Skip to main content /TRANSCRIPTS



President Unveils New Plans for Welfare Reform; New Poll Results Gauge Anti-U.S. Sentiment in World

Aired February 26, 2002 - 16:00   ET


JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington. How much further should the federal government go to press welfare recipients to find work and get married? We will have a debate.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm Bill Schneider in Washington with landmark poll numbers gauging anti-U.S. sentiment in the Muslim world.

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Jonathan Karl on Capitol Hill, where Enron's former CEO insisted he has told the truth about his company's collapse while it is Congress that has been sloppy with the facts.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Candy Crowley, just back from California where the governor's race is getting tighter and nastier by the day.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: I'm Jeff Greenfield in Los Angeles. Yes, that race is getting tighter, but why?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS with Judy Woodruff.

WOODRUFF: Thank you for joining us.

We begin with the most comprehensive attempt to measure opinion in the Muslim world after September 11. The Gallup Organization conducted surveys of almost 10,000 people in nine mostly-Muslim nations. The poll suggests that some of the most widespread anti- American sentiment is in Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed in Pakistan say they have an unfavorable opinion of the United States. Unfavorable ratings also are high in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Jordan. Even in Kuwait, which the U.S. liberated over a decade ago, 41 percent of those surveyed view the U.S. unfavorably.

For more on this survey now, let's turn to our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider -- Bill.

SCHNEIDER: Well, Judy, first the good news. In six of the seven Muslim countries polled by Gallup, solid majorities express the view that the September 11 attacks on the United States were morally unjustifiable. On the average across these countries, only 15 percent call the attacks justifiable.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing justifies the attacks on September 11 against the American people.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Now the bad news. Even larger majorities in every Muslim country label U.S. military action in Afghanistan morally unjustifiable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): If the reaction takes the form of an attack on Afghanistan and other countries in the name of fighting terrorism is not justified.

SCHNEIDER: Take Pakistan for instance; 61 percent of Pakistanis condemn the September 11 attacks on the U.S., but 80 percent of Pakistanis condemn U.S. military action in Afghanistan, quite a surprise from the key U.S. ally in this fight.

Do people in these countries even like the United States? Alas, no. By 2 to 1 on the average, they express an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. and in most of these Muslim countries, opinion of President Bush is even more negative.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he is not stable enough as a leader.

SCHNEIDER: The poll describes people in these Muslim countries as resentful of the U.S. Respondents admire America's economic prosperity, technological prowess and freedom. What do they resent? They resent the U.S. attitude toward the rest of the world, which solid majorities describe as ruthless, aggressive, arrogant and biased.

Biased? Yes, biased against Islamic values generally and against Palestinian interests specifically. They also resent American values and culture. In Turkey for instance, a NATO country allied with the West, 45 percent feel that Western values have a bad effect on their own culture. Only 10 percent see a positive impact.


(on camera): People in these countries resent American values because they see them as deeply materialistic and secular. They see American culture as a corrupting influence on their societies. It may come as a shock to Americans, but the poll makes it clear: People in the Islamic world do not see the United States as a model.

WOODRUFF: All right. Bill Schneider, thanks very much.

In Pakistan today, new evidence in court against the prime suspect in the murder of "Wall Street Journal" reporter Daniel Pearl. A witness identified Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh as the man who passed himself off as a go-between for the head of a fundamentalist group that Pearl wanted to interview. U.S. and Pakistani officials continue to negotiate Saeed Sheikh's extradition to the United States. Sources say the two sides have agreed that he will remain in Pakistan while attempts are made to recover Pearl's body.

Now, we have an extended excerpt of CNN's interview today with Pearl's widow, Mariane. Our Chris Burns asked her if she sees her husband's death as a symptom of deeper problems in Pakistan.


MARIANE PEARL, DANIEL PEARL'S WIDOW: I see it as being like an alarm for everybody. It means that if people in the world do not realize that they're not immune against this anymore, then nothing will -- we will never fight this war. This is a vast, international, dangerous network of people. So if we consider it as being a problem in Pakistan, I mean, this is completely wrong.

So I think now it is high time that people in the world -- I'm talking about the United States. I'm also talking about Europe and other parts of the world. Governments should take even more responsibility in fighting against terrorism, but also people. At community level, at individual level, ask themselves questions like what do I know about my country's foreign policy? Is my country fighting terrorism? Am I making efforts to promote dialogue? Am I, you know, am I committed?

CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There's compassion across the world for the ordeal you went through, for the pain, for the grief. There is also -- there are also people who have sympathies for militant groups and that is, as you've talked about, how there is support in some ways for some of these groups around the world, groups that take advantage of situations, of poverty and so forth.

How do you address both groups of people, those who empathize with you and sympathize with you and those who sympathize with those militants around the world?

PEARL: Well, I'll tell you what. Danny, he's, now we're going to have like, you know, memorial services all over the world for him. There are going to be, you know, cosmopolitan and they're going to celebrate someone, as you say, who seeks the truth, you know, who had courage.

This in itself says a lot, you know? The goal of terrorism is to input terror in people. If we -- I know, and that's like a personal thing I share with you, but it's personal conviction, you know, and that's why I'm sitting here with you is I know Danny has not been defeated by the people who killed him.

His spirit, his faith, his conviction have not been defeated, you know. And I'm extremely proud of him, you know.

The only thing -- I don't even want to address the people who support -- you know, I mean, whatever. What I'm saying is that if people do not let terror, you know, get in their heart and they react and they realize the real nature of the terrorism, then they will be defeated.

I don't have a political message for them, you know. The message I have is -- for the people -- is just, do like Danny. Just don't be defeated by them.

BURNS: And try to address the underlying problems that bring about these kinds of groups?

PEARL: Exactly. Ask yourselves a question.

BURNS: Mariane (SPEAKING FRENCH), you're French, your husband was from California. You're seven months pregnant now. Where do you go from here? What will you do?

PEARL: Well, as I said I will, you know, first thing, hold this memorial. I will carry on this message, because I think Danny and I are very much alike. We have the same kind of conviction. As I say, we are not defeated. And so I will, you know, make sure that his pain and my pain will help, you know, change the world in that sense, you know, at our level.

BURNS: Concretely, what do you mean? Where will you do that? How will you do that?

PEARL: I think, you know, again the key word is "dialogue," you know. So I can share my experience, I do like when, you know, inviting other people to do. What am I doing? What do I know? How can I help? So I do that at my own level. And of course I will also, as you say, I'm seven months pregnant; and I will give life, give birth to Danny's son -- just go on.

BURNS: And what will you tell your son?

PEARL: About?

BURNS: About what happened to your husband?

PEARL: Well, that depends on, you know, how people -- no, it depends on how people react to that. You know, if I can talk to my son, you know, yes, he was brutally and cowardly murdered, but the ultimate objective of these people never reached his goal thanks to him, you know, what he passed on to me and what he passed on to other people, and hopefully other people to other people. Danny's a hero.

BURNS: Thank you Mariane.

PEARL: Thank you very much.


WOODRUFF: Mariane Pearl, the widow of murdered journalist Danny Pearl.

Next we will turn to Enron politics. Straight ahead, today he- said. she-said face-off between a former Enron chief and a whistle- blower.

Is president Bush promoting a one-size-fits-all approach to welfare reform? A Democratic congressman and a Republican governor will go "On the Record" with their views. And later: The inventor of voice mail is gone, but his legacy lives on for better or for worse.


WOODRUFF: Now lets he go to Capitol Hill, where former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was pretty much surrounded by hostile fire today from senators, and from one of his former employees.

Here now our congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl.

Hi, Jonathan.


Well, Jeffrey Skilling has told his story before, but this is the first time he has dueled with a congressional committee while Enron whistle-blower Sherron Watkins was sitting at the very same witness table just a few feet away.


JEFFREY SKILLING, FORMER ENRON PRESIDENT: The whole truth and nothing but the truth...

KARL (voice-over): For five and half hours the accused and the accuser sat at the same table.

SHERRON WATKINS, FORMER ENRON EMPLOYEE: I find it hard to believe that Mr. Skilling was not aware that something was amiss. This could not be legitimate.

KARL: Although Watkins has by lauded by Congress as a woman who bravely tried to warn the top bosses of her company's problems, Skilling pointed out that he had virtually had no contact with her.

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: All of those people who've said that they were warning, you, Ms. Watkins...

SKILLING: Ms. Watkins did not talk to me, senator.

KARL: Skilling repeatedly lambasted his Senate inquisitors for being sloppy with the facts, beginning with a defiant opening statement.

SKILLING: Common decency suggests that I be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. Common sense suggests that accusations made now, before the facts are in, are likely to be wrong.

Unfortunately, neither common decency nor common sense will carry the day in this politicized process.

