"The McLaughlin Group"

Host: John McLaughlin

Panel: Pat Buchanan, Author and Columnist; Eleanor Clift, Newsweek; Rich Lowry, National Review; Clarence Page, Columnist, Chicago Tribune

Taped: Friday, July 6, 2012

Broadcast: Weekend of July 7-8, 2012







JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Issue one: Paul's letter to the drones.

July 4th, the celebration of America's Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The July 4th grand display of fireworks overhead on Wednesday may not have been all that was up there. What else? There may also have been drones.

Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, pilotless aircraft used mostly by the U.S. military for surveillance, reconnaissance and killings, as in Yemen recently.

Here at home, law enforcement agencies, local police are eager to utilize drones for civil surveillance. Some already do; 146 commercial drones are now accessible to civil law enforcement nationwide. The number is expected to skyrocket.

The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee called for allowing these military drones to operate, quote-unquote, "freely and routinely in U.S. air space." Such authorization has rattled some members of Congress, notably Republican Senator Rand Paul. He's introduced an act to prohibit the use of drones by U.S. civilian government unless authorized by a warrant. That would put parameters on such civil drone usage.

SENATOR RAND PAUL (R-KY): (From videotape.) What I would say is that drones could be used if you have a proper warrant, but that means you go through a judge, a judge has to say there's probable cause of a crime. But I don't want drones roaming across, crisscrossing our cities and our country, snooping on Americans. And that's a surveillance state that I'm very concerned about, and that's what our bill would stop.

Question: Is Senator Rand Paul's worry about a potential surveillance state, a, is it over the top; b, is it on the mark; c, is it understated?

PAT BUCHANAN: John, I think it's right on the mark, but it's not simply the drones. Look at where we are. You know, Winston and Julia in "1984," what were they? The telescreens of big brother, were all over the place. Look at where these cameras are. They're in liquor stores, they're in bars, they're in hotels, they're everywhere you go.

Individuals have these phones now, and they can take pictures of you. Look what happened to the senator from Virginia. And so I think it really is an over-monitored society, and drones would add something to it, but only marginally.

But I do think Rand Paul is exactly right. If you're going to get the cops to put these drones over somebody's house, they ought to have a warrant to do it.


ELEANOR CLIFT: I think it's a little over the top, a little survivalist mentality as --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: On his part?

MS. CLIFT: On his part. He doesn't want anybody, you know, checking to see how many cans of food he's got stacked in his basement. But you know, I tend to be live and let live on this subject. I think we have surrendered so much of our privacy, between all the cameras that Pat's talking about, Facebook where people willingly share, you can Google anybody and find out a lot about them, that, you know, I don't -- I'm not alarmed about it.

But I do take his larger point that the technology is now sprinting ahead of us so fast that there may be some room here for federal regulation. And I hate to tell him. I mean, he would not like the federal government, probably, getting involved in this. But I think that's probably going to happen at some point.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think Pat's trying to hide something from any possible drone -- (laughter) -- it's always something for this panel to consider.

(Cross talk.)

MR. BUCHANAN: It's all out there, John! (Laughter.)

MS. CLIFT: Pat's an open book! (Laughter.)

RICH LOWRY: I think it's overblown, particularly with regard to the --


MR. LOWRY: -- with the drones -- yeah. I mean, look, the drones have a horrible image, right, because all we hear about them in the news is when they're flying over some foreign country, assassinating people. So then you've got the vision of them flying here in the U.S. and you've got this dystopian, you know, "Blade Runner" type society that you conjure up.

But I think the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would apply. If you're surveiling people where they have an expectation of privacy, you can't do that with anything, whether it's a drone or anything else, and you would need a warrant. But if you're -- if you're just -- if you're going places, you know, if you're flying a drone over Pat's favorite neighborhood bar where Pat does not have an expectation of privacy -- (laughter) -- and might be on a camera otherwise doing things we don't want to talk about, well, then that's OK.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah. Let's have a drink to the drone! (Laughter.)

