Return to Transcripts main page

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Incumbents in Danger?; Los Angeles Backlash Over Arizona Immigration Law; Interview With Dr. Phil

Aired May 13, 2010 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news tonight, potentially chilling news.

A leading expert, who you will hear from in a minute, has examined this video of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, and what he says is horrifying. The leak which the Coast Guard estimates at 5,000 barrels a day could be far worse, 10 times worse. And that's the bottom end of his estimated range, which means that this expert is talking about, at a bare minimum, about the equivalent of one Exxon Valdez spill every four days.

His name is Steve Wereley. He's associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University. He is with us by phone.

Also joining us, presidential historian and historian of the Gulf Coast environment Douglas Brinkley.

So, Professor, first of all, how do you -- how do you get your calculations? And how bad do you think this is?

STEVEN WERELEY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Well, I can -- I can certainly explain the -- I can answer the first question. The second question, I guess I would have to leave to others.

So, to briefly walk you through where this calculation comes from, it's based on a measurement technique, a fluid measurement technique that's particle image velocimetry, which is just, you know, a scientific word for measuring flows using -- looking at how fast particles in the flow move.

COOPER: So, you basically look at this for -- for about two hours, I understood, and measure the speed at which and the rapidity at which particles were -- were moving through this video. But because it was solid and you couldn't see -- see all the way through, you are giving yourself, what, about a 20 percent margin of error?

WERELEY: That's right. When this technique is done correctly, in a laboratory setting, the -- the window of error is very small, let's say plus-or-minus-1 percent, you know, a really hard, good engineering number.

And because of the -- because the various variables here, I'm not able to get -- I'm not -- I'm not confident beyond plus-or-minus-20 percent. COOPER: So -- so, the estimate of 5,000 gallons, you have -- a day -- you have no doubt that is way, way low?

WERELEY: Right.

COOPER: And you are saying it could be as high as 70,000?

(CROSSTALK)

WERELEY: Well, if -- from what I calculate from the video, which is just a snapshot in time, right, the video just shows what was happening -- I think it was shot the day before yesterday.

So, for that particular 30 seconds that the video was running, the -- the flow out of the pipe was 70,000 gallons per day. The rate at which it was coming out was 70,000 gallons per day.

COOPER: I want to bring in Doug Brinkley on this.

WERELEY: Yes.

COOPER: Doug, I mean, 70,000 gallons vs. 5,000 gallons, that is an extraordinary difference.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, and it is certainly going to be more than 5,000. Now that we have the video of the gusher, it's not a spill -- it's gushing.

COOPER: Right.

BRINKLEY: We're having people from Woods Hole Laboratory in Massachusetts, one of the finest places for oceanographic studies in the country, professors from Florida -- these are the top people -- saying it's a lot more than British Petroleum told us.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: And I -- I misspoke. I meant 5,000 barrels, compared to 70,000 barrels. I said gallons before.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Go on, Doug.

WERELEY: Exactly.

BRINKLEY: Yes.

And -- and it's -- it's just a lot more, Anderson, than BP has told the public. They're -- again, they waited until after the congressional hearing this week. And now they have -- we have got the video footage of what is going on undersea. For the first time, people are able to do calculations for themselves.

We need more transparency out of British Petroleum. And it might be the time for the U.S. government to possibly appoint a Navy admiral -- not the Coast Guard, a Naval admiral -- get a flotilla in the region. If this much oil, as these professors that are experts, oceanographers, are saying is really spilling out and gushing out right now, then we -- this is a federal crisis. It can't be dealt with on a corporate level.

COOPER: I want to read a statement from BP.

The company said -- quote -- "We have said all along that there was no way to measure the leak. We are focused on stopping the leak, and not measuring it."

It's interesting, because, I mean, all along, people have kind of latched on to the idea of, you know, 210,000 gallons a day. That's the number we have been using. But, I mean, if -- if professor Wereley's calculations are correct, even his conservative calculations, I mean, this is -- this is devastating.

BRINKLEY: Well, you know, Anderson, that BP has been lowballing it from day one.

They have -- they have constantly -- and I have said this from the start, when I first went on your show -- they don't seem to want to educate the public. They're in cover-up mode. They were from day one here.

And I think now the federal government has to come in. Every day, the media, the public should be able to have a better idea of what is going on in the Gulf. This doesn't have to be done in a cloak of secrecy. There are stories when oceanographers have tried to get anywhere near the site, they're blocked off because contaminants and dispersants are being dropped from the sky.

We need how to get some of our science community, our university people involved. We have got to solve this. We just can't go on for week after week, and every day having BP being wrong about something. This is a company that really now has lost all public integrity.

And I think the federal government and the Navy is going to have to get in, in a very serious way.

