Child Sex Abuse Scandal Rocks Penn State; Super Committee Deadlocked?

Written by Chris Wallace / Published November 13, 2011 / Fox News Sunday

Special Guests: Gov. Tom Corbett, Franco Harris, T.J. Bard, Sen. Pat Toomey, Rep. James Clyburn

The following is a rush transcript of the November 13, 2011, edition of "Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace." This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace.

A child sex abuse scandal rocks Penn State.

Legendary football coach Joe Paterno is fired and students riot. But what about the young boys who were victimized? We'll discuss big-time college sports and morality with Pennsylvania's governor, Tom Corbett, former Penn State football star, Franco Harris, and student body president, T.J. Bard.

And then, it's 10 days and counting for the deficit deal deadline. Will the congressional super committee, will they reach a compromise? We'll get the latest from two members of the panel, Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Democrat Congressman James Clyburn. It's a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.

Also, Rick Perry 53 second "oops" moment during a presidential debate. We'll ask our Sunday panel about a GOP race that is wide open.

And our power player of the week turned a new kind of t-shirt in a billion dollar year business

All right now on "Fox News Sunday."

And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

This weekend, the Penn State football team took the field without head coach Joe Paterno for the first time in 46 years. Paterno was fired after a scandal broke about a former assistant coach allegedly abusing young boys, some of them on campus.

In the stadium, thousands wore blue instead of the traditional white to express sympathy with the victims.

In a few minutes, we'll talk with former Penn State football great Franco Harris, as well the student body president.

But we'll begin with Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett who's in the state capital of Harrisburg.

As governor, you are a member of the board of trustees of Penn State that voted this week to fire Joe Paterno. But you never gave a reason why other than decide that you want to go in a new direction.

So, let me ask you directly: why did the board vote to fire Joe Paterno? What did you believe he did wrong?

GOV. TOM CORBETT: Well, Chris, I believe the board voted to fire both Paterno and President Spanier because they lost confidence in their ability to lead. I said that a number of times over the course of this weekend.

WALLACE: And what's specifically in Paterno's actions led you to that loss of confidence?

CORBETT: Well, those deliberations to the board, and I'm not going to into what the deliberations were. In my mind, I agreed with the board's decision. It's a unanimous decision that based upon all that appeared before them, that the ability to lead Penn State through this time and in the future, they no longer had confidence in him to do that.

WALLACE: But, Governor, let me point out -- these are just allegations. Joe Paterno, who had spent half a century at Penn State, did not have an opportunity to offer a full defense. Why not let him finish his season and retire as he offered to do?

CORBETT: Well, as I said, there are deliberations that were part of the board of trustees, and those are questions that should go to the chairman and the vice chairman of the board of trustees and speaking on behalf. I'm just a member of the board of trustees.

I gave them one statement. I had one sentence that I gave throughout the entire period of time in the deliberations and it was this, that we have to remember the children. And I think a lot of it has to do with that.

WALLACE: I'm not sure, Governor, why, you know, you are a member of the board of trustees, a voting member. You voted to fire Paterno. You're also the governor of the state.

Why are you being so secretive about your own feelings about the case?

CORBETT: Well, my feelings of the case are pretty well-known.

WALLACE: How about coach Paterno, though?

CORBETT: Well, Chris, I started this investigation. I have a responsibility to see that investigation continued. I did. As governor, I have a requirement to make sure that we protect the children of Pennsylvania. That's my focus on this.

As to the actions of Mr. Paterno, the attorney general made a determination that he had not at this point in time done anything that would be of a criminal nature. But in my opinion, when you don't follow through, when you don't continue on to make sure that actions are taken, then I lose confidence in your ability to lead. That would be the case here.

WALLACE: Let me follow up on that, because Penn State and Paterno, I think it's fair to say, were considered models of what's right in the college football. The team motto for the football team is success with honor. And yet, in this case, the coach and school seemed to have been more concerned about protecting the program than those eight boys Jerry Sandusky allegedly abused over 15 years.

Governor, how do you explain that, especially in Penn State?

CORBETT: Well, Chris, I have to sit back and take a look at what happened. You all will make your determinations and conclusions based upon what you see. What I saw was a failure to act. And I've always have said, your actions speak louder than your words. That should not have been able to continue. I have to be careful what I say because I'm under ethical in this investigation as to what I can and can't say. But the actions or the failure to act while maybe not criminal caused me not to have confidence in the president and in the coach.

WALLACE: But I'm asking you a more general question, sir. How did the Penn State program and college go so far off of the tracts when this had been held up as a model of what was right in college football?

CORBETT: Well, Chris, I think that's exactly what the investigation, the internal investigation by Rod Erickson and by Ken Frazier who is given the special assignment to conduct this investigation. My secretary of education, Ron Tomalis, that's what they are to determine at this point in time.

I can't answer that question for you. If I knew how that happened, I'd be happy to give you that answer.