CLARENCE PAGE: Hear hear! Well, I think, in some ways, it's over the top. But if you're really worried about it or if Paul's really worried about it, it's understated, because he only talks about police drones following criminal activity. It makes sense that you would need a warrant for that. But most of the surveillance going on is not cops, it's not government, it's the private sector.

How many private eyes out there are buying drones right now to go and look for philandering husbands? You know, there's some -- Google Maps, for that matter, has been controlled in some countries insofar as what pictures they can put up on the web, because they've been getting so many shots of people nude sunbathing at their own swimming pools and this sort of thing.

And it's true. Every one of us with a cell phone now has a TV studio in our pocket.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So do you want a warrant or no warrant?

MR. PAGE: No, for public police, criminal activity, (those type of cases ?), it makes sense to have a warrant.

But what about the private sector? Paul doesn't even address that.

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: As long as they're trying to apprehend a criminal, he holds up a corner drugstore, he's making his way, are they going to put a warrant request in? Are they --

(Cross talk.)

MR. PAGE: You're talking about a security camera. That's understandable. That's your own property. You're just monitoring yourself.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: No, I'm talking about --

MR. BUCHANAN: But John, they use helicopters right now. If your car -- if your car --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Getting a drone -- (cross talk) -- why don't we put them right on that front door?

MR. PAGE: Shoot them down! (Chuckles.) No, I'm not going to say that. Somebody on Fox News said that. I'm not going to say that.

MS. CLIFT: I actually --

MR. BUCHANAN: Look, look -- they now use cameras on helicopters when you've got car chases or if you get a hostage situation you can do that. I think you use those in the same way you use a helicopter. But if you're going to, I mean, survey somebody, you should get a warrant.

MS. CLIFT: Actually, I think the greater threat could come from corporate America and trying to check out consumer habits, and they would just float over these suburban neighborhoods. (Chuckles.) Checking out what's --

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: There's money to be made on the manufacturing and selling drones, big potential money, especially if we're going to have a widespread, national adoption by local police forces.

MR. BUCHANAN: What's the market for it?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Number two -- number two --

MR. BUCHANAN: What's the market for it?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It is clearly, although it may be overstated right now, there is clearly time for a pause, so let's see more about the phenomenon before we legislate anything.

MR. LOWRY: But John, it's just --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: Will the worry about a potential surveillance drone invasion be regulated by cities, states or the federal government? Will it be, eventually?

MR. BUCHANAN: Eventually, I think the police are going to have to get warrants to use them against suspects.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think?

MS. CLIFT: Eventually, the feds will come in and the tea party will say, keep government's hands off my drones! (Laughter.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Rich, what do you think?

MR. LOWRY: There will be rules at the state and the city level.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think?

MR. PAGE: I think there's -- well, they're going to debate this forever because where do you draw the line? I mean, you know, out in public space, is that really an invasion of privacy?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, the worst regulation that can come or the most protective is like guns. You register your name, you sign this is your gun, we put the number of the gun on it, and that's it for now.

Issue two: The 1 percent elite.

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY (R), Republican Presidential Candidate: (From videotape.) Let's put behind this idea of attacking me because of my investments or my money, and let's get Republicans to say, you know what, what you've accomplished in your life shouldn't be seen as a detriment, it should be seen as an asset to help America.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: During the primary season, candidate Mitt Romney's monetary worth was the subject of jabs by his Republican opponents. Romney defended his wealth gained from his own investments. His financial disclosure report was released in April by his campaign. It shows the candidate is worth between 190 (million dollars) to $255 million.

Mr. Romney's opponent is also a millionaire. Barack Obama worth, along with his wife, Michelle, a minimum of 2.6 million (dollars) and a maximum of $8.3 million. President Obama earns royalties on his books, notably "Dreams of My Father," but also "The Audacity of Hope." He also has a half-a-million (dollars) to $1 million in a JPMorgan investment account, and a house in Chicago, and many diversified other relatively small investments.

The president's financial disclosure statement allows for a range when listing assets, so it is unclear how much the president is exactly worth. The same holds true for the reports on Mitt Romney. But what is clear is that two multimillionaires, Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, are competing for the top job in this nation and for leader of the world.
Question: What are we to make, if anything, of two multimillionaires seeking to become president of this nation and the leader of the free world?

