updated 1/24/2006 12:31:46 PM ET 2006-01-24T17:31:46

Guests: Lawrence Kobilinsky, Bill Fallon, Peter Langrock, T.J. Bonner, Sara Carter, Chuck Todd, Robert Reich

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, ripping the heart from the heartland.  The Ford Motor Company slashes 30,000 jobs.  And they shut down plants all across Middle America.  Friends, it‘s another blow to the American worker and a bad sign for America. 

Then, border wars.  A shocking report that agents along our southern border are at risk from rogue members of the Mexican military.  Why is our federal government doing nothing to protect the men and women who protect our borders?

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required, only common sense allowed. 

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, thanks so much for being with me tonight.  I hope everything is well in your household. 

We have got all those stories coming up.  Plus, injustice in Vermont—there are new developments in the case of that judge who gave a child rapist 60 days in jail.  Remember, he raped a little girl for four years.  This judge basically gave the guy 15 days for every year he raped the little girl. 

Well, a major hearing is coming up, and a lot people in Vermont and across America are asking whether the judge is going to reconsider this indefensible sentence.  We will talk about it.

Plus, another child rapist in Vermont walks. 

And caught on tape, two crooks who were stopping at nothing to rip off an ATM machine. 

But, first, the American auto industry is gasping for air.  But is the job market in Middle America also dying?  Today, as you know, the Ford Motor Company, which, of course, is America‘s second largest automaker and really the people that invented the economy for middle-class America, they announced a plan to fire up to 30,000 workers and shut down 14 plants, this after losing $1.6 billion last year. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL FORD, CHAIRMAN & CEO, FORD MOTOR COMPANY:  By taking the actions we are today, in the long run, we will create far more stable and secure jobs. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  You want to know what people are asking in Middle America?  You know, because they are not asking this in New York.  They ain‘t asking it in Washington, D.C., or L.A.  But, in Middle America, people are asking, is Main Street paying for the sins of Wall Street?  Or is Detroit simply doing what it has to do to survive? 

Let‘s bring in our panel of experts.  With us, we have got Lawrence Kudlow.  He‘s former economic adviser to President Reagan and host of CNBC‘s “Kudlow & Company.”  Also here is Robert Reich.  He‘s a former labor secretary for President Clinton.  And MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan. 

Pat, you have been talking about this.  You have been predicting this for 10, 15 years, first GM, now Ford.  Is the working class worker in America a dying breed? 

PAT BUCHANAN, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  What is happening, Joe, is we‘re decentralizing this country.

We are sacrificing American factories, American labor, pensions, health benefits, all on the altar of some big myth called the global economy, and which no one really believes, except a lot of American academics and thinkers. 

What you are seeing happen to ford GM and every industry in America is, we‘re exporting our jobs.  What happens is, these folks want to keep Americans as consumers and get rid of Americans as workers.  And that‘s what the global economy is all about.  And that‘s what‘s happening. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Pat, though, I—I read an article by Cramer (ph), who you fought after GM shut down its plant.  And he said the only reason why Ford Motor Company is not performing well, it‘s not because they don‘t make good cars.  But the only reason Ford and GM are failing is because they have got great health care benefits, because they have great pension plans. 

And what he suggested that GM did was declare bankruptcy so they can break their deals with their workers, the pension contracts, so they can break the union contracts, so, basically, they don‘t have to pay these great health care benefits anymore.  Is that what it has come to?  If you want to survive in America, you got to stiff the workers? 

BUCHANAN:  Joe, this is what‘s happening. 

These companies were the greatest welfare states on Earth.  They paid the highest wages.  They had the best benefits, best pensions, best health care.  And then we threw them into dog-eat-dog competition with Japanese and Germans and others, who had far lower wages, none of those benefits, didn‘t have to defend a thing strategically. 

And what happened is, the imports poured into this country.  They have killed these jobs.  They‘re drawing down these industries.  I understand what GM and Ford have got to do.  They have got to get rid of their American workers‘ pensions, health care, all of the rest of it, in order to compete. 

Something is wrong with the people who are creating an economic system that does that.  Our trade laws should be written for the benefit of the American worker and for the standard of living of the American people.  They are not.  They are written for the globalists. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Lawrence Kudlow, there are a lot of people out there that voted for Ronald Reagan twice, that voted for George Bush twice, and believe that Main Street is paying for the sins of Wall Street, that it‘s all about the bottom line, and they are the ones that are getting stiffed because of it. 

