Special Report Roundtable - April 10

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON IMUS, IMUS IN THE MORNING: What I did is made a stupid, idiotic mistake in a comedy context. I didn't open the microphone to say this is what I think of these Rutgers women.

MATT LAUER, TODAY SHOW: What do you think of the punishment?

REV AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: I think it is not nearly enough. I think it's a little too -- too little too late. I think the fact of the matter is that the gravity of this kind of use of airways must be stopped.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, there he was again, Don Imus on television again this morning going at it with Al Sharpton. The question, I suppose, has to be asked is why would he choose to do that?

Some thoughts on that now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call; and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio -- FOX NEWS contributors all.

Well, it all began last Wednesday morning on Don Imus' radio program when kind of in passing over pictures of the Rutgers Women's Basketball team he referred to them as "nappy-headed hos." By Friday he has apologizing and he has been apologizing ever sense for what nearly everyone who agrees, were hopelessly offensive comments that he says he shouldn't have made and everybody agrees. The question is now, is there any end in sight for this and what was he doing still talking on the television about it today?

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: Well, I think he has to demonstrate contrition over and over and over again to prove that he is really, really, really, really sorry. And you know...

HUME: Does that work ever?

KONDRACKE: Well, the Rutgers Women's Basketball team and its coach is willing to talk to him. I think he could -- that may be a channel to redemption here, but this is a power trip...

HUME: Do you imagine that anybody on the Rutgers Women's Basketball team or out of Rutgers had heard the remark or heard of it that day?

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: Well, the kerfuffle has made it, you know, has put it front and center, here we are talking about it.

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Yeah, it doesn't matter when they heard about it.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: No, but wait. The Rutgers basketball team, and I watched them at their press conference and their coach and whoever that guy was who was acting as the M.C. -- who was that, the college president or something? But anyway, whoever it was, I watched them and I thought this is a wonderful basketball team. They have every right to be proud of what they did. You know, they beat Duke. I think Duke was unbeaten, everybody expected was going to win in the Women's National Championship then they went on -- Rutgers went on to the final four.

I mean, they have every right to be proud of their great achievement, and yet their coach said they were physically, mentally, and emotionally spent by what Don Imus said. And my reaction was, for heaven's sakes, why? You know, it's not as if the president of the United States or some House speaker made this remark about them.

HUME: Or another coach or players on another team or the head of the NCAA.

BARNES: This guy's a shock jock. I mean, he does this for a living. He's made racist remarks before. One of the players said that he was scarred for life -- by something that Don Imus said? Look, I don't care what he said, as bad as it was, it can't, you know, take away their achievement. It does not taint their team at all. And I think they make one huge mistake and that is going to meet with Don Imus. They don't need to meet with him. They ought to flicking him off like a mosquito and move on and be proud instead of acting as they did today. They acted like victims. They're winners. They should act like winners.

KONDRACKE: That sounds correct. On the other hand, they do live in a culture where a "ho" is commonly toss around term -- by whom? By whom, by the rap music industry, by black men, largely. Now, if Al Sharpton really wants to change things in his culture, what he should really do is go after the recording industry and go after BET, which plays a lot of those videos, as I gather it, you know, instead of just concentrating on Don Imus.

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: I was going to say, the one thing that I do agree with Al Sharpton is that this kind of use of the airwaves must be stopped. It would pretty nice -- would be nice if people stopped listening to Don Imus if they were offended by him. I don't, you know, I don't listen to the show, but I certainly hope that everybody else who was offended by his comments would simply stop listening.

HUME: Is it now incumbent upon all these prominent journalists and politicians who appear on that program regularly, because he does a serious interviews, and it's a good platform with a very large audience, should they now be stopping doing that because of this comment?

LIASSON: That's up to them. I mean none of -- I mean, so far, we haven't heard from anybody that they will. Interestingly enough...

HUME: John McCain says he'd go on again.

LIASSON: John McCain says he will...

HUME: Rudy Giuliani said he would.

LIASSON: Yes. Now, Senator Clinton and Barack Obama who have both criticized Imus have not said anything about whether they would go on.

Look, this guy is going to be -- I think there's more punishment in store for him, whether it's going to be a longer...

HUME: He'll be off the air for two weeks.

LIASSON: ...whether it's going to be a longer hiatus from the air, or there's going to be more humiliation and public apologies. So, he's not finished.

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: If you think his apology, his request for forgiveness as sincere, I think if you believe that, I don't, but if you believe that, then you should feel free to on the show.

HUME: You do not think he wants to be forgiven?

BARNES: Yeah, well, I don't...

HUME: You don't think he's contrite?

BARNES: Well, there is a history here of remarks.

(CROSSTALK)

I think he needs to do though, is stay off television. You know, I think Mort was going to say when he said a "power trip," I mean, I think what this does in a perverse way for Don Imus is make him seem all the more important. I mean, here we are talking about him, for heaven sakes, for the second day in a row.

KONDRACKE: Yeah look, he's on probation and he's -- well he should be on probation with everybody. If he continues this potty-mouth, insulting, you know, semi-racist stuff in the future, then people should get off.

LIASSON: Not semi-racist, it was racist.

KONDRACKE: Well, this was racist, but I don't know that he has a record of being a racist.

HUME: No, I don't know, his record -- I mean, I've seen efforts to try to construct a racist background and it's a little skimpy.

