Return to Transcripts main page


Political Parties Get Mixed Messages on the Election; Obama Insider Speaks; Maine Rejects Same-Sex Marriage; Missed Opportunities in the Jaycee Dugard Case

Aired November 4, 2009 - 23:00   ET



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight, "Raw Politics" and messages from the voting booth: one for Democrats who took a pounding on the economy, the other for Republicans who lost a closely watched Congressional race in New York State.

Tonight, what it means for President Obama, Republican moderates and the upcoming midterm elections. Republican Liz Cheney joins us as does David Plouffe, former campaign manager for President Obama.

Also, the bitter battle over same-sex marriage in Maine. What last night's loss for gay marriage supporters means.

And do you think authorities do a good job keeping track of sex offenders? Well, think again. New details in a new report, how law enforcement repeatedly failed to supervise Phillip Garrido, the man charged with kidnapping and raping and holding Jaycee Dugard captive for 18 years in his own backyard; a 10-year record of failure by authorities. We're "Keeping them Honest" tonight.

First up, "Raw Politics," election fallout and how it's being spun all day by Democrats and Republicans. Nancy Pelosi claiming victory, ignoring the election of Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia, focusing instead on a Democrat winning in upstate New York over a conservative challenger.


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: From my perspective, we won last night. We had one race that we were engaged in; it was in northern New York. It was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War.


COOPER: Well, Michael Steele, the Republican Party Chairman, focused on the big wins for two Republican governors in states President Obama won last year and campaigned heavily in this time.


MICHAEL STEELE, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CHAIRMAN: Republican renaissance has begun. It's begun in earnest, in which we put our faith in the hopes and dreams of the American people to rebuild our economy from the bottom up. Not the big deficit spending plans and policies of the politicians in Washington or our state capitals.

The message was sent yesterday. It's not about the change we need. It's about the change we want.


COOPER: Now, each side is entitled to its own opinion, not its own facts. In this case, the numbers from Virginia and New Jersey, at least they suggest a sea change among political independents who elected President Obama last year and elected Republicans this year. Bearing in mind different candidates, different races but the same central issue, the economy.

Tom Foreman has got the numbers and the "Raw Politics" -- Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, you just hit it right on the head there the only two things you really need to know about this election and maybe next fall's too, the economy and independents. In the past 24 hours, that has grown more and more clear as we crunch the numbers.

Republicans won key races in Virginia and New Jersey last night. The same way Barack Obama won those states last year, by cashing in on voters who want change, especially in the economy.

Look at what voters were thinking here: 63 percent of Americans think that things are going badly right now; 64 percent are angry about it; 65 percent are scared; and 75 percent are stressed by all this. Last year, those people flocked to Barack Obama's promise of better days.

In Virginia, 77 percent of those voters went Republican this time. And in New Jersey, 61 percent of those voters went Republican. Democrats have spent all day long as you heard there trying to shrug off these numbers. But small as this sample is, this is clearly a warning shot that a lot of people here in D.C. are taking seriously -- Anderson.

COOPER: As well they should. Tom, how big was the shift among independents?

FOREMAN: Well, it's a really interesting point you raise there Anderson, because Mr. Obama had 52 percent of independent votes in the election last time. And he just edged out John McCain for those votes in these two states.

But in this election, in both places, the GOP grabbed more than 60 percent of the independent vote. Remember, the president campaigned for the Democratic candidates in both of these places and they both lost. That looks bad no matter how you slice it and it's also made Republicans significantly more excited about voting next fall than Democrats are. And all day we heard them crowing about their new momentum.

That matters too Anderson, because turnout can make a huge difference. COOPER: And what did voters actually say? In their opinion, was this a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency?

FOREMAN: Now, this is interesting Anderson, on his presidency, no. We looked this over carefully and voters told us that if you look at the totality of it, this was not about Mr. Obama and Democrats did win Congressional races in New York and California.

Here's the thing, people like President Obama still. But they don't like his economic policies, certainly not as much and all signs say this was a bit of a vote on that record. We asked people, "Who will you blame if the economy does not get better in the next 12 months, President Bush and the Republicans over here, or President Obama and the Democrats?"

A year ago, overwhelmingly the answer was, President Bush and the Republicans. Now 47 percent say they'll blame the Republicans and look at this, 45 percent say they will blame the Democrats. This is a big, big change.

Bottom line, this election was a kind of test case but the results are real. Once again, angry independents -- what I've always called, the militant middle -- are on the warpath. And their message to Democrats and Republicans is get something done or get out. And if this economy remains in trouble, Anderson, the incumbents in both parties you can bet will pay next fall.

COOPER: All right Tom, thanks.

New Jersey, Virginia, were one kind of race, that Congressional race in upstate New York was something else entirely. A Republican endorsed by the party campaigning against a conservative, endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and others.

