This is a rush transcript from "Special Report," September 9, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


HENRY JUSZKIEWICZ, CEO, GIBSON GUITARS: It makes no sense that we're t argeted and it certainly makes no sense that we have been targeted with tactics like SWAT raids, and confiscation of significant resources.


That is the head of Gibson guitars in Nashville, objecting to a raid by federal agents last month, seizing rare wood that Gibson has used for years to make its world famous product.

Every week viewers vote for your choice online in our Friday Lightning Round poll. And this week Gibson guitar raid won with 55 percent of your votes. We're back now with the panel. Steve, what do you make of these federal agents raiding Gibson, especially when some of its competitors here in the U.S. use that exact same rare wood?

STEVE HAYES, SENIOR WRITER, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Yeah, well, you want to know why people have a low opinion of the federal government? This is exactly why. This is the kind of thing that you can take conspiracy theorists who are out on the fringes and prove them right when you have something like this.

Look what's happening with Gibson now, is they are in effect trying to get Gibson on this obscure provision of the Lacey Act which requires companies to know what foreign laws are and to know that they are not violating them. In addition to all of that, you have the double standard that they are going after Gibson, which happens to be run by a Republican and not going after companies that have done the same thing. It reeks.


DAVID DRUCKER, ROLL CALL: I don't believe conspiracy theories suggest that suggest they went after him because he is a Republican because if the government was smart enough to do that, imagine everything else they would get right.

But I do think it doesn't help president who's trying to appeal to independent voters conservative Democrats, that he goes after another successful company and it reminds me of the NLRB suit against Boeing. They are trying to open a plant and employ thousands of people. And it's just not good for his image.

WALLACE: Charles.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It's also sort of ironic and a contradiction. Here he is, he gives a speech last night where he's gonna throw another half a trillion dollars at jobs and his agencies are running around destroying jobs or threatening them with that ruling on Boeing, with the ruling of the EPA essentially shutting down oil exploration, it attempted to shut down part of our coal industry in a regulation that -- that was suspended.

But either you favor jobs or you don't, and I think this is another example of job destroying actions by the federal government.

WALLACE: Speaking of jobs, Steve, President Obama went on the road today to Virginia to sell his jobs plan that he unveiled last night. More reaction from Republicans. Your take the day after on the jobs plan and prospects for passage?

HAYES: It's a tough sell because every time he gives the speech he's admitting a policy failure, he's admitting that what he's tried thus far hasn't worked. I think the real outrage is punting to the super committee, that he is acting the super committee to come up with the additional savings to actually finance this. I mean what is he going to do next? Ask the super committee to handle the budget? Why not give the super committee everything that is politically difficult to do? It's a real -- it's a real punt.


DRUCKER: This was all about trying to change the narrative that he's a weak leader who hasn't produced results. I think if he gives this speech six months into his administration given where the economy was, maybe it get him somewhere. I think today, the best he can hope for is that independents and other hopeful voters will give him a -- if you get me results then maybe I'll like it I'll give you a chance to produce. But other than that, I don't think it does him good at this point.

WALLACE: Does Congress pass any of it?

DRUCKER: Congress may pass parts of it. But, I think -- the thing to understand is that they don't think it's ultimately going to solve the problem so they won't be enthusiastic about it.

WALLACE: Charles?

KRAUTHAMMER: What struck me, was his abuse of the majesty of that setting. A joint address of Congress is something that FDR did on the day after Pearl Harbor to ask for declaration of war on imperial Japan. It's a place where LBJ asked for Civil Rights Act. And here it's a place where Obama used it as a kickoff of his own re-election campaign. Quite a difference.

BAIER: Folks are still talking about Rick Perry, the Texas governor's comments in the presidential debate this week, comparing Social Security to a Ponzi scheme. Mitt Romney is going after Perry as if he thinks that this is a big political gaffe. Is it?

HAYES: It's a defensible comparison, I think, but may not have been wise. Look, there are similarities between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security. Ponzi scheme is voluntary, Social Security is not, however. And both are based on accounting gimmicks. Neither is sustainable. So I think it's a defensible comparison --

DRUCKER: As often in politics, Chris, it's not exactly what you say but how you say it that matters. I think that Rick Perry needs to focus, particularly if he's going to win the nomination and be the general election candidate on saving and preserving Social Security as he talks about what is wrong with it, because there are a lot of voters in Florida that he's going to need and if he scares them because of this it's a potential problem.

WALLACE: Charles?

KRAUTHAMMER: It's the classic example of the Washington gaffe, which is when a politician accidentally speaks the truth. It is a Ponzi scheme but you aren't allowed to say it. And I think he's gonna have to learn that it has to be unsaid. And he has to say I support it, and I'm not going to attack it.

WALLACE: Alright, less than a minute left. Big story -- the NFL season began yesterday with the Green Bay Packers, big victory over the New Orleans Saints. I want go get all of your Super Bowl picks. Nobody can pick somebody that another person has picked. I'll start, I'll pick the Green Bay Packers. Steve, who do you want to pick?


HAYES: How can you do that? That's a total set-up.


HAYES: It could be the Philadelphia Eagles, but I think they'll lose in the NFC championship to the Green Bay Packers.

WALLACE: I know you love the Green Bay Packers and I know you are a cheesehead. I just wanted to mess with your head. David?

DRUCKER: I'm from Los Angeles. They took all of my teams. So I'm going to go with Pittsburgh because James Harrison is really upset that he didn't win last year. And I think he might get it done.

KRAUTHAMMER: Another gotcha question. Houston Texans.

WALLACE: Are you nuts?


WALLACE: The Washington Redskins. The Washington Redskins will do it. There you see it. That is close, as the Washington Redskins will get to the Super Bowl. That's it here, that's it for the panel. But stay tuned for the final critique of this week's Republican presidential debate.

Content and Programming Copyright 2011 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.