CBS "Face The Nation" - Transcript

CBS "Face The Nation" - Transcript

MR. SCHIEFFER: Today on "Face The Nation," the earthquake in Pakistan may have killed as many as 30,000 people. We'll start there, and then we'll talk about the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. In a period of months that have seen some of the world's worst natural disasters and terrorist attacks, the earthquake in Pakistan may be one of the worst yet. We'll get the latest from Richard Roth in Islamabad. Then we'll turn to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. We'll talk with conservative Republican Senator Sam Brownback, who has real reservations; and Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer who, like many Democrats, has so far held his fire. Jan Crawford Greenberg of the Chicago Tribune will join in the questions, and David Brooks of the New York Times will be here to talk about the rest of the week's news. I'll have a final word on the terror threat to New York, and how New York officials reacted. But first, the earthquake in Pakistan on "Face The Nation."

ANNOUNCER: "Face The Nation" with CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer. And now, from CBS News in Washington, Bob Schieffer.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Good morning again. We're going to start with the latest on this horrible earthquake in Pakistan. We have reached CBS News Correspondent Richard Roth, who is in Northern Pakistan. Richard, tell us what you know so far?

MR. ROTH: Bob, what's most striking is the almost unimaginable enormity of the damage, the death and destruction that's been caused, and also the extreme isolation of where it's happened. We've been just outside the town of Balakot, which is about 30,000 people, but you can't get there. People have been streaming out on foot, many carrying bodies, many carrying wounded people on bed frames. Some walking alongside them carrying intravenous foods being dripped into their veins. The people who come out say there are bodies in the street, there are many, many dead. One man says to me, the town has been flattened, it's as if it was crushed like sugar cane.

MR. SCHIEFFER: What kind of emergency effort is being made? I mean, are other outside relief agencies getting in there at all, Richard, under these conditions?

MR. ROTH: They are apparently getting into some parts. But here we've seen no foreigners at all. There have been Pakistani helicopters, M-17 military helicopters. I saw about six of them in a four-hour period today that have gone into this particular town. But the only other relief that goes in is when people carry it in on foot. Families, people have streamed up from Islamabad, and have been trying to fly into Islamabad from Karachi to get to their families in this part of Pakistan. They've been carrying sacks of rice, they've been carrying water. They've been carrying, in some cases, bandages. And they've been walking into the town. There are so many people in the town, though, who are injured and can't get out, and can't be carried out, and there are many dead. We don't know what the number is.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Thank you very much, Richard. Thank you.

And, at last count, we now believe as many as 30,000 people may have been killed in all of this, untold numbers have been wounded.

We turn now to the situation back in Washington, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. And with us to talk about it, from Topeka, Kansas, Senator Sam Brownback; from New York Senator Chuck Schumer. Joining in the questioning this morning, Jan Crawford Greenberg of the Chicago Tribune who covers the court.

Senator Brownback, let me just start with you. Here we have a conservative president who has picked a woman he has worked closely with for most of his personal life, and who he says is the best person that he knows for the job. And conservatives, at least a lot of them, have simply gone nuts about it. What's happened here?

SEN. BROWNBACK: Well, I think you've got two things that are going on and, by the way, to start off with, just the thoughts and prayers of the people in Pakistan. That's just a horrific situation that's taking place there, and we're going to need, I think, to help out a great deal.

But, on the court, I think what you're seeing are two things going on. Number one, a lot of us wanted to see somebody that was a well-formed jurist, so that they had a track record of what they would do in key cases coming in front of the court, and we could have a debate with the country and within the Senate about what this means, if a person has already ruled on, say, some of the key cases of the day, and have that discussion. Harriet Miers doesn't have that track record, and doesn't seem to be well-informed in her judicial philosophy having never been on the bench.

And over a period of time, and this is the second point of what's going on, there are jurists that have been appointed by Republican presidents to veer to the left over a period of time if they're not well-formed in their judicial philosophy. And I think you're seeing both of these at play. One, not a clear philosophical position and, number two, the potential over time of veering to the left.

MR. SCHIEFFER: And I must say, and we'll add here, you are one of those conservatives who do seem to have real reservations. After talking to her up at the Capitol this week, you said publicly only that she's a nice lady. And I'm told that you told some in private, according to Newsweek Magazine, the confirmation hearings are going to cut her up. Is that accurate?