The Republican drops out, endorses the Democrat all to replace a Republican who left office to go to work for a Democratic president. Got it?

The New York 23 stands out for more than just that.

Here's President Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe.


DAVID PLOUFFE, CAMPAIGN MANAGER, OBAMA FOR AMERICA: I think the most important thing actually had nothing to with the results. I think if the effort that we saw in New York 23 to sort of purge moderates out of the Republican Party continues in other parts of the party, I think that's probably going to be problematic for the Republican Party long-term.

COOPER: If that's true, though,


COOPER: If what happened in the New York District 23 was the purging of moderates from the Republican Party, I mean, how do you explain then independents breaking now for Republicans in overwhelming numbers in New Jersey and in Virginia?

PLOUFFE: Well, I think there weren't any exits in New York 23, my guess is when you look at the data, you see independents broke pretty convincingly less up there.

If you look nationally, though, independent voters, the president's approval rating with the independents actually is quite strong. He won them by eight points in the election. In most polling his gap in terms of fav/unfav is higher than that.


COOPER: We'll have more from Mr. Plouffe later in the program. A different view right now from GOP strategist, Liz Cheney. Liz thanks for being with us.

Repeatedly today, conservatives were saying that what happened in upstate New York was a win because it energized conservatives even though the conservative candidate lost.

Here's what Michael Steele had to stay about that.


STEELE: I don't see a victory in losing seats. I'm not in the business of division and subtraction. I'm in the business of multiplication and addition. I want more Republicans going to Congress. So I don't get to do that particular dance of -- and nor do I buy it that we somehow find victory in defeat.


COOPER: Do you buy it, Liz, that New York 23 was a win even though the conservative candidate lost?

LIZ CHENEY, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT NEAR-EASTERN AFFAIRS: Well, look, I think that in New York 23, the Republicans, you know, had a pretty chaotic set of circumstances, a pretty chaotic process.

The process of selecting the candidate, who was a Republican candidate, that didn't involve frankly going to the people of the district and we ended up with someone as our candidate who I would say wasn't a moderate, but was actually pretty liberal. She was somebody who supported things like card checks. She was supported by ACORN.

And as you reported when she got out of the race, she threw her support behind the Democrat. I think actually it's remarkable that the conservative candidate did as well as he did there given the kind of chaos that preceded that.

And I think it's understandable that you would have David Plouffe and the White House wanting to focus and Speaker Pelosi wanting to focus on New York 23. But I would bet you that behind-the-scenes they are politically astute enough that they are studying very closely what happened in Virginia and in New Jersey last night.

COOPER: Yes, no doubt about that, but you don't view it as a win in New York? I mean, there were a lot of people out today saying look, this mobilized conservatives, this is a great sign. You don't see it that way?

CHENEY: I think conservatives across the country are extremely mobilized. I think you're seeing -- conservatives aren't just Republicans and I think that conservatives are people who believe in limited government. They are people who believe that the president shouldn't be raising our taxes in the middle of an economic downturn.

I think there are an awful lot of independents who are conservative and I think you saw that last night in the votes in Virginia and in New Jersey. I think it's always better from the Republican perspective for us to win a seat than lose a seat, but I wouldn't read anything frankly into sort of philosophy and ideology looking at that race in New York 23. I think that was much more about the process.

COOPER: I want to talk to you about whether there's room now in the Republican Party as it is and as in the it's moving for moderates, for liberal Republicans even, but I've got to ask you that after this break.

We're going to take a quick break and we'll have more with Liz Cheney in a moment.

Let us know what you think. You can join Erica and I on the live chat now underway at

We'll have another take shortly from David Plouffe, President Obama's campaign manager who's also got a revealing new book out. An inside view of the 2008 race.

Also tonight, the closely fought battle in Maine over same-sex marriage, a ballot initiative taking away what lawmakers just granted. Is the issue of same-sex marriage dead for now? Two sides square off.

We'll be right back.


COOPER: Today in Washington, we saw a lot of what usually happens the day after the Election Day; the losing party tries to minimize the implications, the winner tries to maximize them. This time though, there are implications potentially big ones for both sides.

We'll hear more from President Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe shortly.

First, we're back with Republican strategist Liz Cheney. So Liz, what happened to the big tent? I mean, you used to hear Republicans talking about the big tent. Now there's this move to purge moderates to try to energize conservatives. Do you buy -- I mean, do you buy that there's a purge of moderates and if so, what happened to the big tent?

CHENEY: Well, I don't buy your description of what happened, of what's going on in the Republican Party. I think that at the end of the day, what you saw last night was independents voting in a way that I would call conservative. Independents saying look, we don't want our government spending at a level that's going to result in $1.4 trillion deficit.

We don't want our government nationalizing, you know, huge segments of our economy.

COOPER: But they didn't do that in New York.