LAWRENCE KUDLOW, CO-HOST, “KUDLOW & CRAMER”:  Well, I was wondering how you were going to blame this on Wall Street.  I figured my friend Pat would say what he said.  I was just trying to figure out how you were going to blame Wall Street. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I‘m—hey, buddy, you know what?  You need to get to Kansas. 

KUDLOW:  Yes, I know.

SCARBOROUGH:  And you need to come to Pensacola, Florida.  You need to go to Middle America, because it‘s not me.  I‘m not trying to blame anybody.  I‘m telling you what they are saying in cafes and in greasy spoons across America. 

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  Actually, this is all fiction that you are creating, because the greatest carmakers in the United States in the last 10, 15 years have been Toyota and Honda and European cars from Germany that have moved their factories and their plants to the United States. 

They have hired, I guess we‘re up to almost 100,000 domestic workers, factory workers.  A lot of that is really in Main Street, Joe, since you are from the South.  It‘s all throughout the South in the Carolinas, in Texas, in Alabama, in the border states, in Tennessee and Kentucky.  That‘s where the American car industry, not imports, but actually cars produced here, is being reborn and rejuvenated. 

They are using the same workers.  They train them better.  They manage them better.  They give them good benefits.  They give them good salaries, not maybe as outrageous with General Motors and Ford, which are running a German-Franco welfare state.  But that is where it‘s happening.

(CROSSTALK) 

KUDLOW:  And, in fact...

BUCHANAN:  Outrageous salaries.

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  Toyota is going to be opening up a plant outside of Detroit.  It‘s the final indignity.  Toyota is going to Detroit. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Robert Reich—hold on. 

Robert, have things gotten so bad in American industry that people

like Larry Kudlow say the only way Americans can get jobs are to be run

by Japanese companies?

ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY:  No, they aren‘t. 

But look it.  Larry has a little bit of the truth and Pat has a little bit of the truth.  Let me tell you what the whole real truth is.

First of all, yes, many Americans are working for Japanese companies and some are working for German companies.  And they are not getting paid quite as much as Detroit auto workers were paid.  And that‘s partly because Wall Street demands very short-term profits. 

Larry, you can‘t let Wall Street off the hook here.  Wall Street is in fact demanding short-term performance, not real quality.

(CROSSTALK)

REICH:  Wait a minute.  Let me finish.  Larry, I gave you credit. 

(CROSSTALK)

REICH:  Hold it.  Hold it.  Hold it. 

KUDLOW:  You are all wet, Bob. 

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  The stocks‘ value of these companies is down 80 percent.

(CROSSTALK)

REICH:  I appear on your show.  You let me finish my sentences. 

Now, listen.  The fact of the matter is, they are not getting paid as much as the Detroit auto workers.  A lot of the health care benefits are not as secure.  Jobs are not as secure.  But, look, here‘s where Pat is correct.  Pat is wrong about American auto workers losing ground to foreign auto workers.  That‘s not where the competition is. 

But Pat is correct in the sense that American manufacturing workers, overall, have lost enormous ground.  And a lot of the problem is that, again, companies, manufacturing companies, Ford and others, are not investing long term.  They are not investing in their workers.  They are not investing in worker training.  They‘re not providing real good cars and good products. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Bottom line. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Hold it.  Pat, you can—hold on, Pat.  You can.

BUCHANAN:  All right. 

SCARBOROUGH:  But let‘s expand this out also.

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

SCARBOROUGH:  This ain‘t just about the auto industry.  This is very simple.

If you are paying American workers $10, $11, $12 an hour, and you can pay somebody in China $3, $4, $5 an hour, I mean, the bottom line is get out of America.  Go to China.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  Joe, let me answer that question.

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  This is not coming from China.  This is homegrown. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Larry, Larry, I am expanding this out.  

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  But go ahead, Pat.

BUCHANAN:  We have got a $200 billion trade deficit with China, for exactly the reason you mentioned.  They got labor over there for $2 and $3 an hour.  Ours is $40 an hour.  They are holding down their currency in order to suck out of this country our technology, our jobs, our factories, our plants.  They are bringing them into China. 

(CROSSTALK)

REICH:  Pat, wait a minute.  Wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

REICH:  Don‘t go into China bashing. 

