herobuilders.com has rushed out the anatomically correct cosmo man. the real scott brown will be happy to hear that for $34.95, it comes with fig leaf included. talk about a politician with animal magnetism, the website urlesque found an uncanny resemblance between senator-elect and a come hither kangaroo. >> that's it for us. "larry king live" starts right now. tonight, what do abortion, gay dating and sarah palin have to do with the biggest sporting event of the year? why critics are crying foul over super bowl ads that tackle two of the most controversial subjects ever.

plus the fate of ten americans accused of child trafficking in haiti. were they trying to rescue or kidnap youngsters? then, michael jacksn's children, the private prince and paris step into the grammys spotlight, next on "larry king live." good evening. the super bowl isn't just about football anymore. it's about the ads. two of them submitted for air generated a lot of controversy. one for a gay dating website was rejected by cbs. you will not see it during the game on sunday. you will see it right here. in fact, you'll see it right now. watch it. >> touchdown! >> come on. >> that's what i'm talking about, baby. you suck! that's right. ♪ i want to kiss this guy i really really

really want to kiss this guy ♪ >> okay. we're going to meet in a couple of minutes dominic freeson and best-selling author and critic of it. first to donnie deutsch, chairman of deutsch, inc, multibillion dollar marketing company. what do you make of the mancrunch.com ad? >> they've already won. the whole strategy in boston, talk that they didn't even have the money to afford this on the super bowl. the owner will talk about this afterwards. they've already gotten tens and tens of millions of dollars of publicity for this brand. they've won whether this runs or not. the big issue we get into right now, is the super bowl a place for advocacy messages? tim tebow ad, pro-life ad. they're tippy toeing around it, they're not saying anti-abortion

in the ad. his mother comes on and says doctors told me i shouldn't have this baby. >>eer going to have that. >> so i think you get into this issue, is this the platform where somebody has to turn to their 6-year-old and either explain why two men are kissing or explain why a woman could or couldn't have a baby or explain what a four-hour erection is in a levitra ad. >> if mancrunch.com were your account, would you have bought that ad for the super bowl? >> ro i, probably not the most effective way to use dollars. having said that, it was a brilliant strategy. this guy is getting untold publicity because of it. it's not going to run but you won. he spent zero and is getting dollars. from a media point of view, pretty smart move. >> donnie, you hang with us. let's meet dominic, co-creator for mancrunch.com, bills itself

an an internet service connecting men with other men and dennis fraeger, nationally syndicated host and author. cbs issued a statement about its rejection and said after reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot. as always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions. did you expect them to accept it, dennis -- i'm sorry, dominic? >> in all honesty, larry, when we came up with the idea for the ad, we produced it very conservatively. we honestly expected to get it on the air. >> you did? >> we did not think -- the ad is fairly harmless when you look at it. yes -- well -- >> it represents a dating service for gays? >> yes. >> it does? >> yes. >> you object to it, dennis? >> the truth of the matter is that i don't think advocacy ads

do belong on the super bowl, whether i agree or don't agree. >> right to life you would object to? >> that's right, even though i believe deeply that there is a human being in a woman's womb, yeah. i think that there ought to be a place in society, like sports, where you can actually just watch the game and not be confronted with the great issues of the day. there needs to be a respite from this stuff. >> how about first amendment? >> first amendment doesn't apply because it's not government censorship. they have the perfect right to take whatever ads they want. having said that, there are secondary objections specifically to the gay ad as presented. i don't want either side. there are two issues. >> dennis, are we getting into -- this is an area i'm usually black and white on stuff. this is gray for me. we get into a slippery slope and say i don't want my kid seeing paris hilton in a bikini, eating a hamburger, dripping all over her in what seems to be a

semi-pornographic way. who is to say what's right or wrong? part of me wants to say just sports, leave it alone also, but yet we get into a slippery slope here. who is to draw the line and say what's appropriate and what's not? it's a tough one. >> why did you pick the super bowl, dominic? >> timing for us. >> $2 million it costs you. >> well, it cost $100,000 to produce the ad and $2.6 to put it on the air and we provided full financial records. >> you have the money? >> funds to pay for the ad. >> why the super bowl? >> we launched a few weeks ago and timing wise, it fit into our marketing plan and we are trying to reach a male audience and that's 90 million viewers are primarily male. >> dennis, let me ask you something. >> go ahead, dominic -- donnie, dominic and dennis, i'm going nuts. >> i'm sorry. dominic, from a media point of view -- once again i preface this by saying it was a brilliant move. you got the press. but it's hard to argue it makes sense to reach a very targeted