Eleanor Clift.

MS. CLIFT: Not a whole lot. I like the fact --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean business as usual?

MS. CLIFT: Well, I -- looking back at presidential candidates for as far as I can see, most of them were pretty rich, and if they weren't rich when they were first elected, they somehow managed to get rich in -- I think Harry Truman --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, how about rank-and-file Americans?

MS. CLIFT: -- is the last president I can think of who wasn't wealthy and actually didn't even make money after he left office. So I think these levels of money are kind of meaningless. You do want to ask where they came from. And I think, you know, the president has made his money writing books, and Mitt Romney has made his money in the private sector, which he is using as his qualification to be president. And so rightfully that's being examined.

And I appreciate the look at the Obama's house in Chicago. Are we going to look at the Romney houses? (Laughter.) I think there are seven or eight!

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Michelle was a real estate person. And I think that house has a value of about $1 million.

MS. CLIFT: Oh, I'm sure. But --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It's a better section -- it's the best section of Chicago.

MR. PAGE: Hyde Park where the University of Chicago is, yeah.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think it's worth?

MR. PAGE: That's a great neighborhood there. Well, it's hard to say. Since the real estate bubble is over now, maybe it's down to around 1 million (dollars) now, I suppose.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And there's also the lot next to it, and I think he sold the lot.

MR. PAGE: Part of it. Part of it, yeah.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: OK, there we are. OK.

America's most exclusive club: Collectively, the worth of all members of both the House and the Senate in 2010 -- hold your breath -- $2 billion. And that's a minimum estimate, so says Roll Call newspaper which focuses on Capitol Hill.

Here are the top 10 richest senators: one, John Kerry, Democrat, Massachusetts, 193 million (dollars); two, Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, West Virginia, 82 million (dollars); three, Mark Warner, Democrat, Virginia, 76 million (dollars); four, Frank Lautenberg, Democrat, New Jersey, 55 million (dollars); five, Richard Blumenthal, Democrat, Connecticut, 53 million (dollars); six, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat, California, 45 million (dollars); seven, Bob Corker, Republican, Tennessee, 21 million (dollars); eight, James Risch, Republican, Idaho, 20 million (dollars); nine, Claire McCaskill, Democrat, Missouri, 17 million (dollars); ten, Lamar Alexander, Republican, Tennessee, 10 million (dollars).

Of the 10 richest senators in Congress, seven are Democrats, three Republicans.

Question -- by the way, Roll Call newspaper says that roughly 40 percent -- 40 percent -- of the U.S. Congress are millionaires. The wealth of members of Congress is divided fairly evenly between the parties. Democrats in the Senate hold 80 percent of the wealth and Republicans in the House hold 78 percent of the wealth.

What about all this money?

MS. CLIFT: Well, first of all, running for office is a big roll of the dice. And so people who do it generally have a nice little financial cushion that they can fall back on if it doesn't work out. So I think the people who run for Congress, as a whole, tend to be more well-heeled.
But The Washington Post has done some terrific reporting lately on the --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Saying what?

MS. CLIFT: -- way that members of the House, in particular, both parties, and the Senate, too, I think, have used their insider knowledge of the economic picture, particularly during that meltdown in 2008, 2009 to make changes in their investment portfolios that benefited them.

And insider trading, which they've tried to put some restraints on it, they haven't done anything illegal, but I'll tell you, it sure smells.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's the point? The it smells?

MR. LOWRY: They're quite comfortable --

MS. CLIFT: It smells, yes!

MR. LOWRY: They're quite comfortable, John.


MR. LOWRY: Most of them are quite comfortable before they run, sort of a predicate of picking up and running for office. And none of them really get poor once they're in office. You know a lot of rich people, you hear a lot of things, and it's a big benefit.