CHENEY: We don't want our government putting taxes on the middle class like they're going to have to the healthcare plan. And so I think...

COOPER: But they didn't do that in New York. I mean, independents didn't do that in New York.

CHENEY: Well, I think we talked about -- we talked about -- well, I think you ought to take a pretty close look at the number of independents that actually voted for the conservative candidate there.

But I think that the message for both parties and the message I suppose particularly for the Republicans because we are in the opposition now, is people want to know that their elected officials understand, you know, that the American people know better how to spend their money than the government does.

They went to know that spending is going to be under control. They want to know that the economy is going to grow and that the elected officials are going to be responsible stewards of that economy. And they don't like the way that President Obama is heading.

I think there's sort of no way that the White House can spin the results last night in a positive way for them, in a way that people feel confident about the economy. Every poll you look at says they are very concerned about it.

COOPER: But you have plenty of conservatives who, in the final years of your dad's administration, President Bush's administration, were outraged at the expense of money, of the growing deficits, of just the huge expenditures without putting us in debt to China, which is, of course, now continued throughout the Obama administration.

CHENEY: No, you're right, Anderson. It's a very good point and I think that if you look at what happened at the end of the eight years, I would say that in some instances, particularly in Congress, but certainly also in some of the spending programs that we put in place in the Bush/Cheney administration, the conservatives have a point there. I think that people, whether you're Republican or a Democrat, folks out there who are voting, they want you to be responsible about how you're spending taxpayer dollars and they want you to keep spending down. They want you to keep deficits down. They want you to basically operate the federal government like you would your own checkbook at home and your own budget at home.

So I think that these issues, particularly given the economic downturn we're facing and the fact that the president seems to want to use the downturn as an excuse to put in place sort of some drastic, very radical reforms to our economy, have got people out there very concerned.

And I think the vote last night is something that should send a clear message to both parties in that regard.

COOPER: Do you really think the president is using the downturn to try to put in extreme policies that he wouldn't ordinarily have been able to get in? I mean, the White House says look, very clearly they didn't want to bail out the auto industry or they didn't want to deal with TARP and have this, you know, huge expenditures.

CHENEY: Well, I think you saw Rahm Emanuel say exactly that, that you should never let a good crisis go to waste. And I think, you know, when the president stands up and he says that the economic downturn, the economic crisis that we're facing is because we don't have, you know, a reform in the health care system, because we don't have essentially nationalized health care, obviously the voters out there, just if you look at last night and every single poll you've seen before, show you that the voters out there are very suspicious of that, they don't believe that.

COOPER: But...

CHENEY: They don't believe that the solution to our economic crisis is to nationalize health care.

COOPER: But the governor of Virginia is for health care reform.

CHENEY: That's right. And I think health care is important, but I think a big part of health care reform, if you ask the new governor of Virginia for example, is tort reform, is litigation reform, like medical liability reform that would allow doctors to do their job without having to pay massive amounts of money for liability insurance. And that's an issue that the Democrats won't touch.

COOPER: I do want to go back though, to I mean, do you not believe that there is an ideological schism in the Republican Party, that there's a struggle going on about the future of the Republican Party. Because if you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio he's saying a very different message than Michael Steele. I mean, Michael Steele today seemed to be criticizing outside involvement in this race in New York.

CHENEY: I think we are a party that's clearly rebuilding. I mean, we've really lost pretty significantly in 2008. And I think that it's not unusual and in fact it's healthy to see the party going through what it's going through, which is figuring out who our leaders are going to be in coming years, figuring out what are the key issues we're going to be focused on.

I think it's something that you see pretty normally when a party is in opposition and has lost like we have.

So obviously, I think there's change going on. I think it's good, it's healthy. But I think at the end of the day, we've got to be very focused on the substance of these issues and on -- focus on making sure that people understand that we are the party that's going to be responsible in terms of the economy, in terms of national security, in terms of foreign policy and proving to people that we deserve their votes.

COOPER: Liz Cheney, I appreciate you being on. Thanks.

CHENEY: Thanks, Anderson.

COOPER: Just ahead tonight, the national repercussions of another defeat at the ballot box for same-sex marriage.

Also tonight, "Keeping them Honest:" How authorities repeatedly -- repeatedly over ten years failed to keep track of convicted sex offender Phillip Garrido. There's a stinging new report out tonight on the man now charged with holding Jaycee Dugard captive while out on parole. Officers who were supposed to be watching totally unaware of what was going on in this guy's own backyard.

We'll be right back.


COOPER: Ahead on "360," a blistering report that describes how California authorities repeatedly dropped the ball big time and failed to keep track of accused rapist and kidnapper Phillip Garrido while he was on parole. Missed opportunities, mistakes that may have cost Jaycee Dugard years of freedom.

First, some other important stories we're following Erica Hill has a "360 News and Business Bulletin" -- Erica.