audience, gay males in america by advertising to this mass audience. you can't say with a straight face that was a smart media buy, can you? >> actually, it was. we're not going to buy into your stereotypes either. >> i'm talking about target marketing, it's nothing to do with stereotypes. >> we felt it was very wise. >> larry: large -- part of a large audience? dennis, you found the ad objectionable? >> that's the second issue. i don't want any advocacy ads and specifically to this one. i would not like to have an ad with a woman jumping on to a guy and having such an intimate embrace like that. i would hold it for both heterosexual and homosexual ads. having said that, i want to be intellectually honest. there's the additional factor of parents then would have to talk to their kids about

homosexuality and may not want to talk to their 8-year-old whose it watching the game about homosexuality, whatever their view. there has to be a safe place for kids in america. if the super bowl isn't, it's a shame. >> larry: did man crunch hit the pr jackpot, though? they're getting more attention than if they had run it. a guy named his own price, wants a room tonight for 65 dollars. we don't go lower than 130. big deal, persuade him. is it wise to allow a perishable item to spoil? he asked, why leave a room empty? the additional revenue easily covers operating costs. 65 dollars is better than no dollars. okay. $65 for tonight. you can't argue with a big deal. i was just in town for a few days, and i was wondering if i could say hi to the doctor. is he in? he's in copenhagen. oh, well, that's nice. but you can still see him!

you just said he was in... copenhagen. come on! that's pretty far. doc, look who's in town. ellen! copenhagen? cool, right? vacation. but still seeing patients. oh. [ whispering ] workaholic. i heard that. she said it. i... [ female announcer ] the new office. see it. live it. share it. on the human network. cisco.

by the way, there might be a double standard here, but maybe not because a girl on girl kiss was rejected by a network for

the 2003 super bowl. it was a met life ad that ended with two girls kissing each other. they do have standards not just relating to gays and you agree they have the right to have the standards? >> yes. >> larry: is donnie right, though, that this commercial, they get more attention not being accepted? >> look, as i was saying to dominic off the air, whether or not it was intended, it was a stroke of genius. i recited to dominic the motto of his gay dating service. that's how effective that ad is. >> is there an announcement you would like to make here? is that what you're getting at? >> larry: you will admit, dominic, you're getting a lot of play. >> we are, and we are generating a lot of traffic. but, you know, the real issue is we were faced with discrimination by the network, they lied to us about the validity of ads for sale, told us for two weeks it was not

available when it was. they refused to provide feedback on the actual commercial spot submitted and just not returning phone calls. friday after getting the rejection we asked for the recommendations to make it meet network standards to actually broadcast this weekend and they're not providing them. >> larry: also, dennis, rejected in 2004, an advocacy ad from the united church of christ which highlighted the church's welcoming stance toward gays and others who might feel rejected by more conservative churches. a pretty thin line, seemed like a modest ad. >> the question was raised where do they draw the line? there's no perfect answer to this. as i said, i think if they get enough ads, they should stick to the usual beer commercials and the usual whatever other commercials they have. again, i just hate repeating myself. there's got to be a safe place. if football isn't safe for having the whole family and little kids watch, then it's a real loss to this society.

>> larry: donnie, there are people that resent beer commercials. >> what's interesting, dennis, i -- once again this is such a gray area. we look at that and say, yes, it's safe and i don't necessarily want to have to explain it to my kids. let's say you've got two guys in a same-sex marriage watching with their kid. to them, that is safe. so, it still is a slippery slope. i hear what you're saying. as a parent i don't want to get into any of these issues with my kids but this is a rubik's cube. there's no way to draw a hard line and in theory go, let's make this a safe place. everybody's definition of safe is different. and therein lies the problem. >> not everybody's. if you took a measurement of the audience of super bowl, i think that most people, vast majority would agree that this is not a safe ad. >> let me ask you a question. >> well, this is free market. that really has to determine. >> let me ask you a question. interracial couple talking about having a baby and having fertility issues? is that okay?