MR. BUCHANAN: Let me give you a --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The top 1 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives, there are currently 435 seats. The wealth index: one, Michael McCaul, Republican, Texas, 294 million (dollars); two, Darrell Issa, Republican, California, 220 million (dollars); Jared Polis, Democrat, Colorado, 66 million (dollars); four, Vern Buchanan, Republican, Florida, 44 million (dollars); five, Jim Renacci, Republican, Ohio, 36 million (dollars); six, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, California, 35 million (dollars); seven, Rick Berg, Republican, North Dakota, 22 million (dollars); eight, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Republican, New Jersey, 20 million (dollars); nine, Gary Miller, Republican, California, 18 million (dollars); ten, Kenny Marchant, Republican, Texas, 16 million (dollars).

Of the 10 richest members of the House, eight are Republicans, two Democrats.

Question: What do these rich House numbers tell you?
I ask you.

MR. LOWRY: Well, it's easier to run for office when you have that cushion of some wealth, although interestingly a lot of self- funding, really rich candidates fail because they think, because I'm rich and I've succeeded at something else I can jump into politics and I'm going to be a success at that, when actually having experience in politics helps.
And two, it really helps to have to go out and raise money, because that's another way you go --


MR. BUCHANAN: John, you made the point earlier --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You think that you really must have a cushion, a financial cushion in your life before you can make a political run, not to pay for the campaign, but to pay for everything else. You follow me?

MR. BUCHANAN: Well, you know something? Yeah, well, I've recommended people, young people ask you, and I say, before you go into politics and run for something, get yourself a business or a calling or a vocation that you can fall back on when you lose, otherwise if you get into --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What about regulating the use of money in political campaigns?

MR. BUCHANAN: Well, I'm not for that. But you know, go back to your point, John, or Eleanor's point. Lyndon Johnson came to Washington, D.C. without a penny, and he died with 42 million (dollars) -- (laughter) -- about 30 or 40 years ago, and he had a media empire and all these other goodies.

MS. CLIFT: Right. And if you read --

(Cross talk.)

MR. LOWRY: He's high on the list of the richest presidents.

MR. BUCHANAN: He came to do good and stayed on and did very well indeed.

MS. CLIFT: And if you read Robert Carroll's latest biography, Lyndon Johnson was like 24 hours away from possibly being indicted when Kennedy was assassinated and, you know, everybody forgot about all that other stuff.

MR. BUCHANAN: Bobby was after him.

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: It's July 4th. Would the Founding Fathers have approved of all these rich guys and gals in the Congress? Or was that the original plan? And were they wealthy?

MR. BUCHANAN: Is that the exit question?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's the exit question.

MR. BUCHANAN: OK, to me. Washington, Madison and Jefferson, three of the Founding Fathers, had giant plantations with slaves and were among the richest guys in the colonies. Ben Franklin was an inventor. Hamilton was a great lawyer. John Adams hugely successful lawyer.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And Washington was a great general.

MR. BUCHANAN: He was a great man, but they were all elites and they were the richest, most powerful, successful men in the colony.


MS. CLIFT: Well, and they tried -- yeah, they tried to reserve the vote for elites actually, and people have chipped away -- women --

MR. BUCHANAN: Unfortunately.

MS. CLIFT: -- African Americans -- (laughter) -- right. The Founding Fathers were not perfect.

MR. LOWRY: Very rich, but not a lot of liquid assets because it was tied up in the land. And you read about George Washington having to scrounge around for money just to make it up to New York to become president.

MR. PAGE: And Thomas Jefferson wasn't very good at managing his money either, although a genius in other things.

But you know, this is the gift of democracy and the protection of minority rights, because they were trying to protect themselves. They were the minority, the rich, white guys.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It was also something else.

MR. PAGE: Something else, John? Who's that, pray tell!

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, slave labor.

MR. PAGE: Well, that's true. And you know, that was the foundation that they -- the slaves couldn't vote at that time. But the language in the Constitution led to slaves getting that vote eventually, and Indians, and women.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The Constitution is silent on the (manner ?) --

MR. LOWRY: The language in the declaration. The language in the declaration was a great --

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'm not talking about slavery, I'm talking about wealth. The language of the Constitution is silent on wealth.
Issue three: Where are the women?

Female voters will be a formidable bloc in the November presidential election just over four months from now, if recent history acts as guide.

