Guests: Julian Bond, Caitlin Flanagan, Jonathan “The Impaler” Sharkey
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”: That‘s it for tonight‘s show. THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON starts right now.
Tucker, what‘s the situation?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Joe, have fun in church. Thanks.
Thanks to you at home for tuning in. We always appreciate it.
You may have noticed I was not around on Thursday. Got a little sick, but I was not pulled off the air, thank God, and hopefully, I won‘t be anytime soon.
Tonight, is God mad at America? Does the almighty want New Orleans to be a mostly black city? Yes, on both counts, according to New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, who made these claims on the steps of city hall today. In a minute we‘ll discuss whether the mayor is demented or simply racist.
Also, some say there‘s an epidemic of oral sex among very young teenage girls in this country. Shocking new details about the trend sweeping middle class America.
Plus would you vote a vampire into public office? Satanist and admitted blood sucker Jonathan “The Impaler” Sharkey joins us live tonight to discuss what he plans to do if he‘s elected the governor of Minnesota. It could happen.
We begin tonight with the impending execution of 76-year-old Clarence Ray Allen. Allen, who‘s scheduled to die by lethal injection at 10:01 a.m. in California tonight for a triple murder he ordered from prison 25 years ago, had his final appeal rejected late today by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Amazingly, despite the fact that Allen is legally blind, suffered a recent heart attack and gets around in a wheelchair, we‘ve not heard anything from those activists who wanted mercy for Stanley “Tookie” Williams.
For more on this developing situation, we go now to NBC‘s Jennifer London, who‘s standing by live tonight in Burbank, California.
Jennifer, what‘s the status?
JENNIFER LONDON, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, good evening, Tucker. The message from the courts tonight, old age and ailing health, not valid reasons for halting an execution.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that nothing about Allen‘s current ailments reduces his culpability. The U.S. Supreme Court has never created an exception for physical illness. And California‘s attorney general says the fact that Allen now faces execution as a senior citizen, well, that‘s his responsibility.
Allen was sentenced to death in 1982 for orchestrating a triple murder in Fresno, California, in 1980. His attorneys were arguing that putting Allen to death would violate a constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment. But at this point, it appears the courts disagree.
And if there is not a last-minute stay, Allen will die by lethal injection in just about four hours.
San Quentin Prison in Northern California is expecting between 200 and 400 protesters. Now, that‘s far less than the protesters who braved the cold to show their support for Stanley “Tookie” Williams. He was executed at San Quentin prison last month. An estimated 2,000 or so showed up to show their support for Stanley “Tookie” Williams, the former gang leader.
And you may recall that a number of celebrities also took up that cause, including after Jamie Foxx and rapper Snoop Dogg, but the fight to save Allen‘s life, by comparison, has generated far less support.
Tucker, Allen turned 76 today.
CARLSON: Jennifer, tell us what it‘s like in L.A. I mean, is the “L.A. Times” just brimming with op-eds from famous people, decrying the execution? Is it a big topic on talk radio? Are people even noticing that this guy is about to be executed tonight?
LONDON: Well, the big topic here in L.A., to be completely frank, Tucker, the Golden Globes. So no, the “L.A. Times” I would not say is brimming with editorials about saving this guy‘s life.
There was an article in the “L.A. Times.” There was also an article on EthicGate.com (ph), which is a popular website for Bay Area news. And it‘s getting coverage to the point of what we just discussed, that there was an ongoing legal battle to save this guy‘s life. There were appeals taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those appeals have been denied.
But again, this is not gathering the kind of media attention or polarizing people with regard to proponents or opponents of the death penalty. Like we saw with Stanley “Tookie” Williams. You‘re certainly not seeing the celebrity support come out for Allen like we did with Stanley “Tookie” Williams.
CARLSON: All right. Jennifer London in Burbank, California. Thanks a lot, Jennifer.
Millions of people across the country remembered Martin Luther King Jr., who would have turned 77 years old yesterday. At the Kennedy Center in Washington, President Bush hailed the civil rights leader as one of the greatest Americans ever to live.
Leaders also gathered in New Orleans, where Mayor Ray Nagin spoke to the masses about King‘s legacy, Hurricane Katrina, and the Lord himself. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY NAGIN, MAYOR, NEW ORLEANS: Surely God is mad at America. He‘s sending hurricane after hurricane after hurricane. Surely he‘s not approval of us being in Iraq under false pretenses.
But surely he‘s upset at black America also. We as black people, it‘s time. It‘s time for us to come together. It‘s time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be, a chocolate New Orleans. And I don‘t care what people are saying uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Here now discuss these comments, plus the state of the civil rights movement in 2006, national chairman for the NAACP, Julian Bond. He joins us live tonight from Lawton, Oklahoma.
Mr. Bond, thanks for coming on.
JULIAN BOND, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, NAACP: Thank you for having me.
CARLSON: First, to Mayor Nagin‘s comments. If a white mayor got up and said, “This is a white city, has always been. God wants it to be a white city and it shall remain a white city,” you‘d be on the first plane to that city protesting, wouldn‘t you?
BOND: No. I‘d just think it was Pat Robertson.
CARLSON: OK. Pat Robertson, of course, not the mayor of a city, thank God. Ray Nagin is. He‘s making remarks that sound a little bit like Pat Robertson. Much more outrageous than anything I‘ve ever heard Pat Robertson say but in the same vein.