But that investigation is going to be done and to make a determination of why when reports were made, there was no follow up, what happened? Is it caused boy a fear of reporting? Is it caused by a lack of understanding of this kind of action needs to be reported to law enforcement authorities and up the chain? Is it a fear of a harm of reputation to the institution? That is, I think, the goal of Ken Frazier and his committee.

WALLACE: Let's talk about Second Mile, the charity that Jerry Sandusky helped form for disadvantaged kids that quite frankly gave him access to these young boys. Should actions be taken against the charity or the CEO who allegedly was told about some of these abuses as far back 2002?

CORBETT: Again, keeping in mind that there is an investigation, a federal -- a state and an attorney general investigation on going. I'm going to be very careful here. The attorney general's office has a security section and I'm sure that they will be taking a look to see what happened at that point in time. That needs to be done.

There needs to be a determination of what was communicated from the executive director of that association to the board members and chairman of the board. And I believe that that association -- that organization is having a meeting here today or tomorrow of the board members to determine what the future is of the Second Mile.

It's unfortunate that the purpose of the Second Mile was the purpose. If you talk to people who have worked with Second Mile, it has done great work. And if it should seize to exist, I am hopeful that other organizations will pick up the work that they did. We need to reach out to these children. We need to give them guidance.

But in this case, as the allegations indicate, some of it was used to pick on some children and the term was used, grooming, groom those children for Mr. Sandusky's purposes. WALLACE: Finally, we have about a minute left, Governor. There has been talk and it's nothing more than talk about more victims or the possibility that others were involved in abusing these kids. Can you assure the people of Pennsylvania and the nation that this scandal is over, or is possible that there is more to it than we now know?

CORBETT: Well, as the attorney general has an ongoing investigation. And I don't get the details because I'm no longer the attorney general. But in looking at other cases like this, it would not be uncommon to find other victims, because when the word gets out, when people understand that authorities are actually doing something about this, that they may be believed, then more people come forward in other investigations.

If I'm to speculate, I wouldn't be surprised if we had more victims come forward. That's why the attorney and the state police have put up numbers for people to call if they've been a victim.

WALLACE: So, this scandal may be even bigger, sir?

CORBETT: There could be more victims, that's right.

WALLACE: Governor Corbett, we're going to have to leave it on that very chilling note. Thank you so much for coming in today to talk with us, sir.

CORBETT: Thank you very much.

We want to bring in Penn State alum and former Pittsburgh Steeler great, Franco Harris, who joins us from Pittsburgh.

As well as T.J. Bard, Penn State student body president, who's on campus there.

Franco, you have blasted the board of trustees, including Governor Corbett, this week, for firing Joe Paterno. You say they showed a lack of course. I want to ask you that, but before I do, I want to put up, I want to play comments made by the mother of one of the victims in this case, as well as the comments of Joe Paterno reacting to his firing.

Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He said, I didn't know what to do. I just didn't know what to do and you just can't tell Jerry no.

JOE PATERNO, FORMER PENN STATE FOOTBALL COACH: We've still got things to do. All right. I'm out of it, maybe, now. A phone call put me out of it, but we'll go from here.


WALLACE: Franco, Joe Paterno may have followed the letter of the law, or complied with it by informing his superior. But on a moral basis in the end, he was fired because of his failure not any kind of legal breach. Shouldn't he have called the cops when he heard about this abuse, or at least followed up with the person he tell the athletic director to find out where this investigation stood?

FRANCO HARRIS, PENN STATE GRADUATE: Hey, Chris, let me go back for a minute. As you know there was a grand jury investigation, and at the end of that investigation, they found that Joe Paterno cooperated fully with them and had good testimony and there was no charges against Joe Paterno.

And then, all of the sudden, something came out about a moral obligation, and everybody jumped on that. And everybody said it should be a moral procedure. It should be a moral procedure. And like that is subject to people's own train of thought with that.

So, I thought that was unfair and I think it is unfair how people were treating Joe with this issue, because Joe is highly moral person and great moral character. And so, it's very disturbing to me when somebody said this, everybody else jumped on this.

WALLACE: Let me bring in T.J. Bard.

Speaking for yourself, I know you're the head of the student government.

But speaking for yourself, did the trustees overreact in firing Joe Paterno?

T.J. BARD, PENN STATE STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT: I don't know. It is hugely emotional for especially the students and the trustees and there is a lot of information that we as students don't know. And it's definitely been a frustrating and confusing time for us.

And at the end of the day, I only think time will really tell if the trustees made the right decision or not. But I can't say that -- I worked with the trustees before and I know they have and always will have the best interest of the university at heart. So, what that means, I don't know. But I do trust their judgment.

WALLACE: T.J., as head of the student government, you spoke to your fellow students on campus on Thursday, the day after the rioting. Let's take a look at what some of what you had to say.


BARD: We watched as mayhem filled a false sense of community. We must support each other, believe in each other, and stand united during this trying time.


WALLACE: T.J., how would you assess the mood on campus now? Is there more outrage over the abuse of the kids or more outrage of the firing of Joe Paterno?