KARL: From there, most of the hearing was Skilling versus the senators, with the witness repeatedly turning the table on his questioners.

SKILLING: This is -- who is making that statement?

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: I just gave it to you.

SKILLING: No, who made the statement?

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: According to the minutes, Mr. Fastow.

SKILLING: Mr. Fastow represented that that's the what process was. Mr. Fastow was in error. I don't own oil and gas...

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: Mr. Skilling, I appreciate that you don't agree with this. I'm not asking you that.




UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: My question has nothing to do with whether you agree. I simply asked if you recalled it.

KARL: Two weeks ago Skilling told a House committee he didn't dump his Enron stock. But before this committee he said he wouldn't be surprised if he sold $66 million in stock during two and a half year period.

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: Do you consider $66 million a great deal of money?

SKILLING: Yes it is, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: Do you still have most of that?

SKILLING: Yes, I do.


KARL: But Skilling went on to say he doesn't know how long he will have all that money. He said he is the subject of some 33 lawsuits that he expects to be battling for the next five years of his life. After that, who knows how much he'll have -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Looks like a lively day over there. All right, Jon, thanks very much.

Well, Senate opponents of campaign finance reform may be backing away from an effort to hold up the House-passed version of the bill in the Senate. This, as it becomes clearer than ever that the measure's supporters may have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.

Two leading rivals on the issue, Senators Mitch McConnell and John McCain, say they plan to meet tomorrow to talk about options for moving ahead with the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott says all sides hope to work something out, perhaps as soon as this week. Meantime, Majority Leader Tom Daschle says that is encouraging. But he says he will stand firm, and oppose any changes to the House- approved version of campaign finance reform.

WOODRUFF: Well, joining me now with more on emerging political divisions at the Capitol, CNN political analyst Ron Brownstein of the "Los Angeles Times."

Ron, what are you finding out about all this?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well Judy, we have, starting tomorrow, probably one of the few domestic issues that are going to rise to really the top of the headlines in Congress this year -- the energy bill finally coming up after long delay in the Senate, at a time when they're trying to finish campaign finance reform as well.

And one, this energy bill is going to expose divisions not only between the parties, but within the parties. There's been a lot of attention to the problems that Democrats are having with the Teamsters union supporting President Bush's effort to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Now they're beginning to run into a serious problem with another union, United Auto Workers, over whether they can go ahead with the Democratic proposal in the Senate to increase the fuel efficiency mandates or auto manufacturers, which is a centerpiece of the bill for Democrats and for environmentalists. Really, I think the thing they want most out of it.

But now they've got this parallel problem where you've got the UAW putting a lot of pressure on Democratic senators from those metal- bending rust belt states and making it very uncertain whether Democrats can get what they need.

WOODRUFF: Well, you've also got, Ron, what is it, Senators Kerry and Lieberman now focusing on this issue. How much of this has to do with the issue, how much of it has do with presidential politics?

BROWNSTEIN: There's -- presidential politics is a definite overlay here, and one that complicates and sort of makes it even more volatile. You've got really two big issues in this debate that's going to start tomorrow and could go on for as long as two weeks.

One, as I said, is this issue of raising fuel economy standards. That's what the Democrats want most. The other is this idea of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is what the Republicans want most.

And what Kerry and Lieberman are doing is sort of drawing a line almost in the tundra, and saying that they are going to filibuster any effort to open ANWR to drilling. Now, that's something that could make them very -- it could really raise their visibility with environmentalists, who are an important constituency in the Democratic primary. Both of them are looking at a 2004 run. They really have no incentive to back down on this fight. And the odds are that unless the White House can come up with 60 votes they're not going to get that ANWR drilling that they want.

WOODRUFF: Sometimes it's hard to believe that 2004 is more than two years away -- well, the election vote day in 2004.

BROWNSTEIN: If you're running for president, you have to decide by the end of this year, in all likelihood, because the Democratic calendar is moving up.

So these guys are out there and working. And these kinds of bills offer them an opportunity to have a platform here in Washington to supplement their grassroots work outside the Capitol.

WOODRUFF: And it's never early enough.

BROWNSTEIN: Absolutely.

WOODRUFF: All right. Ron Brownstein, thanks very much.

And still ahead, the president's new plans for welfare reform.


BUSH: We ended welfare as we've known it. Yet it is not a post- poverty America.


WOODRUFF: We'll go "On the Record" with a Republican governor and a Democratic congressman next.


WOODRUFF: "On the Record" today, welfare reform.