ERICA HILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, in Cleveland, authorities confirm an 11th victim's remains found at the home of a registered sex offender who was arraigned today on five counts of aggravated murder. Meantime, the coroner's office identified one of the victims as a 52-year-old woman who was reported missing last November.

The first shipment of H1N1 vaccine for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has arrived at a base in Qatar. But it is only 150,000 doses and we say only because that is half the amount requested. It is still unclear when the rest will arrive.

The Federal Reserve leaving its key interest rate near zero, where it's been since December of 2008; the central bank said the economy remains weak, though it is improving.

And which do you prefer, a little jail time or how about some public humiliation? As you can see, a 56-year-old Pennsylvania woman and her daughter chose the latter which meant standing outside a local courthouse for four and a half hours holding signs that read, "I stole from a 9-year-old girl on her birthday. Don't steal or this could happen to you."

The scene of their crime, a Wal-Mart where they snatched a gift card the birthday girl had set on a shelf while shopping.

COOPER: Bizarre.

HILL: Nice, right? And the little girl's mom apparently drove -- said she was going to drive her by them holding the signs as a lesson on obeying the law.

COOPER: Yikes.

All right, ahead on the program, what yesterday's elections mean for President Obama in the midterm races in 2010. We'll have David Plouffe's take. He was President Obama's campaign manager. He's written a revealing new book about last year's historic election.

Also later: fallout from the repeal of Maine's same-sex marriage law. Why some gay rights activists are angry at President Obama today, blaming him in part for the defeat in Maine.


COOPER: Well, Liz Cheney had a lot to say about last night's Republican victories. Now a man who has had very little to say about anything, despite an accomplishment that is literally historic helping elect the first African-American President in American history.

2008 campaign manager David Plouffe is not a big talker. He tends to stay out of the spotlight but he has written a new book "The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory." We spoke earlier about that and last night.


COOPER: I want to start off by talking about what happened last night. Today Nancy Pelosi when asked about it said, "We won." Do you believe the Democrats won last night?

PLOUFFE: Well, there were mixed results. Obviously, we won a historic victory up in New York 23, a seat that's been held by the Republicans since the Civil War. We lost Virginia and New Jersey.

I think generally every four years there's a lot of hyper- ventilating about the long term messages here.

No, I think the most important thing actually had nothing to do with the results. I think if the effort that we saw in New York 23 to sort of purge moderates out of the Republican Party, continues in other parts of the country, I think that probably is going to be problematic for the Republican Party long term.

But I wouldn't over read these results too much. Eight years ago, in fact, we won our party, Virginia and New Jersey, right after 9/11. The Republicans went on to have a great 2002. So next year is a lifetime, many lifetimes in fact.

COOPER: If that's true, though, if what happened in New York District 23 was that the purging of moderates from the Republican Party, I mean, how do you explain then independents breaking now for Republicans in overwhelming numbers New Jersey and in Virginia?

PLOUFFE: Well, I think there weren't exits in New York 23. My guess is when you look in the data you'll see independents broke pretty convincingly less up there.

I think that, listen, there's a cyclical nature to these races. We've held them both for a long time. I think Corzine was down 20 points or so not too long ago.

I think people are clearly concerned about the economy. If you look nationally, though, independent voters, the president's approval rating of the independent actually is quite strong. He won them by eight points in the election. In most polling he's gap in terms of fav/unfav is higher than that. And the Republican Party with independents, the problem for them is, they're at historic lows nationally, 23 percent maybe of people identifying as Republicans. Largely percentages...

COOPER: But a number of people identifying as conservatives is at a high of 40 percent, which is actually the biggest group compared to liberals or moderates.

PLOUFFE: Well, yes. I think in one or two polls, that's the case.

COOPER: The Gallup poll.

PLOUFFE: I think what you've is centrists and moderates have left the Republican Party. For the most part they've gone to the independent pot. Some have gone to the Democrat.

But listen, the truth is, I do think they've got some structural issues. We as a party, what we need to do here is deliver. We've got to get health care reform passed. Sadly, we're going to have to do that largely on Democratic votes. We've got to make the progress on energy, financial reform.

COOPER: The fact that health care reform...


COOPER: It seems now is not going to happen this year. Yesterday Harry Reid made a statement and a couple of other Democrats as well. How big a problem is that? Because now it means...

PLOUFFE: Yes. COOPER: ... you have people voting -- being asked to vote on health care, a very contentious issue, during a Congressional cycle or race.

PLOUFFE: Well, we'll see, I think that was walked back a little bit...

COOPER: Right.

PLOUFFE: ... but you know, I think there's been a lot of discussion about the timing. What matters is getting this done.

And I would argue that, first of all, it's the right thing to do for the country. And we got to get it done because our economy won't grow without it.