COOPER: Professor Wereley, it's interesting, because I expected BP to kind of make a statement saying, look, you know, these estimates are -- are way off. But they're not saying that at all. I mean, they're -- they're not -- they're not saying, this is -- this is wrong. They are simply saying, we have said all along that there was no way to measure the leak.

WERELEY: Right. Yes.

COOPER: You are saying, though, that there is a way to measure the leak?

WERELEY: Yes, so, the -- I guess I could see BP experts not being aware of this technique, this video, you know, this technique that I use. They -- they may not have been aware of that.

But they...

COOPER: But you say the technique you use is pretty standard for measuring the velocity of anything, even...

WERELEY: Yes.

COOPER: ... I mean, for -- for -- for household products, right?

WERELEY: I would say -- yes, if you go to any major research university, you are going to find maybe five or 10 people who do this. I happen to be an expert. I have written a book on the technique. But you will find five to 10 people who can do this. So, you know, the people are out there.

COOPER: So, when they say that there is no way to measure the leak, you are saying either they're just misinformed or something else?

WERELEY: Yes.

It -- well, I -- I guess I should say it's -- I -- you know, it -- maybe they're thinking about measure in terms of, you know, how many gallons you put into your car, right? You measure that to three digits of precision on the gas pump.

We are not anywhere near that. The 70,000 barrels a day is strictly an estimate, right, with this plus-or-minus-20 percent uncertainty on it. So -- so, the fact that you can't measure it to a high degree of accuracy doesn't mean that you can't do a very good estimate of it. And that's what I have done.

COOPER: So, Doug, certainly, moving forward, I mean, all of this talk of 200,000 gallons a day, 5,000 barrels a day, I mean, people have just got to stop using those numbers.

BRINKLEY: The numbers are wrong. We have got to stop using them. And we have got to stop relying on British Petroleum.

We need transparency, not cover-up. And, as the professor said, we need our best oceanographers, our experts on the site. British Petroleum has kind of done the quarantine. They really don't want people looking at what they're doing.

But we are now so far down the line here, they have got to forget all of those legal fig leafs, stop worrying about being sued, and really open this up. We have a lot of great people that work in Houston and at universities that want to get in there and help solve this problem.

But British Petroleum has been blocking people, saying, "We have got it under control." And, as we know, they don't. And we're -- they're -- they're running a misinformation campaign.

COOPER: We have got to leave it there.

Doug Brinkley, appreciate it, again. Steven -- professor Steve Wereley, thank you for your expertise tonight. Thank you.

Alarming stuff, incredible stuff.

Let us know what you think. The live chat is up in and running at AC360.com.

Up next: Are boycotts over Arizona's immigration new law hurting Arizona's Latino immigrants? Or did Arizona bring it on themselves? We're going to talk with a Los Angeles City councilman who helped pass L.A.'s boycott and Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio. They both join us live.

And later on the program, the "Big 360 Interview" -- tonight, Dr. Phil on the murder of Lawrence King, bullying in schools, and the video that has the country talking. Have you seen it, 7-year-olds, scantily dressed, dancing suggestively to Beyonce's "Single Ladies"? Is this appropriate for kids?

ANNOUNCER: Recently on 360: Bill Maher, Demi Moore, Dr. Phil, Michael Lewis, Douglas Brinkley, Shakira, and Faith Hill and Tim McGraw.

You don't to have miss the "Big 360 Interviews." Set your DVR for A.C. 360.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: "Keeping Them Honest" tonight: Los Angeles City Council members punishing Arizona for its new immigration law, banning business with the state, their rhetoric pretty inflammatory, in some cases comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany, bringing up the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE HUIZAR, LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL: Many of you know that I am a very proud immigrant to this country. And I see this not only as an affront to myself, to people who look like me, but it is an affront to all of us.

PAUL KORETZ, LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL: If this was being proposed at the federal level, I would think we were absolutely at the very beginnings of what went on in Nazi Germany. It is not much different. Fortunately, it is a state. But this state needs to be stung in every possible way, until they stop this behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, the vote was 13-1. L.A.'s mayor expected to sign it.

And they're not the only city considering boycotts. Let's go over the -- the map here on the wall. They're -- I want to show you some of the cities that are either boycotting Arizona or actively considering boycotts or travel bans and the like. All right, let's take a look. In addition to L.A., there's San Francisco; Austin, Texas; Saint Paul, Minnesota; Chicago; Boston; 19 big cities in all so far. Yet, new polling shows a majority of Americans have a very different opinion. Take a look at this. This is some of the new polling that's out there, a Pew Research Center survey showing 59 percent nationwide approve of the Arizona law, 32 percent disapprove.

Let's just shrink that down, move this across. Already, business is suffering in Arizona -- 23 conventions or other major events canceled since the immigration law was signed. That's about $10 million in lost revenue, according to the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association.

