TalkBack Live

What Did Linda Chavez Do Wrong?

Aired January 10, 2001 - 3:00 p.m. ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDA CHAVEZ, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY NOMINEE: I would do it again, even if it means I can't be secretary of labor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Did Linda Chavez do something wrong?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAVEZ: I don't believe that what I did with Marta was illegal or was unethical or wrong. She was being battered. And I invited her into my home. I provided her with assistance. I helped her get back to Guatemala. And I believe that that was an act of compassion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: But that act of compassion involved harboring an illegal immigrant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAVEZ: I think I always knew that she was here illegally. I don't check green cards.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Does that justify what she did? Should it keep her out of the Bush cabinet?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAVEZ: I believe that what has happened is part of what we've seen over the past several years of the politics of personal destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Was Linda Chavez a victim of political retribution? Or did she bring it on herself?

Good afternoon, everyone. And welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

Well, she is compassionate. And she is a conservative. So why did Linda Chavez take herself out of the running for labor secretary?

We are talking today with Mona Charen, who is on her way. She'll be here momentarily. She's a syndicated columnist and former member of CNN's "Capital Gang."

With us right now is Joe Conason, a columnist and political editor at the "New York Observer." He's also author of the book "The Hunting of the President."

Joe, good to see you.

JOE CONASON, "NEW YORK OBSERVER": Nice to see you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Do you look at it that way, that she was a victim in any way, shape, or form of the politics of personal destruction?

CONASON: Knowing what we know at this point about her story, I don't think so. It was not a story about her sex life. It was a story that was true, as eventually came out. And it was a story that I think had some relevance possibly to the job that she was up for as secretary of labor, who is among other things supposed to help enforce immigration insofar as it pertains to workers' rights.

So I don't really see it as a case of the politics of personal destruction, even though it's clear some people certainly had personal reasons to want to stop her.

BATTISTA: We really -- the story is very murky in many respects. We really don't know exactly whether she knowingly or intentionally housed this illegal immigrant.

She admitted at her news conference yesterday that she probably knew all along that the woman was illegal. But I don't know if that constitutes harboring under the law. Do you?

CONASON: No. Actually, I'm not an immigration lawyer either, Bobbie. I don't know whether she broke the law. But there was a question as to whether she broke the law.

And the fact that she withdrew her nomination seemed to indicate either that she did not want the story to be explored any further or that the people in the Bush transition felt she had not necessarily told them the whole truth about this from the beginning. So I think we may never know the entire story.

It's regrettable in some ways that this is what nominations to the cabinet now seem to turn on. Nominations to the cabinet, nominations to federal judgeships, seem to turn on these kinds of murky areas of personal responsibility, if not personal destruction, rather than on issues.

I mean, I think there would have been many arguments why Linda Chavez should not have been the secretary of labor that had absolutely nothing to do with anything she had done in her own household or her personal life. BATTISTA: Well, it seems easier -- Mona is with us now. It seems easier to latch on to these little quirks in people's personal responsibilities because we seem to know for sure that that is going to take them down in some way, shape, or form where having ideological differences won't necessarily not get you confirmed. Right, Mona?

MONA CHAREN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, yeah. I mean, this is what Ross Perot in one of his better statements called "gotcha" politics. And it is very unfortunate.

But, you know, I have to disagree with some of what I heard Joe saying, that this is not the politics of personal destruction because it's not about her sex life. Well, what that sounds like to me is it's not the politics of personal destruction if it's a Republican or if it's not Clinton.

But, look, she did something that was far kinder and more outgoing than most of us ever do in our lives. The list of people that she had up there at that press conference yesterday who were ready to vouch for how she had intervened in their lives, given them money to go to school, changed their lives, helped them adjust to life in America, that is well beyond what most of us do for our fellow human beings, what most senators I would suspect, who have the role of confirming her, would have had that role, have probably done. And I think there has been far too little attention paid to the context of this.

BATTISTA: But is it possible that she broke the law? Is there the appearance of that?

CHAREN: It is possible, yes. Not all lawbreaking is equivalent to every other kind of lawbreaking. I know that seems like a very radical thing to say. But I really believe that there is a difference between having somebody sitting in your living room who may be in the United States illegally and pondering, "Gee, should I help this person, or should I help the INS?" That's quite a different thing from engaging in securities fraud or pickpocketing somebody on the street.