BARD: I think after -- the day after the riots, they described as kind of the calm after the storm, at this point, I think the students have been focused on the victims, bringing attention to the victims and their families and trying to do everything we can to make sure that justice is done for them.

We've had a candle light vigils and the statistics are really amazing. Three thousand were approximated to participate in the riots after the announcement of Joe Paterno's firing. And anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 students participated in the candle light to honor the victims and bring attention to child abuse. And that's not even including the blue-out at the football game, or the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been raised by students and alumni for child abuse prevention.

So, I think it's safe to say that these students kind of -- attention has been turned to bringing really -- and finding justice for the victims.

WALLACE: Franco, when you read the grand report. I don't know if you've had a chance. But it's just awful. And when you see the rioting on Wednesday on the campus at Penn State, it seems that a number of people -- I'm not going to focus now on Paterno -- but it seems that a number of people were and are more concerned about football, more concerned about the football program at Penn State than they were the victimization of these kids.

How does that happen and how do you fix it?

HARRIS: Well, I think that happened because of the press. And they focused on Joe Paterno when after Joe Paterno rather than putting the focus on the kids.

And let me go back just for a second here about the board. When they mention that the board had leadership, it doesn't really meet my definition of leadership. Everyone -- look, everyone knows that in business and in politics, that when a crisis happens, you know, they do program 101. Like to me, it's nothing that shows leadership or anything bold. That is that you just get rid of everybody.

And, you know, and it doesn't matter about what's true or not true --


HARRIS: -- or anything like that. What you do is just cut everything and that's what I mean when I said the board didn't show leadership or show any guts. They just did 101 and I'm very disturbed about that.

And also, I want to say that --

WALLACE: Really quickly.

HARRIS: -- when you talk about the rioting at Penn State, I heard there's only about just a couple dozen out of over 2,000.

WALLACE: All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Franco Harris, T.J. Bard -- we want to thank both so much. Thanks for joining us today. Obviously, we're going to follow the events there at Penn State.

Up next: the congressional super committee remains deadlocked over cutting debt and time is running. We'll get an inside look at the negotiations from two key members when we come right back.


WALLACE: The congressional super committee now has 10 days until November 23rd to come up with a plan to cut the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Otherwise, there will be automatic cuts, including $600 billion from the Pentagon.

We'll hear from a top Democrat in the committee in a moment. But, first, Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who offered a compromise this week.

Senator Toomey, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

SEN. PAT TOOMEY, R-PA.: Good morning, Chris. Thanks for having me.

WALLACE: Before we get to your plan, let's take the overview of where do things stand 10 days out? What are -- where are talks now and what do you think of the realistic chances of making a deal by a week from Wednesday?

TOOMEY: Well, let me be very clear. The clock is running out, but it hasn't run out yet. We still have time, but we have no time to waste. I stay here this weekend, as most of my colleagues did, so that we could continue the various discussions that are taking place.

TOOMEY: It's really, really important that we'd be successful and I intend to work hard as I can to try to --

WALLACE: But where would you say the talks are right now?

TOOMEY: You know, it's a difficult point. I think we got a ways to go. But I hope we can close that gap very quickly.

WALLACE: Again, before we get to your plan. What are the stakes if you fail to make a deal. If on November 23rd, the super committee comes up empty and the automatic triggers come in, and we'll talk about that in a moment. What do you think the impact is on the markets, on the economy and on the U.S. credit rating?

TOOMEY: I think that there will be further erosion of what little confidence remains of our federal government. This has been a dysfunction Senate that I've been serving in for the year that I've been in office. And this is an attempt to try to make some important progress. It would only be the first of what needs to be many steps because we've dug a deep hole for ourselves. I think it's really important that we'd be successful.

WALLACE: All right. You offered a plan that breaks with the Republican pledge not to raise any tax revenue. Let's drill down into the plan.

You would cut the deficit $1.2 trillion, which is the mark that is supposed to be met by the super committee with $700 billion in spending cuts and $500 billion in revenue increases. On the revenue side, you get $250 billion by limiting deductions especially for top earners. In exchange, you would lower tax rates, the top rate would go from 35 percent to 28 percent.

Question: why are you breaking with the GOP pledge not to raise taxes in the middle of a bad economy and how many Republicans will go along with you.

TOOMEY: Well, let me -- first of all, let me say, if I were king, this is not the plan I'd put on the table. But if we both went into our respective corners and had no flexibility at all, then we wouldn't get anything accomplish. Number two, the plan that I put on the table is contingent upon pro-growth tax reform.

Every group that's looked to this, all of the bipartisan commissions, gang of six and the others, have acknowledge that if there is more revenue it has to come in the context of pro-growth tax reform, the kind of reform we're talking about absolutely guaranteed to create millions of jobs over time and still more revenue.

And, finally, Chris, the other reason to make a tough decision like this, is in the alternative, we are 13 months away from the biggest tax increase in American history. And that's written into law. That's going to happen.

WALLACE: You're talking about the Bush tax cuts expire.