And long-term, what are we talking about? Well, long-term, the stakes are enormous. State tourism office says Arizona got 102,000 visitors a day every single day in 2008, $5 billion in travel- and tourism-related business earnings in 2008 and 166,900 jobs, many of them held by Latinos.

OK, here is the other map. Twenty-three percent of visitors to Arizona come from California. No other state even comes close.

So, tonight, "Keeping Them Honest." We wanted to know, are L.A. politicians trying to punish Arizona in fact punishing a lot of Latino workers? And, if they are, should that matter?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: "Digging Deeper" now with L.A. City Councilman Ed Reyes, who voted for the boycott, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona's Maricopa County.

Councilman, a lot of critics of what the L.A. City Council are saying, look, this is just political grandstanding. I mean, comparing what is going on in Arizona to Nazi Germany, isn't that just -- do you really believe this is what -- similar to Nazi Germany?

ED REYES, LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL: Well, put it this way. When you allow discrimination, when you allow an attack on a group of people, which is what this law does -- it is discriminatory -- it's racial profiling -- that's how you start establishing a second-class citizenship, where you create environments of fear. And that's what these other historical events begin with.

And that is the type of environment that is being created by this law.

COOPER: Sheriff, Sheriff...

REYES: And, for me...

COOPER: Sorry. Go ahead.

REYES: Yes. Please go ahead. JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SHERIFF: Well, I don't know if he read the law. Actually, the U.S. attorney general admitted today he hasn't read the law. So, maybe your councilman should read the law, not overreact.

We have many people from Arizona going to California, to San Diego. But we are not talking about boycotting. So, understand the law. We do not racial-profile. I have been called a Nazi, Hitler, every name in the book since I have been enforcing the laws for three years.

That's sad. It is hype. Everybody wants in those -- by the way, those cities you mentioned are all sanctuary cities and states. They want amnesty.

COOPER: But -- but, Sheriff...

ARPAIO: So, this is a political situation.

COOPER: ... the Justice Department is investigating your department now for racial profiling, aren't they?

ARPAIO: Well, let me tell you, 60 days in the Obama administration, they launched a civil rights investigation against me, a year-and-a-half.

Once again, the attorney general of the United States is making comments about Arizona, has never read the law. Why don't people read the law and get the truth?

COOPER: But are you now being investigated? Wasn't there an investigation launched in March?

ARPAIO: I have don't know. It's been a year-and-a-half. Nothing has happened. We're doing the right thing. We do not racial- profile.

And, with the new law, it is in the law that you will never racial-profile. Study the law.

COOPER: Councilman, why do you say it is racial profiling?

REYES: Well, first of all, I did read the law.

We had a legislative analyst, top analyst, read the law. And we made it very clear we wanted to be methodical. And the fact is, there is so much gray area in this law, there's so much subjectivity. If an officer doesn't like a certain event or appears on the scene and feels that someone is suspect, that person could be deported.

ARPAIO: No.

REYES: If I go there, and I go ahead and don't have my I.D. with me or my passport, and let's just say that they want to stop me and, for some reason, doesn't feel like I should be there or wants to move in the direction that they want to deport me, they have the right to do that with this law.

ARPAIO: No, we have the right, once you violate the law -- I presume, if you didn't violate any law, you have nothing to worry about. When you violate the law, we do have a right to ask your identification. And I can go on and on.

COOPER: But, Sheriff, if that is true, then why do you need that law at all, because that law already exists? I mean, if someone violates the law, they can be stopped by the police and -- and -- and questioned.

What -- what a lot of opponents of this, as you just heard, are saying is, look, this doesn't require some violation of the law. This is really -- there's a wide discretion for the police officer to decide, that person looks suspicious. That person is hanging around. They look like an illegal immigrant. Therefore, I am going to talk to them, because being an illegal immigrant is against the law.

ARPAIO: Well, first of all, we do more than talk. If you are here illegally, you committed a state crime, and you can go few jail. So, we can take action, where, before, that could not be done. You would have to turn them over to ICE.

COOPER: But what -- what difference is there now? Because, I mean, if somebody had violated a law, they could be legally stopped by the police prior to this. So, it doesn't seem like, in this law, at least the critics of this law say, look, it doesn't require this person to have, you know, been seen running away from the scene of a crime or -- or, you know, be driving in a car with a broken taillight, that they can just be stopped if they look like an illegal immigrant.

REYES: No, not what they look like. We stop everybody. It doesn't matter where you are from, what you look like.

But, once you stop them, now there is a new law that you can arrest them for being here illegally. We didn't have that before.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So, if -- so, if a group of white people are hanging around on a street corner, or hanging around by a warehouse, you can just stop them and talk to them...

ARPAIO: No.

COOPER: ... and -- and ask them for their identity papers?