Yeah, breaking laws, yes. But some laws are worse to break than others from a moral point of view.

BATTISTA: As someone on our show said yesterday, Joe, is this possible to break the law in a kinder and gentler sort of way?

CONASON: Well, I think, look, I don't think sex is the only area that ought to be out of bounds or anything like that. I think it's possible she could have gone forward with this nomination and been confirmed.

But as Mona said, she had -- I cringed a little bit at having the children stand up yesterday and thank her in front of the TV cameras. But it's true that a lot of people were impressed by that.

They're impressed by the fact that she does seem to be a compassionate, kind person who has helped other people. And if that's enough to make you the secretary of labor, then maybe she would have been confirmed. And she could have explained away the reasons why she broke the law in this case.

I think Mona is right. Some laws are different from other laws. And some acts are more explainable than other acts.

But she's the one who chose to withdraw in the face of what she herself and many of her conservative supporters said was a good case on her behalf. And that's what makes it murky. That's what I don't quite understand is why she decided...

CHAREN: Well...

CONASON: ... she had to withdraw. There was not a firestorm of Democratic senators saying she should withdraw. They said they wanted to look into this and wanted to ask her about it.

BATTISTA: There might have been a firestorm coming from the Bush camp on that, Mona, because she was not forthcoming about this up front. Do you think it turned on that?

CHAREN: Well, certainly that may have played a role here. Clearly, it's very hard for people in Washington to learn that all- important lesson that it's not what you do but the cover-up that will get you in the end.

And perhaps Linda didn't engage in a cover-up exactly. But she wasn't completely forthcoming with the Bush people. And that may have undermined their confidence her a bit. And they may have then sort of given her a gentle push and said, "Well, why don't you withdraw?"

But it is also fact that none of this would have happened, whatever her activities regarding Marta Mercado had been or not been, it would never have come up. It would never have been a public matter if she did not have so-called controversial views that many liberal groups found unacceptable, and if she were not already the target of a campaign.

There were threats all over the place that she was going to be Borked because she has said such radical things as she doesn't believe there's a glass ceiling or that this is the main problem that faces women in the workplace. That's considered very shocking by left-wing interest groups.

She has also said that she believes everybody in America ought to speak English. She does not believe in quotas. These are all mainstream conservative points of view. I would propose that they're even mainstream views for most Americans. They're not mainstream for the liberal interest groups in Washington who were gunning for her.

BATTISTA: Let me get a sense of how some of the folks in the audience feel about this. Virgil, what are your thoughts?

CALLER: I think she should have come forward to begin with. If she's going to be nominated for a cabinet post, she should have been up front to begin with. And I think the people in the United States have had enough of this gossip, so to speak. That's my opinion of it.

BATTISTA: Jim?

CALLER: Well, I think basically she should have stayed and fought it out because I think she's exactly what George Bush and most of the population of America wanted as a conservative person that had some compassion. And she definitely showed that.

I think it's plain to see that there has been not only the political persecution from the media as well as the unions, because the unions definitely didn't want her to be in that cabinet post because it definitely went against the grain of the liberal union.

BATTISTA: You bring up the issue of the media. And so did Linda Chavez at her news conference yesterday. She talked about what she thought was a hostile media.

Joe, is that fair? I mean, did the media do really anything more than report the facts as we knew them in this story and efforted to get more of those?

CONASON: Clearly, the story began on ABC News. And the story about Marta Mercado and Linda Chavez's relationship with her began with an investigative report on ABC News. So to that extent, the fact that the media reported something that was apparently being investigated in her background check by the FBI anyway, you can say it's the media's fault.

On the other hand, are they not supposed to report what they learn about what's going on? I mean, this is what the media does. And in fact...

CHAREN: It's not...

CONASON: ... as far as I could tell, that story was reported pretty straight.

CHAREN: ... Well, it's not quite that simple. You know, as with many stories in Washington, it basically originated with insiders, the lawyer who was representing the neighbor who was actually the employer of this lady Mercado...

CONASON: That's correct.

CHAREN: ... that was close to George Stephanopoulos at ABC News. The lawyer told Stephanopoulos about it. And that's how it saw the light of day. So it's not quite as simple as the press was digging.

CONASON: That's called journalism. That's called journalism.

CHAREN: Well, it's called a...

CONASON: I mean, there's a question raised.

