so, the answer is: It depends on what the meaning of landslide is. If you measure it by electoral votes, the answer: Ronald Reagan in 1984. He won 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13. Richard Nixon in 1972 ran a close second. He got 520 electoral votes to George McGovern's 17.
But as a percentage of the popular vote, the answer: Lyndon Johnson in 1964, with 61.1 percent, edging out Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, who got 60.8 percent, Nixon in '72, who got 60.7 percent, and Warren Harding in 1920, with 60.3 percent. Now, when you consider what happened to President Warren Harding, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon, maybe it is not so good to do that well.
Question four: Who got the most popular votes for president? The answer: Ronald Reagan in 1984 with 54.4 million. Of course, earlier candidates are a disadvantage since the population of the country keeps getting bigger. But try this one: Who came in second to Reagan in winning the highest number of popular votes? The answer: Al Gore, with 50.9 million in the 2000 campaign, half-a-million more than George W. Bush.
And finally -- and there's a trick coming up here -- question five: What major-party nominee got the fewest electoral votes for president? The answer: Horace Greeley, Democratic and liberal Republican nominee in 1872. How many electoral votes did he get? None. Why? Because he died after the election, but before the electoral votes were counted.
Now, if you got three of these right, that's pretty impressive. Four right, you are a genuine expert. And if you got all five right, you have won our hearty congratulations.
Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Recently, "West Wing" star Martin Sheen seems to have made as many political appearances as his real-life counterpart. Today, the actor was on Capitol Hill helping college Democrats launch a voter-registration drive. Sheen's appearance seemed to be a real crowd-pleaser.
Our Kate Snow caught up with him.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Why do you do this? You just spent an hour signing autographs. You're here for the young Democrats. Why?
MARTIN SHEEN, ACTOR: Well, if you heard me speak in the beginning, I talked about my responsibility to my citizenship.
Both my parents were immigrants and struggled to make it in this country. And they instilled in us a sense of gratitude for the country and giving in return. And that stuck with me. And I take it serious. I take my citizenship personal. And I accept the responsibility for it. And it's costly.
SNOW: Tell me about celebrity and how that plays into working with politicians. In a way, it seems to me that that's why people know you. And, therefore, that's why you get an audience.
SHEEN: Well, I don't know about that. I've been involved in Democratic politics nearly all my life, long before I was a celebrity.
SNOW: But does it help to be President Bartlet to some of these folks?
SHEEN: I'm not President Bartlet. There is no President Bartlet. That is a fantasy. That's not a reality. And I think we have to be careful about...
SNOW: Mixing.
SHEEN: You know, that mix is not what we do.
I'm an actor. I'm delighted that the show is a success. I'm happy as Larry. I think that the show does something very important for the country. It offers a sense of hope, particularly to young people, a sense of commitment. It gives a face and a heart to bureaucracy. And I think it gives a certain nobility to politics.
SNOW: You were with Janet Reno over the weekend, tooling around in her red pickup truck, I understand.
SHEEN: Yes, we were.
SNOW: Tell me a little bit about that.
SHEEN: One of the most impressive human beings, let alone heroic public figures that I have ever had the honor and the privilege to know. We went all over the state over the weekend. She pumps her own gas. She runs her own show.
SNOW: Do you have any other plans to go out with anyone else? You were with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend yesterday in Maryland.
SHEEN: Yes, we were.
SNOW: Any other plans to take any tours with folks running?
SHEEN: We're going to come back for the general election on the East Coast, and maybe start here with Ms. Townsend's campaign, and work our way down the coast for Senator Cleland in Georgia. And then the place where I feel we have to put the most effort and where I really have a great time is in Florida with Ms. Reno.
SNOW: One last question for you: I heard one of the college Democrats over there ask you if you had any plans to run for any elective office?
SHEEN: No, I'm not running for anything. I'm walking with the women, Janet and Kathleen at the moment.
And that's another issue, too. I think that the world will be saved by women. And I think men are basically big sissies. And we have to...
(LAUGHTER)
SNOW: I like to hear that.
SHEEN: And we have to get behind the heroic women that really do the work and take the initiative and sacrifice the most. It is not easy for women. And it is very difficult in public life. And so that's another reason that I support these two heroic women. And that's personal. And I love it. (END VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW: And just after we talked, Mr. Sheen headed over to Democratic headquarters to meet with the DNC, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.
Candy, I'm told he got a star's welcome over there, too, had to take pictures for about 15 minutes with all the staff. And, incidentally, Mr. McAuliffe thanked him for all his campaigning and told him he's a big fan of "The West Wing" -- Candy.
CROWLEY: Kate Snow walking with the men.
There is more INSIDE POLITICS straight ahead, but first let's go to Wolf for a look at what's coming up on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."
WOLF BLITZER, "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS": Thank you very much, Candy.
We are following a developing story. A U.S. Air Force special operations plane has gone down in Afghanistan. We'll get details and analysis of what happened. Also, I will speak live with the lawyer representing the accused dirty bomber. And, as wildfires get wilder in Colorado, we'll get the latest from that state's governor, Bill Owens.
It's all coming up at the top of the hour, right after INSIDE POLITICS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: And that is it for INSIDE POLITICS. "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" is next. I'm Candy Crowley.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