ARPAIO: We do not grab people on street corners. I said, once again, pursuant to our enforcement efforts on another violation, you come across those that happen to be here illegally, now you can charge them also with that state crime.

COOPER: Councilman, do you believe that? Do you believe that it's going to require some other crime to get the police involved?

REYES: I think our history, unfortunately, has many, many examples, not only in Arizona, but in other states, that, in the past, has allowed for the kind of subjection to this kind of discretion. And it is very fortunate.

As an American, I would walk or travel or drive through Arizona with a sense of fear, a sense of caution.

ARPAIO: Oh, geez. OK.

REYES: I would not feel as if I have the liberty to be there, because I'm vulnerable. I am vulnerable just because of the way I look. And, again...

COOPER: Well, Councilman, isn't -- isn't a boycott -- your critics -- critics of a boycott say, among many things, but say, look, it's going to hurt Latinos in the state of Arizona who are involved in the hospitality industry if tourists stop coming.

REYES: Well, you know, boycotts have worked in all our history.

During the '60s, in the civil rights movement, boycott of the bus system of Alabama -- we had the Freedom Riders who go in and try to look at what was discriminatory and racist in the South. And it took that type of participation and involvement by the whole country to change that environment.

ARPAIO: Well, I am going to tell you something.

REYES: What you are seeing today -- what you are seeing today is a sense of outrage and a sense of -- of obligation by those of who have discretion...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: OK.

REYES: ... who have the ability to make decisions on how we want to invest...

(CROSSTALK)

REYES: ... with our funds.

(CROSSTALK)

REYES: We are going to get more people coming to Arizona. Now they know it is going to be safe, that we do enforce the laws. We took an oath of office, like you did, too, I believe, to enforce all the laws.

So, if there is a violation on a law, you should be enforcing those laws, if you have any in California.

COOPER: You believe, Sheriff, that this -- this isn't going to hurt the state of Arizona, and that you -- you think you are going to get more people? ARPAIO: No, no. I think, when you look at the polls across our nation, people are going to come here even more so, knowing it is a safe state -- state, knowing that it is not a sanctuary state, and knowing that we enforce all the laws of this state.

COOPER: Councilman Ed Reyes, I appreciate your time tonight, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio as well.

REYES: Thank you.

ARPAIO: Thank you.

COOPER: Thank you both.

Up next, "Raw Politics."

Let us know what you think, by the way, at AC360.com -- a lot of people on the blog talking about this.

Up next, the "Raw Politics" -- some terrifying new numbers. They spell out the one thing that, Democrat or Republican, you simply don't want to be -- not terrifying, I guess more surprising, the numbers. Paul Begala and Alex Castellanos on what that deadly, dangerous word is, politically deadly. They join us after the break.

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: Also -- was that your scary face, Paul? I wasn't sure what that was.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. That was my terrified face.

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: Oh, that's your terrified face. All right.

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: Also tonight, "Crime & Punishment" -- word today that the trial has been delayed in the murder of Lawrence King, a story we have been following, a gay teenager allegedly shot to death by a classmate. We will talk to Dr. Phil about that. we will talk about Lawrence King's case, about bullying, and whether schools really know how to deal with the increasing number of gay kids openly expressing their sexuality.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: In politics, name-calling can be high heart, the nastier, the better, often. But this primary season, the dirtiest name in politics seems to be "incumbent."

In just the last week, two congressional veterans have been bounced from their party's tickets, Republican Senator Bob Bennett in Utah and Democratic Representative Alan Mollohan in West Virginia. Next week, two longtime senators, Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, face surprisingly steep odds in their own races.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today downplayed -- downplayed the obvious anti-incumbent mood, at least any directed at Democrats. But the proof is going to be in the primaries.

Joining us tonight with the "Raw Politics," our CNN contributors, Democratic strategist Paul Begala, and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.

So, Paul, we spent a lot of time talking about how Republican leaders might have to worry about the Tea Party. But -- but it looks like Democratic voters may have just as much to worry about from their own base.

BEGALA: Not just as much, but they have something to worry about.

Look at Pennsylvania, right? The Democrats, finally, after 36 years, got Arlen Specter to switch parties. He had always been a pretty moderate Republican. Now he's a pretty moderate to conservative Democrat. The president of the United States endorsed him and embraced him. And he's looked like he might go down in that primary on Tuesday, because rank-and-file Democrats in Pennsylvania don't like it very much that Senator Specter voted for all those Bush tax cuts and a lot of other Bush policies.

So, you are going to get that kind of sorting out. But you're right. I think it's more of an anti-incumbent thing, even, than an ideological thing.

COOPER: And, Alex, I mean, we are seeing both parties affected by this anti-incumbent feeling. It helps Republicans more perhaps than Democrats. But -- but can that really translate into big gains for the GOP?

ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I think it could translate into between 50 and 70 seats that Republican might pick up in Congress this year. It's -- it's a big wave. And the word that is even uglier than incumbent is insider, Anderson.

COOPER: Washington insider.

CASTELLANOS: If you are -- if you're a Washington insider, yes -- there's a fellow who told me once there are only two slogans in politics: My candidate is one of us. Your candidate is one of them.

And, this year, voters want to throw out one of them. Now, if you are in Washington and you're fighting the establishment, you have got a story. But if you are running typical political commercials -- hey, I'm in Washington and, here, I'm bringing home pork for you -- you are going to get beat this year.

COOPER: Paul, you were saying "no way" when Alex said that figure of how much Republican seats could be gained.

BEGALA: No, no. I was saying, "oh, wow."

COOPER: Oh, OK.

BEGALA: I -- I -- look, I have been -- my three-word strategy for the Democrats has been, build an ark.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: There is a wave coming. But, now, you know, Noah did survive the flood. He did build an ark. And I think Democrats can win.

But they're going to have to, frankly, do what Alex says, take on the establishment.

CASTELLANOS: Paul, we...

BEGALA: And, frankly, in Washington, the establishment is not even so much Democrats, as it is corporate lobbyists.

And if Democrats can show that they're in fact trying to fight the corruption in the system, corruption that's dominated by, dare I say, Republican corporate lobbyists, then maybe they have got a fighting chance.

COOPER: But doesn't anyone really believe that?

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I mean, they're all going to become corporate lobbyists once they leave office.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Not all of them.

CASTELLANOS: No.

(CROSSTALK)

CASTELLANOS: And, Paul, let's make sure -- Paul, let's make sure we get at least two Democrats on the ark, so they can reproduce.

BEGALA: They -- well, we are pretty good at that. We know how to make love, not war. You all don't actually do either very well, if you ask me.

CASTELLANOS: You know, the interesting thing this year, Anderson, is how Barack Obama has become George Bush.

Remember how the Democrats were united and motivated just a couple of years ago in the election because, really, Democrats hated George Bush? But now George Bush is gone from the scene. So, Democrats don't have that unifying force. And, instead, it is Republicans and independents that have this fear of Obama spending policies. And that is uniting and motivating Republicans to come out and vote. I think that's the wave.

COOPER: Alex, I want to show our viewers this commercial that John McCain is running. It's a new ad he has released this week. He's facing obviously an -- an incumbent -- he's an incumbent. He's facing a tough primary. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, JOHN MCCAIN CAMPAIGN AD)

PAUL BABEU, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, SHERIFF: You bring troops, state, county, and local law enforcement together.

MCCAIN: And complete the dang fence.

BABEU: It will work this time.

Senator, you are one of us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: What do you make of that, "complete the dang fence"?

CASTELLANOS: There's a slogan, "complete the dang" -- I think we ought to check Senator McCain's papers, since it is Arizona, make sure that is him, because it's a little different than the John McCain we all remember from a few years ago, who was fighting for comprehensive immigration reform, not border security first.

But, you know, this is Arizona. And Arizona is -- is on -- a state that is sitting on the border of a civil war. You pick up the paper in Arizona, and you will read a story about, you know, some parent's child getting shot in their car seat. And you -- as a parent, you go, oh, my God.

That's why 70 percent of the state is -- is supporting the -- changing the law down there, even though, you know, a lot of us think this is not the right thing to do. You can understand why the state is in fear. And that's what the campaign seems to be about down there.

COOPER: Paul, I mean, are voters right in asking, who is John McCain at this point?

BEGALA: Yes, you know, the guy has got a tough race. I think Alex points out, it is the big -- it's the truth. Senator McCain did support progressive comprehensive immigration reform. Good for him.

You know, now he is in a tough fight. I think this could one of the deals -- I think Alex is alluding to this -- for Republicans where it's a big tactical win right now to be for the most hawkish, you know, the most conservative, the most aggressive enforcement of the border.

But it could be a strategic defeat. I mean, California was a reliably Republican state up until -- Clinton carried it in '92, but, otherwise, Democrats hadn't carried it in five or six elections -- until '94, when they had a very strong anti-immigration ballot initiative. Yes, it reelected the troubled incumbent governor for the Republicans, but it put California in the Democratic camp for a generation.

And I -- if I were a Republican, I would worry that, yes, this stuff will work real well this year, but it could really hurt us for a whole lot of years to come.

CASTELLANOS: I think Republicans do need to worry about that, Paul. But I think, also, Democrats need to worry that the people who haven't built the fence, who haven't enforced the borders really are the Democrats.

And it is a federal responsibility. So, if we are going to be boycotting anyone, it shouldn't be the state of Arizona, where scared people are picking up their pitchforks. I think the wrong thing but to defend themselves and their families. I they ought to be boycotting Washington and the people who haven't enforced border security.

