Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I'M DAN JONES.
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
LOTS OF IMPORTANT THINGS TO TALK
ABOUT TODAY.
THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR VERDICT
IN THE O'DONNELL PARK TRAGEDY.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT SENATE
DEMOCRATS MAKING A MAJOR RULE
CHANGE IN HOW THE U.S. SENATE
OPERATES.
THAT TICKING SOME PEOPLE OFF.
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE
50th ANNIVERSARY OF THE
ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F.
KENNEDY.
LET ME INTRODUCE EVERYONE.
YOU KNOW JOEL MCNALLY, LONGTIME
NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST.
KEVIN FISCHER, FORMER BROADCAST
JOURNALIST AND LONGTIME
POLITICAL ANALYST.
AVI LANK, LONGTIME BUSINESS
REPORTER, NOW AN OCCASIONAL
ESSAYIST FOR WUWM RADIO.
AND GERARD RANDALL, EDUCATION
CONSULTANT AND LOCAL JOB
CREATION EXPERT.
RICK HOROWITZ WILL BE ALONG WITH
COMMENTARY AT THE END OF THE
SHOW.
LET'S TALK FIRST ABOUT A
MILWAUKEE JURY AWARDING
$39 MILLION TO THE SURVIVORS OF
A HORRIBLE ACCIDENT AT O'DONNELL
PARK THREE YEARS AGO.
ONE PERSON WAS KILLED AND TWO
OTHERS INJURED WHEN A CONCRETE
SLAB FELL ON THEM.
THE JURY POINTS MOST OF THE
BLAME AT THE COMPANY THAT
MANUFACTURED AND IMPROPERLY
INSTALLED THE SLAB NEARLY 25
YEARS AGO.
IS NEARLY $40 MILLION EXCESSIVE,
OR IS THE COURT SYSTEM WORKING
EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD?
>> AT FIRST BLUSH, THAT SOUNDS
LIKE AN EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH
AMOUNT OF MONEY.
IT REALLY DOES, BUT I READY
CONCEDE THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT
PRICE YOU PUT ON A HUMAN LIFE,
OR WHAT PRICE YOU PUT ON PEOPLE
THAT WERE SEVERELY INJURED AND
TRAUMATIZED.
MY GOOD FRIEND, WELL-KNOWN
DEFENSE LAWYER, GERRY BOYLE,
ONCE TOLD ME, GENERALLY SPEAKING
THAT YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE
VIEWS OF JURIES, BECAUSE THEY
WERE THERE FOR THE ENTIRE FIVE
WEEKS.
THEY HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY.
AND I THINK THERE NEEDED TO BE
SOME DAMAGES IMPOSED ON THAT
FIRM THAT, AS YOU SAID,
IMPROPERLY INSTALLED THAT PANEL,
EVEN THOUGH THE FIRM WAS
INSTRUCTED TO DO IT ONE WAY, A
WAY THAT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE
THE PROPER WAY AND SAFE WAY AND
EFFECTIVE WAY, AND THEY WENT A
DIFFERENT ROUTE, WHICH PROBABLY
LED TO THIS ACCIDENT AND THEY
MAY HAVE CONCEALED THE FACT THAT
THEY DID THAT, WHICH DIDN'T SIT
WELL WITH THE JURY AND THE
COURT, AND MAY GET THAT FIRM'S
INSURER OFF THE HOOK NOW, SO I
THINK WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND
DONE, THAT THE JURY PROBABLY
MADE THE RIGHT DECISION IN ITS
RULINGS ON THE NUMERICAL AWARDS.
>> AVI, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HEAR
PEOPLE ARGUE FOR AWARD LIMITS,
USUALLY PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE LEGAL
PROFESSION, THEY SAY, YOU KNOW,
YOU CAN'T GIVE PEOPLE 10, 20,
30, $40 MILLION, YOU KNOW, 1 OR
$2 MILLION IS ENOUGH.
SHOULD THERE BE A FIGURE THAT
SAYS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
I ONCE ACTUALLY SERVED ON A JURY
IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE
THAT MADE A SEVEN FIGURE AWARD.
TO A WOMAN.
AND IN THE INTERIOR OF THE JURY
ROOM, IT SEEMED QUITE A
REASONABLE THING TO DO, ONCE WE
HAD ALL DECIDED WHERE THE
NEGLIGENCE IN THE SITUATION LAY,
LIKE I SUSPECT THE JURY HERE WAS
PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE NEGLIGENCE
WOULD BE THE COMPANY THAT
MANUFACTURED AND INSTALLED THE
PANEL, SO I'M WITH KEVIN AND I
NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SAY THAT.