A few hours ago President Bush revealed his plans to modify the 1996 law reforming welfare. His plans put a renewed emphasis on work requirements, and they include incentives to encourage marriage. Mr. Bush said he would make up to $300 million a year available for programs that work to lower welfare roles and stabilize poor families.


BUSH: My administration will do more than spend money. We will pursue four important goals to continue transforming welfare and the lives of those that it helped. We will strengthen work requirements. We must promote strong families. We will give states more flexibility, and will show compassion to those in need.


WOODRUFF: And joining me now, Representatives Sander Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and Governor Mike Huckabee, Republican of Arkansas. Governor Huckabee, to you first. On both sides of the political aisle, there's pretty much broad agreement that welfare reform as it took place in 1996 has been a success. The welfare roles are down something like 50 percent. Child poverty is at its lowest level in, what, 25 years?

Why not just leave welfare reform as-is? Why change it?

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R), ARKANSAS: Well, I think that we've done the easy part of welfare reform. And the states surely have seen the checkered flag at the finish line.

But now it's time to take on another important race; and that's those tough to deal with clients who may be a little tougher to move. And it also means that we've got to just make sure that we don't let up.

The Congress did the governors a great favor when they came to the governors of America and said, look, we're going to give you some authority and some flexibility, but we're going to hold you accountable. And the governors took that seriously. And it worked because there was not only bipartisanship, but more importantly there was a real sense of partnership between the Congress and the governors.

We couldn't have done it had Congress not acted as they did. And it's going to take that same kind of mutual effort now.

WOODRUFF: Representative Levin, why not leave well enough alone?

REP. SANDER LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: Well, the governor mentioned one important area. And that is that many who remain on welfare may not be as easy to place in work as those who have left.

But there is another challenge. The average quarterly wage of those who have moved from welfare to work is just over $2,000. That's $10,000 a year. It's hard it raise a family on $10,000.

When I met last week with people who'd left welfare in Macomb County Michigan, most of them said, look, we aspire to have true independence; we want to move up the ladder of economic success. That means more than $10,000 a year.

And we have to tailor the welfare reform so that these people can, indeed, meet their aspirations.

WOODRUFF: Well governor, let me ask you about -- as you know, I'm sure, a number of critics are saying that, you know, that this is just not the time to do that.

I want to quote somebody who's with the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support. He said: "We're in the middle of a recession. Now is a strange time to be arguing that we ought to toughen work requirements on poor families."

How would you answer him? HUCKABEE: I think just the opposite, Judy. The fact is, everyone who's paying taxes into the system to create welfare benefits, they're having to work to get their salaries. So it's only fair that if someone's going to get a check from the government that they have to perform some type of meaningful endeavor or work in order to get benefits.

Otherwise, we're not really helping them to understand how America works. America works and advances, and people are empowered when they do a job, they get educated. And a good job and doing it well, plus additional training equals a better job, and higher income, and greater levels of empowerment.

And that's, I think, what we want to achieve, so that no one is stuck with what the government hands them. They're able to succeed on what they can do by the opportunities that are presented.

WOODRUFF: Congressman Levin, is now the right time to be coming down on these poor families when the economy is not doing so well?

LEVIN: No; but that isn't the issue. We're not going to come down, I hope, on poor families. The challenge is to make work really work for these families. And that means we have to combine people going to work with training in many cases, so that they can move up the ladder. We have to have a system based on work. We also have to have a system that is based on work really working for the families.

And I think we all want that, so let's do it now. It's a good time to do it.

WOODRUFF: Congressman, let me also ask you this about the president's proposal to spend up to $300 million to encourage healthy, stable families through -- he's talking about through education and counseling, other things. Should the government be involved in doing that, congressman?

LEVIN: Well, I think the government can encourage it, as long as we're sensitive. Because this isn't a problem that faces only families that are on welfare or who have moved from welfare to work; it really faces the whole country, indeed, much of the world.

So as we proceed here, let's be sensitive. I think we can provide some services. But, also, I think we have to realize that these are individual families with their individual needs and individual sensitivities.

WOODRUFF: Governor, I just want to give you one quick -- we are going to have to go to a courtroom in California.

But, just quickly, is this the right tack for the president to take on families?

HUCKABEE: It is the right tack, Judy, because we are already involved in their lives when their marriages and families don't work. So let's try to do everything we can so that it will work. And maybe we won't have to be as involved, and they can be independent and not dependent upon what government does for them.