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  It‘s not China bashing.  I understand what they‘re doing.  I don‘t understand what we are doing, letting it happen.

REICH:  We‘re borrowing $2 million a day, mostly from the Chinese and the Japanese.  Don‘t China bash.  The problem is us.  The problem is our managers.

BUCHANAN:  It is us.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  The problem is our economic system.

REICH:  The problem is top executives who are making off like they have never made off.  But top executives at Ford and every other company are making bundles, 400 times what the average worker in these companies are making.  And Wall Streeters are laughing all the way to the bank. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  That‘s got to be—that‘s fighting words for Larry Kudlow.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  He has dinner with these people every night. 

Larry, defend these CEOs. 

REICH:  And plays golf with them and breakfast and lunch. 

KUDLOW:  Actually, I don‘t play golf.  I play tennis.  But it‘s fair enough.

(LAUGHTER)

KUDLOW:  The fact of the matter is, if you don‘t make profits, you can‘t stay in business, whether you are in Japan or Germany or France or the United States.  It‘s called market capitalism.

The problem with Ford and General Motors, they designed poor cars.  They were too expensive.  They lost their market share, not to the people working in China, Pat. 

BUCHANAN:  People working in Japan and Germany.

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  Actually, General Motors sells a ton of cars in China, I might add. 

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  Larry, globalism is the enemy of patriotism.

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  Hang on a second.  It‘s here, homegrown. 

The Japanese moved here.  They are patriotic.  They are hiring people. 

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  And let me say this.  Joe Scarborough, you should be ashamed of yourself for whipping up this hysteria, because the unemployment rate in the United States is 4.9 percent.  We‘re creating 175,000 new jobs.

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  We just had the third straight year of two million jobs. 

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  And it‘s not like we‘re being hollowed out.  This is the silliest argument.  It is unsubstantiated by Pat. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  You attacked me there, Larry.

(CROSSTALK)

REICH:  Joe, let me say something here.

SCARBOROUGH:  Not until I defend myself.  Hold on.

Larry Kudlow, your hero and my hero, Ronald Reagan, said what?  A recession is when your next-door neighbor lost his job.  A depression is when you lost your job. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Don‘t tell these 30,000 families that this isn‘t a serious blow.

KUDLOW:  That‘s the silliest argument.  The unemployment rate today is lower than it ever was during the Reagan years, Joe Scarborough.

SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  So, Ronald Reagan is silly.

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW:  The level of prosperity is—continues to...

(CROSSTALK)

REICH:  You guys are talking right past each other.

KUDLOW:  And that is just untrue.

REICH:  You guys are not listening to each other.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  No, no, no.  Hold on a second.

Robert is about to be condescending again. 

Go ahead, Robert.

REICH:  No, I‘m not condescending at all.  I‘m just telling it like it is. 

I mean, the fact of the matter is...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  You‘re just telling us why you‘re right and everybody else is wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

REICH:  Wait a minute.  Wait a minute.  No, no, no, no, no. 

Look, I‘m saying, Joe, you are right in one very important respect.  I was secretary of labor.  I talked to these people.  I know and understand and felt their pain.  I was there.  In fact, this stuff has gone on for a very long time.  Manufacturing workers have lost their jobs.

Or, if they haven‘t lost their jobs—and, look, Larry, this is where you are wrong.  They are working, but they are working at lower wages.  They don‘t have health benefits.  They don‘t have the kind of pension benefits they had before.  Many of them are working in the local service economy, retail, restaurant, hotel, hospital jobs.  They‘re not working in the old manufacturing jobs. 

The fact that the unemployment rate is low doesn‘t tell you much about the quality of the jobs people are getting.  And they are getting lousy jobs. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

REICH:  And, so, Pat, to the extent, is right. 

But, Pat, you are wrong to blame globalization.  Technology is creating a lot of redundancy.  I went to a factory not too long ago where there were 10 workers in the entire factory.  They were technicians sitting behind consoles watching robots and computerized machine tools. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

REICH:  It‘s not just globalization.  It‘s technology and failure of companies to really invest for the long term. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  I appreciate it, Robert.

Appreciate it, Pat Buchanan.

And, Lawrence Kudlow, I‘m going to make your day.  Here are a couple facts about the economy.