LIASSON: Although, Gwen Ifill. That was pretty racist.

HUME: He said of Gwen Ifill, our colleague Gwen Ifill, that when she was the New York Times, was covering the White House, that the New York Times what a great newspaper and has the cleaning lady covering the White House.

LIASSON: I mean, that's awful. That's pretty awful.

HUME: That's on a par with this, I suppose.

LIASSON: Yeah.

HUME: Now, quick question here. Mort you seem to think he had to keep apologizing until it's stuck, right? Fred, you think it was a bad idea to go on TV. Mara, why don't you break the tie on that. Should he have gotten off TV after the early apology?

LIASSON: I don't know whether -- you mean in terms of managing his career? I have no idea. I think the guy is not finished being publicly humiliated. I don't think he's finished paying the price for what he did and maybe eventually he will and they'll be rehabilitated and forgiven.

HUME: When we come back with our panel, the fight over war funds and the invitation the Democrats declined. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, I'm inviting congressional leaders from both parties -- both political parties, to meet with me at the White House next week.

HARRY REID (D-NV), HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: It's with preconditions. He wants to go down there and say, "I want a clean bill." That's not negotiating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, interesting question. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were saying recently that they thought it's be a good idea for the president to meet with them. The president now asked to meet with them, but as the president said he met with them not so that he could adjust his position, but so that he could make the case to them of a need for a clean bill, as Harry Reid describes.

So, where does this controversy lie? It seems to me that this is being fought out on a legislative level, we all know that, the bill, or the substance of the bill is real, it matters. On the other hand, this is clearly a political fight, as well, with each side is struggling to get the upper hand, politically. Who, in your judgment has it at the moment? How is this going? Is the administration winning this fight or are the Democrats and the Hill winning?

LIASSON: I think it's very unclear. The Democrats and the White House are both equally convinced that they have the politics on their side. And it's very unclear. The one thing that the president can do until the actual machinery starts working, until he actually has a bill on his desk - - and don't forget they haven't even finished negotiating between the two Houses to send them on -- is he can say over and over again that he wants a clean bill and he wants the troops supported and anything else is undercutting the troops. He wasn't inviting them up there to negotiate, he was inviting them up there -- this is all part of the Kabuki dance -- he was inviting them up there on the pretext that they should give him a progress support on how their negotiations between themselves are going. That's silly. This thing is going to play itself out, eventually he's get a bill, he's going to veto it and then negotiations will start.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, I mean this is game of chicken and each side...

HUME: Who's winning?

KONDRACKE: ...and each side pressed the pedal a little further. I don't think either -- I don't think it's clear who is winning yet. I don't think we've reached the point where the troops are beginning to suffer. I think the president ultimately will win and that they'll have to give him - - they'll have to remove the deadline. But there's going to be a deal of some sort, here, and they're going to be, probably benchmarks in the bill, and there are going to be some pork in the bill, Katrina, post-Katrina stuff. You know, but the negotiating is not going to start until after the veto and until the pressure has been ratcheted up some more and there's some polls on the subject and each side feels each other out. But, right now, nobody's talking The danger is...

HUME: No, everybody is talking and just not to each other.

KONDRACKE: I mean, the danger is that they won't know when to quit, that the left will drive the Democrats to insist on some sort of deadline and the president will block the deadline and the money will run out and then we really will beg denying the troops reinforcements, equipment, training, all that stuff.

BARNES: I don't think that's going to happen. I think we know, from both Carl Levin and Barack Obama, Democratic senators, that ultimately they're going to fund the troops. They would like the president to accept their timetables that they have them there. They know he's not, but as Senator Levin said just this Sunday, and he is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a very influential and smart guy -- that at the end of the day, he said: look, we're not going to vote to cut funding period. And they're not. So, all this is just foreplay leading up to the time when, as both Mort and Mara said, that when the veto comes and then they send him a bill that's cleaner. It'll have some of the port, but it's not going to set timetables. I mean, they've given away the game on that, Levin and Obama both have.

KONDRACKE: Well, as you know, Obama was talking having short-term extensions of funding, you know, put him on a three month leash or something like that, which is, I don't think would be acceptable to him either, but that may be the middle ground if there is one.

BARNES: It's too late to negotiate that now between the House and the Senate, that's not going to happen.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: That could be the post-veto approach.

BARNES: Yeah, maybe later, but anyway, I'm not sure who's winning this, but I thought Senate Majority Leader Reid looked ridiculous in saying, you know, that's not negotiating, I mean, Nancy Pelosi is, the House speaker said she wants to come there because they have to talk about ending the war. Well, that's a precondition. That's her position. And the president has his position.

HUME: I mean, but when somebody states a position and says that's the positioning in the start, is that a reason not to talk?

KONDRACKE: No, you know...

LIASSON: There's no point in talking now. Just send them the bill, veto the bill, and then talk.

HUME: But everybody knows that that's going to be the outcome. The bill they're going to send, any version between the House and the Senate is going to be vetoed.

LIASSON: Yeah, but I'm saying, that's when you start talking, after the veto.

KONDRACKE: If the Democrats are willing to talk to Syria and Iran, I don't know why they're not going to talk to the president.

HUME: Yeah, is that a point I can be made?

KONDRACKE: I just made it.

HUME: I hear you. (INAUDIBLE)