WOODRUFF: All right, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, gentlemen, we thank you very much.

LEVIN: Thank you. Nice being with you.

HUCKABEE: Thank you, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good to see you.

And when we come back, we do want to go to a courtroom in California where the man accused of murdering a missing young girl is about to be arraigned. We will be right back.


WOODRUFF: We are going to take you right now to a courtroom in San Diego where a man named David Westerfield is going to be arraigned in connection with the kidnapping and murder of a young girl in San Diego several weeks ago.

We will listen in now.

JUDGE PETER DEDDEH: Gentlemen, will you please state your presence for the record.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF-MIKE) for the people, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Steven Feldman and Robert Boies on behalf of David Westerfield, who I can't see whether or not he is present yet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is present before the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your Honor, we are ready to proceed.

DEDDEH: To your client (OFF-MIKE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your Honor, we have been advised of the nature of charges. And we have been provided a copy of the complaint. We waive further reading of the complaint. Mr. Westerfield would enter pleas of not guilty as to all counts, deny all special allegation, and request a setting in due course.

DEDDEH: All right.

How do you plead on the charges in the complaint, guilty or not guilty?


DEDDEH: And do you deny the allegations?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (OFF-MIKE) examination, March 11, 2002 at 8:15 in this department.

DEDDEH: Thank you.


DEDDEH: Ordered to appear on that date.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

There's two matters I wish to address to the court, please.

DEDDEH: Before we do that, I want to address one matter with you.

Tomorrow, there is a hearing on the search warrant one -- the search warrants that were done in this case. And, apparently, there is a request by members of the media to -- Mr. Boise.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're trying to communicate to the client, Your Honor.

DEDDEH: Well, just take your time and do that then. Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Your Honor.

DEDDEH: There is a request by the media to unseal those search warrants, so the media can have access to them. And, frankly, I don't think it is an appropriate hearing for Mr. Westerfield to be present at.

But out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to ask you to have him waive his presence for that hearing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your honor, we have discussed circumstances with Mr. Westerfield. He understands he has a right to be present at the hearing tomorrow. Given the nature of the hearing, it is my understanding he would agree to waive his appearance.

DEDDEH: Is that correct, Mr. Westerfield?


DEDDEH: All right. Thank you.

So we will waive his appearance at that hearing.

All right, now, Mr. Feldman.

STEVEN FELDMAN, ATTORNEY FOR DAVID WESTERFIELD: Your Honor, there are several issues that this case brings out unique among all other cases. It is the defense request that court issue a gag order, because this is a case that, obviously, is one of considerable public interest that has already resulted in substantial publicity. It would seem that there is a reasonable likelihood, given that press which has already been disseminated, that continued dissemination of such information by means of extrajudicial statements relating to this case will threaten the orderly administration of justice and will certainly threaten Mr. Westerfield's entitlement to a fair and unbiased jury in this community.

Accordingly, we are requesting the court to issue a protective order which will prohibit counsel for the parties, court officers, law enforcement officers, and other public officials, and prospective trial witnesses from releasing to public any evidence that has not been previously ruled by the court admissible, as well as preclude all parties from making any comments concerning any of the evidence gathered in the case, testimony to be heard or expected, and the identity of prospective witnesses.

And we make that request because of our concern under the Sixth Amendment that our client be entitled to a fair trial in the courtroom and not in the media. Already we have seen misleading and false information disseminated. This has been a case that, obviously, has had extraordinary media attention. And it's causing significant difficulties, at least from our perspective, in ensuring that Mr. Westerfield will have a fair trial.

DEDDEH: All right, thank you.

Mr. Dusek?

JEFF DUSEK, LEAD PROSECUTOR: We are opposed to a gag order at this point.

I think it is premature and certainly is overbroad. And what counsel is requesting, I'm not sure a gag order would apply to anyone besides court officers. I can assure the court and counsel that the prosecution, at least, is well aware of their ethical obligations under the canons of professional ethics. And we will stay well within those ethical guidelines and not say anything that is inappropriate or will damage the defendant's rights to a fair trial.

I believe, also, that the district attorney's office has an obligation, in a case like this and in a case of all types, to keep the public informed generally as to what's going on. So, at this point, we would be opposed to a gag order and ask that it be denied at this point.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (OFF-MIKE) And my client is opposed to a gag order as well.

DEDDEH: All right, well, right now, you don't have any standing in this matter, So, thank you. I appreciate that.


DEDDEH: Well, thank you. Thank you. I disagree with you.