that's a very real, everyday problem. >> i welcome it. >> that's you. maybe somebody else wouldn't, though. >> you're right. it doesn't matter. >> that's the issue here. >> you're right. >> who draws that box? >> cbs. cbs does, because that's what the free market allows. >> you're right. but it's a tough one. it's a tough one. >> larry: you could go nuts, right, reject cereal ads on the basis of sugar, it's bad for kids. you could go nuts. >> you can. >> larry: and have no ads. >> but that will be true for anything. you'll have no ads. you're right. beer ad probably offends some. you're right. >> larry: obviously well financed for a start-up organization to have gays meet gay. >> absolutely. we do have our investors, we're very smart. we have a very strategic marketing plan and it has been very successful. >> larry: cbs said they would discuss with you changing the ad. have you discussed the possibility of a different ad? >> they came out and made several statements in the media that they would work with us

collectively to -- >> larry: have they? >> absolutely not. >> larry: have you submitted another ad? >> we have not. we offered to reproduce it per their recommendations and they have failed to provide them. we wanted to put an ad on the air. >> larry: do you think they would have accepted it if it was just holding hands, if the two met and just held hands? >> there is no kissing. we knew that they would be objectionable if you saw them kiss on the lips. >> lip kissing, but there is kissing. >> we took a very conservative approach. >> to the extent you can see sai on cnn, what was the nonconservative ad? >> larry: if you ran cbs' -- whatever division decides this, would you have taken it? >> i probably would not have. i think they made the right call as a business, capitalistic enterprise. they're going to offend a small majority of the audience. i think it would have taken up

too much attention. it's a discussion for a bigger day but they made the right call. >> larry: are you getting a lot of calls now? are a lot of men wanting to meet men just based on this controversy? >> we generate a lot of traffic, 50,000 new subscribers in the past week. >> larry: in one week, 50,000? >> we're getting support from all people. >> larry: what fee do you charge? >> right now it's free for anyone to sign up because we just launched we're building this base, it's free right now. >> larry: donnie, good seeing you again. >> great seeing you. >> larry: good luck. brilliant move, dominic, whatever -- and dennis, you acknowledged that. >> yep. >> larry: what's a pro-life ad doing on the super bowl? we'll ask the group paying for it. tell you what a difference phillips' colon health has made? it's the probiotics. the good bacteria. that gets your colon back in balance. i'm good to go! phillips' colon health.

>> larry: another controversial super bowl ad will see the light of day on sunday, pro-life spot featuring florida garret star quarterback tim tebow and his mother, pam, discusses her risky pregnancy 23 years ago.

she carried tim to term against medical advice. we have not yet -- they've not yet released the ad to show it before sunday. we're joined by jim daley, president and ceo of focus on the family. focus on the family is sponsoring the ad. terry o'neill is here, president for women. to do this and to p all that money to put it on the super bowl? >> well, larry, it started in early november. one of the gentlemen that works at focus in the film department suggested an idea for the ad on the pam tebow story. when he told me, i said that sou sounds good enough to be on the super bowl. that was really the genesis of it. it was paid for just a handful of friends who are supporters of focus on family. they said that is such a good idea we'll cover it. it didn't come out of the general fund here at focus. it's going to be a great ad.

>> larry: it does not attack ro e versus wade? >> not at all. it's not even political. it's an upbeat, inspirational ad that celebrates family and celebrates life. we've just not said anything about it. a lot of others have made this more political than it needs to be. >> larry: terry, i know n.o.w. is against it. sarah palin suggests your opposition is due -- is at odds with your organization's desire to empower women. what do you say to that? >> that's just not the case, larry. that ad -- i was really surprised to hear that cbs was going to put an ad that actually advocates against women having abortion rights on air. it's a controversial ad, focus on the family has an agenda of overturning roe versus wade and that, alone, makes the ad controversial. it's absolutely wonderful we can all celebrate that pam tebow was able to make the decision for herself about her own health and about her own future and her own family.