TOOMEY: That's exactly right.

And so, what we've suggested is, as an alternative to an economy destroying tax increase right around the corner, let's have a reform, let's simplify the code, let's lower rates, let's wipe out some of the loop holes and special interest, favors and deductions. Let's have the economic growth that would come with that.

And as we lower the rates and contract the value of deductions, we'll only generate a little revenue so that we can reduce the deficit.

WALLACE: Now, I don't want to get too far on the weeds, but Democrats immediately rejected your plan because they say that the money that would be lost by lowering those tax rates, basically 20 percent below the Bush tax cuts, would cost over $3 trillion for the economy, and they say the money you're going to will lose that will increase the deficit is more than money you'll get from closing these tax loops. That it's a net loser.

TOOMEY: First of all, that's not true. You could design this in a way -- and as I said, I didn't invent this. We didn't invent this. This is an idea that's been suggested by the Simpson-Bowles commission, by the Rivlin-Domenici.

Now, it's true that they want to raise taxes more. I think that as you reduce the value of these deductions, if you go too far, you try to create too much revenue, you can do economic damage. But you absolutely can do this in a way that will be pro-growth, that will generate more revenue, that would avoid this huge tax increase that's otherwise coming and I think that's a direction we should move in.

WALLACE: The president says if the committee fails and these automatic triggers go into effect, which includes $600 billion cuts for the Pentagon, very controversial. He says, I will veto any measure that would end the triggers. He says we're going to go ahead with those.

You agree with him?

TOOMEY: I don't think that we should eliminate the sequestration of the alternative. First of all, I'm not giving up on getting something done. I really think we still can. And I'm going to do everything I can to achieve that.

But in a very, very unfortunate event that we don't, I think it's very likely that Congress would reconsider the configuration of that sequestration and considers, is this really the best way to do it? I think that would be a lively debate that will occur and the nature of those cuts, which I think the cuts have to occur. They might occur in a different fashion.

WALLACE: Finally, and I just want to bring you back to Penn State, the subject in the first segment because you were a senator from Pennsylvania. At one point, you were urging, along with a number of colleagues, that Joe Paterno be given the congressional medal the Presidential Medal of Freedom. You've now rescinded that support.

Why did you rescind the support and do you think the trustees were right to fire him?

TOOMEY: You know, it absolutely broke my heart to have to rescind that recommendation. But, Chris, it seems to me that there are important and disturbing questions about what coach Paterno knew and when he knew it and what he did with that information.

And given the uncertainty around those issues, I couldn't in good conscience continue to recommend that he'd receive the highest award that a civilian can receive in the United States of America.

WALLACE: And do you -- briefly, do you think that the trustees are right to fire them.

TOOMEY: That's a decision for them to make, but I certainly understand why they came to that decision.

WALLACE: Senator Toomey, thank you so much. Thanks for coming in today. We'll stay on top of this. Thank you.

TOOMEY: Thanks.

WALLACE: Now, to the Democrats on the super committee. And here's what they are proposing. They want to cut the deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next decade. They want to increase revenue by $1 trillion, while cutting spending by $1 trillion, and save $300 billion in the interest on the debt.

Joining us now, a Democrat on the super committee, Congressman James Clyburn, who has magically appeared in the seat where Pat Toomey was a moment ago.

Congressman, welcome to "Fox News Sunday."

REP. JAMES CLYBURN, D-S.C.: Thanks for having me.

WALLACE: Before we get to the Democratic plan, I want to ask you the same question I started with Pat Toomey. Where do things stand right now? Where are the negotiations and what do you think of the realistic chances you'll get a compromise within 10 days?

CLYBURN: Well, I'm very hopeful that we will. And I feel very comfortable that we will. I am not as certain as I was 10 days ago, but I think that, again, we've got 10 days to do this, and I really believe that all of the ingredients for a good resolution are there. We just need to build the will.

WALLACE: There had been talks -- speaking of will -- about because the committee is charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. But there had been talk about going way beyond that, a grand bargain, $4 trillion. Is that now off the table?

CLYBURN: Well, I hope it's not because I am $4 trillion guy. I do believe that we can do this. In fact, I think in order for us to be fair and balanced -- if I might use that term --

WALLACE: Go ahead, sir.

CLYBURN: -- we ought to go to a big deal. That way, we can do enough job creation in a resolution that will allow us to do some tough calls, surgical fixes to entitlements. I would love to see us put together a big deal that will increase the possibilities of 75- year solvency with Social Security. And you cannot do that with a little deal. You got to have a big deal to do that.

WALLACE: All right. Let's talk about the Democratic plan. It isn't specifically yours, but this is the Democratic plan that's on the table. It offers a dollar in spending cuts to every one dollar in revenue increases. Now, the Bowles-Simpson commission that was appointed by President Obama, offered a three to one ratio, three dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar revenue increase.

I guess my question is: isn't the deal that's on the table now much less attractive to Republicans than the president's own panel?