DEDDEH: No. Thank you. All right.


DEDDEH: This is what I'm going to do. First of all, I think premature.

I think -- I said no.


DEDDEH: First of all, I'm going to deny your request for the gag order. I don't think it's appropriate at this time. Certainly, the order that you are requesting is overbroad. It is my misunderstanding I'm only allowed to impose a gag order on the parties involved in this case, meaning the lawyers, the court officers.

First of all, I'm not going to do that, because there has been no demonstration to me that anybody has said anything that is untoward or beyond the reach of ethics or law. Now, if you think that it is appropriate to renew your order after -- or renew your request for an order after some statement by somebody that is involved in this case, then should you do that by notice motion.

FELDMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

DEDDEH: All right.

FELDMAN: Another matter to raise...

DEDDEH: All right.

Ma'am from "The Union Tribune," could you leave your card for one of the bailiffs so that my court reporter can get your name down for the record? Thank you.

All right.

FELDMAN: Your Honor, we have indicated that there is no time waiver on behalf of Mr. Westerfield. To date, we have been provided not a single sheet of discovery.

I would ask the court to direct the prosecution to initiate as soon as possible an expeditious Xeroxing of whatever paperwork has been provided, I'm certain that some papers have been provided to the DA's office. I would stipulate that those documents could be released to my office for copying to WeCopy or any other legitimate copy agency to expedite the process.

I'm concerned that, if we are not provided discovery in a timely manner, that it won't be possible for us to do an adequate job at the preliminary hearing. And the clock is ticking. And, so, in communication with counsel, I'm informed and believe that there will be no discovery forthcoming today. And to the extent Your Honor can expedite the process, I would ask you to please do so.

DEDDEH: All right.

Mr. Dusek.

DUSEK: I was provided today with a box of six three-ring binders of discovery. We will get on it right away. I have advised counsel that it arrived today, that we will be copying it as soon as we can. We'll get it to him as soon as we can, because we both need to read it.

DEDDEH: All right.

I think it's a little premature for me to interfere in this process, where this is the first opportunity or the first day that Mr. Dusek is legally required to give you discovery. And so it sounds like that he is going to provide that in expeditious fashion as soon as practical.

FELDMAN: Very well.

Finally, we are concerned that all parties, Your Honor, receive equal treatment. And I know that there was some discussion in chambers about potentially treating certain individuals who may or may not be witnesses in the case in a manner different than any other party to the case.

And, just for the record, the defense would request that all parties, potential witnesses, counsels, be treated in exactly the same manner, so that no inference can be drawn from the manner in which the court may permit ingress or egress from this courtroom. In other words, I'm concerned that certain individuals not be escorted in a particular manner because of the intensity of the publicity. I think that unfairly communicates a position which I know the court does not have.

I think the court is entirely neutral. But I'm concerned that treatment to witnesses might be viewed as something other than neutral treatment. So, with those comments, I submit.

DEDDEH: Thank you.

Mr. Dusek, anything in that regard?

DUSEK: If Mr. Feldman and Mr. Boies (ph) would like to leave this courtroom, courthouse the same way as the people he is talking about, I'm sure we can arrange that.

DEDDEH: Mr. Feldman.

FELDMAN: I think it is unequivocally clear what's being addressed.

DEDDEH: All right.

All right, well, Mr. Feldman, I'm not going to take that up at this time. I think, for practical reasons, I'm going to allow the individuals that you speak of to be escorted in a manner that is different than others. But I think it is for very practical, logistical and security reasons that I'm doing that. So, thank you.

All right, now, this hearing is going to end. I appreciate the cooperation of the media in this matter. But I just want to remind all of the reporters, whether print reporters or TV reporters, that no interviews are to be conducted in the hallways. All interviews will be conducted on the front steps of the Hall of Justice, that cameras -- two pool cameras have been located outside the courtroom. And no other pool TV cameras are allowed. And the pool still cameras are only allowed at those two stations next to the pool TV cameras. All right?

Anything further?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, Your Honor. Bail was not addressed. He is being currently being held without bail.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we deem appropriate, we will file a request for bail. But we understand the nature of the charges.

DEDDEH: Right. And so bail is set now at no bail. And so you waive your right to a bail review in this matter?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without prejudice, Your Honor.

DEDDEH: Without prejudice to raise it at some point in future.

All right, thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have also an acknowledgement of rights form that probably needs to be filed.

DEDDEH: Right. Thank you.

We're in recess.