CHAREN: ... Democrat activist lawyer who wanted to see Linda's nomination torpedoed leaking the information through her lawyer, who is a former lawyer for President Clinton, to ABC. Now, that's the way things work. I'm not saying there's anything unethical about it. But let's be clear...

CONASON: Do they work differently on the Republican side?

CHAREN: ... that that's the way it happens.

CONASON: Right. But it's exactly how things work on the Republican side. I mean, how did people find out about Zoe Baird's problem?

(CROSSTALK)

CHAREN: But look, there is no question -- I don't think we need to go over that here -- that about 90 percent of the Washington press corps is liberal and that that point of view and bias invades and infects everything they do.

CONASON: You know, Mona, they reported all the stories about Clinton and Clinton's nominees and without any hesitation. I mean, the Zoe Baird story was huge news.

CHAREN: You're not seriously going to challenge this, are you, Joe? You're not seriously going to say there's no bias?

CONASON: I'm going to challenge -- no, I'm not saying -- individual reporters, editors, producers, have various biases all across the spectrum. But the truth is that they have reported this news about various nominees over time, Republicans and Democrats. And they will continue to do it, because it's news.

CHAREN: Well, back to the question of how they treated Linda, you could make a case that of course they did have to report this. And this is news, and it's relevant.

But also what is important is the context in which it's presented. And I think she felt, and with some justification, that they did not present the full context, that this is a woman who has taken in refugees, has taken in people in trouble, which makes a great deal of difference in how her actions with Ms. Mercado are perceived.

BATTISTA: I've got to...

CONASON: Actually, there was quite a bit of reporting about that. I recognized the people on the stage before they were introduced because I'd read about them in news stories.

BATTISTA: I've got to...

CONASON: The gentleman from South Vietnam and the woman from Puerto Rico were both known and reported before she presented them yesterday.

BATTISTA: I've got to take a quick break here as we do the question for today. Was Linda Chavez a victim of the politics of personal destruction? Take part in our TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote, AOL keyword CNN. Back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAVEZ: I don't believe that what I did with Marta was illegal or was unethical or wrong. She was being battered. And I invited her into my home. I provided her with assistance. I helped her get back to Guatemala.

And I believe that that was an act of compassion, which yesterday when I had other people come forward and talk about things I've done over my life, I think if put in context, is not anything to be ashamed of. And as I said then, I would do it again even if it means I can't be secretary of labor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Welcome back.

A couple of e-mails. Buddy in California says: "These conservatives are always lecturing us about personal responsibility. But when they get caught, they start whining about the politics of personal destruction."

Frank in New York says: "The only personal destruction that took place was when Ms. Chavez shot herself in the foot by being less than honest with the Bush team."

Mona, let me -- why do you think that the Bush camp did distance themselves from her rather quickly? They sort of dropped her like a hot potato. And that news conference that she orchestrated yesterday was, according to her, all her own doing and her own idea. There was no association with the Bush camp on that.

CHAREN: Well, I think what she did was very logical. It helped her get that message across, which despite what Joe said, I think did not fully get aired by the press, that this was a person who had extended her hand to many people in trouble over the years, more than most of us ever do.

Why the Bush team reacted as it did, perhaps they were angry that they had not been told about this beforehand. That's understandable. Of course, George Bush himself didn't tell the country about his DUI, and it came back to bite him late in the game.

I think everybody has trouble with this notion that you should get the bad news out early. And even the president-elect himself had that difficulty.

BATTISTA: Yeah, and Joe, you made reference, one of you guys did a few moments ago, to the fact that if she had been forthcoming with this and it had come up during the confirmation process that most likely she -- I think a lot of people feel she would have made it through the process without this being an issue.

CHAREN: I think that's right.

CONASON: When Mona was reading the list of wonderful positions that Ms. Chavez has taken, she left out the most controversial one. And the reason why the AFL-CIO was so determined to stop her, which is that she's opposed to the minimum wage. That, and her general opposition to protections of workers in the workplace, whether it be on wages or working conditions or environmental conditions, that's the reason why a lot of people might have voted to stop her.

CHAREN: What workplace protection?

CONASON: This particular issue...

CHAREN: No, Joe, I want you to be specific, please.

CONASON: ... I'll be very specific. She's criticized OSHA. She doesn't believe that OSHA should be as tough on employers as it is now, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

CHAREN: What in particular?