We have got, right now, a 4.9 percent unemployment rate.  That‘s the lowest it‘s been in about 30 years.  Consumer confidence is up for the third month in a row.  Unemployment at a five-year low, actually.  And wages are up.  A lot of economic signs up.  But when it comes to manufacturing, when it comes to the long-term health of this economy, a lot of us in Middle America are very concerned, very troubled, maybe not on Wall Street, maybe not with the people that Kudlow plays tennis with. 

But I can tell you, here in Pensacola, in Saint Louis, in Kansas City, in Phoenix, in Middle America, we are scared. 

Now, when we come back, are Mexican soldiers coming into our country targeting our agents?  We‘re going to get the lowdown on a stunning report you are not going to believe. 

And, later, you have heard about the Vermont judge who sentenced a rapist to 60 days.  Well, it‘s happened again.  Wait until you hear this one.  It‘s coming up in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Rogue agents for the Mexican military crossing over into America time and time again.  We‘re going to have that story and we‘re going to be talking to the reporter who broke it when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Florida‘s top Republican leaders are now doing their best to show support for Katherine Harris‘ struggling Senate bid.  After efforts by national Republican leaders to convince Harris not to run failed and recruitment of other Republican candidates came up empty, Harris‘ campaign had a bumpy start.  Look at these television appearances that she had after announcing her candidacy. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “HANNITY & COLMES”)

REP. KATHERINE HARRIS ®, FLORIDA:  As you can see, we just launched our campaign from where I grew up.  And I have the courthouse in Bartow, Florida, right behind me.  We don‘t—quite frankly, people are going to decide who is going to be their next United States senator at the ballot. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “HARDBALL”)

HARRIS:  We had an overwhelming round of support yesterday, with the governor giving us a great send-off, saying that we would be formidable and great things coming from every sector of the Republican Party.  Let‘s just keep it on a level playing field. 

The day before, he said I would be very, very—that I will be very formidable, and he wished me well. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, now, editor in chief of “The National Journal”‘s “Hotline,” Chuck Todd.

Chuck, thank you for being with us. 

The Republicans so desperate, they even talked to me about running for a couple minutes and then checked my resume out. 

What‘s gone wrong with Katherine Harris‘ campaign?  And of course this is news now, because Jeb and other Republican GOP leaders in Florida said they are going to get behind her.  But she‘s been out in left field, it seems, from the beginning of this campaign.  Why? 

CHUCK TODD, EDITOR IN CHIEF, “THE HOTLINE”:  Well, it‘s because they feel like Bill Nelson, the Democratic incumbent, is very beatable by pretty much any generic Republican, except one.  And according to these polls, that one is Katherine Harris. 

That said, they cut a deal with her.  I mean, and this is where this has gotten complicated.  She wanted to run in 2004.  There was an open seat.  Bob Graham decided to retire.  Everybody was jumping in.  And, for a long time, the Republican primary was a real mess, before the White House stepped in and got Mel Martinez to run in it. 

And Katherine Harris wanted to run.  She knew she could win that nomination.  And it was just something—the White House was petrified to run with her on the ballot when they had to carry the state of Florida for the 2004 presidential.  So, they cut a deal.

They said, you get out now and we will not get in your way in 2006.  Well, 2006 comes along.  And she wants to cash in on that deal.  And I think that that‘s what‘s happened here.  And now the Republicans regret making this deal.  It‘s why that they would like to, instead of forcing her out, find another candidate that might just sort of push her out, preferably a multimillionaire.  I think that‘s your big problem, Joe.

You don‘t make—you don‘t have enough money in the bank to... 

SCARBOROUGH:  I really don‘t have enough money in the bank.  They should have come to mean a couple years later.

Well, Harris, of course, a national figure.  She has been lampooned on “Saturday Night Live.”  Independents despise her.  Democrats hate her.  Her poll numbers are just—just pathetic in Florida.  And, yet, she thinks she can win.  And I—the thing is, I have met Katherine.  I know her.  She seems, again, one on one, very likable.  But she seems to have been stumbling so much the—I mean, I know you saw the “Hannity & Colmes” clip. 

(CROSSTALK)

TODD:  Your chirons (ph) didn‘t do that clip justice.  Let‘s just leave it at that. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  The clip—yes, go ahead. 