WOODRUFF: Fifty-year-old David Westerfield of San Diego in a courtroom in that city charged, as you just heard -- this is the arraignment -- he has been charged in the murder, in the disappearance of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, who disappeared on February 1.

You saw her parents there, sitting in the front row there just behind the attorney's table. You heard a number of motions on the part of Westerfield's attorneys. None of those was motions was accepted by the judge. And then the court went into recess. Again, 50-year-old David Westerfield -- this is again -- this is Westerfield here. He was behind what appeared to be bulletproof glass.

And this is Westerfield coming into the courtroom. And he stood as those charges were read and as the court -- and as the judge listened to the requests by his attorneys.

I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington. One week before primary voters cast their votes, a new poll shows the Republican race for California governor is tightening. An "L.A. Times" survey finds businessman Bill Simon in a dead heat with former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, with Secretary of State Bill Jones in third place. Riordan once enjoyed a double-digit lead over both men.

Well, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley has more on the primary and the "Inside Buzz" on the increasing odds of a photo-finish.


BILL SIMON (R), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Will you wave for the camera, honey?


CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Bill Simon is a conservative with a 100-watt smile, zero political experience, and a 50-50 chance to be the Republican nominee for California governor.

SIMON: It looks like it has turned into a real horse race between Riordan and myself. Up until maybe a couple weeks ago, Dick was way ahead in the polls. But, in the last couple weeks, I have surged, in part because I think our message is now starting to resonate throughout California.


REMY: Remy.


REMY: Remy.

RIORDAN: How do you spell that?


RIORDAN: Remy. I never heard that. That sounds like a wine to me.

CROWLEY: Dick Riordan is the former L.A. mayor, a man who tends to say whatever pops into his head, a left-leaning Republican: pro abortion rights, pro gun control, running at crosscurrents with a right-leaning California GOP.

RIORDAN: I feel very confident that we are going to win. And the main reason is, I'm the only candidate who is capable of beating Gray Davis. And he is the enemy of the state.

CROWLEY: Riordan's appeal to independents and Democrats is the main reason he has the quiet but clear support of White House. The GOP would dearly love a foothold in California, political motto: land of the 55 electoral votes. That would take defeating Democratic Governor Gray Davis, who is not, of course, running in the Republican primary -- well, not officially.


ANNOUNCER: For years, Riordan helped finance the anti-abortion movement and said abortion was murder. Now he says he is pro-choice. Riordan: Is this a record we can trust?


CROWLEY: While Gray Davis questions Riordan's credentials as a moderate, Riordan's primary opponents and their friends question his credentials as a Republican.


BILL JONES (R), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Dick Riordan is a liberal, big city mayor has given millions of dollars to Democrats. Riordan even gave thousands to Gray Davis and Willie Brown. Riordan is a man I couldn't vote for.


CROWLEY: The one-two punch on Riordan has him down, but not out. His poll numbers have dropped precipitously. At the same time, the socially conservative Simon, virtually unknown at the start, is up and clearly in the running, having won a Republican Party straw poll and imported some visibility.


RUDOLPH GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK: Trust me. Bill Simon will make great governor for California.


CROWLEY: A word about the way it works in California: Independents can vote in either party's primary. The more of them who show up to vote Republican, the better for Dick Riordan. But, usually, only die-hards vote in primaries, the party faithful that favor Bill Simon.

JONES: Thanks for coming out tonight. We appreciate it. I'm Bill Jones, secretary of state.

CROWLEY: And do not count out the third man in what looks like a two-man race. Bill Jones, the only Republican holding a statewide elected office, is under funded, but well credentialed.

JONES: I brought 12 million voters to my two statewide elections, even in the worst Republican year we have had. So we do have a base.

(END VIDEOTAPE) CROWLEY: The way Riordan Republicans see it, the choice is this: either of two candidates who cannot win in the fall or the one guy who can. But Simon and Jones read the polls differently. What they see is not who can win this fall, but who can lose. And that man, they say, is Gray Davis -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right, Candy, thank you very much.

And joining me now from Los Angeles with his thoughts on the California Republican primary, our senior analyst Jeff Greenfield, with a West Coast version of the "Bite of the Apple."

All right, Jeff, if today's "Los Angeles Times" poll is right, then why aren't California Republicans buying Riordan's argument that he is the best man to beat Gray Davis?

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: You know, they are buying it. They just don't care.