CONASON: If you want to, Mona, you can look up her columns about this. But let me finish what I was saying.

This particular issue with the immigration question, I wonder why if she is a compassionate person, and she seems to be, and if she did not do anything illegal or at least inexcusably illegal, why then -- and the Bush people did not ask her to withdraw -- why did she withdraw?

And that's a question that lingers in the air now. It seemed there were reports yesterday that she may have tried to influence what her former neighbor was saying about the circumstances years ago when this occurred, the woman who had employed Marta Mercado. It wasn't clear whether she tried to influence what Ms. Mercado was saying.

There's a whole area of murkiness here. And I think that was why she may have decided to withdraw and why the Bush people may have been happy to see her withdraw.

CHAREN: Well, as to her positions on issues, though, it is important to talk about that. The notion that to be opposed to increases in the minimum wage marks has as some sort of an ogre is ridiculous.

Many economists believe that if you artificially impose a wage, what you wind up doing is creating more unemployment. And that is what her position is.

CONASON: But, Mona, that's been proved to be false.

CHAREN: Well, you say it's been proved to be false...

CONASON: That's been proved, very clearly proved, to be false over the last eight years.

CHAREN: ... It is a subject -- no. Well, it is a subject...

CONASON: We've had increases in the minimum wage and increases in employment.

CHAREN: It is a subject of vast disagreement among...

(CROSSTALK)

CHAREN: ... economists and among -- no. It is a subject that -- let's put it this way then. We're not going to agree on whether it's true or it isn't true. It is a subject of academic debate. Reasonable people can differ...

CONASON: It's also the law of the United States.

CHAREN: ... And what the liberal interest groups tend to do is either they will characterize a mainstream position like opposition to an increase in the minimum wage as being some sort of Neanderthal point of view...

CONASON: That's hardly a mainstream position.

CHAREN: ... or they will misrepresent...

BATTISTA: Let me ask you this, though.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: This what I find interesting, though. George Bush can pick anybody that he wants for his cabinet. And he is likely and has every right to appoint people who are going to carry out his agenda. So how likely is it that someone would not get confirmed over ideological differences?

CONASON: It really depends how extreme the positions are, Bobbie. And the opposition to the minimum wage is an extreme position in this country. Something like 80 to 90 percent of the public supports the minimum wage. And they support it increasingly, which is why the increases have been voted through the Republican Congress even though they don't believe in it because they're afraid to face the voters on this question.

CHAREN: OK, Joe, let me ask you this question. Seventy-five to 80 percent of the American people are also opposed to partial birth abortion. Bill Clinton vetoed it twice. Does that mean he wasn't fit to be president of the United States, because he disagreed with the American people?

CONASON: No, no, no, but the fact is that...

CHAREN: Is that out of the mainstream point of view?

CONASON: ... Well, it may or may not be. But the fact is that the minimum wage is the law of the land. And if you're going to be the secretary of labor, it is not impertinent for the Senate to ask can you enforce this law that you don't believe in? CHAREN: Well, of course she would enforce it. That's an absurd thing to say.

CONASON: Why, of course? Why, of course?

CHAREN: Because it's the law of the land.

CONASON: Why should we assume that she's going to enforce it? Well, but she disobeyed the law presumably on illegal immigration. So the question is which laws does she choose to obey?

CHAREN: Nobody asked Janet Reno whether she was going to protect the free speech rights of opponents of abortion, though she herself is pro-abortion.

CONASON: Maybe they should have asked her that.

CHAREN: Actually, she didn't defend them that well, in point of fact.

CONASON: Well, maybe she should have been asked though.

CHAREN: Well, perhaps so. But it's interesting you only say that now.

CONASON: Because, Mona, it's a legitimate question for the senators to ask to try to determine how rigorously the nominee will enforce laws that...

CHAREN: Let me concede your point in principle...

BATTISTA: You know what, I've got to take...

CHAREN: ... that people who are really out of the mainstream perhaps should have a hard time at confirmation levels.

BATTISTA: I have...

CHAREN: What I object to is that mainstream conservatism is being mischaracterized as somehow wacky or loony.

BATTISTA: I have to take a quick break here.

CONASON: Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it?

BATTISTA: But I want to continue along this vein because we'll talk about how Linda Chavez bowing out may affect the other nominations, the one in particular, John Ashcroft, obviously, who could be the next controversial one. And we'll have the same argument, the same discussion we've been having here.