I happen to believe the long-term politics are this. The economy will come back and in some ways it is coming back, but it's obviously not trickling down enough to workers. But the economy comes back, a lot of -- the reason for that is the leadership the president showed with very little Republican help.

Health care reform passes, death panels, loss of doctor choice, none of that stuff is going to happen. People are going to see cost savings, insurance company abuses reduced and we're leading. So I think the long-term for our party here, I would argue the politics of this are quite good.

COOPER: But health care is essential to all of that.

PLOUFFE: I would argue it to be yes...

COOPER: The cost of not getting something done politically would be devastating.

PLOUFFE: I would argue the cost to the country most importantly is devastating. I don't think -- listen, we're spending twice as much on health care as many of our competitors. We can't sustain that.

COOPER: But politically I mean, you're ...

PLOUFFE: Of course. Listen, my view is if we don't get this done, we deserve the consequences. I think it's that important.

COOPER: One of the things that really comes out in your book is this grassroots movement, which you really created and the likes of which really had never been seen before; built in, in the way you built it.

What has happened to them? Where have they gone? Because there was all this talk around inauguration that -- you know what -- there would be this e-mailing list and there would be this huge grassroots movement which would remain out there that the Obama people can mobilize in the case of something like health care.

Yes, a lot of people made calls, but it certainly didn't seem to bubble up as much as the TEA Party protests.

PLOUFFE: Well, the Tea Party protests were loud and irresponsible, so they got coverage on shows like yours.

What's happening out there -- listen -- the grassroots work we were doing in the election, there wasn't much media coverage of it in September and October. It was only after the election when people saw what happened. We were doing quiet organizing. We weren't pounding our (INAUDIBLE) to that.

We've had 2 million people out there take action on health care. We had over 65,000 people visit Congressional offices in August and we're communicating directly with 13 million Americans. So they're in their everyday life out there talking about health care. Support for health care reform, by the way, has remained quite steady over a period of time.

COOPER: David, I really am enjoying the book. I appreciate you being with us.

PLOUFFE: Thanks for having me on.

COOPER: You can go to for a breakdown of all of yesterday's election results.

Up next, another closely watched vote, Maine's rejection of same- sex marriage. Is President Obama partly to blame? Two sides to the debate square off about what happens next.

And later, missed opportunity: the man who allegedly held Jaycee Dugard for 18 years. A scathing new report shows parole agents failed to properly supervise him over and over again. We're "Keeping Them Honest."


COOPER: In tonight's "Nation Divided" report, one of the most closely contested battles from yesterday ended with yet another loss for same-sex marriage advocates. It happened in Maine by a thin margin.

The state voted to reject a law legalizing same-sex marriage. And the outcome was a crushing defeat for gay rights supporters. For those against same sex marriage, it was yet another victory that they say demonstrates the will of the people.

With us now: Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and author of the book, "Personal Faith, Public Policy"; also with us is Evan Wilson, an attorney plus the founder and executive director of the Organization of Freedom to Marry, working for marriage equality nationwide.

Evan, advocates of same-sex marriage in Maine had more money, more volunteers. From your vantage point, what happened?

EVAN WILSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM TO MARRY: What happened is it's very difficult for a minority to persuade a majority to stop discriminating. And we came very close to persuading people in Maine to uphold the freedom to marry but didn't reach everybody in particularly the more rural corners of the state with the conversations, with the personal stories, with the making it real that we need to do in order to move hearts and minds. And we need to keep doing that work.

COOPER: Tony, same-sex marriage defeated in Maine, as Evan said, by a relatively small margin; Washington State, a domestic partnership law passed by almost an equally small margin. Did yesterday's results prove anything other than the fact that we're still very much a nation divided on this topic?

TONY PERKINS, PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, this is unique, Anderson. This was the 31st state where voters have had the chance; they have stood for traditional marriage.

What's different here is that you had a legislature that had special interest money come in, make some moves in the legislature. The legislature then created same-sex marriage. The first time we've had a legislature create it, followed by a vote of the people that have repudiated what the legislature did.

That's very significant, because this law had been passed. It wasn't a completely defensive posture. They had to go out and work to overturn what the legislature had done. That's significant.

And also, it's significant because I can imagine as a former legislator what some of the conversations were in Maine today. These legislators who voted for this and in their districts, the voters went to the polls and overturned it. There's now an infrastructure there and there could be some political fallout to this.

COOPER: Evan would it have made a difference if President Obama had talked about this more or had talked about it at all, frankly?

WILSON: Well, President Obama does oppose these kinds of discriminatory measures restricting and repealing and stripping away rights and it would have helped, I believe, had he spoken out more clearly.