CLYBURN: Well, you know, that's a Democrat's plan. It's not the Democratic plan. There are six Democrats on this committee and though I have a great deal of admiration and respect for all of them, the fact of the matter is, Democrats have not coalesced around a plan.

WALLACE: Well, that's a problem right there, 10 days out, that the Democrats don't have a plan.

CLYBURN: Well, the Republicans don't have a plan. I think we are there to develop a bipartisan plan. And that's why it's six and six. And I do believe we can get to a bipartisan plan.

We've got to get realistic about these so-called tax increases. How do you define closing the loophole as a tax increase is beyond me? The fact of the matter is, if you got someone who is supposed to be paying 30 percent, 35 percent in taxes, yet can find loopholes not to pay anything in taxes. And so, it's fair -- unfair to close that loophole. I don't quite understand that.

WALLACE: But that's not if I may


WALLACE: Wait, wait, Congressman, that's not the typical situation. Let's say you are fortunate enough to be in the 35 percent bracket and let's say you take a mortgage deduction on your home. Now, if instead of getting the full value of that deduction, you got 2/3 of it, you are paying more in taxes. That's a tax increase.

CLYBURN: Well, that's not all that we are talking about here. We are talking about the loopholes that allow you to go down to zero in taxes. And I think it is unfair for us to sit out an say to a person who is making billions of dollars, we're going to allow a tax increase or decrease of another $300,000 a year while we are then going to take away Medicare for people living on fixed income. That is just not fair.

We ought to be saying let's find a balanced way to do this and let's say to those who are fortunate enough to be in the upper 1 percent, who had 275 percent increase in their earnings over the last 28 years, let's say: come on - let's tone this down and put you where you were 28 years ago relative to the rest of the country.

WALLACE: OK. Let me ask you about one other thing which the Republicans say it is unfair about the Democrats.

You -- well, this is not your plan. The Democratic plan that is out there would count hundreds of billions of dollars in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be applied to entitlements, things like that. Isn't that a classic Washington budget gimmick, to count savings on money that was going to be spent anyway?

CLYBURN: That is not. And, in fact, that's much more realistic then this so-called pro-growth economy which --

WALLACE: Well, I'm asking you about this though. Counting money from wars that weren't going to be fought?

CLYBURN: We believe and the CBO believes that there is around $917 billion to be saved over the next 10 years from the overseas contingency account. And we ought to count that.

We ought to use that savings to plow it back in to fix Social Security, that will allow it to be sovereign for another 75 (ph) years, to plow it into job creation programs that would get people back to work, and paying taxes, and off of food stamps and off of unemployment.

WALLACE: We've got about 30 seconds left. And I'm not saying that you are right or Pat Toomey is right, but I've got to say, watching the two of you today, it doesn't sound like there is any progress at all. I mean, you're talking to the Democratic talking points, he's sticking to the Republican talking points.

CLYBURN: About two-thirds of what Pat Toomey has put on the table I am for, I'll tell you. And that may shock you.

What I'm not for is trying to count something that CBO will not score. The legislation is very clear, we've got to come up with a plan that CBO will score, not that Pat Toomey will dream about. And it's a dream, I believe, that if you do this and if you do that, it will create all this dynamic growth. Dynamic scoring is not the way to do that. Let's put down the actual numbers, tax cuts, tax increases, entitlement cuts, and entitlement increases. And let's find a fair and balanced approach.

WALLACE: Love that phrase.

CLYBURN: I know you do.

WALLACE: Congressman Clyburn, thank you. Thanks for updating us on the talks. It sounds to me like you guys have a lot of work to do in 10 days.

CLYBURN: Yes, we do, but we've got a lot of time.

WALLACE: OK. A lot of time?

CLYBURN: We have 10 days.

WALLACE: All right. Thank you, sir.

CLYBURN: Thank you.

WALLACE: Coming up, we'll ask our Sunday group about a wild week on the campaign trail and the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

Back in a moment.



MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.

NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran and relatively few ways to be dumb, and the administration skipped all the ways to be smart.


WALLACE: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney taking shots at President Obama's Iran policy during another debate last night in South Carolina.

And it's time now for our Sunday group -- Brit Hume, Fox News senior political analyst; Liz Marlantes of The Christian Science Monitor; Bill Kristol, from The Weekly Standard; and Fox News political analyst Juan Williams.

Well, let's start with the latest polls, national polls. And there were two of them this week. CBS News now has Cain at 18 percent; Romney and Gingrich tied at 15 percent, as you can see. Compared with late October, Cain and Romney are down, Gingrich is up. And a new McClatchy poll has Romney leading at 23 percent; Gingrich now in the second, at 19 percent; and Cain third, at 17 percent.

So, Brit, let's start with Newt Gingrich. Why do you think he is rising, or surging, or whatever you want to call it? And can he be a real contender just off debate performance, with very little ground game, field organization, in any of the early states?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, he can continue to compete in this phase of the campaign, which is all about one thing: the debates. And in the debates, the candidates are pretty much on equal footing, and Newt Gingrich does well in these debates.