As we go to break, though, let me take John quickly in British Columbia. He's been hanging on the phone now for a while. John, comment?

CALLER: Hi, Bobbie. I'd just like to comment that it sounds ridiculous to me as a Canadian to hear the Republicans complaining about the politics of personal destruction after watching what they've done for eight years, re the Clintons.

BATTISTA: All right, John, thanks very much. We'll continue here and be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: The "Wall Street Journal" says today: "Overnight, those who told us that presidential perjury was no big deal suddenly become sticklers for every jot of immigration law. The response was the search-and-destroy ethos Ms. Chavez denounced at her press conference. How predictable that it was Jesse Jackson who would materialize to characterize Ms. Chavez's helping hand to Ms. Mercado as indentured servitude. From there, it was a race to the bottom."

We go back to the audience quickly on this. Harry, your thoughts on it.

CALLER: I think that Linda is a class act. She did what she had to do to keep from creating to the volatility I feel that the Democrats are going to do on every one of his appointees.

However, what she did in compared to what our president has done in cover-ups, as Joe said, in the last eight years is deplorable.

BATTISTA: And Edward?

CALLER: I'm a Democrat. And I believe that she shouldn't have given up her opportunity because she was trying to help someone. She was at midnight in her life, a crossroads in her life. And I'm quite sure that we have to face that circumstances in our own neighborhood, we would try to do the same thing.

BATTISTA: And a couple of e-mails here, which will take us a little further in the discussion.

Diane (ph) in California says: "Was Linda Chavez a victim of the politics of personal destruction? Absolutely. And if you think she wasn't, watch the assault on Ashcroft."

And Banister (ph) in Missouri says: "Chavez was a sacrificial lamb."

Joe, are we going to see this continue with possibly Gale Norton and John Ashcroft and others?

CONASON: I don't know what you mean by this. If you mean examining their records both in their -- I would suspect in their personal lives as well as in their political lives, the answer is yes.

The problem that people in Washington have is determining what the boundary is between what is acceptable and necessary for the Senate to look at as they advise and consent on these nominees and what ought to be out of bounds. And it's not always a clear, sharp line. Both the Republicans and Democrats have found that out over the years.

BATTISTA: And Mona?

CONASON: Look, the last cabinet nominee who was shot down was John Tower. He was a Republican. And he was fundamentally shot down by Republicans, conservative Republicans in Washington who did not like him and started spreading all kinds of stuff about his personal life.

That was the last cabinet nominee who was really destroyed. And that really was the politics of personal destruction. And it was done by conservatives to one of their own basically.

So this is across the spectrum. And finding what is an appropriate subject for disclosure and examination and what isn't is not always that simple.

BATTISTA: Mona, isn't it appropriate it though? Isn't Joe right? That's an appropriate part of the vetting process.

CHAREN: Well, I do want to make a point about the John Tower case because Joe brought it up, and it is worth mentioning that he's right. Conservatives did launch the attack on Tower. And they were being consistent really.

They were saying they had certain principles. They thought that certain kinds of behavior in private life were so seriously off track that they would affect one's conduct in public office. And they were willing to do it to a Republican as well as to apply those standards to Bill Clinton.

And you don't find that sort of thing I think on the left, where they're willing to overlook pretty much anything in the Clintons and in Democrats, but where every little peccadillo is taken extremely seriously when it's a Republican.

CONASON: Well, the John Tower case was pretty much an exception, Mona, as you know. I mean, certainly when Newt, when people knew what Newt Gingrich was up to in his personal life, no one made an issue of it until he was out of office...

CHAREN: I'll tell you something, no. I travel in Republican circles...

CONASON: ... and everybody knew about it. So...

CHAREN: ... Very few people knew about it, as a matter of fact.

CONASON: ... Well, I knew about it six years ago. A lot of people in Washington knew about it. As you know...

CHAREN: You may have suspected.

CONASON: ... as it turned out. And the fact is, the standards were applied usually on a personal basis. In other words, when John Tower was shot down, it was done primarily by certain conservatives who didn't like him. They...

CHAREN: No, they didn't like his behavior.

CONASON: ... it was not because they were applying moral standards consistently. It was because they didn't like John Tower.

CHAREN: Well, there were reasons. They didn't like his personal behavior.

CONASON: And I don't want to name names. But you and I both know who they are.

CHAREN: They didn't approve.