Appalling, aren‘t they? Can you defend them? What do you think of them?
BOND: No, I can‘t defend them. They seem to be, you know—I‘m not so much worried about him talking about the racial composition of New Orleans. New Orleans was a majority black city before the hurricane. One would think if you restore all of the people who live there, it would be a majority black city.
Again, what‘s more disturbing to me is his ascribing to God all of the troubles that have afflicted the people of New Orleans. I don‘t think God is responsible for that.
CARLSON: Good for you. I think you‘re right. But he makes the claim this should be a black city. He said it should be chocolate. “And I don‘t care what people uptown think,” he said. In other words, “I don‘t care what white people think about that, it should be the black city.”
Why is it the place of a mayor of the city to determine the racial composition of that city? That‘s not his business, is it?
BOND: That‘s not his business. But again, I think he‘s just saying that New Orleans ought to be tomorrow what New Orleans was yesterday. And yesterday, New Orleans was a majority-minority city. And I‘m assuming—and here I‘m taking some liberties with saying what I think the mayor means, I think he‘s saying it ought to be like it was before.
CARLSON: Interesting. All right.
I want to ask you about Clarence Ray Allen. He‘s the man about to be executed tonight, 12:01 a.m. Pacific Time, for a number of murders he ordered. He is blind. He‘s elderly. He‘s in his mid-70s. He‘s in a wheelchair. He‘s just had a heart attack, and he is the subject of almost no outcry by anti-death penalty opponents.
Contrast his case with that of Tookie Williams, executed several weeks ago, who was also a multiple murderer and whose cause was taken up by a lot of people, I believe, including the NAACP. He was black.
BOND: Indeed, yes.
CARLSON: Why aren‘t civil—so-called civil rights leaders taking up the case of Clarence Ray Allen? I‘d hate to think it‘s just because he‘s white.
BOND: I don‘t think it‘s because he‘s white. I don‘t know why it is.
At the NAACP, we oppose the death penalty when it‘s used against anyone. And we oppose it in this instance. But why one case attracts attention and another case doesn‘t, it‘s just inexplicable to me. But I‘m positive that for us it‘s not his race.
CARLSON: Have you sent anyone out there to protest it?
BOND: No, we have not. And in fact, until I began to see news accounts of it today, I wasn‘t aware that this is happening.
CARLSON: So you haven‘t written any op-eds or gone on shows decrying his execution?
BOND: No. But I‘ll decry it right now. Particularly because of his condition. You know, the death penalty has proven to be so wrong so many times in the recent past. And aside from that, it‘s just wrong to begin with.
If I take your life, does that justify the state in taking mine? We don‘t believe so. I know others disagree. But that‘s our opinion. And that‘s the way we feel, whether it‘s a celebrity person like Tookie Williams or some sad pathetic creature like this one.
CARLSON: I‘m not sure that a lot of the leaders I was referring to—are as pure of heart as the sentiment you just described. What you just said strikes me as a reasonable and principled position.
Let me ask you about the condition of the civil rights movement today. You hear a lot of people, you heard the president say the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. is unfulfilled, yet to be realized. There‘s so much more to do.
And I‘m wondering what specifically can the government do at this point to forward the civil rights revolution? I mean, what laws—more laws can be passed to ensure equality? There already is equality under the law, isn‘t there?
BOND: There is equality under most of the laws. But many of the laws are not strongly enforced. We just saw political decisions made in the Department of Justice over Georgia‘s onerous poll tax which they imposed. The career employees overruled by the political employees.
So it‘s not just that there aren‘t enough laws. It is that the existing laws don‘t always get the same kind of vigorous enforcement that they ought to. That‘s one thing that government could do.
Government can do a great deal. You know, we‘re not the kinds of people who expect government to do everything for us. I don‘t think that‘s true of all Americans. Certainly not true of the NAACP. But we do expect government to be a mediator between us and forces so large that we‘re not able to deal with them by themselves. And one of those forces is racial discrimination.
It‘s widespread in the United States. You know, schools are as segregated today as they were in 1969, the year after Dr. King died.
BOND: And if you look at parts of the country, Latino students in California are more segregated today than black students are in the state of Mississippi. That‘s an intolerable situation, and one of the things that can be done is government can do something about it.
CARLSON: Yes. And there are, of course, desegregation agreements in force in states all across the country, and they have done virtually nothing. Governments are working on it, and it hasn‘t worked.
I wonder why, when someone like Bill Cosby gets up and says, actually, the root of the problem—there are things government can do—but the root of the problem is not something government can solve. It comes from within the community itself. And members—leaders of the community need to sort of impose sanctions on people who violate standards of decency.
You have children out of wedlock who are crummy parents. Why doesn‘t the NAACP stand up and say, “You know, Bill Cosby, you‘re absolutely right. You‘re a hero, and it‘s people like you who are going to lead us out of the wilderness”?
BOND: You know, when Bill Cosby originally made those remarks I was in the audience. I was part of the people who agreed with some of the things he said, didn‘t agree with others. I‘ve spoken to him at some great length about that.
But there‘s a difference between the NAACP and Bill Cosby. The NAACP is a social justice agency. We‘re not a social service agency. There are many, many groups and individuals in America who quite properly provide social service. We‘re not one of them. We do social justice. And we believe if you have social justice, you won‘t need social service.
CARLSON: All right. I‘m not sure I agree with that. But I appreciate your coming on. Chairman of the NAACP, Julian Bond, joining us from Oklahoma tonight, live. Thank you.
BOND: Thank you.
CARLSON: Still to come, protests in Pakistan over our air strike targeting Zawahiri. But shouldn‘t we be the ones protesting Pakistan, the country that harbors the most wanted terrorists in the world? Something to think about.
Plus, are you a racist? Well, if you oppose illegal immigration, that‘s what one liberal group is calling you. I‘ll speak with that organization‘s president, next.
CARLSON: Still ahead, 13-year-old girls and oral sex. Apparently, it‘s an epidemic in middle schools across this country. We‘ll bring you the details when THE SITUATION continues.
CARLSON: Welcome back to the show.
The name calling over illegal immigration reached new lows recently when the country‘s largest and oldest Hispanic organization posted a web site, with pictures, calling opponents of illegal immigration, quote, “racists.”
The site, which was sponsored by the League of the United Latin American Citizens, also described the anti-immigration Minutemen group as, quote, “cowards and domestic terrorists.”
A few days ago the site was pulled, but the debate lives on. Here to join us, the president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, Hector Flores, joining us live from Los Angeles.
Mr. Flores, thanks for coming on.
HECTOR FLORES, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS:
My pleasure. Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day to you today.
CARLSON: Happy MLK Day. We‘re celebrating. And I‘m offended we‘re celebrating in this way, by having you on, and telling you directly that I‘m offended by the fact your group called people who oppose illegal immigration racists. I oppose illegal immigration and I am hardly a racist. Why would you say something like that?
FLORES: Well, like anything else, obviously, we know that there are some people out there that are definitely racist. However, we‘re—one thing we did touch a nerve. We‘ve gotten oodles of phone calls, hate e-mail, and many threats to ourselves and to our employees. So right now, we‘re...
CARLSON: Oh, give me a break. So you‘re the victim in this? Right.
I don‘t believe—come on. I mean, look...
FLORES: I‘m not saying—I‘m not saying we‘re the victim. Not at all. In fact, we‘ll let the federal authorities decide that. But of course we‘re going to make sure they‘re checked out. But we have gotten a lot of hate mail and a lot of...
CARLSON: But you started it. You‘re the name caller. You the ones -
you‘re the ones who called people with a legitimate nonracist or even racially tinged point of view, and the point of view is simple, we are against illegal immigration. Not against immigration, just illegal immigration, by people of any color, creed, race, religion, original home. That‘s not a racist remark.
FLORES: With all due respect—with all due respect, Tucker, I think of all these immigrants that were coming here were from Europe, I think you would probably be thinking differently.
CARLSON: Hold on. Slow down. I‘m not going to because that‘s an outrageous thing to say. A, it‘s false. B, you have no way of...
FLORES: I‘ll get you a country.
CARLSON: It‘s false. B, you have no way of knowing.
FLORES: Immigration policies have always had—have had a racial tinge to it. We‘ve had exclusionary practices up until the ‘60s where we excluded different racial and ethnic groups that were not from Europe. Let‘s be—let‘s be honest about this.
CARLSON: I am being honest about it and you‘re talking about something that has no—nothing at all to do with the claims you‘re making or with the topic I‘m posing to you.
You‘re talking about legal immigration. I am talking about illegal immigration, people who sneak over the border into this country. And it makes not a single bit of difference where they‘re from. The point is they‘re breaking the law. And some of them might be terrorists. And others...
FLORES: And that‘s the hypocrisy—and that‘s the hypocrisy in our public policy. That we want to use these people but we don‘t want them to stay here. We don‘t want to see them around our neighborhood and we don‘t want their kids in our schools. That‘s the bottom line.
Our economy needs these people, and you know it. The economic impact that they‘re having here, obviously they‘re having great economic impact. Many of whom basically they‘re not—they are only looking for a better way of life. That‘s the bottom line.
CARLSON: Mr. Flores, I have a suggestion for you. Change the law. Change immigration law. Make it easier for people who want to come here legally to do so.
In order to do that, you have to have a public debate about immigration. You can‘t have that debate when you call people who oppose you names, like racist or domestic terrorist or cowards. Those words make rational debate impossible.
FLORES: Racism has played a role in this country.
CARLSON: I don‘t want to—it‘s easy for you to attack the country.
FLORES: Not at all.
CARLSON: I want to talk about illegal immigration, which is measurably bad for America.
FLORES: Nobody is born with a racist bone. You know, you learn that. It‘s an attitude that you learn. You learn—you learn to look down at other people by either at home or your friends or at the workplace and in the community.
Nobody in this country is born a racist. They become such by their attitudes and the way they treat other people.
Now, you may say the people that are against illegal immigration, particularly those that go to these day worker locations, where people are there, looking for a job, many of those people are not undocumented workers. Many of them are actually either residents or workers. But how are you going to tell the difference?
CARLSON: I guess...
FLORES: As an example.
CARLSON: I guess you can‘t tell the difference. But the point is a lot of people—Hold on. A lot of illegal aliens are at those sites.
But that‘s not where I‘m defending. I‘m merely making a very clear point. You can be against illegal immigration on principle, as I am, and not be infected with racism. You have—and you‘re suggesting that anybody who opposes you is a racist.
FLORES: Not at all.
CARLSON: That‘s an outrageous thing to say.
FLORES: Now at all. There‘s meaning within that—there‘s many within that group that definitely are racist.
CARLSON: How do you know that—slow down. How do you know that?
FLORES: Because of the way that they treat people when they stop them and intimidate them.
Not necessarily. One thing in this country is we have the right to free speech. In fact, our essence of us putting even this web site, we have that right to put up any web site.
CARLSON: Nobody‘s contesting your freedom of speech—but nobody is suggesting it‘s not your constitutional right. Come on.
FLORES: Our organization, like any other organization, like any individual, in this great country of ours, we have that right.
CARLSON: You do.
CARLSON: And your funders have a right not to give you a single dime. And I hope they choose to exercise that right. Mr. Flores, thanks a lot for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.
FLORES: Absolutely. Catch you later.
CARLSON: Still to come, are oral exams the only things girls are giving at school? We‘ll explore rumors of rampant sexual activity even among teens, even young teens, when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Thirteen-year-old girls having oral sex? Everybody knows it happens. But according to a number of recent press accounts, it happens a lot. Not just in bad neighborhoods but in your neighborhood. Probably in your child‘s school.
Scared yet? If not, you don‘t have a 13-year-old daughter.
But are these reports even true. Is oral sex the new black among middle schoolers? Caitlin Flanagan wrote an article on the subject in this month‘s issue of “The Atlantic.” She joins us live tonight from Burbank, California.
Caitlin Flanagan, thanks a lot for coming on.
CAITLIN FLANAGAN, WROTE ARTICLE IN “THE ATLANTIC”: Thank you very much.
CARLSON: This is terrific—really terrific. One of the longest pieces I‘ve ever read in “The Atlantic,” I just and could not pull myself away from it. It was horrifying...
FLANAGAN: And it‘s probably the longest piece you‘ve ever finished in the Atlantic. We‘ve had some longer pieces.
CARLSON: That is a distinction. But by the end, I wondered, more than anything, is this trend real? Or is it something that we read about because it‘s titillating? Is it really happening?
FLANAGAN: Well, that‘s an astute question, actually. Originally I wanted to title the piece “Overblown”...
CARLSON: I like it.
FLANAGAN: Because indeed it is happening. I think when you talk to school people, educators, kids themselves, people who work in and around kids. They‘ll definitely say things are very different today in the sexual arena of kids than they were when you and I were young.
But I think that it‘s certainly been—there‘s a certain hysterical nature that I tried to talk about in the piece, as well. And I think that it has been—there‘s an urban legend aspect to it. It‘s titillating; it‘s exciting.
So I think it‘s—I don‘t think these rainbow parties, train parties, these sorts of things, where one girl is servicing multiple boys, I don‘t think that is really true in the main.
FLANAGAN: But I certainly think that you have an awful lot of girls doing things they didn‘t do when I was in high school, which is sort of nice girls performing unrequited oral sex on boys that they‘re not in relationships with. That‘s very much going on now.
CARLSON: And just to be totally clear about it, when we read in the newspaper, in the metro section of whatever paper we read, stories about middle schoolers having oral sex, that‘s what it is. It‘s girls servicing boys, unrequited.
FLANAGAN: I‘m loathe to say middle schoolers. I think, maybe 15- or 16-year-olds...
FLANAGAN: ... the majority of it. But yes, definitely. Kind of unrequited, and the girls think it‘s no big deal, and they‘ll always tell you that they think it‘s not really sex.
And if you talk to any 40-year-old man and say, well, when you were in high school, was it likely that you were going to receive oral sex from a nice girl you didn‘t know very well and she wouldn‘t want anything back? And the 40-year-old man would say no, that never happened to me or to anyone I know.
CARLSON: You make the valid point...
FLANAGAN: So that‘s a significant change.
CARLSON: ... it‘s probably because it is unrequited and sometimes it‘s among people who don‘t know each other very well, that it‘s almost a kind of masochism on the part of the girls. I think that was a point you were making. Is it? And why? What‘s the root of this?
FLANAGAN: Well, the why is a really good question. I think as far as it being sort of masochistic, there‘s been certain cults of mortification of the flesh among teenage girls in the last 20 or 30 years.
We have the anorexia and bulimia that people talked about so much in the ‘80s and the cutting fads of the ‘90s and now this strange new tendency for girls to have oral sex and not get much back from it.
The why is a much bigger question. And I think it has to do with profound cultural changes that have really eroded the common society and the common level of decency and the common level of what was understood to be good and right behavior for a girl.
FLANAGAN: And I think we can‘t take just this one act out of that whole bigger picture of what‘s gone on in the common culture in the last 30 years.
CARLSON: Well, finally you‘ve got this line in the piece, which made me laugh out loud, actually, where you said yes, this is happening. Yes, it‘s terrible. Does it bother me? Not as much, because I have boys.
FLANAGAN: Yes, that‘s evidently a very politically incorrect statement to say.
CARLSON: Yes, it is.
FLANAGAN: But I went ahead and said it, because I think that we‘ve let our girls down in this country in every possible way. And I think that some of the movements that were supposedly meant to empower girls and liberate girls, and in particular, I‘m talking about contemporary feminism, have really let girls down.
And that when you create a world in which unreciprocated sexual acts are going on, I don‘t think that‘s necessarily harmful on a spiritual or emotional level to your average male. But I think it can cause profound damage to the female heart and soul.
And so I wrote about that, and I think it‘s really shameful that anybody would think it‘s anything other than a tragedy.
CARLSON: You wrote about it brilliantly and compellingly. Really, one of the best pieces I‘ve read in a long time. Caitlin Flanagan of the “New Yorker,” writing in the “Atlantic Monthly,” thanks a lot for coming on.
FLANAGAN: Thank you so much.
CARLSON: Up next, should the U.S. apologize to Pakistan for killing villagers while trying to take out Osama bin Laden‘s right hand man? We‘ll debate that with Air America‘s Rachel Maddow next.
CARLSON: Welcome back to THE SITUATION. There is outrage tonight in Pakistan over the U.S. air strike intended to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri. We haven‘t confirmed whether al-Zawahiri is dead but NBC news has learned that three unmanned drones, likely CIA drones, were used to blast the area where the al Qaeda leader was supposed to be attending a dinner. The attack killed at least 17 people and Islamic groups are vowing more anti-U.S. protests. Thousands of Pakistanis already have taken to the streets chanting “Death to America.” for more on this we bring in Air America‘s Rachel Maddow.
Rachel, good evening.
RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA: Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: This is a tough one. This is not one of those subjects where you can say the U.S. ought to do this and the U.S. ought to do that. You can really say the U.S. ought to do one thing and that is make certain that Pervez Musharraf, General Musharraf, should stay in power in Pakistan. That is the most important thing. If we need to get up and if Condoleezza Rice needs to fly to Islamabad and grovel, truly within bounds. And if we need to issue a statement apologizing, we should do it, if it means keeping this guy in power.
MADDOW: Or the United States needs to never, ever send another person from the United States to the Pakistan government ever. That may also be the thing that we have to do to keep him in power. We talked about this before. Pakistan is probably one of the most anti-American places on the globe. We got 300 million people. They have got 150 million people. It‘s a big country.
They have nuclear weapons. They‘re virulently anti-American and they‘ve got a General Musharraf who is in power in a very precarious situation. Is he not a great guy but we have picked him as our ally in the region. He has decided to ally himself with the U.S. and he is paying a huge cost for it. And the future is scary without him in it.
CARLSON: And it‘s not only that we have picked him. We have no choice. There is General Musharraf and there is this broad and increasingly powerful array of religious parties. Some of which have infiltrated the military and the ISI, the very powerful intelligence .
MADDOW: All the different intelligence groups. There‘s a bunch of them.
CARLSON: That‘s exactly right. So without this guy, the country and its weapons, potentially, fall into the hands of these lunatics who would like nothing better than to nuke India for one thing. That‘s the first order of business and cause us even more trouble than they already have.
So for once I‘m for America showing public remorse and apologizing.
I‘m not typically into that. I think most of the time it‘s up necessary.
In this case if it‘s necessary, we ought to do it.
We are making his situation so much more precarious. He is saying, listen, you don‘t have the authority to pursue suspects across the border into Pakistan. And the U.S. is doing it anyway. And so if we‘re in a situation that much more precarious, we are screwing ourselves.
CARLSON: The U.S. is doing it with his permission and help. I mean, there are .
MADDOW: Pakistan says they have never .
CARLSON: That‘s a total lie. That‘s a complete lie. And I would bet my house there are U.S. troops in Pakistan. They are U.S. employees with guns in the northwest borders of Pakistan right now searching for bin Laden. Of course there are.
MADDOW: But when we blow up three houses of women and children it becomes apparent to the people that live there and 10,000 in the streets .
CARLSON: We don‘t know exactly who were in the houses but anyway, Hugo Chavez, the criminal government of Venezuela offering .
MADDOW: The criminal?
CARLSON: It‘s a criminal government which has killed its own citizens seeking democracy, has offered cut-rate fuel oil to the state of Rhode Island. And its governor and one of its senators, Democrat Jack Reed, had accepted. Hugo Chavez, the criminal ruler of that criminal country, scoring a huge propaganda coup at our expense because Rhode Island wants cheaper fuel oil.
MADDOW: This is the fifth state. Rhode Island. This is five states.
CARLSON: But it‘s the most recent, yeah. And I think it‘s outrageous. I think Jack Reed ought to be ashamed of himself.
MADDOW: Well, you hate Hugo Chavez. You think he is a criminal and I recognize there are big problems with Hugo Chavez. And I also see some good things about Hugo Chavez. What‘s going on now is that he is being .
CARLSON: Name one.
MADDOW: He is being—well, infant mortality has dropped since he‘s been there.
MADDOW: Education and health care is free. And he‘s done stuff that could you say is good even though you think he is a bad guy.
CARLSON: They claim.
MADDOW: But Hugo Chavez is made out to be the giant demon of South America.
CARLSON: What do you mean, made out to be?
MADDOW: Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, all these countries are going left and we have to decide that Hugo Chavez is Satan in order to demonize the left.
CARLSON: That‘s totally false. Just because a country goes left does not mean it is a bad country. Just because a leader of a country goes left doesn‘t mean he‘s a bad leader. This guy openly and in some cases in a sub rosa way has supported terrorist groups on the continent of South America. So this guy who is openly allied with Fidel Castro is a bad guy on his own terms. If he were a right winger I would say exactly the same thing. He hates us.
MADDOW: Hugo Chavez does hate the United States. And a lot of what‘s going on right now is that it‘s very easy for anybody, even not necessarily leftist leaders, around the globe, to capitalize electorally in their own country by being against the United States. Because the U.S. is so roundly hated around the globe right now. We need allies. And Hugo Chavez is never going to be an ally for us. But whether or not the rest of the world hates us matters.
The way to neutralize Hugo Chavez with the fuel oil thing is for the U.S. government to do something about the cost of fuel oil.
CARLSON: I think the way to neutralize it is not for Rhode Island to assume it has its own foreign policy and not to undermine America‘s foreign policy for a sake of a few thousand gallons of subsidized fuel oil.
MADDOW: They are not undermining foreign policy.
CARLSON: They are.
MADDOW: They are getting heating oil from Citgo for the poor while the U.S. government does nothing to get people affordable heating oil.
CARLSON: First of all. That‘s completely untrue. Would they have accepted it from the apartheid government of South Africa? How about North Korea? Is there a limit or is really fuel oil the most important thing?
MADDOW: You can argue with the poor people of Rhode Island.
CARLSON: My God.
MADDOW: Take a principled stand here and turn this down from Hugo Chavez or you can tell the U.S. government take this issue away from Hugo Chavez by doing something for heating oil for the poor. And the Democrats have been banging their heads on a brick wall on this. The Republicans won‘t do a thing about it.
CARLSON: That is everything you just said is so completely demonstrably wrong.
MADDOW: No, it‘s not.
CARLSON: Sadly we‘re out of time.
MADDOW: I‘m sorry.
CARLSON: It is true. Rachel Maddow. Thank you.
MADDOW: Thank you. I‘ll see you tomorrow, Tucker.
CARLSON: I‘ll be here. Stay tuned. There is still plenty more ahead on THE SITUATION tonight. A live chat with Jonathan the Impaler. Can this batty politician‘s biting wit charm Minnesota voters?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN THE IMPALER SHARKEY, MINNESOTA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I
think they will overlook my personal and religious beliefs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Then - tune in or turn on. We‘ll tell you why one of these could lead to static in your love life.
Plus—animal magnetism. Wait until you hear how this giant star became the undisputed King Kong of reality TV.
And they call her a possible successor to Sam, the world‘s ugliest dog.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lassie (ph) is the ugliest bunny (ph) I‘ve ever seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN: I‘m seem like I‘m about to bite you or something.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Oscar Wilde once wrote arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar and often convincing. Joining me now, live in our SITUATION studio, a man who is never vulgar and sometimes convincing, the outsider. HBO boxing host and host of Spike TV‘s terrific new show “The King of Vegas” which premieres tomorrow night, the one and only Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, HBO BOXING: Oscar Wilde. He is making you look this way and then he hits you over here.
CARLSON: Yeah, he does. Yeah.
First up, a particularly disturbing note, news for those who work in late night TV, an Italian study finds that couples who have a television set in the bedroom have sex half as often as those who don‘t. The study suggests some programs are more likely to put the brakes on romance than others. Violent films mean no sex for half of all couples, while reality shows stem passion for a third. No word on the effect of cable news, though they are believed to be an aphrodisiac.
KELLERMAN: If they are watching this segment it‘s over.
CARLSON: But in general, the bedroom is for sleeping and renewing your physical commitment to your mate. That‘s all it‘s for. TV, always and everywhere, in the bedroom, is a—not only a sex killer but a conversation killer. Just bad. No TV in the bedroom.
KELLERMAN: I would argue it‘s better idea not to have a TV in the bedroom so you read more. But first of all it‘s an Italian study. Let‘s just keep that in mind. To compare Italian studies and now we‘re going to say it is true in Italy, they‘re having sex half as often, is that twice a day instead of three times?
CARLSON: You don‘t trust Italian social science? Is that what you are saying?
KELLERMAN: As Woody Allen said in “Annie Hall” their rate of intercourse might be different, Tucker.
CARLSON: I don‘t believe that. That is hype from the Italian tourist bureau. To lure lonely Italian women to Italy, American women to Italy. I always thought. I don‘t think they do it any more than we do.
KELLERMAN: You are sure about that?
CARLSON: I am.
KELLERMAN: All I know is if it‘s putting a damper on your sex life, that‘s not necessarily a bad thing. It may be worse that it‘s putting a damper on your conversation or internal life or whatever. But you could argue that there are some shows that are better than sex and therefore worth watching.
CARLSON: Name one.
KELLERMAN: “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
CARLSON: You think that‘s better than sex
KELLERMAN: It may be. A good episode. Did you see the last episode of last season?
I put it to you.
CARLSON: I don‘t know. I‘d say that‘s about equal.
KELLERMAN: Willie says yes.
CARLSON: That‘s depressing.
Financial planning can be a complicated process but some have developed a pretty simple plan, win the lotto. According to a recent survey, 21 percent of those surveyed said winning the lottery would be the most practical way for them to build up $200,000 for a nest egg. Here. The point I would like to make here, max, government is evil. The reason you know that, government sponsors the lottery. Government pays for the commercials to convince dumb people they‘re going to win the lottery. It doesn‘t tell them in the process that if they are one in the 500 million who actually won the lottery, their lives would be destroyed anyway because every drunk relative would be showing up trying to borrow money, right? Lottery, the government sponsors it.
KELLERMAN: It does tell you that the government is smart in terms of exploiting its own population. I think my objection is the lottery is really false advertising. It is really fraud in a way. It‘s X and that‘s a million dollars. And if you want it all at once it‘s half a million dollars and then we will tax it and a retrograde tax and then it‘s a quarter of a million dollars.
But they are generating revenue is what‘s going on. Here is the thing that this study says. Thirty eight percent of the people who responded who said my plan is the lottery, were earning less than $28,000 a year. If you‘re earning less than $28,000 a year, you‘re trying to make ends meet. You don‘t have time—what money is there left over for retirement funding? What‘s a lotto ticket cost, $1 a week?
KELLERMAN: So it gives you a little hope. You know you won‘t hit it but it gives you a little hope and you won‘t have a retirement plan anyway.
CARLSON: But these are people who seem to believe they can win. But you can‘t win.
KELLERMAN: I‘m one of them.
CARLSON: But you can‘t win.
KELLERMAN: It happens all the time, Tucker.
CARLSON: It doesn‘t happen all the time. It happens to about eight people every 10 years. They all live in West Virginia. And they—I‘m serious.
KELLERMAN: Actually, it‘s true.
CARLSON: Totally true.
KELLERMAN: Let me offer an alternative to the retirement plan. Realistically, people making $25,000 a year, oh, yeah, by just setting aside several hundred dollars a month, you can have—several hundred dollars a month to a working man making $25,000 is a lot of money. What you can do is raise your kids right. Make sure they‘re educated and encourage them to be successful. And they will take care of you when you get old. That‘s your retirement plan.
CARLSON: This is a retirement plan that‘s very popular in asia and it works. You‘re exactly right. Max Kellerman.
KELLERMAN: Tucker Carlson.
CARLSON: Can‘t wait to see “The King of Vegas.” That would be you, I hope.
KELLERMAN: I‘d like to think so.
CARLSON: On Spike TV. 10:00.
I‘ll be watching. He‘s not the first politician accused of being an evil blood sucker but probably the first to accuse himself of it. We‘ll speak to the real-life vampire running for governor of Minnesota when THE SITUATION rolls on.
CARLSON: Welcome back. I‘ve covered a lot of political campaigns. And I can honestly say I have never seen a candidate run on a platform that includes impaling criminals in public. Come to think of it I‘ve never seen a vampire run for office, either. All that changes tonight. Jonathan “The Impaler” Sharkey is a self-proclaimed vampire who wants to be the next governor of Minnesota. He is quite serious about it, actually. “The Impaler” joins live tonight us from Minneapolis.
Mr. Sharkey, thanks a lot for coming on.
JONATHAN “THE IMPALER” SHARKEY, CANDIDATE FOR MINNESOTA GOVERNOR:
Tucker, please call me Jonathan. Are you are you doing tonight?
CARLSON: OK. I would like to call you the Impaler.
SHARKEY: Go for it.
CARLSON: So you‘re a vampire. What does that mean you‘re vampire?
SHARKEY: Yes, I‘m a sanguinarian vampire. I‘m a blood feeder.
CARLSON: Whose blood do you feed on and how do you do that and why?
SHARKEY: Vampires as you know feed off of other people‘s energy. Some feed off of blood. Some feed off of emotion. I choose to feed off of blood.
CARLSON: I mean .
SHARKEY: It‘s a very healthy thing to do.
CARLSON: It may be healthy but it will scare a lot of voters. The idea you could be elected and go around biting people. Where do you get the blood? And are there monetary donations or what?
SHARKEY: Absolutely. Hollywood has been so kind to make a vampire, especially his feeding practices, to be so romantic and erotic, you would be surprised how many women have come up to me, especially when I hang out in New York City, wanting to be bit. I‘m talking sophisticated, very rich women who enjoy the lure of being romanced by a vampire.
CARLSON: Jonathan. I live in the area. I would not be surprised at all. But where do you get your blood?
SHARKEY: It‘s usually when I‘m involved with somebody. They are the person I feed from. I—I do not feed on men. I‘m sorry. I just can‘t imagine myself rapping my teeth around a man. However, women, you know, women are beautiful. And they have beautiful necks and beautiful arms. So whenever they want it, I will gladly oblige them. As long as I am involved with them. You have to think about the transfer of blood.
CARLSON: Yeah. You do.
SHARKEY: It‘s something sexual. Because you can get AIDS from doing it if you do it with the wrong person. It‘s .
CARLSON: And they never say that in the safe sex materials I get. There are all sorts of—wear a condom but never say if you are a vampire, think about whose blood you feed off of. And it seems to me an oversight. And how does your vampirism fit into your campaign promises and your platform?
SHARKEY: You have to think about this. I‘m also planning on running for the presidency. As a vampire, I am tough. I‘m not going to back down to anybody. I‘m not a wuss like George Bush. I am not a communist. I am an American as you can see from my shirt. I‘m not going to back down.
CARLSON: An American vampire in Minnesota.
SHARKEY: Amen. I would love to get a hold of bin laden and impale him. I would also as president impale Bush because I think he is nothing more than a communist in the Oval Office who has caused the deaths of innocent Americans in Saudi Arabia and in Iraq. I become president. I will have him tried, convicted, hopefully he will be convicted. And then I would impale him.
CARLSON: So I think what you‘re saying, Impaler, is that you aren‘t simply a vampire. You‘re a right wing vampire.
SHARKEY: Correct. I‘m an American. I‘m not going to .
CARLSON: Good. I‘m not against it. That‘s my favorite kind of vampire.
SHARKEY: There‘s more to me than just being a vampire.
CARLSON: And I know that. And that leads to my next question for the sake of full disclosure. You are also a Satanist? Because that could be a deal killer, I think, for some voters.
SHARKEY: I am—like Lucifer did, I turned against God. I will not worship a god who causes the deaths of innocent children. I will not worship a god who allowed his only son to be used as a human sacrifice on the cross for what they believe the sins of the world and while his dying would turn around—forsake him on the cross.
CARLSON: OK. So you‘re a more positive kind of Satanist. Finally, what‘s your campaign slogan? I can think of a number that might fit.
SHARKEY: A new deal for Minnesota.
CARLSON: You‘re a Satanist vampire wearing an American flag t-shirt and a new deal for Minnesota is the best you can come up with?
SHARKEY: I‘m starting to worry that Jon Stewart was right in what he said about you, brother.
CARLSON: Come on. That‘s the best you can do? I mean, I don‘t know.
How about Jonathan Sharkey, he sucks! Blood!
SHARKEY: FDR was one of the most beloved presidents this country ever had and he came up with the New Deal.
CARLSON: I know. But this is a new generation of vampires running for office. And you ought to give .
SHARKEY: I‘m the only one. And besides being a vampire, I am an American. And that‘s what you have to focus on. Not my personal beliefs. But my platform. Which includes going after drug dealers and my way of going after drug dealers is not to turn around and put them in jail. But I‘m actually going to go to Sicilian families and have them attack the drug dealers for me.
CARLSON: That can solve immigration problems, by the way. And maybe we will get more deeply into your policy when you win the primary. Mr. Sharkey .
SHARKEY: There‘s no primary for me. I‘m on the ballot November 7.
CARLSON: All right. Well, good luck. Jesse Ventura could do it, maybe you can. Thanks for joining us.
SHARKEY: OK. Bye.
CARLSON: Still ahead on THE SITUATION, who wants to see a movie about a couple of cowboys who make out between cattle drives? Lots of people want to see it, it turns out. We‘ve got new Brokeback controversy on “The Cutting Room Floor.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We‘re around each other. And this thing grabs hold of us again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for “The Cutting Room Floor.” Willie “The Impaler” Geist joins us now.
WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC PRODUCER: Hello, Tucker.
CARLSON: Hello, Willie.
GEIST: That‘s a vampire Minnesota could get behind. I was expecting a crackpot but a common sense vampire with real solutions for Minnesota.
CARLSON: He really is. As monsters go.
GEIST: You never want to go on TV and tell the world you want to impale the president of the United States.
CARLSON: I know.
GEIST: Just for security reasons.
CARLSON: He will be getting a call from the Secret Service any moment.
Well, the Oscars may have been around longer but everyone knows the Golden Globes are the best awards show. The big winners on the NBC broadcast tonight were “Walk the Line” and “Brokeback Mountain.” “Brokeback” which is a love story about two gay cowboys won best picture, also won best director and best screenplay.
GEIST: Tucker, “Brokeback” by all accounts is a great movie.
CARLSON: What do you mean by all accounts?
GEIST: By most accounts it‘s a really good movie.
CARLSON: You didn‘t see it?
GEIST: I didn‘t see it. My wife saw it.
CARLSON: What are you a bigot or something? You didn‘t see it?
What‘s wrong with you, Willie?
GEIST: She went tonight. I couldn‘t go. The show. And I have to wonder if John Wayne isn‘t rolling over somewhere. If this is the future of cowboy movies. This is not the “Wild Bunch.”
CARLSON: You don‘t think this is the last gay cowboy movie we will see?
GEIST: No. After this it will be.
CARLSON: Part after growing genre.
GEIST: I also want to say, “The Office,” Steve Carrell” won. NBC show. Great show.
CARLSON: Yeah it is a good show. And the winner of the category of best performance primate, in a Czech reality television series, a gorilla named Richard, big surprise there. Richard starred in a show that involved gorillas performing a series of tasks at the Prague zoo. The viewers watched them on the internet and voted their favorite. Richard‘s prize for winning, some watermelons.
GEIST: Evolution is cruel. You are one step away on that evolutionary chart from humans. Humans get $1 million when they win reality shows. Gorillas get watermelons.
CARLSON: It does seem unfair.
GEIST: Gorillas should not be named Richard. It should be Koko.
CARLSON: It‘s kind of a scale for primates. What do you do when you are an animal shelter trying to get rid ever a dog that‘s ugly? Pawn it off on a blind man, of course. This dog‘s name is Duke but people call him Ugly.
Workers at the Shelby County, Kentucky , animal shelter found a home for Ugly with Dan Ernspicker (ph), a man who lost his sight two years ago. Dan says he doesn‘t want a dog named Ugly around so he is going to name him Duke.
GEIST: The story is rendered irrelevant. That is not an ugly dog. And lest we forget what an ugly dog really looks like. That is Sam, the world‘s ugliest dog.
CARLSON: That is an ugly dog.
GEIST: And you watch that at first and it‘s funny. And then it becomes sad. Because Sam left us not too long ago.
CARLSON: But he still haunts me.
GEIST: Haunts my dreams.
CARLSON: Willie Geist, Willie the Impaler. That‘s the situation for tonight. Thank you for watching. Up next, COUNTDOWN with Keith. Have a great night.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.