But I also have to point out that Maine actually has a history of legislature passing laws, the voters undoing them, the legislature passing them again and the voters then supporting them. In fact, in the nondiscrimination law, the law protecting people against being fired in the workplace because of their sexual orientation, we had to pass the law three times before it got approved by the voters and now the state is safer and better. And that's precisely the kind of conversation that can happen

COOPER: Do you think the legislature is going to take this up again in Maine?

WILSON: I have no doubt of that. And what Mr. Perkins left out in his reference to the politicians is that not a single elected official has lost his or her seat because of his or her stand in support of the freedom to marry in years.


PERKINS: That's interesting, Evan, because up until now, it has been courts, it has been judges that has pushed same-sex marriage on the people and the people haven't been able to hold anybody accountable. That changes with Maine.

In Maine -- Maine is in the northeast, it's a liberal leaning state. And so this is unique in that the voters went to this much trouble. Even though they were outspent 2-1, they stood for the traditional definition of marriage. This is going to have ramifications on other state legislators, I think, even as close as New York and New Jersey, where legislators are going to think twice before they pick up this special interest agenda.

WILSON: Actually, I think what we're going to see is other states move forward to end exclusion because they've been hearing from the families in their districts, in their states, in their communities that denying the freedom to marry hurts those families and helps no one.

This is not a question of standing for traditional marriage. Traditional marriage means respect for love and commitment and dedication and self-sacrifice and that's exactly what these committed and couples in Maine hope to do some day. And they will be able to do it some day.

PERKINS: The definition of marriage has been proven throughout history. It's the union of men and women. It's not...

WILSON: Actually, that's not true. Men and women is closer to it, but actually Mr. Perkins, marriage is not defined by who is denied it. Marriage is defined by the commitment that people make and their willingness to take on the rules and the responsibilities and that's what these families in Maine are seeking to do.

PERKINS: And what society has done is put boundaries on what marriage is. I'm not free to marry whoever I want, nor are you. Society has sought to give a certain status to marriage because it has benefits that it gives to society when it raises children and children benefit when they're with a mom and dad.

And society has seen that through -- it's in the record of history and we're seeing society staying with that tradition.

WILSON: Actually, denying the couples in Maine who are raising kids, the safety and security of marriage does nothing to help anyone else's kids but it does harm their kids. And that's part of the conversation that we need to get to in the end.

PERKINS: I think people also realize that this is not just about the freedom to marry. It's about losing the freedom to teach your own kids your own beliefs. It's about your freedom to speak freely without intimidation as we've seen by some of your cohorts in Maine and California. WILSON: That's simply not true.

PERKINS: No, it is.

WILSON: Mr. Perkins, trying to make yourself the victim when your organization funded an attack to strip away rights from other families rings a little false.


WILSON: What happened today is that some families were denied important protections, although they came very close to persuading their neighbors to stand with them. And in the conversations ahead, more people will move in fairness just as so many other Americans have.

COOPER: Tony, let me ask you, do you -- I mean, with each of these races that we have seen so far and as you said, every time the voters have voted against supporting same-sex marriage, but the percentages are getting smaller and smaller and smaller. Do you believe the tide of history is moving against your position?

PERKINS: No. I mean, look -- look at what we're talking about, Anderson. We're talking about Maine, a northeast corner, a very liberal part of the state. The last time we saw this was California. These are states where they thought it was a foregone conclusion that same-sex marriage was going to take root and be established there. They were shocked.

We saw, and I was on your show talking about it after California, it was a shock. It was a huge shock that the voters in California rejected court imposed same-sex marriage; same thing in Maine.


PERKINS: And if you look at the polling data nationally, it's over 60 percent of Americans who are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage.

WILSON: Well, actually, that's not true. But actually when the Supreme...

PERKINS: Yes, it is.

WILSON: No, it isn't.

But when the Supreme Court struck down race restrictions on marriage in 1967, 70 percent of the American people opposed interracial marriage.

PERKINS: That's not the same thing. We're talking about redefining marriage.


PERKINS: You're talking about redefining marriage. WILSON: No, actually...

PERKINS: Yes, you are.

WILSON: Mr. Perkins...

COOPER: We're out of time. But Evan, I want to give you the final thought to just respond to that.

WILSON: Thank you. When the couple across the street is able to marry and have those protections and take on the social responsibilities, it doesn't change or threaten anyone else's marriage.

COOPER: We're going to have to leave it there. Evan Wilson, we appreciate it. Tony Perkins, it was a good discussion. Thank you very much.

Coming up next, how sex offender Phillip Garrido fell off the radar even though he was on parole. New details, a major missed opportunity. We're talking over the course of ten years, failures by law enforcement that could have led to Jaycee Dugard's discovery years earlier. Who should have been watching? We're "Keeping Them Honest" tonight.

And a bombshell for well, Carrie Prejean: her problems keep on coming. The latest discovery may, well, I don't know if anything will surprise you at this point in the story. But we'll tell you about it.