but another woman in the very same situation focus on the family would not be celebrating another woman making a different choice. and the national organization for women wants the law to continue to respect women's ability to make those decisions for themselves. >> larry: cbs issued a statement last week regarding its acceptance of the focus on the family ad. it says we have, for some time, moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms on the issue. in fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time. at cbs, our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a process that ensures all ads on all sides of an issue are appropriate for air. jim, did you think maybe they wouldn't take it? >> well, we thought there could be that chance, but when we worked with them -- cbs has been good but they've been tough. we didn't get all the language we wanted. and i think i can understand the

previous segment why they didn't pass that ad. we simply wanted to say -- i'll give you an example. we wanted to say two things that both pam and tim's life were at risk. they said no, we don't want you to say that. so we're down to very simple, 30-second comment. and, again, i understand terry's concern. what we want to do is lift up the other side of the equation. there is an awful lot of energy that's given to the abortion side of this debate. very rarely do we say, hey, let's celebrate a woman who has chosen life for her child. that's what we're trying to do here. >> larry: terry, you feel abortion -- pro-choice doesn't need an ad, since it is the law? >> well, the truth is, if i had $2.5 million, i wouldn't give it to cbs. i would be using it to advocate equality for women. it's just not the case that the anti-abortion rights side doesn't get enough air time. in fact, roe versus wade is

under attack actually right now, larry, more than it has been in decades. we are very concerned about it. we're concerned about continuing efforts, particularly on organizations like focus on the family. it is quite extreme in its desire to -- i think the quote was make abortion illegal and unthinkable. for focus on the family to be claiming they're making this nonpolitical ad, i think, is really not believable. >> larry: let jim pick up on that. by the way, jim has written a blog exclusive for us. go to cnn.com/larryking. tell us what you think about it. when we come back, we'll ask him if the ad is worth all the money. in the south. i'll never forget. it used one tank of petrol and i had to refill it twice with oil. a new car today has 95% lower emissions than in 1970. exxonmobil is working to improve cars, liners of tires, plastics which are lighter and advanced hydrogen technologies that could increase fuel efficiency by up to 80%.

and now i know without enough, our bodies can steal it from our bones. only caltrate delivers 1200 mg of calcium and 800 iu of vitamin d, in just two tablets. share some tlc. tender loving caltrate, who's not answering. announcer: there's a better way. intuit quickbooks online p9 organizes your business in one place, and helps you stay on top of your business anytime, anywhere. get a 30-day free trial at intuit.com. pediatricians trust children's tylenol. to help their fevers, aches and pains feel better.

it was really nice to meet you, a.j. yeah, you too. a.j.? (alarm blasting) (screaming) (phone rings) hello? this is bill with broadview security. is everything okay? no. there's this guy - he just smashed in my door. i'm seúling help right now. thank you. (announcer) brink's home security is now broadview security. call now to install the standard system for just $99. the proven technology of a broadview security system delivers rapid response from highly-trained professionals, 24 hours a day. call now to get the $99 installation, plus a second keypad installed free. and, you could save up to 20% on your homeowner's insurance. call now-- and get the system installed for just $99. broadview security

for your home or business-- the next generation of brink's home security. call now. >> larry: jim daly, the purpose of ads are to create a desire for a product or something or create an interest in something. my guess would be 99% of americans know where they stand on pro-choice. what do you hope this commercial to do? >> i think primarily give a little oxygen to the decision for life. you know, it's an inspirational, pro-family message. that's what we're trying to do here, just provide women another thought that often they don't hear much about. and that is give your child life. and i think that's a good thing. i would hope that terry and others would say what pam tebow did was very courageous. now as the national organization of women, stand with pam tebow saying, wow, that was brave?

>> larry: terry, why not? >> that's exactly what we do. we also say women who affirm their lives by choosing to terminate a pregnancy are also being brave and that is something that it's a shame, jim, you can't see that women around the country are making these decisions every single day and it's their decision. you know, one-third of women have abortions in this country. those women deserve to be treated with exactly the same amount of respect as we give to women who choose not to terminate a pregnancy. i just don't understand why we would, on super bowl sunday, during a game -- i mean, if i -- if my daughter were 16, i would want to have that ad during the super bowl and have to have that conversation with her at a time when we're supposed to be coming together and watching a football game, you know. we can have these conversations later. and i think the super bowl is not the time to do it. you know, larry, you said earlier that cbs is definitely going to run this ad. i am still hopeful they'll pull the ad. it's the right thing to do.

>> hey, terry -- >> larry: jim, have they taken the money? >> oh, yeah. that's all done. cbs has reaffirmed all through the week they're going with it. terry, i'll make you this offer. when you see the ad in the super bowl, if you don't like it, i'll buy you lunch. if you like it, you can buy me lunch. i think people are going to like this ad. it's not controversial. your 8-year-old or your 9-year-old, you can sit there and watch this ad with her. and it's not going to raise that kind of issue. >> jim, if i don't like the ad how about you change your agenda to making abortion illegal and start working with me to make things better for all women in the country? >> larry: terry, do you fear that pro-choice people are going to watch this ad and suddenly be right to lifers? do you fear that? >> no. do you know what i really think? i think a lot of people will watch this and say, boy, that's -- there's an undertone here of that anyone who makes a choice different from the decision that pam tebow made, the undertone there is that

woman should feel ashamed or that she is not as good as pam, who made her decision. i think it's a shame to impose that on women around the country. >> larry, you know what? can i just say, i'm the only one here that has seen the ad. and i'll just say that i think everyone will appreciate the ad. we respect every woman. that's not the point. and i think so often this debate is just boiled down to arguments. when president barack obama and hillary clinton and others say how do we make abortion rare, i would like to meet with terry at the table and say let's start the discussion. focus is a pro-life group. we are a christian organization. we're not ashamed of that. let's talk about the million children that are killed every year. can we do better as a nation? that's my point. planned parenthood, of course, they're going to -- >> larry: jim, maybe -- >> they're making money off of this.

planned parenthood are making money off abortion. >> come on, jim. >> aren't they? >> focus on the family is one of the most extreme anti-abortion groups around there and you fund these crisis pregnancy centers that have been shown. there's a report out of congress, henry waxman's committee issued a report on crisis pregnancy centers using false and deceptive practices in their efforts simply to convince women no matter what was good for the woman, to continue a pregnancy because focus on the family thinks that's the right thing to do. >> larry: jim, do you know where the ad is going to be placed? >> i do. first quarter, very early. so, be watching. >> larry: first quarter early, that's good to know. they did tell you? >> can i respond, larry? >> larry: yeah, but quickly. do you know when in the first quarter? >> no. >> larry: you don't. go ahead. >> on this issue of false sonograms and working with pregnancy resource centers, focus on family, we placed 400 ultrasound machines and saved an estimated 73,000 babies through

that effort. that's a good thing. let's celebrate that. these clinics are not mischief makers. what we're finding is that women who get counseling and get an ultrasound, actually 70% of abortion-minded women change their mind. that's a good thing not a bad thing. >> well, you know now -- >> larry: we're out of time. thanks, terry. >> thank you, larry. >> larry: terry o'neill and jim daly we'll do more on this because it's an important topic. deficit, unemployment issues that affects all of you.

two very talented, smart people are going to go at it now. andrea tantaros, conservative editor and columnist and james carver, democratic strategist. before we get into more urgent or topical political matters, what were your thoughts on what we were just talking about? andrea, what do you make of that ad and the refusal of the ad before it? >> look, i think this is a free country and focus on the family has a right, thank god, to air an ad like this. i think we heard from focus on the family firsthand, the only one who has seen the ad, that this is a positive story about

life and to the women's groups, the national organization for women is a misnomer. it's a national organization for abortion, and this woman, mrs. tebow, made a choice. it's just this national organization for women didn't like her choice. so, i think we should celebrate life. i think this is a great ad and we should all watch it and see it and be happy that in this country we still have a choice. and this one was life. >> larry: james? >> the national organization of women in a free country, would you afford them the chance to buy an ad on cbs also? >> sure, why not? it's a free country. >> yeah, again, i don't -- again. >> they don't have the money to do it. >> if they pay the money, tim tebow, i don't really have a problem with running the ad either. but once cbs -- that's fine. once cbs opened its door, there

will be advocacy groups paying for ads. that's fine. >> larry: andrea, what do you make about the gay internet dating service being denied an ad? >> if there's one thing we can all agree on, on this panel, is free speech. james, i've heard you argue for it many times and i think that we have that right in this country. focus on the family just happens to have the money to do it and i'm glad that they can do it. >> larry: so did the gay internet dating service. >> that's cbs' issue, private industry where businesses and networks can make their own decisions. hopefully, that doesn't change either. >> i don't quite understand. you're saying that focus on the family, it's a free country, they ought to be able to have the ad. but that the gay dating service shouldn't. >> i never said the gay dating service shouldn't. i never said the gay dating service shouldn't. >> we're in agreement then. vigorous agreement here.

>> if they want to buy an ad on network tv, great. but, listen, james, the issue here is that cbs is a private company that can make that decision and that plays -- >> so a network -- >> free enterprise, free business. >> so, if another network wanted to put a n.o.w. ad on but didn't want to put a focus on the family ad, you would be fine, saying that's a network, they can do what they want? >> the only entity the obama administration hasn't taken over yet. i guess it's their choice. >> i'm vexed. if the network said -- you're perfectly comfortable if nbc said we'll run an ad for n.o.w. but not for focus on the family? >> as much as my personal beliefs wouldn't advocate for that, i am in favor of a network being able to make that decision. >> good. >> larry: that's pretty clear. let's move to other things. obama unveiled a $3.8 trillion

budget plan today. here is what he had to say about tax cuts. >> i proposed a fee on big banks to pay back taxpayers for the bailout. we're reforming the way contracts are awarded to save taxpayers billions of dollars and while we extend middle class tax budgcuts in this budget we t extend those for those making over $250,000 a year. we just can't afford it. >> larry: james, what do you make of the idea of middle class tax cuts but $250,000 and up, you don't get a break? >> well, i think it makes a lot of sense. we had the most prosperous years we ever had as a country when president clinton introduced his fiscally responsible plan in 1993. middle class people, when they get a tax cut, they'll go out and spend it. that's what we need because there's a lack of demand in this economy. to me, it makes all the sense in the world.

>> larry: andrea? >> are you telling me clinton would have run deficits like this? >> no, no, bush caused these deficits. this man is trying to deal with a recession. i think you don't understand, see. >> no, i understand. >> he took office in 2008. >> andrea, let him finish. >> i'm just saying it wasn't -- clinton cleaned up another republican president's deficit. obama is trying to get started to clean up the last republican deficit. that's what happens. he took office in 2008. >> so he wouldn't? bill clinton, to my point, would not run deficits like barack obama is running? >> of course he would have to run deficits right now. you're not saying he should cut spending in the middle of a recession, are you? >> because under this budget, james, barack obama is tripling the debt under george w. bush, barack obama campaigned against balancing the budget. no, no, no, no. let me finish. he campaigned against balancing the budget, did he or did he not? and what barack obama is doing, even by repealing the bush tax cuts he can only bring the

deficit down to $700 billion with all this unsustainable spending and growth. barack obama talks about how he cannot sustain on the bush deficits. he has tripled the debt and increased the deficit. that makes no sense. >> according to the cbo, 84% of the nonrecession debt is attributable to bush. 16 to obama. he is having to spend money to try to get us out of a recession that started in december 2007, 14 months before he took office. i mean, that's just what the facts are. most of -- a good part of it is just caused by the bush recessio recession. >> we'll be right back. hold it. by the way, director james cameron and his team that created "avatar" will be here wednesday, answering your questions. submit them now at cnn.com/larryking or tweet me at king's things, anything you want to know about the most successful financial movie ever

made, just let us know. where's my car? where's my car?!!!! where are you?! arghhh... (announcer) dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles give you outrageous comfort, all-day-guaranteed. woah. it's not too far... (announcer) are you gellin'? dr. scholl's.

>> larry: we're back with andrea tantaros and james carville. is he going to get that unemployment rate down, james? is this going to work? >> well, you know, who knows? they'll project something like 9.2% unemployment in 2011, but the first step is they had to

get the growth rate up and that seems to be doing a little better of the one hopes so, certainly hope so. >> larry: andrea, what about the jobs plan? >> well, let's see. the jobs plan plays into this budget, which is just more spending. the hope is that we can get that unemployment number down. when james talk about the growth is a little bit up, when you're talking about gdp, these are just -- gdp is often artificially inflated. we go back to this budget that obama is talking about. i want to address something that james said before the break, how the cbo projected he was going to be able to bring these numbers down. that might be true temporarily. when you look at these numbers, even by repealing the bush tax cuts and imposing $2 trillion of new taxes on individuals and these high earners, you still can only get that number to $700 billion and in 2019 it will go back up to $1 trillion. and that is the fact. i don't see how, if we continue

on this course of unsustainable spending we are going to have a run on the dollar, we're going to have record high interest rates. we're going to have inflation. these are all things that we have to get under control and the president is not doing it. >> larry: let james get a word in. >> yeah. certainly, i agree. and that's why he's trying to get a health care bill, cbo said would save like $600 $700 billion and not one single republican voted for it. if they don't do something about these health care costs, i completely agree with this. they're certainly going to have to start addressing a lot of these problems. i think in a long-range sense, this administration is doing it. clearly right now, nobody says we ought to cut back now because this is actually starting to create some action in this economy now, which has been pretty lethargic here of late. they need to do something about this. >> one i would argue that -- >> larry: hold it. the time alotted, new senator from massachusetts, scott brown about to be sworn in around the

19th, subject of a little fun on "saturday night live." watch. don't panic. it's coming. >> i was looking for the bathroom. >> down the hall on right. >> thanks, speaker pelosi. and, let me just say, i'm looking forward to working closely with you. >> closely? >> okay. let's talk economy. with this new spending freeze, job creation is going to be harder than ever. >> nancy, you're the speaker of the house. >> apologize for that delay there. how serious -- can he make a big effe effect, james? one senator have a big effect? >> i think the election had an effect. it kind of woke people up and i

think the president actually had his best week in a long time. but, i never denied the fact this election was significant and i think there was a message in there. and it seems like maybe the white house had a pretty good week this week. once he gets to washington, how much affect can one senator in the minority party have, i don't know. >> larry: put down the tea party angle today, andrea. did that surprise you? >> no, not really. i disagree with james. i think that one senator, especially when the numbers are so close in the senate, can make a difference. larry, in particularly, scott brown, where he can really benefit the gop, is if the gop uses him and mcdonald like they smartly did to give the rebuttal new, fresh faces. the temperature out there is against washington. it's against incumbents. that's why i think brown largely was voted in. so he can make a difference within the party, hopefully, and also can make a difference in the senate because of that very crucial one vote. >> i think she makes a good

point. i think they need to -- i think that's right, to put a fresh face out. this guy seems to have done a pretty good job so far. i don't disagree with -- i think the election was significant, you're right. how much influence a junior senator has in the caucus, she could be right, he may have a lot. that's something i don't know. >> i think james and i would agree -- >> larry: andrea tantaros and james carville. >> good luck to your saints, james. >> larry: americans detained for trying to take haitian children out of the country, children who may have parents. why did they do that? to deliver technologies that anticipate the future, today. and help protect america everywhere... from the battlespace to cyberspace. around the globe, the people of boeing are working together, to give our best for america's best. that's why we're here.

♪

wolf blitzer from afternoon duties to take over night duties. he'll sit in for anderson cooper tonight. what's up tonight, wolf in. >> thanks, larry. a lot coming up at the top of the hour. more on the gripping story. i know you're working on it. stretching from haiti to idaho. group of american missionaries from idaho currently sitting in jail, but were they trying to help haitian children or were they trying to steal them? we'll have the latest. plus president obama right now caught between trying to keep the economy churning to create jobs and adding trillions to an already ballooning national debt. the raw politics, that's coming up as well. later, he's rich and famous, but is sean combs, aka, p diddy a role model? he says he is and that's not all. our revealing up close interview with the american mogul, that's coming up on "360."

>> larry: 10:00 eastern 7:00 p.m. with wolf blitzer tonight. see you then, wolf. karl penhaul is in port-au-prince, haiti, so is george willi, for s.o.s. children's villages. the 33 children caught up in what haitian authorities allege was a trafficking scheme. now, karl, the latest on the ten citizens being detained in haiti that took a bus load of undocumented haitian children out of haiti. what's the latest on those ten, karl? >> reporter: well, they're still sitting in jail cells near the airport in port-au-prince. when i talked to them twice over the weekend they said the conditions were spartan but they were treated well by they jail alrea lors they did have too much to eat and too much water but trying to keep spirits high by reading passages from the bible. they were to come before a judge today. that didn't happen we understand. they may come before a judge tomorrow. there's a possibility the haitian prime minister has left

the door open to the fact these ten american baptists could be sent to the u.s. to face trial, larry. >> larry: georgia, first, how are the children doing? there are 33 of them, right? how are they doing, george? >> yes, there are 33 of these children at the village close to port-au-prince. today they did quite well. two days ago as they came to our village the situation was quite different but we tried to give them a safe place, a safe haven so that they really could feel well and that they get the care and attention they need and some of them even do get psychological treatment. >> larry: is it true, george, that some of them are not orphans? >> yes, that's absolutely true. around 20 of them at least are not orphans. they lived with their parents at their parents' home. they were not given from parents to orphanages like sometimes happens in haiti. they lived and stayed together with their parents and they were

taken away from the parents with the hope of going to a boarding school or summer camp in the dominican republic. >> larry: were you surprised that those people took them, george? were you surprised? >> i do not know anything about the attention of these people, of these ten americans. what i do know, i do know about, we are working all over the world, 60 years and do know about the needs of children and do know what are the best interest of the child. the best interest of the child is to stay with his parents and not be separated from them. this was a clear separation, at least of some of the kids from their existing parents and from their homes. >> larry: karl, is it the belief that they acted in haste here? >> reporter: well, i think there are a number of elements we have to look at here. yes, from what they described to me their mission was a very poorly planned mission. they quite clearly had no

experience in dealing with orphans nor in handling orphans once they get them in their grasp so to speak. in fact they say they didn't know where they were going to get orphans from until they got a meeting with the haitian pastor at the border point coming across. they said the haitian pastor directed them to where they were going. of course, there's another element to this story. today we were up in a mountain village, an hour's drive out of port-au-prince and there we met the parents of 21 of the 33 children. and as george was saying most of these children do have parents and the parents that we talked to said that they willingly gave away their children. they said their families were simply too poor to sustain the children, especially after the quake and they said they gave away the children to the americans. they personally put their kids on the bus because they believe they were going to a bragter future where their kids would have school, where they kids

would have a swimming pool and would be able to two to church services as well, larry. >> larry: karl, these are not like classic traffickers, right? >> reporter: it's difficult to see that they are -- that they would fit the profile of classic traffickers. that, of course, though is something the authorities are working on because it would suggest no trafficker really fits the profile that we might have in our imaginations. overall all the haitian authorities and the ngos say the danger here is that you can't let these kids go out of the country without passports, without permission to leave because then they're out there. they could be cash for adoption scandals. but even worse child pornography, child abuse scandals. they can't run that risk. >> larry: thanks karl penhaul and george willeit. prince and paris jackson stole the show at the grammys last night. that's next.

it's calcium citr, so it can be absorbed with or without food. also available in small, easy-to-swallow petites. citracal. each year food executives come to grasse, france to work with roxane. here in this centuries old town cargill creates flavors. and food companies come to collaborate with cargill. creating unique tastes from thousands of rare flavors. helped by roxane... an ingredient mixing robot. and a team of flavor experts. food companies find the recipe for success. this is how cargill works with customers.

>> larry: the grammys were handed out last night. one of the most memorable moments came when michael jackson's two oldest children prince michael and paris accepted a lifetime achievement award on behalf of their late

father. here's how it happened. >> thank you. thank you. we are proud to be here to accept this award on behalf of our father, michael jackson. first of all we'd like to thank god for watching over us for these past seven months and our grandma and grandpa for their love and support. we would also like to thank the fans. our father loved you so much, because you're always there for him. our father was always concerned about the planet and humanity. through all his hard work and dedication he has helped through many charities and donated to all of them. we'd also like -- through all his songs his message was simple. love. we'll continue to spread his message and help the world. thank you. we love you, daddy. >> daddy was supposed to be here -- daddy was g