TODD:  I think that the thing is, is that, while I assume she doesn‘t have a chance—you want to say, on one hand, no way.  Her negatives are too high and it really just gets the Democratic base fired up, even though Democrats in Florida have never been Bill Nelson people.  They were Bob Graham people.  They were Lawton Chiles people.  They just sort of always tolerated Bill Nelson. 

But you throw Katherine Harris in there, and then suddenly they are excited about Bill Nelson, which is very tough to do.  He‘s not the most excitable candidate.  But Florida is so transient, Joe. You know this.  I grew up in Miami.  Every two years, there‘s a whole new population of people to woo. 

So, there are people with short memories.  A lot of voters in Florida have very short memories.  So, if she would put her own resources in here—you know, she has—she‘s very wealthy.  She has her own money.  And a lot of people are wonder why she won‘t—if she‘s so committed to running, why she won‘t write her own check. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And maybe she will.  But she‘s going to have a lot of Democratic money against her, though, isn‘t it?

(CROSSTALK)

TODD:  It is.  Bill Nelson has been raising big money.

SCARBOROUGH:  If she ends up being the candidate, she‘s going to be target number one, isn‘t she? 

TODD:  Well, it‘s not necessarily target number one, but the bloggers—and it‘s the small donors, the little old lady in Topeka, Kansas, who has got nothing for Democrats to cheer about in Kansas, will send Bill Nelson a $25 check just to stick it to Katherine Harris. 

That‘s the benefit that Bill Nelson gets out of this.  Look, I don‘t think this is over yet.  I think you got until about—it‘s a late filing deadline in Florida.  You know that.  I wouldn‘t be surprised if they could find any—and, right now, they are just shopping for millionaires, though they admit that the window is closing. 

But if they could find a multimillionaire—that‘s why they love this guy Allan Bense, who nobody had ever heard of, but he had a big checkbook.  If they could find a checkbook before March 1, they could still maybe force her out of this thing. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank so much, Chuck Todd.  Greatly appreciate it. 

(CROSSTALK)

TODD:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Illegal immigrants aren‘t the only ones crossing our border, but now the U.S. Border Patrol is warning its agents to look out for Mexican military units—you heard me right—Mexico militant units on American soil that could be a threat to their life. 

With me now, the reporter who broke that story, Sara Carter from “The rMD-BO_Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.” 

Thank you so much for being with us, Sara.

Talk about this story that you stumbled across.  You were just doing—reporting on immigration work.  And you uncovered a bombshell.  Talk about it. 

(CROSSTALK)

SARA CARTER, “THE rMD-BO_INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN”:  Yes, absolutely. 

I spent the last year covering our border, both the southern border in Mexico and the northern border out here, all the way from San Diego into Arizona.  And one of the things that I heard often was from Border Patrol agents is these incursions, Mexican military crossing our border, assisting drug smugglers with—and also human smugglers across the border. 

I heard this over and over again, and not only from the Border Patrol agents, but also from the immigrants themselves, who would hide on the other side of the border before they made their run from these drug smugglers and from the Mexican military.

So, it began an investigation for me that started late last year—actually, early last year into late last year, when I was able to uncover the documents. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, Sara, you are saying that the Mexican military is actually crossing into America repeatedly? 

CARTER:  I‘m not only saying that.  I believe I know that.  I believe the documents prove that.  These documents show 216 incursions over the last 10 years of Mexican military into the United States. 

And, just today, I received information from a chief deputy, actually out in an Hudspeth County, Texas.  And the FBI confirmed today that Mexican military incurred at 3:00 this afternoon, in Texas, into the United States assisting drug smugglers and I was able to confirm that before I got on the air with you tonight, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, it‘s a stunning story.  And we have military—

Mexican military incursion.  A lot of people along the border would say it‘s a military invasion. 

Let me bring in T.J. Bonner. 

Stay with me, Sara. 

CARTER:  OK.

SCARBOROUGH:  T.J. is the president of the National Border Council. 

T.J., Sara says there have been over 200 incursions into the United States by Mexican military units.  Does that number sound about right to you? 

T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL:  Actually, it sounds a bit low, Joe. 

It happens on an all-too frequent basis.  And it‘s not just an innocent geographical blunder where they come across and go, oops, we better turn around.  They have fired upon our Border Patrol agents on several occasions, striking two of our agents just last year. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Why are they shooting at our agents? 