And he seems to have now adopted a kind of persona that is working for him. He's Uncle Newt.

He's complimentary of his fellow candidates. He dumps all over the president, which the Republican audiences love. He's got substantive things to say on nearly everything, as he always has. And so in this format, he's found a way to look good.

So, is this conservative element of the electorate which is not ready to go for Mitt Romney, migrates from one candidate to another, each of them seems to collapse upon receiving the favor of this group -- this is Newt's turn. Now Newt will have his moment, I think, and we'll see how the scrutiny which will unavoidably come with that, how he deals with that and how it affects his chances.

There's a lot people don't (ph) know about Newt Gingrich.

WALLACE: Well, I was going to say, Liz, you know, Newt Gingrich left office in 1998, and I think for a lot of voters, either they've forgotten or may not know all of his history, both positive and negative.

How do you think that will affect Newt Gingrich?

LIZ MARLANTES, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: I think there's a question. I mean, one of the things that has repeatedly been said is that he has all this baggage, that it has been fully aired, so maybe the press isn't going to be as interested in bringing it all up again, and people, to some extent, know about it. But you're right, he's been doing a lot since then.

There is probably baggage that will come out that we don't actually know about. I mean, even since this race started, obviously the Tiffany's bill came out in the beginning of the race and did a lot of damage to his campaign. Just in the last debate they were asking a lot of questions about what exactly he did for Freddie Mac. That hasn't been fully answered.

So I think there is probably more that will come out about Gingrich. And then, as you said, to the extent that the press feels like rehashing the old baggage, the extramarital affairs, the ethics violations, that sort of thing, yes, I'm not sure that's great for him.

WALLACE: You know, let's turn to Herman Cain. He clearly has survived the initial hit of the allegations against him of sexual abuse, but he has taken a hit on it. And if you look at that CBS poll, you see that particularly among Republican women, support dropped from late October from 28 percent to 15.

So where is Cain right now?

BILL KRISTOL, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: He's gradually fading. I don't think he's going to go away. And I think he's got a lot of loyalty among Republican primary voters who watch him and like him and admire him, the non-politician who has the guts to do what he's doing, and does it pretty well.

But before the sexual harassment charges, I wrote, I think, that I thought Cain would fade and that Newt would emerge as the alternative to Romney, and I think I'm sticking with that. And I think Newt has more staying power than Herman Cain.

Newt is the former Speaker of the House. Newt was the leader of the conservative movement for a bunch of years, basically. Newt accomplished real things, and I think --

WALLACE: Let me just interrupt a second, because I know right now people are e-mailing me, and I'll see them when I go back. They go crazy at this. They say you and the establishment, you have diminished, you have dismissed Herman Cain all along, he is a serious player, and stop talking about an office somebody held 15 years ago.

KRISTOL: Well, fair enough. I very much agree with that last point. I don't think -- this is a forward-looking election. We are in a new crisis.

What you did as governor six years ago or speaker 15 years ago does not matter much. Watch that debate last night though. And I would say Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are capable to be president of the United States in a way I'm not sure anyone else on that stage quite is.

But look, I am not for people being forced out of the race by the media, by any of us sitting here. Herman Cain has every right to stay in the race. He's raising money, he'll stay in. I think he'll do adequately well, pretty well in Iowa.

I think he'll probably stay in through a whole bunch of primaries. I don't think people should get out just because a bunch of us are sitting around saying we don't think he's ultimately likely to be the nominee. But you asked my opinion, and my opinion is going to be a Mitt versus Newt race.


Juan, let me switch to another candidate, the indelible most of this week, Governor Rick Perry in that debate forgetting the name of the third cabinet department that he wanted to shut down, and he went then into full-court damage control. Watch.


GOV. RICK PERRY (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hey, listen, you try concentrating with Mitt Romney smiling at you. That is one handsome dude.


WALLACE: Can Rick Perry survive and get back into this race?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: You know, it's interesting to watch that from a political, strategic point of view. I thought it was brilliant to say, let's go on all the morning shows and let's engage in self-depreciating humor that makes it all too human. Everybody's had a moment of brain freeze, and this will sort of humanize the candidate and do away with it.

But the problem -- and I especially heard this from Republican strategists this week -- is that, you know what? He was talking about himself as the butt of the joke. He wasn't talking about ideas, he's not talking about his plans, he's not pushing anything forward.

You know, even people like Ed Rogers, a strong Republican, said if you're a money guy right now, and you're thinking, oh, I should put some more money into Perry, he's running these values ads in Iowa, it looks like he might be able to surge, you'd say, no. You know what? I think this is over, I think this is gone.

I think that the voters themselves, even if you like Rick Perry, just don't see it now. It's not that he just had one moment of brain freeze. It's that he had the previous problems with the debates, and now this kind of confirms it.

To use Brit Hume's language, before he threw up on himself. Now it's like he is continually regurgitating. At some point you stay stop.


KRISTOL: I'd say stop with that metaphor.