I AGREE THAT YOU SORT OF HAVE TO
RESPECT THE JURY'S VERDICT.
THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT NEEDS
TO BE REMEMBERED HERE.
TWO THINGS ACTUALLY.
ONE IS, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE LAW
WORKS, THE INSURANCE POLICY AND
THE BOND THAT WAS PUT BY THIS
COMPANY FOR THE WORK DOESN'T
HAVE TO PAY OFF, ONE WOULD
ASSUME THAT THE PEOPLE AREN'T
GOING TO COLLECT THAT MUCH
MONEY.
I DON'T THINK THE COMPANY HAS
THAT MUCH IN ASSETS.
THEY'LL PROBABLY GO BANKRUPT AND
OUT OF BUSINESS.
THE SECOND THING TO REMEMBER IS,
EVEN IF THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS
INVOLVED, IT'S QUITE LIKELY
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT
MUCH MONEY, BECAUSE THERE ARE AT
LEAST TWO LEVELS OF APPEALS YOU
CAN TAKE THIS TO THE APPELLATE
COURT AND THEN TO THE SUPREME
COURT, AND ANY OF US WHO HAVE
EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN
LITIGATION, OR POTENTIAL
LITIGATION, KNOW THAT AT SOME
POINT, IT JUST MAKES MORE SENSE
TO SETTLE FOR SOMETHING A LITTLE
LESS THAN WHAT YOU'VE GOT IN
HAND, THAN TO GO THROUGH ALL THE
TROUBLE AND EXPENSE OF APPEALING
IT UP THE LADDER.
>> IF YOU APPEAL IT, THERE'S
GOING TO BE SOME DAMAGES.
>> NO, NO.
>> BECAUSE THERE'S A FATALITY
INVOLVED.
>> BUT IT'S SORT OF LIKE SAYING
YOU NOW HAVE A $30 MILLION CARD
IN YOUR HAND.
>> YOU'RE SAYING CUT THEIR
LOSSES.
AND I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THE
LAW IS TO -- IS TRULY TO CAUSE
SOME PAIN TO THE COMPANY.
>> WELL, THERE'S A PUNISHMENT
FACTOR, BUT I THINK EVEN MORE
IMPORTANTLY, THERE'S HOW --
KEVIN ALLUDED TO THIS, HOW DO
YOU COMPENSATE A FAMILY FOR THE
LOSS OF A CHILD.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WAS AT STAKE
WITH THE DEATH AND THEN YOU'VE
GOT PEOPLE WHO WERE INJURED,
TRAUMATIZED EMOTIONALLY AS WELL,
AND THEY'VE GOT ONGOING MEDICAL
TREATMENT THAT WHO KNOWS WHAT
THAT COST WILL BE, THAT THEY'LL
HAVE TO BEAR.
AND YOU HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT
WAS TRAUMATIZED BY ALL OF THIS
TOO.
FORTUNATELY, THE PENALTY WON'T
GO BACK TO THE COUNTY.
BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ABSENTEE
SOLVED OF ANY WRONGDOING.
>> NOW, I THINK THEY WERE FOUND
2%, WHICH ACTUALLY I THINK
LEGALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
>> WELL, IF ANYTHING HAPPENS IN
THE APPEAL.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS TO TRY TO
EXPAND THE COUNTY'S
RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS, RATHER
THAN THE COMPANY THAT INSTALLED
HALL OF THIS.
BUT LET'S GET BACK TO THAT
COUNTY PIECE AGAIN.
WHAT SURPRISED ME IS, THIS IS A
TICKING TIME BOMB ALL AROUND
THIS STATE, WITH THESE AGING
INFRASTRUCTURES, THESE BRIDGES,
PARKING LOTS, JUST LOOK AT
MCARTHUR SQUARE, AND THE PARKING
LOT THAT'S OVER THERE.
THAT'S ONE OF THOSE FACILITIES
THAT'S IN NEED OF HAVING AN
EXAMINATION TO SEE JUST WHERE
IT'S AT IN TERMS OF ITS CAPACITY
TO BE A VIABLE FACILITY.
I JUST DON'T SEE WHERE WE'RE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO ESCAPE IN
THE FUTURE THESE KINDS OF
INCIDENTS, UNLESS WE GO BACK AND
START TO REIN INVEST AND MAKE --
>> ACTUALLY, IT'S A NATIONWIDE
PROBLEM.
A CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE.
>> WE'VE HAD THIS FATALITY THAT
SHOULD ALERT US AND COMPEL US.
>> SHOULD.
>> TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
INVESTING IN MAKING THESE
STRUCTURES SAFE.