COOPER: How is it the Democrats haven't built the fence?

CASTELLANOS: Well, because they're the ones, I think, voted against a lot of this stuff. And instead, they wanted a comprehensive reform. Yes, you had a few Republicans who wanted it that way. But really, Republicans, I think en masse were saying border security first, and then let's talk about what we do with the people who are here.

BEGALA: A lot of Republicans voted against border security. They voted against Border Patrol. They voted against employer sanctions, which is really where it begins to split the Republican coalition.

You know, the business elites, you know, frankly, they do well with low-wage labor which is what a lot of these undocumented workers are. And that splits them from their conservative base. And that's where the rubber meets the road for Republicans. You try to find some of these Republicans who will vote for sanctions on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers... CASTELLANOS: For the last 20 years it's been the Democratic Party who has wanted an open borders policy and let everyone in. There is a right and a wrong way to come to America.

BEGALA: I just have...

CASTELLANOS: We are a country with big hearts. But strong hands. And that's, that's their policy, which is there is a right and wrong way to come to America.

COOPER: Big hearts but strong hands. Is that what you said?

CASTELLANOS: That's what America has always been about. You know, we welcome folks here, but we have laws, and we expect everyone to live by them.

COOPER: All right. Alex Castellanos, Paul Begala, thanks very much. Good conversation.

Coming up, three new suspects arrested in the Times Square bomb plot investigation. That today and a multi-state raid. What role they may have played and how many other people may be involved in this thing.

And check out this video. Have you seen it? Seven-year-old girls, bumping and grinding to Beyonce's "Single Ladies." Would you want your kids doing this? Dr. Phil joins us and weighs in on that. Tonight's "Big 360 Interview."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Time now for a "360 Bulletin." Joe Johns joins us -- Joe.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, federal agents today arrested three suspects linked to the failed Times Square bombing. The raids carried out in at least three northeastern states focused on the money trail, targeting cash curriers who may have helped suspect Faisal Shahzad finance the alleged plot. All three taken into custody are from Pakistan

In Thailand, a rogue army general leading the anti-government red shirt movement was shot in the head today, while speaking with foreign reporters. Warning: the video we're about to show you here is graphic. The sniper fire came as government officials prepared to blockade the protestors' camp in downtown Bangkok. An aide said the general's injury was severe.

In New York, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo today launched an investigation into eight top Wall Street firms. The probe will determine whether banks gave misleading information to credit agencies to inflate their securities ratings.

And the Space Shuttle Atlantis will blast off tomorrow for its final voyage. The shuttle will deliver more than 3,000 pounds of food plus laptop computers to the International Space Station. Makes you wonder whether astronauts are PC guys or Mac guys?

COOPER: I wonder.

All right, Joe. Still ahead, an alleged hate crime that stunned a California beach town. A gay teenager shot dead in a classroom after being bullied for a long time. His accused killer was just 14 at the time. New developments in the story coming up.

Plus, I'll talk to Dr. Phil McGraw about that case, about Lawrence King's case and also whether schools are paying enough attention to bullying aimed at gay students. Is enough being done to protect them and understand what they're going through? The "Big 360 Interview" coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: An unexpected delay in a hate crime trial that is drawing national attention. In California today, a judge gave the defense team for Brandon McInerney more time to prepare for his trial which was to begin tomorrow. It was postponed until July.

We first reported on this story two years ago. The defendant was just 14 when he allegedly shot a gay classmate at point-blank range in front of his teacher in a room full of students. He's being tried as an adult. The teen who was killed had been bullied nonstop.

Here's Randi Kaye with tonight's "Crime & Punishment" report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a sea of students at E.O. Green Junior High School outside Malibu, California, this eighth grader boy stood out. A boy who came to school dressed like a girl, 15-year-old Larry King wore jewelry and make-up, even lipstick and mascara. Most days he showed up in high-heeled boots.

He asked his teachers to call him Latisha instead of Larry. Friends say Larry was proud of who he was. These photos are from his family's Web site.

Larry was gay. He'd come out at age 10. Teachers and students say he frequently acted out, making clear his sexual preference. That made some students so uncomfortable they bullied him.

His friend Alexis Chavez was one of the few who stuck up for him.

ALEXIS CHAVEZ, FRIEND OF LAWRENCE KING: They just mocked him. And every time he came around they ran. And just painful things. They said painful things about him.

KAYE: More than two years ago in February 2008, the bullying suddenly stopped, not because Larry was finally accepted but because he was dead. Murdered, police say, by a fellow student.

(voice-over) That awful day began just like any other Tuesday for Larry King, in English class along with two dozen students and his teacher. They were in the computer lab so the students could type their papers.

Larry was seated in the middle of the room. His classmate, Brian McInerney, behind him, when suddenly, police say, Brandon stood up and pulled out a gun that he'd managed to bring in to school that day. They say he pointed the gun at the back of Larry's head and fired.

(voice-over) According to some accounts, Brandon dropped the gun and calmly left the classroom. Someone called 911.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, do you know where the person with the gun is?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. Joel, who is the victim? Is there a victim? I'm on the phone with dispatch. Larry?

KAYE: Larry was rushed to the hospital. Cops picked up Brandon within minutes, just blocks from school.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's over. It's over.

KAYE: The next day, Larry was pronounced brain dead but kept alive for two days so his organs could be harvested. Brandon, who turned 14 just weeks before the shooting, is being tried as an adult, charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime and stands to get more than 50 years in prison.

But he says, he's not guilty.

(on camera) Brandon's lawyer won't tell us what their defense might be. But in court, police testified that Brandon may have been bullied, too, by Larry, in fact. Larry had reportedly told people the two were dating but had broken up.

And just a couple of days before the shooting, classmates say Larry had asked Brandon to be his Valentine. And Brandon's friends joked the two would make gay babies together.

(voice-over) On Larry's final day, he left his make-up and high heels at home and went to school wearing his uniform, just like everyone else. It's unclear why. But if he had decided to try and blend in, he never had a chance.

Randi Kaye, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: The fact that a child could be murdered in front of a roomful of peers in such a callus matter is simply hard to understand and certainly hard to accept. Joining me now for the "Big 360 Interview," Dr. Phil McGraw.

Dr. Phil, what you make of this? This young man Brandon who was accused of shooting Lawrence King was just 14 years old. What do you make of the way -- I mean, he seemed to plan the murder, sitting behind King in class, shooting him twice, and then basically calmly walking out and telling police he did the shooting.

DR. PHIL MCGRAW, TALK SHOW HOST: I have to tell you this didn't happen in a vacuum. These teenagers, and more and more teenagers are coming out at young ages now in school. And they're being targeted with all kinds of harassment, and intimidation, and slurs.

I mean, the average teenager that is -- is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender and is out about it hears slurs 26 times a day. So that tells you that there is a mindset out there that can ramp up and lead to this kind of thing. This wasn't just some random thing. I think this young man was targeted for that very specific reason. COOPER: It's also the one slur, you know, using the "F" word against a student who identifies as gay or lesbian, it's still kind of accepted in a lot of areas and a lot of schools. Whereas if, you know, somebody used a racial slur against a student, they might be disciplined immediately. But if it's a slur against a gay, lesbian or transgendered student, it's kind of accepted.

MCGRAW: Well, it is accepted. Look, I don't want to throw a bunch of stats out here, but I do want people to understand the gravity of what we're talking about here.

Eighty-six percent of these teens say they are harassed on a daily basis, verbally. Half of them, 44 percent, say they're physically harassed during the day.

And here's an interesting statistic. Over 80 percent of them say there's not one adult in the school situation that they consider to be supportive or helpful in any way.

So what we've got, Anderson, is we have these kids out there that are terribly alone. They've got a two to three times the rate of suicide attempts, because they feel so isolated. They feel so alone.

And for some reason we're not stepping up and saying, "Look, this is not OK. You've got to stop doing this" and educating people and creating some sensitivity so these kids aren't continually targeted like that.

Cooper: We're going to have more with Dr. Phil in a moment. You can join the live chat at AC360.com.

We'll talk to Dr. Phil after the break about the YouTube video that has struck a nerve with a lot of people. Seven-year-old girls, performing in a dance competition to "Single Ladies." Their parents allowed them to do this?

Plus, cell-phone camera captures a teacher beating one of her students as the rest of the class cheers her on. Does she still have a job tonight? The fall out ahead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Want to show you a YouTube video a lot of people have an opinion about, certainly a lot of people have seen. It's a dance competition routine set to Beyonce's "Single Ladies." Those girls are just apparently 7 years old. They're obviously very talented. But their adult moves and outfits are making a lot of people uncomfortable. I talked to Dr. Phil about that. Here's part two of the "Big 360 Interview."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: There's a video which has been circulating the last day or so out on YouTube. Little girls dancing to "Single Ladies," Beyonce. I just want to show that to our viewers in case they haven't seen it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC: BEYONCE'S "SINGLE LADIES")

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: You know, these are 7-year-old girls. They're at a dance competition, I guess an urban dance competition. What do you make of this? I mean, obviously, they're very talented and stuff. But it just -- I mean, to me it just seems wildly inappropriate?

MCGRAW: Well, Anderson, first let me say, if, if those five little girls are watching, you guys are talented. You've obviously worked hard, a lot of sweat, into this.

But, come, Anderson, I don't consider myself a prude. But come on. Here's what bothers me. You had five adults, at least, or both parents, and in that case you would have ten, but a minimum of five adults here, five parents in the room watching these routines be rehearsed. Are you telling me that not one out of five stood up and said, "Wait a minute. What are we doing here?"

I mean, these costumes are sexually provocative. The dance moves are sexually provocative. This is inappropriate at so many levels. I don't even know how to wrap my mind around it.

But I can tell you what. If - if we had a way to track the pedophiles that are clicking onto this YouTube video, I bet you it is Grand Central Station. This is so inappropriate in my view. I cannot believe that it was allowed to go on.

COOPER: And I mean, this as society we don't like to talk about it. But I mean, you know, there is -- there are many cases of kids being sexualized in, you know, in pop culture. You know, you see it in, sometimes in these beauty pageants, little girls dancing around. I remember watching -- seeing some video in a documentary about a little girl dancing around to "Let's Get Physical" by Olivia Newton John. I mean, it's -- it kind of boggles the mind.

MCGRAW: And here's the question, Anderson -- and I just had a granddaughter, so I'm trying to get dialed into little girls, because I raised two boys. So I'm new at the little girls here, having a granddaughter.

But here's the question. Where do they go from here? If you're doing this at 7, what do you do at 10? What do you do at 12? What do you do at 15? I mean, where do they go from here?

I think this is -- I think this is very inappropriate. And probably the little girls don't even get the nature of some of the moves that they're making, some of the things that they're doing. But others do. And I think they're clearly being sexualized, even if the little girls don't get it.

COOPER: Yes, it's pretty basic stuff. Dr. Phil, appreciate you talking to me. Hey, Dr. Phil, let me ask you. I saw you got your mustache shaved. So is that a permanent thing? Does it feel weird?

MCGRAW: Oprah got after me last Friday with a razor at Radio City Music Hall. And I have to tell you, I feel like I got dressed and forgot something. I'm like, did I forget my shoes or my socks or something? I don't know.

And, it was shaved off at like 10:20 Eastern Time. And at 10:21, my wife Robin said, "Grow it back."

COOPER: Oh, no, really?

MCGRAW: I think she's -- I think she's nixed the new look.

COOPER: All right. Well, we'll see what happens. Dr. Phil, appreciate it. Thanks.

MCGRAW: Thanks, Anderson.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, coming up, a teacher in Texas severely beats her 13-year-old student while the rest of the class cheers her on. It was all captured on a cell-phone camera. We'll show you the video ahead.

Also tonight, something to make you smile before you go to bed. Is this the new Justin Bieber? Not really sure who the old Justin Bieber was, but wait until you hear the performance that led to his performance on "Ellen." This kid is really good. Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: We're following a number of other stories tonight. Joe Johns joins us again with the "360 Bulletin" -- Joe.

JOHNS: Anderson, a Texas teacher is accused of beating one of her students, and it's caught on a cell-phone camera. The teacher has been fired and could face criminal charges. The boy's family has filed a lawsuit against the teacher and the school.

A school spokesman said the teacher's actions violate the school's principles and, quote, "We would never tolerate anything like that on the part of a teacher."

A fugitive who was captured in Cancun, Mexico, thanks to some help from his Facebook page, has pleaded guilty to fraud charges in Seattle. Maxi Sopo fled last year, and investigators could not find him until he started posting status updates on Facebook, saying how much fun he was having living in paradise.

Yes, right. And say good-bye to "Annie." After 85 years, Tribune Media Services is stopping newspaper syndication of the comic strip on June 13. But we are told, and you know, we had to use this line, the sun will come out tomorrow for "Annie" when the Tribune brings her to the Internet.

COOPER: I was wondering what sort of pun or cliche or song title you were going to put in there.

JOHNS: Just got few do it.

COOPER: Right. Thanks, Daddy Warbucks.

Tonight's "Shot," the newest YouTube sensation, 12-year-old Grayson Chance -- Joe, have you seen this guy's video? It's great. He sings Lady Gaga's song. He covers "Paparazzi," her song. Has been more than 9 million views. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC: LADY GAGA'S "PAPARAZZI")

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Not bad, right? I think he's really good. He gets even better. You should check it out on YouTube.

And I like the kids in the background are all like -- takes them a while to realize he's covering Lady Gaga, I think. But they definitely got into it.

Ellen DeGeneres saw Grayson's video and invited him on her show, where he actually had a chance to talk to Lady Gaga. So that was pretty cool. Amazing what -- a kid sings a song on YouTube and suddenly, he's on TV. Good for him.

JOHNS: Wow.

COOPER: Coming up at the top of the hour, Joe, the much more serious question of who's hurt by a boycott of the state of Arizona. Two sides square off.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)