CONASON: Well...

BATTISTA: I've got to take a break here. And I've got to let that be the last word. Mona Charen, Joe Conason, thank you both for joining us today. Appreciate your time as always.

CONASON: Thank you.

CHAREN: Thanks.

BATTISTA: Coming up in just a moment, what the FBI wanted to know about Linda Chavez and Marta Mercado from the man who told what he knew. We'll be back in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back. Joining us this half-hour now John Miller, a national political reporter for "National Review." He worked as a researcher for Linda Chavez in 1992.

Also with us is Clarence Page, a Pulitzer Prize winning commentator and member of the "Chicago Tribune's" Washington-based editorial board.

Good to see you both, gentlemen.

CLARENCE PAGE, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Pleasure.

BATTISTA: John, let me start with you. You visited -- during the tenure that you worked for Linda Chavez, I understand that you visited her home a number of times and were able to observe as best as you could the relationship between Ms. Chavez and Ms. Mercado. What were your observations?

JOHN MILLER, "NATIONAL REVIEW": That's right. I worked for Linda Chavez for five years continuously. I started work with her in December of 1992.

We were both employed at the Manhattan Institute at the time, which is a think tank. And although it had a downtown Washington, D.C., office, Linda was mainly working out of her home in Bethesda. And for the first six or eight weeks I was working for her, I would take the bus up to her house every day and spend the day there.

We had some work to do. It made sense to be together. And I was in her home for that period of time. I was up there every weekday for that period of six or eight weeks.

And Marta was living there at the time. And I have always understood her to be a houseguest. That was my understanding at the time. That was my memory of it. And she was definitely not an employee.

BATTISTA: Of course, we should say that could have changed after the six to eight weeks that you were visiting the Chavez home. We have to say that Marta was there two years.

MILLER: Well, I can't speak to what happened in the six to eight weeks I wasn't there, obviously. But I was there for six to eight weeks. I spent an extensive amount of time in that home.

And what I saw was a houseguest. That's what I understood her to be, absolutely not an employee.

I will say I did see her do an occasional chore. I remember her doing dishes from time to time. But what I saw was consistent with what someone who was living in a home would do, as the sort of thing a family member would do, as the sort of thing you or I would do if we were spending some time at someone's house.

BATTISTA: Clarence, this is really difficult for people to look at this outside of the fact that it was clearly a decent thing that she did for another human being.

PAGE: Well, I think Linda was caught up here by the perception of reality more than the actual realities of the situation. And I should point out I've known her for a dozen years. Linda and I have debated affirmative action on stage at least three times.

I've known John here too for a while. They've worked together.

And she indeed, I don't doubt that she did have a cordial domestic relation with this woman she was trying to help. But we're engaged here in Washington realities. And the perception can be more important than whatever nuances of reality are actually taking place.

I'm still puzzled that Linda let herself fall into this situation. She had to know how volatile, especially in the wake of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, the fallen nominees that Clinton put up for attorney general, that having an undocumented worker in your house -- I don't care what the relationship is -- that is going to be a politically volatile situation for a cabinet nominee.

BATTISTA: Why wasn't she forthcoming, John, do you think with the Bush people?

MILLER: Well, she said yesterday, I believe she acknowledged in her event yesterday that this was a mistake she made. She should have been more forthcoming. She, of course, did cite that this was a very short vetting process between when she was first talked about or was in serious contact with the Bush people and when the offer was made. It was a very short vetting process. And this perhaps didn't have enough time to come forward, and they didn't have enough time to elicit it from her or whatnot.

What I think is important, though, is to remember that she committed no crime. She did nothing wrong. In fact, what she has been persecuted for is an act of great charity and generosity.

This is a woman who we now know was battered. She was in some form of abusive relationship. And she was presented to Linda by a friend as someone who was in a crisis and desperately needed assistance.

Linda was in a position to give her some shelter. And she did that. And Marta wound up living with her for a time.

BATTISTA: But it is murky. We have to say we don't know whether she broke the law or not. And that seems to be a point of discussion among immigration lawyers too as to whether or not at the very least she was harboring.

MILLER: Well, I'm not an immigration lawyer. But I have spoken to some who know the laws on this. And harboring, as you say, is a technical legal term. And as I understand it, it involves things like smuggling illegal aliens into the country, actively hiding them from the law, perhaps receiving some payment for these services.