>> I REMEMBER TALKING TO A
FRIEND OF MINE A FEW YEARS AGO
WHEN THEY WERE GIVING
SETTLEMENTS OUT AFTER THE 9-11
TRAGEDY AND I SAID OH, YOU KNOW,
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT A VALUE
ON HUMAN LIFE AND HE WAS AN
INSURANCE AGENT AND HE SAID, NO,
IT'S NOT.
THE VALUE THEY SHOULD PUT ON
THOSE LIVES ARE WHATEVER THEY
HAD, THEIR LIVES INSURED FOR.
AND THAT GOT ME THINKING FOR A
WHILE.
I DON'T KNOW, IS IT?
IS THAT THE VALUE OF A LIFE.
WHATEVER YOU'RE INSURED FOR.
>> OF COURSE NOT.
OF COURSE NOT.
THE THING THAT AMAZED ME IN THIS
CASE WAS THAT THE COMPANY ITSELF
WENT TO TRIAL, TOOK IT TO TRIAL.
>> I AGREE.
>> INSTEAD OF SETTLING.
THAT STORY WAS SO DRAMATIC, THE
LOSS OF THIS YOUNG TEENAGER AND
THE INJURIES, YOU KNOW, HIS
MOTHER AND A FRIEND INVOLVED,
YOU KNOW, WE SEE, YOU KNOW, HIS
BEST FRIEND KILLED NEXT TO HIM,
HAND YOU KNOW, IT WAS A HORRIBLE
STORY, AND TO GO THROUGH THAT
HORRIBLE STORY AGAIN A JURY
THERE'S A LOT OF EMOTION, YOU
KNOW, THAT COMES OUT IN A TRIAL
LIKE THAT AND A LOT OF
HEARTBREAK AND PAIN TO EVEN HAVE
TO GO THROUGH IT ON A JURY.
AND YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THEY
COULDN'T COME UP WITH SOME KIND
OF FAIR SETTLEMENT AHEAD OF TIME
TO PREVENT GOING THROUGH ALL OF
THAT, THAT'S -- THAT ALSO ADDS
TO THE PUNISHMENT FACTOR OF A
COMPANY.
YOU KNOW, TO PUT PEOPLE THROUGH
ALL THAT.
AND IT WAS A -- IT WAS A NOT
VERY INTELLIGENT DECISION ON THE
PART OF THE COMPANY TO EVEN, YOU
KNOW, GO TO TRIAL, BUT THIS
THING ABOUT PRICES ON LIVES, YOU
KNOW, BOY, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND
OF COLD-HEARTED INSURANCE AGENT
VIEW OF LIFE IS I THINK NOT THE
ONE THAT MOST HUMAN BEINGS HAVE.
I REALIZE THAT THAT'S THEIR
PROFESSION, YOU KNOW, THEY GO
THROUGH A BUNCH OF PITCHES AND
THEY ADD UP ALL THE FIGURES AND
WHATEVER -- PAPERS AND THEY ADD
UP ALL THE FIGURES AND WHATEVER.
NO, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT A YOUNG PEOPLE, A
YOUNG TEENAGER WHOSE WHOLE LIFE
WAS IN FRONT OF HIM, AND YOU
DON'T WANT TO TAKE THOSE STORIES
TO JURIES, I DON'T BELIEVE,
BECAUSE IT'S NOT PRETTY WHAT CAN
HAPPEN.
IT SOMETIMES AMAZES ME WHAT
COMPANIES ARE WILLING TO PAY TO
ATTORNEYS, TO AVOID DOING THE
RIGHT THING.
YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD RATHER PAY
CORPORATE LAWYERS THAN PAY THIS
FAMILY.
AND --
>> THAT MINDSET IS VERY RISKY,
BECAUSE I THINK, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, JURORS IN A SITUATION
LIKE THIS, ACCIDENTS, COMPANY
INVOLVED, COMPANY MADE THE WRONG
DECISION, BIG COMPANY HAS MONEY
TO PAY, WELL, THEN WE'RE GOING
TO HIT YOU WITH SOME PRETTY
SERIOUS DAMAGES.
>> I CAN ABSOLUTELY TELL YOU
FROM HAVING BEEN IN A JURY ROOM,
IN A MALPRACTICE CASE, THE SAME
KIND OF EMOTIONS, IT'S HARD TO
KEEP THE EMOTION AWAY FROM YOU
WHEN YOU ARE SITTING IN THERE
DELIBERATING ESPECIALLY WITH
YOU'VE GOT 12 PEOPLE, 14 PEOPLE
WHO NEVER MET EACH OTHER BEFORE.
>> NEXT TOPIC.
CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO BLOCK DOZENS OF
PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS USING
THE DECADES OLD FILIBUSTER RULE,
WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN A WAY FOR
THE MINORITY PARTY TO HAVE SOME
PULL.
THIS WEEK, SENATE DEMOCRATS WHO
ARE NOW IN CONTROL CHANGED THE
RULE, WHICH CLEARS THE WAY FOR
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NOMINEES TO BE
APPROVED.
HE'S HAD MORE OF HIS PEOPLE
BLOCKED THEN ALL THE OTHER
PRESIDENTS COMBINED.
SOME PEOPLE SAY THINGS ARE ABOUT
TO GET EVEN MORE PARTISAN AND
NASTIER THAN YOU HAVE EVER
IMAGINED POSSIBLE.
>> I AGREE.
THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
BODY THAT HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE
FOR AT LEAST FORCING COMPROMISE,
AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO
SEE HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE IS THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR PAY BACK WILL
PRESENT ITSELF WHEN THE PARTIES
CHANGE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AS
THE MAJORITY-MINORITY PARTY.
IT WAS THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY,
IF YOU LISTEN TO THE STATEMENTS
THAT HAD BEEN MADE BY SENATOR
OBAMA, SENATOR HARRY REID,
SENATOR JOE BIDEN, WHEN THEY
HALL CONDEMNED THE OPPORTUNITY
THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE
REPUBLICANS TO HAVE DONE THE
SAME THING BACK IN 2005.
AND SO IT'S JUST A MYSTERY TO
ME, AS TO WHY THEY DECIDED TO DO
IT NOW, AND THEN RISK THE
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE FOR
SOME KIND OF MORE EVEN TEMPERED,
EVEN-KEELED SENSE OF WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITE PARTY, SINCE
THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ALL
SCREAMING FOR.
>> THEY'RE ALREADY CACKLING OVER
THERE.
CONGRATULATIONS, WONDERFUL
INSIGHT.
>> WERE THESE APPOINTEES ALL
BLOCKED BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL
INCOMPETENT OR THE SENATE
REPUBLICANS JUST HATE OBAMA?
>> NO ONE EVEN CLAIMED THEY WERE
INCOMPETENT.
THEY IN FACT, WERE VERY WELL
QUALIFIED.
YOU KNOW, MEMBERS OF LAW SCHOOL
FACULTIES, THEY WERE PEOPLE WITH
RECORDS, SOME OF THEM HAVE
WORKED IN THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION.
THEY NEVER ONCE CLAIMED THAT
THESE PEOPLE WEREN'T QUALIFIED.
THEY JUST SIMPLY WERE NOT GOING
TO --
>> IT WAS A LOT OF OTHER THINGS
TOO.
>> THE THING IS, IT JUST AMAZES
ME TO HEAR THAT SIDE CLAIM THAT
SOMEHOW, SOME RADICAL THING WAS
DONE HERE THAT WILL ALLOW THE
MAJORITY TO RULE IN A DEMOCRACY.
YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT THAT'S THE
WAY DEMOCRACIES WORKED.
I ALSO THOUGHT WHEN YOU WON AN
ELECTION, THE PRESIDENT HAD A
RIGHT TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS TO
ALL THE JOBS THAT HE'S ALLOWED
TO FILL, AND IF THOSE -- UNLESS
THOSE PEOPLE WERE BRAZENLY
INCOMPETENT, THAT THEY WOULD --
THEY WOULD FILL THOSE JOBS, AND
THEN WHEN I LOOKED TO, AND THIS
IS WHAT DRIVES ME CRAZY, IT
ACTUALLY DOES, THIS PRESIDENT
HAS BEEN TREATED SO DIFFERENTLY
THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN
HISTORY.
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF HIS
TAKING OFFICE.
REMEMBER WHEN HE CAME INTO
OFFICE AND HE WANTED TO GIVE A
SPEECH TO SCHOOL CHILDREN,
TELLING THEM TO STAY IN SCHOOL
AND THE REPUBLICANS ROSE UP AND
SAID, YOU KNOW, NO, WE CAN'T
HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES TELLING SCHOOL CHILDREN
TO STAY IN SCHOOL BECAUSE HE'S A
SOCIALIST AND HE'S SOME KIND OF
RADICAL.
BOY, THOSE OF US ON THE LEFT,
YOU KNOW, WISH PRESIDENT OBAMA
WAS A SOCIALIST OR RADICAL.
HE'S AN EXTREMELY MODERATE
DEMOCRAT, AND YOU KNOW, IF HALF
OF ALL THE FILIBUSTERS THAT HAVE
EVER OCCURRED IN AMERICAN
HISTORY HAPPENED DURING THE
PRESIDENCY OF BARACK OBAMA,
WHICH THEY DID, WHY IS THAT?
WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT BARACK
OBAMA FROM ANY OTHER PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES EVER?
>> AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHAT
IS DIFFERENT --
>> TERRIBLE POLICY.
>> HOW ABOUT THESE APPOINTEES TO
THE JUDGESHIPS THAT --
>> THEY REINFORCE TERRIBLE
POLICY.
>> LET ME POINT OUT THAT A
MAJORITY OF THEM ARE WOMEN, A
MAJORITY IN FACT WERE PEOPLE OF
COLOR, MOSTLY AFRICAN-AMERICANS,
BUT ALSO ASIAN AMERICANS, AND
LATINAS.
>> THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T
HAVE BAD IDEAS.
>> BAD IDEAS?
>> BAD IDEAS, BAD POLICY.
>> THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
THE POINT IS THAT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, --
>> CHECKS AND BALANCES.
>> JUST A SECOND.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE PRESIDENT HAS
THE RIGHT TO APPOINT THESE
PEOPLE.
THE SENATE HAS THE RIGHT TO
ADVISE AND CONSENT.
>> AND TO FILIBUSTER.
>> EXCUSE ME.
BUT NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION
DOES IT SAY THEY HAVE THE RIGHT
TO FILIBUSTER.
>> THESE ARE SENATE RULES THAT
THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO CHANGE IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME NOW.
>> THE MIDDLE OF WHAT GAME?
>> AND THAT THEY INSTITUTED AND
FOUGHT FOR.
>> THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT FILIBUSTERS.
THERE OUGHT TO BE A CHECK ON THE
PRESIDENT, IF HE WANTS TO
APPOINT SOMEBODY WHO IS UNFIT
FOR A JOB, NOBODY SAID ANY OF
THESE PEOPLE ARE UNFIT FOR A
JOB.
THIS HAS BEEN USED AS A TACTIC
TO CRIPPLE THIS PRESIDENCY.
IT'S NOT JUST THE JUDGES.
IT'S LOTS OF SUBCABINET PEOPLE,
IT'S PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
APPOINTED TO RUN BOARDS.
>> TO RUN CABINETS.
>> WHEN THE DEMS HAD
OPPORTUNITY.
>> NOT TO THIS EXTENT.
>> DOES IT ALLOW THE MAJORITY TO
RUN A TYRANNY.
>> TO ALLOW A MAJORITY TO RUN A
GOVERNMENT THEY WERE ELECTED TO
RUN.
>> BUT DOES IT MAKE THE MINORITY
PARTY MEANINGLESS?
>> ASK THE PEOPLE IN MADISON.
>> THE MINORITY PARTY IT CAN BE
ARGUED -- AVI, THE QUESTION WAS
DIRECTED TO ME.
THE MINORITY PARTY IS, TO A
CERTAIN DEGREE, MEANINGLESS.
THIS MAKES THEM EVEN MORE
MEANINGLESS, AND IN A POLITICAL
PROCESS, THAT FOR DECADES HAS
INCLUDED THE RATHER STRONG
COMPONENT OF CHECKS AND
BALANCES, THIS ERASES THAT.
YOU SHOULD HAVE EXTENDED DEBATE
TIME FOR LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS.
HERE'S WHAT'S REALLY HAPPEN HERE
-- HAPPENING HERE.
THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, VIA THE
VOTING BOOTH, DECIDED THAT THEY
WOULD NOT GIVE THE SENATE THE
FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY THAT
THEY ENJOYED BACK IN 2009.
DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE IT, SO NOW
THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES.
THIS HAS BEEN PART OF THE
AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS FOR A
LONG, LONG TIME.
IN FACT, THIS WAS INSTITUTED BY
THE DEMOCRATS.
>> INSTITUTED BY GEORGE
WASHINGTON, INSTITUTED BY JAMES
MADISON.
>> STRONGLY ENDORSED BY THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
>> BECAUSE THEY FELT IT WAS
IMPORTANT FOR THE SENATE TO BE
THE DELIBERATIVE PARTY, TO TAKE
IT SLOW.
TO WORK TOWARDS COMPROMISE.
>> BUT I THINK SOME DEMOCRATS
HAVE FIGURED IT OUT AND SAID YOU
KNOW WHAT, THIS COULD COME BACK
TO BITE US IF -- AND IT'S
INEVITABLE THAT THE POWER WILL
SHIFT.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, YOU
MIGHT GET IT.
>> DOES IT MAKE THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY MEANINGLESS?
>> THAT'S THE DEMOCRATS IN
MADISON.
ER ALL UP IN ARMS WHEN THEY
TRIED TO EXERCISE A LITTLE BIT
OF POWER THAT WAS LEFT OF THEM
BY ACTUALLY LEAVING THE STATE TO
TRY AND STOP ACT 10, AND NOW
YOU'RE TELLING ME -- BUT WAIT A
MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE.
>> -- SHIRKING THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY.
>> WAIT A MINUTE.
IF THEY HUNG AROUND, THEY HAD NO
POWER AT ALL AND WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING IS YOU DON'T WANT THAT TO
HAPPEN IN WASHINGTON, BUT
APPARENTLY IT'S OK IN MADISON.
WOULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THE
DIFFERENCE IS?
>> THE DIFFERENCE IS, THERE'S A
SENATE RULE THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE
FOR A LONG, LONG, LONG TIME.
>> AND IT WAS NEVER ABUSED THE
WAY THESE REPUBLICANS ABUSE
THEM.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THESE REPUBLICANS HAVE SHUT
DOWN THE GOVERNMENT AND WE WANT
THE GOVERNMENT TO WORK.
ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO
WORK, EXCEPT FOR THE
REPUBLICANS.
>> YOU ASKED A QUESTION, YOU CAN
EITHER HAVE ME ANSWER IT OR THE
TWO OF YOU CAN LECTURE ME, SO
YOU ASK --
>> WE WOULDN'T LECTURE YOU.
BUT NO, YOU WON'T UNDERSTAND
ANYTHING WE STAY.
>> THERE'S A FILIBUSTER IN PLACE
THAT DOES GIVE THE MINORITY
POWER SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES,
AND THERE'S --
>> IT DOESN'T HAVE MAJORITY
POWER.
>> AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG
WITH GIVING THE MINORITY PARTY
THE ABILITY TO HAVE EXTENDED
DEBATE OVER THESE LIFETIME
APPOINTMENTS.
>> BUT TELL ME --
>> THEY WON'T EVEN LET THEM BE
DEBATED.
>> DEL ME WHAT'S WRONG WITH A
HEALTHY DEBATE?
>> IT WAS BEYOND LIFETIME
APPOINTMENTS, IT WAS A TACTIC TO
CRIPPLE IT AND THE REAL LESSON
HERE IS WHEN YOU HAVE POWER AND
IN THIS CASE IT WAS POWER OF A
MINORITY.
IF YOU ABUSE IT, YOU CAN LOSE
IT.
AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE IN
THE MINORITY, MOST OF THE
APPOINTMENTS THAT CAME FROM
GEORGE W. BUSH WENT THROUGH.
>> ALL RIGHT.
NEXT TOPIC.
LET'S TALK FOR JUST A FEW
MINUTES ABOUT THE
50th ANNIVERSARY OF THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN
KENNEDY.
WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL SO
FASCINATED WITH THIS MAN, AND
THIS STORY, FIVE DECADES LATER?
IS IT BECAUSE HE WAS A GREAT
PRESIDENT?
OR IS IT BECAUSE HE WAS YOUNG,
WEALTHY, ENERGETIC, GOOD LOOKING
AND HAD A BEAUTIFUL WIFE?
>> WELL, I THINK THERE IS
SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT THAT
WHOLE CAMELOT MYSTIQUE
SURROUNDING J.F.K.
I REALLY DO.
BACK DURING HIS TIME, TALKING
ABOUT GOVERNMENT HERE, THERE WAS
A TREMENDOUS TRUST OF THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
I THINK 73% AT THAT TIME, WHEN
ASKED, DO YOU THINK THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO
ALWAYS DO THE RIGHT THING FOR
THE COUNTRY?
73%.
THAT'S DOWN TO 19% NOW.
AND THERE WAS JUST THIS AURA
ABOUT KENNEDY, THAT I THINK THAT
CROSSED PARTY LINES.
ALL THE THINGS YOU SAID.
YOUNG, HANDSOME, HAD THE ABILITY
TO UNIFY IN A WAY THAT WE
HAVEN'T SEEN SINCE.
LOOK WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE HIS
ASSASSINATION.
CRIME WENT UP.
YOU HAD RIOTS IN THE STREETS,
YOU HAD EVEN MORE
ASSASSINATIONS.
THE VIETNAM WAR.
WATERGATE.
AN ENERGY CRISIS.
INFLATION THROUGH THE ROOF.
AND WE ARE MORE POLARIZED THAN
EVER, EVER BEFORE, SINCE HIS
ASSASSINATION.
YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE KIND OF
UNITY IN AMERICA SINCE THE DAYS
OF THE KENNEDY -- SINCE THE DAYS
OF JOHN F. KENNEDY.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE LONG
FOR, YEARN FOR, THE ABILITY, THE
CHANCE TO RETURN TO REAL HOPE,
WHICH THE COUNTRY ENJOYED BACK
THEN AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE
GOING TO SEE THAT FOR SOME TIME.
>> WE WENT FROM AN OLD
EISENHOWER TO A YOUNG KENNEDY,
THEN WE LOST KENNEDY.
IS PART OF THE REASON THE STORY
LIVES ON IS BECAUSE IT WAS THIS
YOUTHFUL DREAM THAT ALL OF A
SUDDEN EVAPORATED?
>> I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY IT,
BECAUSE EISENHOWER, YOU KNOW, I
REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN A
KENNEDY-NIXON DEBATE WHEN I WAS
IN SCHOOL, AND EISENHOWER WAS
OUR GRANDFATHER.
AND SUDDENLY, A NEW -- A WHOLE
NEW GENERATION OF POLITICS
HAPPEN.
AND THE YOUTHFULNESS AND THE
ATTRACTIVENESS AND THE CHARISMA,
YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT, YOU
KNOW, YEAH, HE WAS WEALTHY, BUT
YOU KNOW WHAT?
YOU KNOW, HE BELIEVED IN AMERICA
THAT COULD DO GREAT THINGS FOR
THOSE WHO DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE
OPPORTUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
THAT HE HAD AS A WEALTHY HEIR TO
A HUGE FORTUNE, AND HE THOUGHT
THAT THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
COULD MAKE LIVES OF EVERYONE
BETTER.
NOW HE DIDN'T LIVE LONG ENOUGH
TO ACCOMPLISH ANY OF THAT, BUT
THAT'S WHAT HE REPRESENTED, AND
IN A SENSE, WHEN THEN LYNDON
JOHNSON TOOK OVER, I REMEMBER,
YOU KNOW, PART OF THE TRAGEDY
WAS WE THOUGHT, HERE WE'RE GOING
BACK TO THIS OLD POWELL LIKE --
>> WHAT WENT WRONG?
>> WE WERE VERY LONG, BECAUSE IT
TURNED OUT LYNDON JOHNSON WHO
WAS A TERRIFIC PRESIDENT WHO
PASSED CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION
THAT MAYBE KENNEDY COULD NEVER
HAVE EVEN DONE, BUT HERE'S THE
THING, HAND THIS REMINDS ME OF
IT, THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION
REMINDS ME OF IT, AND I'M NOT OF
COURSE, YOU KNOW -- THIS IS NO
STRETCH AT HALL.
-- AT ALL.
THE ONLY TIME I REMEMBER A
PRESIDENT TAKING OVER THAT
EXCITED US AS MUCH AS A NEW
GENERATION AND A NEW AMERICA
SINCE JOHN KENNEDY WAS BARACK
OBAMA.
WE SAW THE POSSIBILITY THAT
AMERICA WAS CHANGED BY THAT
ELECTION AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE
SAME THING THAT KILLED KENNEDY,
HATRED, KILLED THAT POSSIBILITY
AS WELL.
>> ONLY ONE MINUTE.
IF HE WOULD HAVE FINISHED OUT
HIS FIRST TERM AND HAD BEEN
ELECTED OR NOT ELECTED, WOULD HE
BE CONSIDERED A GREAT PRESIDENT
TODAY?
>> NO.
AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY, AND JOEL
HAS ALREADY POINTED IT OUT.
HE WAS UNABLE TO MOVE THE
LEGISLATION THAT LYNDON JOHNSON
WAS ABLE TO MOVE THROUGH.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT KENNEDY
EVEN HAD THE WILL TO BE ABLE TO
MOVE IT THROUGH.
HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE THE
KNOWLEDGE, HE DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO
CAJOLE THE SENATORS.
HE WAS ASSASSINATED WHILE DOWN
IN THE SOUTH, TRYING TO SHORE UP
HIS SOUTHERN SUPPORT, SO WHO
KNOWS WHAT KINDS OF COMMITMENTS
HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO MAKE IN
ORDER TO GET REELECTED.
>> A FEW MORE WORDS NOW ABOUT
THE EVENTS OF THAT HORRIBLE
WEEKEND.
OUR COLLEAGUE, RICK HOROWITZ,
WAS IN DALLAS SOME YEARS AGO,
WHERE HE FOUND HIMSELF TRYING TO
CLEAR UP AT LEAST ONE
ASSASSINATION MYSTERY.
IT'S A STORY YOU PROBABLY
HAVEN'T HEARD BEFORE.
IT'S A STORY HE'S NEVER TOLD
BEFORE.
RICK?
>> YOU KNOW THIS PICTURE.
EVERYONE OVER A CERTAIN AGE
KNOWS THIS PICTURE.
ONE REASON SO MANY PEOPLE ARE
STILL HAUNTED BY ALL THOSE OTHER
PICTURES FROM DALLAS 50 YEARS
AGO?
IT'S BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING
IN THIS PICTURE.
THE MAN ACCUSED OF KILLING
PRESIDENT KENNEDY BEING SHOT AND
KILLED HIMSELF, ON LIVE TV, JUST
TWO DAYS AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS
MURDERED.
THIS IS LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
THIS IS JACK RUBY, THE DALLAS
NIGHT CLUB OWNER WHO KILLED HIM.
BUT THIS MAN?
IN THE BIG STETSON HAT?
I'D ALWAYS HAD A QUESTION FOR
THIS MAN, AND I FINALLY GOT TO
ASK IT.
WE WERE AT A CONFERENCE NEAR
DALLAS, THIS WAS 2005, WHEN THEY
TOOK US TO THE SCENE OF THE
CRIME, TO THE BUILDING WHERE THE
FATAL SHOTS CAME FROM.
NOW IT'S A MUSEUM.
THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM, ALL
ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION.
THIS MAN, JAMES LEAVELLE, WAS
ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS.
HE'D BEEN A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE
IN DALLAS BACK IN 1963 AND HE'S
STANDING RIGHT BESIDE LEE
OSWALD, HANDCUFFED TO OSWALD IN
FACT, WHEN IT HAPPENED.
HE TOLD US ALL ABOUT THE
MORNING, BUT HE NEVER GOT NEAR
THE QUESTION I'D ALWAYS HAD, SO
I WENT UP AFTERWARD TO ASK HIM
MYSELF.
BESIDES, IT WASN'T SOMETHING
YOU'D WANT TO ASK IN PUBLIC.
I APOLOGIZED MY WAY INTO IT,
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR, AND
I'VE NEVER WORKED IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AND I'M NO GUN
EXPERT, BUT SOMETHING I'D ALWAYS
WONDERED ABOUT, I SAID, AND
MAYBE HE COULD -- IF HE WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING LEE
HARVEY OSWALD, WHY WAS HE
BACKING AWAY WHEN THE SHOT WAS
FIRED?
I WASN'T TRYING TO CRITICIZE.
I MEAN, CLINT EASTWOOD DIVING
INTO THE LINE OF FIRE?
THAT ONLY HAPPENS IN MOVIES.
BUT STILL, THERE'S THE PICTURE
AND I -- SUDDENLY HIS HAND WAS
GRIPPING THE WAISTBAND OF MY
PANTS, PULLING ME RIGHT NEXT TO
HIM.
JIM LEAVELLE WAS GOING TO
DEMONSTRATE.
HE WAS STANDING ALONGSIDE
I MEAN, CLINT EASTWOOD DIVING
INTO THE LINE OF FIRE?
THAT ONLY HAPPENS IN MOVIES.
BUT STILL, THERE'S THE PICTURE
AND I -- SUDDENLY HIS HAND WAS
GRIPPING THE WAISTBAND OF MY
PANTS, PULLING ME RIGHT NEXT TO
HIM.
JIM LEAVELLE WAS GOING TO
DEMONSTRATE.
HE WAS STANDING ALONGSIDE
OSWALD, TRUE, AND WHEN JACK RUBY
DARTED OUT OF THE CROWD, GUN
DRAWN, HE HAD ONLY MOMENTS TO
REACT.
SO WHAT HE TRIED TO DO, HE TOLD
ME, WAS YANK OSWALD OUT OF THE
WAY, OUT OF DANGER.
BUT THEY WERE SO CLOSE TOGETHER,
HE AND OSWALD, THAT HE DIDN'T
HAVE ANY LEVERAGE.
ALL HE COULD DO WAS TURN HIM A
BIT.
IT WASN'T ENOUGH.
AND THEN -- THEN HE SHOWED ME
WHAT HE'D BEEN TRYING TO DO.
HE YANKED BACK ON MY WAISTBAND
AND JIM LEAVELLE, WHO WAS IN HIS
MID 80'S BY THIS TIME,
PRACTICALLY THREW ME ACROSS THE
ROOM.
IT WAS EXACTLY WHAT I DESERVED.
BUT AT LEAST I HAD MY ANSWER.
>> THANKS, RICK.
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
WATCHING.
WE'RE OFF NEXT WEEK BECAUSE OF
THE HOLIDAY.
STAY WARM AND HAVE A WONDERFUL
THANKSGIVING.
ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR WEEKEND.