COOPER: Tonight, new outrage in a story that was already profoundly disturbing. In California today, a state inspector general issued a scathing report describing how corrections officers failed to do their job and supervise Phillip Garrido, a convicted sex offender who, of course, is now charged with kidnapping, raping and imprisoning Jaycee Dugard for 18 years.

The report is a litany of missed opportunities and outright mistakes. In a word, it is damning.

Randi Kaye is "Keeping Them Honest". She joins us live with the details. Randi, what kind of mistakes did authorities make?

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Where do I start, Anderson, really is the question?

The state of California has reviewed the case and found that parole officers missed numerous opportunities to discover Jaycee Dugard while supervising Phillip Garrido.

Imagine this, the review found officers failed to investigate utility wires running from Garrido's house toward the shed in that secret backyard. That filthy dilapidated shed is where Jaycee Dugard and her children allegedly fathered by Garrido himself were being held. Also, the review found officers failed to investigate why a 12- year-old girl was on the property during a visit which would clearly violate the terms of Garrido's release as a sex offender, who was on parole from January of 1988 until August when Dugard was discovered. This after the Department of Corrections held a press conference to give parole agents who had supervised Garrido a big pat on the back. That was the day after his arrest.

COOPER: It's amazing when you read this report, it is a litany of the word failure. I mean, failed, failed, failed over the course of ten years. In terms of monitoring this guy, there was also a huge number of failures.

KAYE: Absolute.

First of all, California's inspector general who handled this review found that the Corrections Department failed to train parole agents how to properly conduct home visits. Even worse, it found after Garrido was placed on GPS supervision in April of 2008, agents ignored repeated instances when he traveled outside the 25-mile radius that he was not supposed to leave or when the device simply stopped functioning.

Now take a look at this picture. Each red dot that you're looking at represents a track of the ankle bracelet worn by Garrido. In one period, the signal for the GPS device was lost 335 times and 276 of those times, agents simply ignored the malfunction; ignored it 276 times. In 59 of those cases, the review found agents acknowledged that the signal had been lost but took no action.

If parole agents had reviewed these red dots, the tracks, the state says they would have noticed Garrido spending a significant amount of time in the concealed compound behind his house.

And there's more. The review discovered huge gaps in time where Garrido wasn't even monitored. The state found, quote, "frequent gaps", some of them lasting a year between face-to-face visits. And get this, according to the state, Garrido was, quote, only properly supervised 12 out of 123 months that the state supervised him. That is a failure, Anderson, a failure rate of 90 percent.

COOPER: And it wasn't just the state. I mean, there were federal authorities who were playing a role in the supervision, right?

KAYE: Yes, the state parole officers were in charge of monitoring Garrido from June 1999 until Dugard and her children were discovered in August. But before that, because of previous sex offenses, Garrido was under the jurisdiction of federal parole officers. Even at the time when he allegedly kidnapped Dugard back in 1991.

He had been out on parole and the federal officers were supposed to be watching him. The report says federal authorities failed to detect his criminal conduct. And this all really started, says the state, when Garrido was classified as a low-risk sex offender when his history really should have resulted in a high-risk label. That mistake as the inspector general called it, Anderson, set the tone for many mistakes to come.

COOPER: It's unbelievable, Randi Kaye, "Keeping Them Honest: tonight. Randi thanks.

Let's talk about this report with legal analysts Jeffrey Toobin and Lisa Bloom as well.

Jeffrey, I thought this GPS monitor, I kind of had faith in it. This report says that it provides the public, quote, "a false sense of security".

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It's really an interesting lesson in the limits of technology because the voters had a voter initiative under California's peculiar system that established this system of monitoring for sex offenders.

But you can have all the technology you want imposed but if people don't know how to use it, they don't have the resources to use or they're not competent to use it and don't bother, the technology itself is worthless and that's what happened here.

COOPER: And they ignore when it breaks down, more than 200 times in a short period of time. Who's accountable here Lisa? I mean, are there any legal ramifications?

LISA BLOOM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I don't see any lawsuits against the state if that's what you're driving at because the parole officers and law enforcement generally have immunity for mistakes that they make on the job otherwise we could sue the police everyday for failing to detect crimes.

But what's very important about this report are the recommendations for better supervision, better monitoring. And Jeffrey is absolutely right; the technology is only as good as the humans who follow up on them.

This report also concludes that Phillip Garrido was active between midnight and 7:00 p.m. traveling around when he wasn't supposed to be during that time period. He would travel more than 25 miles outside of his home area which he was not allowed to do without permission.

There were numerous parole violations that he was engaging in. The information was right there on the computers for the parole officers and they just failed to detect it.

COOPER: Also Jeff, that parole agents, it turns out aren't trained or weren't trained for home visits.