And Linda did no such thing. She simply invited a woman who was in crisis into her home. And that's not against the law.

BATTISTA: But I think it can be as broad as just knowingly and intentionally providing refuge to a fugitive or a criminal.

MILLER: Well, that's not my understanding. And I don't know that -- I do not believe she broke the law or did anything wrong.

And frankly, what is a person supposed to do when a battered woman shows up on your doorstep and says, "I need help"? Are you supposed to turn them away immediately? Are you supposed to check for a green card? Or are you supposed to provide assistance?

I think Linda provided assistance.

BATTISTA: Yeah, I think...

MILLER: And let's also remember that at the end of Marta's stay, Linda helped her return to Guatemala.

BATTISTA: ... I think what this also draws attention to, Clarence, and I think Ms. Chavez says she was going to work on this now that she has the time. And that was some of our draconian immigration laws, which she got caught up in perhaps. PAGE: Well, that may be. I'd like to suggest that President Clinton grant her amnesty now while there's still time from any possible prosecution. Maybe then George W. Bush will smile favorably upon granting Bill Clinton amnesty from any possible prosecution later on.

BATTISTA: Actually, you know what? Fortunately for her as I understand it, this law is rarely enforced unless it's something on a grand scale.

PAGE: Well, that's quite right, and for good reason. In the realities of America today, our immigration laws are a good example of the hypocrisy and duplicity, double thinking that we have in this country.

As my dear friend Essayist Richard Rodriguez (ph) says, "In California, everyone hates the Mexican except for Maria. She takes care of the children. And Jose, he takes care of the garden." And indeed, that's the reality of upper middle class America today.

BATTISTA: I've got to take a quick break here. We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Forty-three percent of respondents to a Gallup poll said they approve of President-elect Bush's cabinet appointments. Twelve percent think they are outstanding, while seven percent say they're poor.

Jennifer in Seattle e-mails us: "Conservatives need to start taking responsibility for their actions and stop blaming the liberal media every time something goes wrong for them."

Paul in Houston says: "This Chavez performance yesterday was the most embarrassing since the Nixon Checkers speech."

I'm not sure it was quite on that scale. But, Clarence, there does seem to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not that was a graceful exit.

PAGE: Well, I thought at first -- well, I thought it was graceful. The Checkers speech analogy is amusing because at my bureau, several of us were watching. And for the first two-thirds of it, we wondered if she was going to drop out because it did kind of sound like the Checkers speech in the sense that she was pointing out how she hadn't done anything wrong.

And she was setting up a wonderful argument, I thought a solid argument, for why she ought to be allowed to stay and fight on. I think she was talked into leaving by the Bush folks who wanted to get this controversy behind them as quickly as possible.

BATTISTA: John, what do you think? Do you think that she was asked to leave? MILLER: Well, Linda has said that she made up her own mind about that. And I take her at her word. And I believe that she probably didn't have as much support from the Bush people as she might have liked.

But she has said that she made up her own mind and has praised President-elect Bush. I think that is her true feeling.

BATTISTA: Why not? Are they saving their support where they think it might be needed more, like say with the Ashcroft nomination?

MILLER: Well, I'm not sure that makes much sense. I mean, just as a tactical political matter, it seems to me that having Linda Chavez out of the way is actually a favor to the enemies of the George Bush's emerging administration because now they can marshal their resources and aim at a different target.

BATTISTA: Clarence, there is a lot of discussion about how these hearings are going to be extremely tough on John Ashcroft. At the same time, it seems to be universally thought that he is going to be confirmed. So that would sort of blow the argument out that she is a sacrificial lamb.

PAGE: Well, I think she's not a sacrificial lamb. I think this was a gift to liberals. I listened to your earlier discussion. I don't think this was the liberals that brought down Linda Chavez's nomination. I think it was straight old-fashioned Washington reporting.

Liberal bias, conservative bias, who cares? The fact is, reporters are biased in favor of a good story. I don't know of any reporter so biased to one side or the other that they would turn their nose up at getting the Monica Lewinsky scoop or getting the scoop on Linda Chavez and the undocumented worker she had living with her.

Indeed, somebody said earlier about taking responsibility. These are the realities of Washington. Call it the politics of personal destruction, whatever you want to call it. This current atmosphere, which I personally think cares too much about the personal lives of public figures, nevertheless, this is the reality.