WALLACE: We want to tell any of you who are eating a meal now on a Sunday, we want to apologize for brother Williams' comments.

All right. We have to take a break here. Boy, do we need to take a break.

When we come back, growing violence at some of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Are top Democrats rethinking their support?



REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: God bless them for their spontaneity. You know, it's an independent people coming. It's young, it's spontaneous, it's focused, and it's going to be effective.


WALLACE: That was House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi offering strong support at the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street movement. But in recent days, and here, this morning, in Portland, Oregon, there has been confrontation between protesters and authorities.

And we're back now with the panel.

Well, it is clear, Brit, that local officials are beginning to run out of patience with these protesters and their camp sites around the country. The camps have increasing health problems, crime issues. Some of the protests have been violent. In Oakland, one man was shot and killed. In Vermont, a veteran apparently shot himself. Question: where do you see this heading?

HUME: It seems to me it's headed for more and more of this kind of trouble you just described. And I think in political terms, the embrace of it by Democratic politician to include, to some extent, the president and, as you heard there, Nancy Pelosi, is a mistake.

I think to most sort of middle-of-the-road voters, those who decide elections, this Occupy Wall Street is toxic. It doesn't -- she said it's focused, and I guess it's brought some attention to the issue of income inequality, which will be a big Democratic talking point in this election cycle. But I think they need to get away from these Occupy Wall Street protesters as fast as they can.

WALLACE: Liz, having said that, a coalition of unions, big labor, is planning to rally with the Occupy Wall Street in protest marches around the country on Thursday. They are called We are the 99 Percent rally.

So, given that, is Occupy Wall Street running out of steam?

MARLANTES: I think they're at sort of a critical juncture right now in the sense that, on the one hand, there's a real danger for Occupy Wall Street that it's going to start to become more and more about confronting police and defending their turf. And to the extent that it is about that, they're going to lose the larger message that brought them all there in the first place, which is income inequality, the system in American just doesn't work for average people anymore.

So, there is a real danger for the protesters if that becomes more and more of the storyline and even their own focus, because they are trying to defend their turf and their right to be there. I think that will turn off a lot of supporters elsewhere and really get them off message. They do, on the other hand, need some organization, some leaders. They have been proudly leaderless from the beginning. They say they're a group motivated by the people, for the people, et cetera. But, ultimately, if they want to have concrete goals, if they want to really achieve something and take this in a strategic direction, they are going to need some leaders.

And so, to the extent that they start partnering with labor, that could be helpful to them. But it's an odd bedfellow thing in certain ways, I think, because you see labor has a certain set of issues that they want to focus on, and that isn't really what is motivating many of the protesters, these kids who are just out of college and can't pay off their student loans or get a job. I think it's not necessarily an obvious partnership in every way, but on the other hand, labor has some things to offer them.

WALLACE: Bill, let's go back to what Brit was talking about, the politics of this, because Nancy Pelosi was not the only Democrat, at least in the beginning -- and you don't hear these statements of support so much now -- to embrace the movement. Barack Obama talked about them giving way to the frustration we all feel, Joe Biden compared them to the Tea Party.

At this point, particularly, as we see more sanitary problems, as people I think are getting tired of them occupying public parks, or private parks in the case of New York, is Occupy Wall Street a plus or a negative for Democrats?

KRISTOL: Ohm, I think it's absolutely toxic for the Democrats and for liberalism widely.

Step back for a minute and think of the Obama -- the mobilization behind President Obama. It was an incredible thing that we saw in 2007, 2008. It was law-abiding, it was peaceful, it was democratic, elected a president. Think of the Tea Party, law-abiding, peaceful, democratic, turned into --

WALLACE: Small "d," democratic.

KRISTOL: Yes, small "d," democratic. And people got -- nominated candidates, had primary challenges, some of them worked, some of them didn't, et cetera.

This is fundamentally anti-democratic. This is not an attempt to effect elections. This is -- it's not law-abiding. The whole notion of "Occupy Wall Street," that's not a sort of democratic movement that likes to participate in the whole process.

The whole term "occupy" is a kind of Marxist term, we're taking over these pieces of public property or private property, like it or not. These are our demands. We're dividing the country. This one percent has to be out of society.

I think it's deeply anti-democratic and anti-American. And if I were a liberal who might have been heartened by the Obama mobilization, who might think I still have a chance in 2012, because conservatives, of course, don't have all the answers, I would be deeply worried that Occupy Wall Street is just going to really damage liberalism.


WILLIAMS: I think Occupy Wall Street and the proud tradition of American protests and Americans taking to the streets to say something is wrong with our political structure, in this case, also, our economic structure, I think the Republicans are saying, oh, these people are anarchists and, in some cases, they are right.

But you are attracting people who are homeless. You're attracting veterans who might have psychological issues. You're attracting college kids who can't pay off their loans, as Liz was saying.

So, ,yes, they're going to behave in juvenile ways, they're going to have problems. But, you know, the Tea Party, when the Tea Party was accused of racist behavior, cursing at members of Congress, being linked to the birther movement and calling Obama a socialist, everybody said, you know, that's not the heart of the Tea Party. The heart of the Tea Party is small government, lower taxes.

And if people think that Occupy Wall Street is going to be defined by these clashes with police, they are way off the mark. In fact, right now, Occupy Wall Street is more popular than the Tea Party, according to all the polls.

And if you ask people -- let me just finish here. If you ask people in America, 76 percent say the economic structure favors the wealthy. Fifty-five percent say income inequality -- 68 percent say --


WALLACE: All right. I want to let Bill -- go ahead, Bill.

We're running out of time, Juan.

Go ahead, Bill. You've got about 30 seconds.

KRISTOL: Because there is a potential -- there are popular aspects of the liberal agenda, if I were a liberal I would be terrified that Occupy Wall Street is going to discredit them, as the new left discredited liberalism in the late '60s.

WALLACE: All right.

We're going to have to leave it there. Obviously, not settled, but there's time to talk about it.

Thanks, panel. See you next week.

Don't forget to check out "Panel Plus," where our group here -- you know what? we'll pick right up with this discussion on our Web site, We'll post the video before noon Eastern Time.

Up next, our "Power Player of the Week."


WALLACE: He runs his company like a sports team. Signs at the headquarters proclaim, "Protect This House." He's fiercely competitive, determined to knock off his big rival.

Here's our "Power Player of the Week."


KEVIN PLANK, FOUNDER AND CEO, UNDER ARMOUR: Nobody likes sweat, but we all have to deal with sweat.

WALLACE (voice-over): Kevin Plank knows all about sweat. In fact, he's built a fortune off it. He is founder and chairman of Under Armour, a company that has turned sports wear into performance apparel.

PLANK: We've myopically focused on making the greatest T-shirt in the world for football players that very quickly grew from, hey, this doesn't only work for football players, it works for baseball players and lacrosse players. And this thing became more of a, what a great T-shirt, into what a great category.

WALLACE: Under Armour now has sales of $1.4 billion and 5,000, employees, in addition to spokesmen like Ray Lewis and Cam Newton and Tom Brady.

But it started back in 1995, when Kevin Plank was a special teams player at the University of Maryland who had to change his T-shirt whenever it rained or he'd sweat a lot.

PLANK: A cotton T-shirt dry weighs six ounces. And once it becomes saturated by any one of those factors, it can weigh somewhere between two and three pounds.

WALLACE: Plank took the money from a campus flower delivery business he started, maxed out five credit cars, and ran Under Armour from his grandmother's house.

(on camera): Is it true that you were driving up and down the East Coast selling Under Armour out of your car trunk?

PLANK: I made as many shirts as I could basically carry in the back of the Explorer, and I'd get in the car and I'd drive.

WALLACE (voice-over): Georgia Tech bought his T-shirts, then the Atlanta Falcons. And Plank was constantly bluffing about the size of his company.

PLANK: It was the kind of thing where I'd answer the phone in one voice and I'd say, "Under Armour. May I help you?" "Yes, we need to speak to the president." "One minute, please." "Under Armour. How may we help you?"

WALLACE: Plank's turbo-charged salesmanship took a beat only once when I asked about his rival.

(on camera): What do you think of Nike?

PLANK: Let me give you a -- I respect my competition.

WALLACE: Can I get you to say the name Nike?

PLANK: No. It wouldn't happen. I don't like them.

My son doesn't wear them. My friends, my family, we don't -- that's not for us. We're Under Armour people.

WALLACE (voice-over): Plank has big goals for Under Armour. They branched out into a full line of what they call sports equipment. They outfit more than a hundred colleges, including some controversial new uniforms. And they're introducing new products like this water- repellant storm cotton.

PLANK: Watch this. You see? OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's like magic.

PLANK: Tell me. Bone dry.

WALLACE: At age 39, Kevin Plank is literally a man on the run who takes great pride in a success story he says embodies what's possible in America.

PLANK: I love the example that I'm going to hopefully set for people given somebody who is a little timid or afraid, or listening to say this is not the right time. I don't know, but say, "Why not?" If some football player from Maryland can do it, I can probably do it, too.


WALLACE: In his spare time, Kevin Plank now runs Sagamore Farm, once home to the legendary racehorse Native Dancer. He has a 20-year plan to revive horseracing and breed the next Triple Crown winner. And given his track record, don't bet against him.




On the Show

Sunday July 13, 2014

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) met with President Obama this week, to discuss the influx of Central American children trying to illegally cross into the United States. The President, however, declined the Governor’s invitation to take a firsthand look at the situation on the border. Gov Perry joins us to discuss the growing crisis, this week on Fox News Sunday.

This week President Obama visited Texas, but did not accept Governor Rick Perry’s offer to take a firsthand look at the ongoing border crisis in his state. The President has called on Congress to approve nearly $4 billion to deal with the surge of children migrating from Central America. We’ll discuss with Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.