That same poll shows, by more than 3 1/2 to 1, California Republicans agree that Dick Riordan has the best chance of beating Gray Davis. But he has fallen in the polls and is now in a dead heat because a lot of California Republicans just don't think he is Republican enough.

WOODRUFF: Well, is this reaction to primary voters unusual?

GREENFIELD: I think it's really typical.

In 2000, John McCain's argument was he had more much appeal to independents than Bush did. The polls said he was right. But Republicans said, yes, but he is a heretic on issues like taxes and campaign finance reform. Reagan's opponents in 1980, Howard Baker, George Bush I, tried to make that argument that Reagan was too conservative. California Republicans said, hey, he is our hero.

And, Judy, I am old enough to remember out here a generation ago, in 1976, Pete Wilson, in his first try for Senate, was arguing, "Vote for me or we can't win in November." California Republicans chose S.I. Hayakawa. Remember him, that California college president that cracked down on students? And Hayakawa went on to win. So it is an almost internal battle within primary voters.

WOODRUFF: So what's the lesson here? Does it have something to do with more centrist candidates and having problems with core voters?

GREENFIELD: Well, I'm not sure of that because, after all, Reagan and Hayakawa and George W. Bush all won. But, clearly, in a primary, voters don't necessarily insist you be as conservative or as liberal in the Democratic Party as they are, but you have to be acceptable.

And a combination of Reagan's (sic) positions and sort of personal glitches, insulting a former Republican mayor, a kind of arrogance, people tell me, have all combined to say to a lot of Californians: "We don't care if we have a better shot at winning with him. We don't want it."

And, remember, as Candy pointed out, the irony here, Gray Davis's ads attacking Riordan helped bring him down. And that does suggests that Riordan is right when his slogan is, "I'm the Republican that Gray Davis most fears." But right now, that doesn't seem to be working in that primary.

WOODRUFF: All right, well, it is a fascinating race. And we are going to keep a close watch until everybody votes a week from today. Jeff, thanks very much.


WOODRUFF: Just ahead, please hold for the next available operator. Our Bruce Morton has some thoughts on the telephone torture known as voice mail.


WOODRUFF: Many Americans may not have heard of Gordon Matthews, who died over the weekend at the age of 65. May he rest in peace. But most are very familiar with his invention: voice mail.

Our Bruce Morton looks at Matthew's legacy.


BRUCE MORTON, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Gordon Matthews, he invented voice mail and changed America.

COMPUTER: Thank you for calling Amtrak. To hear a schedule and fare information...

COMPUTER: Welcome to the Internal Revenue Service.

COMPUTER: Touch-tone callers, press one now.

MORTON: No more telephone operators, no more switchboards, no more coming to a desk full of message slips that your secretary left for you. What's a secretary?

JOEL ACHENBACH, "WASHINGTON POST": I don't think secretaries exist anymore. I don't even think we can use the word secretary anymore. I think that it is understood now that technology runs our lives.

MORTON: That is the trouble. This man is calling the Passport Information Office.

COMPUTER: All agents are currently assisting other customers. Please hold and the next available agent will assist you.

MORTON: Yes, right.

COMPUTER: We are sorry for the delay. All agents are still busy. ACHENBACH: You find yourself screaming into the phone saying, no, I don't want any of those six options. I want the option seven that you are not giving to me.

MORTON (on camera): And the recording always thanks us for our patience. I don't have a lot of patience. And when I hear that, I am always tempted to give the phone a good whack. You can say that's silly or telephone abuse or whatever. If you want to argue about it, call me. I'm right here, 202-898-7547. But don't expect to get a real person. I have got voice mail just like everybody else.

Bruce Morton, CNN, Washington.


WOODRUFF: And, as we say, Gordon Matthews, may he rest in peace.

INSIDE POLITICS will be right back, followed by "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" and the full CNN interview with Daniel Pearl's widow, Marianne. Stay with us.


WOODRUFF: A follow-up now on some "Inside Buzz" yesterday from our Bob Novak. As you may remember, he reported that White House speechwriter David Frum was leaving his job just weeks after his wife sent out an e-mail to friends saying he was the author of the president's now famous axis of evil are line. Well, I spoke with Frum yesterday. And he wants to underscore that he submitted his resignation before the president's State of the Union address. Frum says he's leaving the White House of his own volition. He says he wanted to go out and write in his own voice.

CNN's coverage continues now with "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Thanks for joining us. I'm Judy Woodruff.


Results Gauge Anti-U.S. Sentiment in World>



Back to the top