TOOBIN: What? It's a 45-page report. On virtually every page that I read, I thought, "Well, that's why we have parole officers. That's the purpose."

It reminded me of just a week ago, when the SEC -- the report about the SEC missing Bernie Madoff, that it all seemed so obvious and it so much seemed at the core of their mission, that -- look, anybody can make a mistake, we all make mistakes, but the systemic failure here...

COOPER: Right. Over 10 years.

TOOBIN: ... over 10 years just seemed incomprehensible to me, just like failing to catch Bernie Madoff was incomprehensible for the SEC.

COOPER: Lisa are these kind of problems with parole officers common? Does California have some sort of unusually high caseload?

BLOOM: Well, they have about one parole officer for every 50 parolees according to my math based on this report. That doesn't give us a lot of information though because we don't know if some parolees might have a high level of monitoring.

But there was one detail that really grabbed me in this report Anderson. And that is, in 1991, shortly after Jaycee was kidnapped, apparently she told a child neighbor through the fence, my name is Jaycee. And the child knew that.

Right after that, Phillip Garrido came out, took her away from talking to this other child. Took her into the house and immediately built the eight-foot high fence all around the property including the compound.

Nobody ever talked to the neighbors; no parole officer interviewed the parents, no parole officer interviewed the children. Talking to the neighbors seems like a pretty basic thing that we could expect parole officers to do. Some parole officers didn't even talk to the neighbors who complained, who called and said, there's strange goings on with children in this backyard. This is just a colossal failure across the board.

COOPER: Yes. It's unbelievable. Lisa Bloom, appreciate it. Jeff Toobin, thanks very much as well.

Next, a presidential gathering canceled? Why was a joint event featuring Bill Clinton and George W. Bush called off? We'll tell you.

And Carrie Prejean caught on tape. Oh Carrie, Carrie, Carrie. She's dropped her lawsuit against pageant officials about, you know, her augmentation surgery but only after they dropped a bombshell. We'll tell you what changed the game ahead. You're going to be surprised.


COOPER: Time to get caught up in some other important stories we're covering tonight. Erica Hill has the "360 Bulletin" -- Erica.

HILL: Anderson the Senate voting unanimously to extend unemployment benefits for up to 20 weeks. That bill would also extend the $8,000 tax credit for home buyers. That would be for those who signed a contract by April 30th and close by June 30th. The legislation will now go to the House which is also expected to approved and from there, it will be sent to President Obama to sign. Here in New York, an event featuring former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton canceled. Both men dropped out of the event because the promoter over-hyped the appearance as a debate. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton says it was just going to be a moderated conversation, no fireworks.

And the one-time Ms. California USA, Carrie Prejean, remember her?


HILL: Maybe, vaguely? Apparently she doesn't have to worry about paying for her $5,200 boob job because Miss USA Pageant officials have dropped their lawsuit seeking that money, and she has dropped her lawsuit against the pageant, too. Why?


HILL: Well, the deal is confidential, Anderson, but a source close to the settlement tells CNN the agreement happened after a sex tape featuring Prejean surfaced.

COOPER: What? What?

HILL: Yes.


HILL: According to TMZ, she is alone on it.

COOPER: Really?

HILL: Yes.

Apparently she has a book coming out. So look for more. We're not done with her yet. But the next Miss California USA to be crowned November 22nd.

COOPER: Really? OK. We'll be watching.

For tonight's "Shot" Erica, say your dog has had a tough day, need to unwind, he's a little tense? If so Mary Jean Balner (ph) can help. She's an expert on dog massages. She has some tips. Watch.

HILL: Be afraid.


MARY JEAN BALNER, DOG MASSAGE EXPERT: There are four massage speeds. Let's start with no-mo. During a no-mo moment, bonding occurs just from being together. Actually encourage no-mo moments like this.

Slow-mo which means slow motion; it's a medium speed, fast and frisky. This speed stimulates the nervous system. It really wakes up your dog. Maybe not Henry Winkler, but most dogs. Continue waving down the neckline and call it waving down the back. As you can see, massage techniques...


HILL: Mixing it up a little bit there. If she looks familiar, there's a good reason. Remember the cat massage video?


HILL: That was Mary Jean, too.

COOPER: Really?

We found this on YouTube. Mary Jean Balner...

HILL: There it is.


BALNER: If your kitty doesn't like her fur disturbed, she may tell you to shuffle out the door.


HILL: She's the author of two books, Anderson, on both cat and dog massaging.

COOPER: We should point out, she's not only a licensed massage therapist, she's also an author. But I warn people, please don't try this at home, unless you are fully -- feel you're fully capable of doing the frisky -- what was the frisky one called?

HILL: It's the fast and frisky, which wasn't waking up Henry Winkler.

COOPER: Henry Winkler. God bless him.

That's it for 360. Thanks for watching.

"LARRY KING" starts right now.