Women voters have comprised a larger segment of the voting electorate than men, in every U.S. presidential election since 1984. In the last go-around, 2008, 53 percent of the electorate was comprised of women, compared to 47 percent men.

So with so many women voting, why are they so vastly under- represented in the federal government? Of the 100 senators in the U.S. Senate, 17 senators are women. So the Senate is 17 women, 83 men. And of the 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives, 73 are women, 360 men, two vacancies.

Why are there so few, especially relatively speaking where it's very vivid, women in the Congress, Eleanor?

MS. CLIFT: Because they have better things to do. And I'm not --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Now, wait a minute! (Laughter.)

MS. CLIFT: I'm not just trying to be flippant.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you slurring the political --

MS. CLIFT: No. I'm saying that there are so many opportunities available now to women where you don't have to put your whole family on display, you don't have to make your tax returns public, you don't have to turn your life over seven days, 24 hours, and you don't have to put up with all the criticism from your opponent and the media.

Politics is a tough profession, but there are like a dozen pretty high-profile women running for the Senate and the House in this election cycle, mostly Democrats, some Republicans. And so there are some predictions that we could get the numbers up this time.

The year of the woman in 1992, four women, Democratic women were elected to the Senate, and that was like, boy, that shocked the system that that many women could get in at one time. Now both parties are recruiting women because they see that electorate, which is dominantly women, but women don't necessarily just vote for women because of the gender solidarity.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Now, let's cut to the chase here, all right? When will the United States elect a female president? When?

MR. LOWRY: Do you want a year? (Laughter.){

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want a year! We've got a four -- a quadrennial cycle.

MR. BUCHANAN: 2040 or 2050.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That late?

MR. BUCHANAN: Let's hope so!

MS. CLIFT: Oh! (Laughter.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You hear that?

MS. CLIFT: How about 2016?

(Cross talk.)

MR. BUCHANAN: Eleanor, excuse me --

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean Hilary has a duty to her gender to run for president?

MS. CLIFT: She doesn't have a duty, but a lot of women and some men were disappointed that --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: She owes it to her gender. Her gender, not a gender -- gender!

MS. CLIFT: She owes it to the things she believes in to make it to the top spot.

MR. BUCHANAN: Her time has come and gone, I believe --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Quickly, quickly, quickly.

MR. LOWRY: I have no idea, John. When you have the right woman at the right time, it will happen.

The country is ready for it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, here we go. The National Review, there you are.

(Cross talk.)

MR. PAGE: I know you like specificity, don't you?


MR. PAGE: Hilary Clinton, 2016.



MR. BUCHANAN: John, but there's no Republican vice president even now. They cannot even consider any woman for vice president on the Republican ticket.

(Cross talk.)

MR. PAGE: You know, it's the individual.

MR. BUCHANAN: It's a long time -- I was joking about 2040!

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: 2028 -- 2028, that's four cycles ahead.

MR. LOWRY: Who's it going to be?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue four: Going-to-the-dogs vote. Like all pet owners, U.S. presidents love their pets. In an election year like this one, famous pets can be an asset. Candidate Barack Obama seen here with dog Bo has been featuring Bo in campaign ads and to raise campaign money. Why? To target the coveted pet-owner vote.
Get this, pet owners are now considered a micro constituency, like military families and stay-at-home moms. Specially designed gear for cats and dogs have been created for the Obama campaign in order to raise money. Pet owners can buy "Cats for Obama" collars and Obama dog sweaters. Also, quote, "Pet owners would likely fall into the moderate-to-high-income suburbanite voting group that is on the target list for both campaigns this cycle. Targeting what matters the most to these people truly makes a difference," unquote, so says Brian Donahue, Republican strategist.

Obama now showcases Bo. And Republican candidate Mitt Romney had to answer to a report that his family back in the 1980s put their dog into a carrier and strapped it to the roof of their car on a family vacation.

Question: We know that a lot of voters like a candidate, a political candidate more if he or she is a dog or cat owner. But do we also know the opposite, that many voters are disinclined to vote for a candidate who owns a dog or a cat or any animal? Do you follow me?