And when you are a nominee, just like Linda and I are both newspaper columnists. We know that if we are going before a Senate committee, every column we've ever written is going to be scrutinized by somebody. And we're going to have to be accountable for it, for better or worse.

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call from Taylor (ph) in Texas.

Taylor?

CALLER: Hi.

BATTISTA: Hi.

CALLER: This seems to me to be like an act of compassion is illegal in the U.S. now. And I was under the assumption that laws were made to keep peace and order and reconcile differences, not to ignore basic human needs or to twist it to you own advantage.

You know, I really pray to God that this is not the legacy that we leave to our children or the ideas that we leave to them that no good comes to a good Samaritan. I think every American needs to know that because I think we're going down the wrong track with this. And that's all I can...

BATTISTA: Let me go -- thanks...

CALLER: ... Go ahead.

BATTISTA: ... thanks very much, Taylor. Let me go to the audience.

Ron.

CALLER: My understanding is that one of the reasons for this law is to prevent the exploitation of immigrants. And while there is no question that what she did, she gave this lady a hand. It was very nice on her part. Isn't it possible that she could have been exploiting her at the same time?

BATTISTA: John?

MILLER: Well, obviously that charge has been made. Some people are saying she exploited this woman.

But I will tell you, based on my own eyewitness account, that is not what happened. And frankly, Linda has denied it. Marta has denied it. I don't know why that truth can't be accepted.

But I'm telling you what I saw. This is a woman who was a houseguest. She did come to Linda in some kind of crisis. She was battered. Linda helped her out. And in the end, Linda helped her get back to Guatemala.

BATTISTA: Let me take another quick break. Back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAVEZ: The press conference that we had yesterday was one that I orchestrated, if you will. I invited people to come down and to talk about some of the things that I had done over my lifetime that I think put the situation with Marta Mercado in some perspective.

And this was not their event. This was my event.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: E-mails.

Jodi (ph) says: "A person helping a battered woman sounds like a good thing. If this is wrong, then I don't want right."

Sounds like a country song.

Jonathan in Ontario, Canada, says: "She was not the victim of personal political destruction. She was the victim of her own warmhearted stupidity."

Clarence and John, let's move ahead -- look ahead quickly here in the last moments that we have. Is the bowing out of Linda Chavez signaling that there -- as the "Wall Street Journal" said today -- is blood in the water now for others coming up? Clarence?

PAGE: Well, the "Wall Street Journal" loves to portray liberals as sharks. That's a nice little metaphor for them.

The fact is, sure. When you have one of your targets now out of the way, you're able to marshal resources against the others.

But the fact is, John Ashcroft so far looks like it's going to be a battle over ideas and ideology, how he has expressed those ideas in the past, how much of a zealot or zealot against abortion rights he has been, and how relevant that is to his job as attorney general.

I think that's the kind of plight that the Bush people want to have. They love to be portrayed as defenders of the anti-abortion choice side. That appeals to their political base. So they won't be calling on Ashcroft to step aside because he's too controversial.

BATTISTA: John?

MILLER: I think one of the biggest problems to come out of this is conservatives are deeply disappointed with what happened to Linda. I've talked to many of them around Washington. I've been on some talk radio programs.

And this is my sense. Conservatives were energized and excited about the possibility of Linda Chavez as labor secretary. And now they won't have that.

They're wondering whether the Bush administration will support conservatives in these endeavors. And they're asking themselves what on Earth did Linda Chavez do wrong? What was she supposed to do?

And I think many of them were looking forward to a Labor Committee hearing with Senator Ted Kennedy explaining what's wrong with helping a woman in need when she presents herself at your doorstep in a crisis.

BATTISTA: All right, John Miller and Clarence Page, thank you both so much for joining us today. Appreciate your time and your views on this.

We'll take a quick look at our poll here. The question today was: "Did Linda Chavez" -- or "Was she," rather," a victim of the politics of personal destruction?" Forty-three percent of you say yes. Fifty-seven percent say no. And we have an update to the show we did on Friday. If you were watching, it was the story of New Hampshire State Representative Tom Alciere, who had some shall we say out of the mainstream views. He was anti-police, felt that police officers should be shot. He had some interesting views on domestic violence or spousal abuse, this kind of thing.

Well, evidently bowing to pressure that fell on him for some of those feelings, he resigned today. That's the last word on that.

We've got to go. We'll see you tomorrow.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT