[Blitzer:] Virtually everyone in Congress does it, but is it wise for the Democratic Party Caucus chairman, Representative Rahm Emanuel, to defend earmarks, so-called pork-barrel spending? Democratic strategist and CNN political analyst James Carville is here, Republican strategist John Feehery. Let's talk about this article, this op-ed piece. I woke up this morning, saw it in the op-ed page of "The New York Times." Don't get rid of earmarks. Is this a smart strategy, for Rahm Emanuel to be going public and saying, you know what, these are important, these earmarks?
[James Carville, Cnn Political Analyst:] Yes, I actually called Rahm this morning after I read it, and said, I thought your piece was absolutely brilliant. I think you made some very good points. This is a kind of goo-goo, good-government editorialist kind of thing that all quote "earmarks are bad." As he points out, there was a deficient bridge in his district. He's supposed to know about that. He put it in. His point is that Democrats have changed it to make it completely transparent, who authored it, who put it in, is there any connection to it. I think, as he pointed out, the Iraq Study Group was the result of an earmark by Republican Representative Frank Wolf of my home state of Virginia, my current home state of Virginia. So, like anything else is, we would say, nothing is all bad; nothing is all good. And the Democrats have really made an effort, and a successful effort, to reform the ways it's done.
[Blitzer:] Democrats aren't the only ones who do earmarks. Republicans love earmarks as well. What do you think? Was it a smart strategy for Rahm Emanuel to come out today and defend these earmarks?
[John Feehery, Republican Strategist:] Democrats defending pork, boy, that's a real shock. I would say that this is one of the reasons why the approval rating for the Democrat-led Congress is at 18 percent. This is a bad strategy for Rahm Emanuel. He shouldn't you know, pork is part of the process. It always has been. And, as James says, there's good pork and bad pork. But you shouldn't try to defend it in "The New York Times." It's not part of a strategy to get out of the 18 percent approval rating.
[Blitzer:] The critics call it legalized bribery.
[Carville:] Well, the critics no, well, that's an asinine assertion. If you do what the Democrats have done, and what Rahm has done, is, you make it completely transparent. And you say, I'm the one who authored this. I have no financial interest in getting this done. The number of earmarks when the Democrats when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, as Rahm pointed out, through 2006, it went from 4,000 to 15,000. And any number of these earmarks can be good. And, by the way, if somebody wants to run against a new courthouse in the district, let them run against a new courthouse in the district. That's where...
[Blitzer:] Go ahead, John.
[Feehery:] Democrats said they were going to clean up Congress, they would drain the swamp, they were going to clean everything up, and that they were going to be a reform Congress. Now they are saying they are defending pork. That's not a really good message for them to send to the American people. The America people don't understand that and they don't like it.
[Blitzer:] But, whether or not you agree or disagree with Rahm, what about the strategy, though, to wake up in the morning and to see one of the top Democratic leaders in the House saying, you know what, keep the system as it is; let a little sunshine come in, but keep the system basically as is?
[Carville:] To be fair to Rahm and I would be, because he's one of my best friends he said that they had complete transparency. They have reduced enormously a good number of these quote "earmarks" unquote that they have. So, they done a good job reforming this. But I think that, at some level, I think one of the reasons that you have a congressman and he comes home or she comes home is to find out what's wrong in the district and come back and get it fixed.
[Feehery:] Watch at the end of the year when you are going to have a huge omnibus spending bill, and no one is going to know what is going to be in that bill. The Democrats have done none of their appropriations bills. And you're going to see that they're going to stick all kinds of pork in that. And they're there's not going to be any transparency. No one's going to see it.
[Carville:] Sure there will.
[Blitzer:] All right. Let's talk about the health care issue, Romney today coming out with his plan: Let the states take the lead in trying to get universal health insurance for all Americans. Edwards obviously has a different position. I know you love Hillary Clinton.
[Carville:] Right.
[Blitzer:] She her position on this whole issue is still a work in progress, shall we say.
[Carville:] Well, I mean, she she has put out a position. She said she's going to amplify it, which is I think what what Romney does is is recognize that this is a huge issue in American politics. You know, he he had Senator Kennedy, when he had his thing in Massachusetts, praised him effusively for helping him get this through. It's going to be interesting to see how Romney plays in the Republican primary, being so close to Senator Ted Kennedy, who helped him so much with his reform plan in Massachusetts.
[Feehery:] Romney's smart for getting in the game on health care. Rudy Giuliani did a couple weeks before. I think it's smart for Republicans to talk about health care. It's a very big issue. But keep in mind, 82 percent of Americans, according to Democracy Poll, think that their health care is fine. They like their health care. So, you have to be very careful on this health care. Republicans could possibly steal this this issue away if they're if it's perceived that Hillary Clinton wants to overreach on this.
[Blitzer:] You know what the Republicans are going to argue: The Democrats want socialized medicine.
[Carville:] Right. But you know what? There's a real comparison here. For six years, we had a Republican president and a Republican Congress. Look at what happened to the number of uninsured America. It exploded. Look what happened to health care costs. They exploded. There's a real record here. And you know what? The public, by margins that are almost unbelievable margins, trust the Democrats more on health care, and for good reasons. They delivered. The Republicans, when they the new drug plan, they let the pharmaceuticals write it. They are a complete captive. Right now, the president is fighting tooth and nail giving health insurance to children.
[Feehery:] Republicans actually had some solid achievements on health care. Prescription drugs, that program is overwhelmingly popular. Health savings accounts. There are other things that they have done on health care that are incremental. And people want incremental change. They don't want a socialized medical scheme. They don't want it.
[Carville:] Well, they give them credit. They didn't provide incremental number of increasing uninsured. There was an explosion in the number of uninsured. They didn't provide incremental increase in health care costs. There was an explosion in health care costs. They are not incremental about this at all.
[Feehery:] The increase in costs come from increased lawsuits and the trial lawyers.
[Blitzer:] It's going to be a huge issue in the campaign. We will watch it every step of the way. James, John, thanks very much.
[Carville:] Thank you.
[Feehery:] Thank you.
[Blitzer:] Is there any reason to believe Americans would buy products made in Iraq? Jack Cafferty standing by with your e-mail. Also, Hillary Clinton opens the door to criticism by talking of the political fallout if there's a new attack on America. We will talk terror, the presidential race. That's coming up. Plus: a reality check on Senator John Warner's plan to try to bring at least some U.S. troops home from Iraq by Christmas. My powerful interview with our man in Baghdad, Michael Ware that interview coming up. You will want to see it. Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.