SEN. BROWNBACK: That second statement is not accurate. The first statement, we just don't know enough. We need a much fuller portrait of this person. And, unfortunately, Bob, we're in a situation now in these judicial nominees that it seems as if, if you have somebody put forward with a clear judicial philosophy on some of the key issues of the day, and here you're talking about life and death cases, about the view of marriage, private property rights, that they can't get confirmed. They get filibustered. And so you get a candidate without a record, and there's not a whole lot to debate. That second point, I did not state that.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Okay, we're going to Jan Greenberg and Senator Schumer in just a second, but just quickly, would you be happier, Senator, if the president drew down this nomination?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I'm not about to suggest that. This is a two- step process, the president nominates, the Senate advises and consents. We're in the second part of the process. I think it will go on forward fully. A fuller picture of this nominee will come out, but I'm frustrated by the process. I think we should have a vigorous debate about where candidates stand on the issues, and have that discussion with the American people.

MR. SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's go now, Jan, and Senator Schumer.

MS. GREENBERG: Let me follow-up with Senator Brownback.

First, are you suggesting that the Republicans in the Senate may not have been able to confirm a nominee with a proven track record, let's say a Sam Alito, a Mike Luttig, a Priscilla Owen, do you think that they would have been defeated is that your concern?

SEN. BROWNBACK: No, that's not my concern at all. My concern is two-fold, again. Number one, if you put a nominee like that forward, they get filibustered because there is a litmus test on the left. If you don't support Roe, if you don't support abortion rights, you get filibustered. But I believe we could have overcome that filibuster. It would have required a bruising fight, changing the rules, but I think we're at a point in time where we should have that discussion and debate. Let's have that in front of the American public.

MS. GREENBERG: So, So, did the president avoid a fight here?

SEN. BROWNBACK: Well, I think he probably did avoid a fight. Harry Reid said he suggested Harriet Miers name. I don't know if Senator Schumer, if he had supported her privately or not. He probably did avoid a fight. But I don't think that's necessarily good for the country, or good for the court.

MS. GREENBERG: Senator Schumer, let's go to you. In lieu of a track record, or kind of a legal philosophy here. We've seen White House advisors seek to shore up support amongst conservatives, stressing that she's religious. We've seen James Dobson come out this week and suggest he's had conversations with people in the White House that he can't talk about, but that have led him to believe that she will rule the right way once she is confirmed onto the Supreme Court. Is that the kind of debate that we should be having?

SEN. SCHUMER: No, absolutely not. You know, if you have a nominee like John Roberts, who says, I am not going to talk about my judicial philosophy or cases that might ever come before me, that's one thing. But if you have a nominee who privately whispers something to others, and I don't know if Harriet Miers has, but Karl Rove called James Dobson and gave him "private assurances" that she would do the right thing for Dobson's point of view, which I don't think is the right thing from America's point of view. He said, some of what I know I'm not at liberty to talk about. That is no way to nominate a Supreme Court justice. For that nominee to refuse to answer questions to the American public, but then have someone who is supporting her do all this whispering, and saying, she's okay, here is what she believes is unfair.

And so, as a result, I believe that we ought to call James Dobson as a witness at the Senate Judiciary hearings, and find out what kind of assurances he's received. If those assurances are good enough for James Dobson, then all of America ought to hear them. And, as you know, Democrats, Arlen Specter has been very fair in the past, we've gotten half the witnesses, and I believe my Democratic colleagues will go along, and we'll have James Dobson as a witness. Additionally, I think Karl Rove ought to let the public know what kind of assurances he gave James Dobson. This is not a game of wink and whisper. This is serious business.

MS. GREENBERG: But, Senator Brownback, during the Roberts' nomination, it was the Republicans who were saying that religious views don't matter, that we shouldn't be thinking about a person's religious views, that it's about the Constitution, about the rule of law. And conservatives this week have been very critical of the White House for now whispering that, in fact, it is about religious views. What is your take on this?

SEN. BROWNBACK: Well, I think that point is an accurate one. It shouldn't be about religious views. Indeed, in the hearings, John Roberts said, my religious views will not impact how I look at the law. And I presume that Harriet Miers will do the very same thing, saying that her religious views will not impact how she'll look at the law.

So, the thought that you market a candidate based upon their faith I think is an inaccurate, and not a right way to go forward. It needs to be on a judicial philosophy, and how they look at the courts, how they look at the Constitution, which has been my concern that we don't have that with clarity on this candidate, and we need to. That was an important thing for us to have a debate on in this society.

MR. SCHIEFFER: While you were saying that, Senator Brownback, I saw Senator Schumer in the other monitor shaking his head, and agreeing with you on that.

Let me just ask you one quick question here, Senator Schumer, when you talk about calling Dobson, you think he ought to be subpoenaed then, if he doesn't want to come?

SEN. SCHUMER: I think if the committee asks him to come, he will come, and we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But one thing is clear, this idea of winking and whispering, here's what her views are but she can't tell anybody else, that just demeans the process.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Well, while Karl Rove seems to be assuring people that she is for overturning Roe v. Wade, Pat Buchanan, who is something of a voice on the right said this morning that he's not sure that President Bush really wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He says, his wife doesn't and his mother doesn't. What do you think? Do you think the president is trying to put somebody on the court that is secretly for Roe v. Wade?

SEN. SCHUMER: No, but here is what I do think, I think the president is in a box, Bob. Those at the extreme wing of his party demand a nominee who is very much out of touch with mainstream America. The president doesn't want to nominate somebody who has those extreme views because he'll alienate America, but he doesn't want to nominate someone who the extreme right will be angry with. So, he tries to find what you call stealth nominees. He was very lucky with John Roberts, a brilliant man, and he was able to make it seem like he was answering all these questions without doing it. And it make the job of Harriet Miers a whole lot harder. But the president has tried to avoid the very fight that Sam Brownback said he wants, because he knows, I think, that it would undue his electoral majority.

MS. GREENBERG: But, Senator Brownback, are you concerned that --

SEN. BROWNBACK: Look --

MS. GREENBERG: Go ahead.

SEN. BROWNBACK: If I could step in here for just a second. The great box the president is in is the one that Senator Schumer and other have put here, saying that if you put somebody who speaks and has a voice of clarity on a Roe v. Wade type case, and the left in the country, and the members of the Democrat Party will all ask about a position on Roe, they will filibuster the nominee. And so the president looks at this and says, I'm going to get a filibuster if I put somebody forward with clarity. And I think that's an inappropriate litmus test that exists there on the left in the United States. That's not the way this should be.

SEN. SCHUMER: But, see, Sam, we don't have a litmus test. I have voted for 200 nominees in the court of appeals and district courts who disagree with my views on the issue of choice. The issue is very simple, and it's not one issue, it is rather what is the judicial philosophy of the nominee. And with John Roberts, we really didn't know his judicial philosophy, but the Republicans and the more conservative Republicans were willing to go along, and I guess they've said enough when it comes to Harriet Miers.

I just make one other point here, I am sympathetic to Senator Mikulski when she has said, you know, maybe there's a different standard. Harriet Miers really did break through barriers in Texas to become head of a major law firm, but that doesn't mean -- the president seems to say, trust me, and he can just appoint somebody in the Oval Office, and that's good enough. That is not good enough.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Okay, Senator, you're going to have to trust me. We've simply run out of time. Thanks to both of you.

Back in a minute.

(Commercial break.)

MR. SCHIEFFER: And now to talk about all this and some other things going on in Washington, joining Jan Greenberg is columnist David Brooks at The New York Times.

David, you just heard this, let's talk a little bit about this James Dobson thing. What is this all about here?

MR. BROOKS: This is about loyalty to the president or loyalty to ideas. There are all these conservative ideas that have been growing for 50 years, the Federalist Society, a set of principles. And Harriet Miers has never shown any loyalty to those ideas or those institutions. She's shown personal loyalty to the president. And all the conservatives are saying, hey, we like you, but this isn't about you, this is not le tasse moi, it's not all about you. It is about these ideas. And we're going to be more loyal to our ideas than we are going to be to you. A lot of conservatives are saying that. Other conservatives are saying, hey, I'm in your camp, Mr. President, I'm sticking with you. And that's clearly the debate.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Jan, what about this -- let's get to this Dobson thing. What are people at the White House telling Dr. Dobson? I mean, has he been told some secret of the universe here? What do you think that's all about?

MS. GREENBERG: He suggested on his radio show this week that he's been told enough to support her, and the suggestion has been from other White House advisors to the social conservatives this week that she is a religious person, she is loyal to Bush, and the implication is as a result she will vote the right way once confirmed. But, that is incredibly offensive to all these conservatives who have fought for years and years, who believe the court, who care about the court and believe that it's about the constitution, and the rule of law.

So if anything, the more the White House goes out to try to shore up the social conservatives, the more they offend the very people in the base who care so deeply about the Supreme Court, who say, this is a fight that we saw with John Roberts. It's a fight about the law. The personal views don't matter. That's not what conservatives are all about. We're not result oriented.

MR. SCHIEFFER: And you also heard Senator Brownback, I think in an answer to the question you asked, saying he thinks they could have won this fight. They wanted a bruising fight.

MS. GREENBERG: They wanted a fight about the ideas, and this nomination they believe is worse than a missed opportunity. This is a negative strike, and you heard Senator Schumer kind of picking up on some of that, it suggests that because we had to sneak someone on the court that this is a debate that's illegitimate, that we can't win this debate with the American people. So we've got to nominate a stealth nominee. That, again, is more offensive to the conservatives who care so deeply about the Supreme Court and they future of the court, which is in the balance now.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, put aside the ideological argument, put aside that this is somebody the president has said he's known for a long time. Why do you think he picked her? Is it because -- from a political side of it, is it because his poll ratings are so low, is it because he's in trouble on Iraq, is it because of the trouble on Hurricane Katrina that he just didn't want another fight right now? Did that factor in here?

MR. BROOKS: I don't really see that. I think he understands this is a big thing in his life, his legacy. I think there are two reasons. One, modesty, this is a word that's come up often when the president talks Miers and Roberts. He wants someone who is modest because he doesn't want the courts being over-aggressive. The second thing was he reads people individually. He's not an ideological person in some ways. He reads a person and gets a sense of themselves as a person. That's something he's done the second term. I think when we look back on the second term, if it doesn't go well, one of the key reasons for that will be no new, fresh faces. He kept reappointing people who were close to him in the first term to other jobs in the second term, no new, fresh blood, people exhausted and tired. And this is sort of part of that. I think what conservatives are saying, it's not about this little click of Texans. This is much bigger than that.

What's happened this week is sort of Republican glasnost, Republican perestroika, people looking beyond Bush, looking at ideas. And that's going to have a legacy not only for the Supreme Court pick, but for issue after issue, as conservatives begin to distance themselves a little from Bush, because of this sort of torturing experience.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Do either of you think that he may have to draw down this nomination?

MR. BROOKS: I think it's extremely unlikely, and I think she'll probably be confirmed, because you stick the knife in the president now when his polls are down, and you're a Republican, that's really, really damaging.

MS. GREENBERG: I can't imagine withdrawing now, although certainly a lot of people in the base would like to see that happen. There's been some talk over the weekend about trying to start some kind of grassroots effort in the states to rally some kind of opposition against her, they're that serious about this nominee.

If I could go back to the point about John Roberts. John Roberts was considered modest because of his views on the law. It's very different than the modesty that we're seeing coming in the discussion about Harriet Miers, which goes more to her qualifications. So if anything the president, who really most agree, and even Senator Schumer said Roberts is brilliant, hit a home run with that nomination, a chief justice who will lead the court. If anything now we've seen this nomination actually taint, in some ways, the Roberts nomination, because people are starting to pair Roberts and Miers together.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you think there's more opposition among the conservative pundits than there is among Republican Senators?

MR. BROOKS: I thought that, but then if you look at the polls that have come out so far, and they've shown Roberts compared to Miers, Miers compared to other nominees, she's down. It's not because she's down among moderates and liberals, she's down among conservatives. So I think it's beyond just some of the talking heads, like us, but it's also out in the country, too.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you really think that she's going to be confirmed, Jan?

MS. GREENBERG: I do, I think she will, although I think, as David was just suggesting, people don't like to think about -- the Supreme Court is head of the judiciary, it should be above politics. So now when you see the personal -- long-time personal legal advisor, the cronyism charges, those resonate with people who may not want to really even think about the rule of law or legal philosophy. But, those cronyism charges, which you certainly didn't have in John Roberts, the president didn't know John Roberts, that resonates with people.

MR. BROOKS: I must say, I almost feel sorry for her. She's a good person, she's a smart person, she's an accomplished person. She's being put in an impossible situation. And now she's getting hammered.

MR. SCHIEFFER: All right. Thank you. That's a good place to end this. I'll be back with a final word in just a minute.

(Commercial break.)

MR. SCHIEFFER: Finally today, I'll be honest, I have always been a little wary of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, nothing personal, he's a good man as far as I know, I just have this thing about people who buy public offices. He's spent $76 million to get elected mayor, and has already spent $46 million of his own money on his reelection bid this year. What is that all about? Besides, I have just never understood how people who buy their way into politics can really be in touch with the people they're supposed to serve.

Well, I must admit that Bloomberg showed us one way last week, by just telling the truth and alerting the public to the possibility to a terrorist threat to the New York subways. While the various arms of the federal government were arguing behind closed doors about what it all meant, Bloomberg just told the people what was happening, and flooded the subways with cops. The Department of Homeland Security immediately spread the word that the mayor was overreacting. But, what if it had all been true? We all saw what happened while the Department of Homeland Security and its people were trying to figure out whether there were people in the New Orleans Convention Center after the hurricane.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for not waiting on them to decide what to make of this one. Thankfully, this threat did fizzle, but keeping people informed and putting their safety first is never a bad idea.

That's it for us, we'll see you next week right here on "Face The Nation."

Source