MS. CLIFT: Yeah. Show me the poll that finds that. (Laughter.) I have not met a single person who has said, the reason I don't like --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Suppose you hate those dogs and cats?

MS. CLIFT: No, they're -- they don't take that out on a politician. I just don't see that.

MR. LOWRY: Cats always get short shrift. In the White House, Lincoln had a cat. He was famously gentle with animals, and he would feed it with a silver spoon in the White House. Mary once got mad at him and said, what are you doing, Mr. President? And he said, well, if this spoon was good enough for Buchanan, it's good enough for Tabby."


MS. CLIFT: Was Tabby allowed on the table, though?

MR. LOWRY: I think it was on a chair or a table.

MS. CLIFT: The Clintons had a cat, famously Socks, a black-and- white cat who lived to a good old age.


MS. CLIFT: And then Clinton got a dog after he left the White House, but he was hit by a car.

MR. BUCHANAN: Nixon had a dog in the White House, John. What was his name?

MS. CLIFT: Checkers!

MR. BUCHANAN: No, not Checkers in the White House. Nixon got a dog. What was his name?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What was the name of -- (cross talk) -- Eleanor Roosevelt's dog?

MR. PAGE: Fala!

MS. CLIFT: Fala!

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And how devoted was Roosevelt to the dog?

MR. BUCHANAN: He was very devoted and he used him in campaign speeches. And what as the name of Nixon's dog? King Timahoe.

MS. CLIFT: Oh, sure.

MR. PAGE: Now you remember?


MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah. Remember that?

(Cross talk.) (Laughter.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, thanks for that obscure piece of wisdom! (Laughter.)

Let me ask you this. What was the extent to which Franklin Roosevelt relied or liked that dog?

MR. BUCHANAN: Oh, he loved the dog. It was a Scottie. My Scottie --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah. What color?

MR. BUCHANAN: Oh, he was -- it was black and white --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Black, about that long?

MR. BUCHANAN: No, it was a combination, I think. He said, if you -- he talked about putting down the dog on the Scotch plaid, you know -- (laughter) --

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, we obviously know politicians who have catered to the public.

You think Obama is one?

MR. PAGE: Catering to the public?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: No, their dog -- they had dogs or something before they became --

MR. LOWRY: Well, no, he famously bought the dog as a gift to his daughters after he won. And for a while, his team was trying to make a big deal, this incident where Romney put the dog up in a cage in on a cross-country trip.


MR. LOWRY: David Axelrod would tweet out loving pictures of Obama and his dog.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Huge issue!

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The dog climbed himself up to the top of the car. He wouldn't come down. (Laughter.) So Romney says, we'll rope him in and we'll see if he gets tired of it. And they stopped intermittently to check on the dog.

(Cross talk.)

MS. CLIFT: It was --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Now you're saying Romney is not suitable for president because he mistreated his dog?

MR. LOWRY: It was neutralized by the Obama --

MS. CLIFT: Romney -- the feeling that Romney abused that animal is rampant all over the Internet and among many dog lovers. It was a --
(Cross talk.)

Excuse me, it was a --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know. I mean, who uses the Internet that way?

MS. CLIFT: A lot of people. If you Google Romney, it's one of the first things that comes up: dog on roof. (Laughter.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: "A lot of people" includes a lot of nuts, right?

MS. CLIFT: It was a 1,200-mile car ride. The dog got sick along the way. And at one --

MR. LOWRY: But he had a --

MS. CLIFT: He hosed it down and --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Whose version is that? Whose version is that?

MR. PAGE: It's Romney's version.

MS. CLIFT: That's Romney's version.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Prediction: Pat?

MR. BUCHANAN: Stockton, California is the largest city in America ever to go bankrupt. Unfortunately, the next one is going to be Detroit.


MS. CLIFT: A record number of women will be elected in the 2012 cycle, year of the woman II.


MR. LOWRY: No Democratic Senate candidates run advertisements about their support of "Obamacare."


MR. PAGE: "Obamacare" is going to turn not to be a plus for Obama before November.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Listen to this, you know, fasten your seat belt, Clarence. I predict that the strongest reason why Mr. Obama may lose the election in November will be public outrage over "Obamacare."