BONNER:  Because our agents are standing in the way of them getting drugs into this country. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And what‘s our federal government doing about it?  Has the State Department stepped forward and made a protest?  Has the Department of Homeland Security talked about this issue as being a great threat to America and, certainly, its Border Patrol? 

BONNER:  They are pretty silent on this issue, Joe. 

We complained vocally after a 2000 incident where 16 soldiers chased our agents around, fired shots at them.  All we got back from the White House was a form letter thanking us for raising concerns about water boundary issues. 

No one ever followed through and did anything on these issues.  And then five years later, we had our agents shot up by a Mexican military down in Tucson, Arizona. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, it‘s unbelievable, T.J.

And, Sara, is this happening because the Mexican military is really in the pockets of some of these drug cartels that operate along the border? 

CARTER:  Yes.

Let me begin by telling you, I have spent time in quite a few of the border towns.  And I heard that over and over again.  If you go into Agua Prieta or if you go into Sosua Bay, Mexico, even out here in San Diego, along the borders, you will hear that over and over again from the people that actually live in those communities. 

A lot of them are poverty-stricken communities.  And most of the migrants huddle in the canyons and such near those communities.  They will tell you that they see them doing this.  The cartels pretty much run the border towns from what I gather.  And many reporters have been killed on the other side, you know.  They get too close to the stories.  But at this point in time, I think, like what T.J. said, our State Department hasn‘t acted on this. 

I‘m continuing to follow these stories.  And like I said, today, the FBI was able to confirm where Mexican military were crossing the Rio Grande today, and they actually 200 yards in, across the river with mounted machine guns pointed at our Border Patrol agents, at our chief deputies in Hudspeth County, deputies, and as well as the Texas Highway Patrolmen. 

So, it‘s interesting that the State Department doesn‘t mention this or that Chertoff downplays this.  But I think it‘s a very serious issue.  And I believe that the cartels are able to buy out some of the Mexican military personnel who are along the border. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  I will tell you what, Sara Carter, thank you so much for this report.  It‘s very frightening. 

T.J., thank you for being with us. 

I know a lot of Americans very concerned tonight.  And, as you said, this continues to happen.  It happened today.  And our federal government doesn‘t seem to be interested in it.  Obviously, there needs to be an investigation on Capitol Hill.  I‘m going to be talking to my friends in Congress that have been concerned about this issue and we‘re going to demand an investigation and we‘re going to demand action.  They can‘t keep coming into our country and shooting at our Border Patrol. 

Coming up, 60 days in jail for a rapist?  Well, that‘s the sentence that a Vermont judge handed down.  But, tonight, another outrageous rapist sentence in Vermont.  What‘s going on there and across the country.  We will talk about that when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Sixty days in jail for a child rapist in Vermont.  Sound familiar?  Well, it‘s happened again.  We are going to have the latest on both of these shocking sentences when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns. 

But, first, here‘s the latest news you and your family need to know. 

(NEWS BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Cruise ship CSI.  A famous forensic expert goes on board the cruise ship where the honeymoon groom was last seen.  Could new evidence finally solve this case?

And two would-be thieves try to make it big at an ATM withdrawal machine.  You will see what happened. 

Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY—those stories in minutes.

But, first, we go to Vermont again, where a judge recently sentenced a child rapist to just 60 days in jail.  And now it‘s happened again.  Another judge sentenced a 38-year-old rapist who confessed to having sex with a 15-year-old girl to 60 days in jail. 

With me now, Vermont defense attorney Peter Langrock.  And also we have Massachusetts prosecutor Bill Fallon. 

Peter, you just got to help me and help others in Middle America understand why raping children underage only lands you 60 days in jail in Vermont. 

PETER LANGROCK, DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Well, that‘s not really what this is all about. 

What it‘s about is whether the Department of Corrections has a program for treating sex offenders.  And that‘s I think was what the judge was concerned about.  I have known Judge Cashman a long time.  And he‘s been a tough sentencer.  What he did this time was, he tried to take what he thought was in the best interest of protecting the public and seeing that the individual got treatment.  I think that was his motives. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, OK.  But, obviously, you and I both know that the state of Vermont said they would provide this creep, who raped this 6-year-old girl for four years, rehab behind bars.  And let‘s talk about this other judge, this Katherine Hayes, who gave this other child rapist 60 days in jail this past week.  What‘s going on up there?

LANGROCK:  Well, I don‘t know much about the Hayes sentence.  I do know, if you take a whole spectrum of sentences, you have ones that are the least punishment and those with are the most punishment. 

And it‘s so easy to jump on the ones where they‘re at the bottom of the line, the least punishment.  Don‘t ever hear you arguing or taking on those where the punishment is way too heavy. 

SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  This guy raped a girl for four years, though. 

BILL FALLON, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  Because it‘s not too heavy.

SCARBOROUGH:  He raped her when she was 6.  He raped her when she was 7.  He raped her when she was 8.  He raped her when she was 9, up until she was 10 years old.  He gets 60 days in jail. 

How can you, as a father, as a human being, not think that 60 days is woefully inadequate? 

LANGROCK:  He gave him a life sentence.  He gave him a life sentence, basically, and said, the only way I can get you treatment, the only way I can get you back out, to protect the safety of the public, is to have outpatient treatment. 

(CROSSTALK)

FALLON:  But, Peter, that‘s not really true. 

(CROSSTALK)

LANGROCK:  Well, it is true.

FALLON:  Everybody who discusses that he gave him a life sentence, he gave him 60 days.  He could have given him a state prison sentence, and he would have gotten treatment when he got out. 

One this judge is speculating, at best, that out 60 days and the treatment is going to start to help.  We have no reason, those of us who have done this for 20 to 25 years, to suggest that any of these treatments work to begin with.  Some would argue it should be...

(CROSSTALK)

LANGROCK:  If you don‘t think treatments, work, then I can‘t argue. 

(CROSSTALK)

FALLON:  But then the judge sentence—there‘s two reasons the judge‘s sentence is woefully inadequate. 

Certainly, if he spent the three years in—never mind that they said they will now give treatment in jail—or the eight years the prosecutor asked for, then he could get treatment when he came out.  What I really don‘t understand is how anybody can look at this case and say 60 days is appropriate. 

And the reason I think the judge is way off base is, the judge starts with—it‘s one thing if he just said, in my discretion, I‘m doing it.  I don‘t believe in retribution.  I don‘t believe in anger. 

It sounds like he doesn‘t really believe in sentencing.  Also, this is a guy who didn‘t apologize, when I hear about this, it‘s like maybe after he gets this treatment, he will understand the significance of the act.

And if he is minimally intelligent, studies have shown those are the people who are actually harder to rehabilitate.  So, to suggest, for 60 days, he‘s going to get the message and then say, oh, please help me, please help me, I say three, six, nine years.  Maybe he should have given him 60 years. 

Someone would argue that somebody who has raped a child 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years old—I understand it was either 10, 20, 30 or 40 times—when you think of that, for 60 days, in the hopes, by the way—if the judge could say, we know this penalty, this treatment will work.  He can‘t even suggest that.

So, he‘s just saying, well, my opinion is maybe it will work as much as no treatment in prison.  And think it‘s a bogus argument. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s 15 days for every year that he raped this little girl.  It‘s an obscene sentence.  And anybody that defends it is, I think, is absolutely shameful, absolutely shameful.

We lost—by the way, we lost Peter‘s satellite feed. 

I want to ask you about this hearing on Thursday.  Obviously, the attorney general in Vermont and a lot of other people up there, very concerned about what‘s going on there.  And I say in Vermont.  We‘re not picking on Vermont.  This happens in Florida.  It happens across the country. 

What do you think is going to happen on Thursday?  Do you think this judge will reconsider this horrendous sentence? 

FALLON:  Well, if we decide that the judge is telling us the truth

and Peter feels he said, I only gave him this sentence because he couldn‘t get any prison help—then I think it‘s going to put the judge in an odd position. 

I read his pages and pages of sentencing as saying, I don‘t believe in retribution.  I don‘t believe in anger.  I‘m worried about him. 

I think this has put the judge in a position that he can gracefully, somehow, exit, saying, on balance, this is there.  No one has been prejudiced.  He pled guilty.  It‘s not as if any kind of rules of laws would prevent me from doing it. 

If I were this judge, under these circumstances, if in fact the truth was that he thought he should have gotten some help in prison, “help”—quote—as if we thought it could help. 

But, Joe, I think it‘s important also to note the other 60 days; 60 days seems to be what you get if you rape someone, child rapist in Vermont.  But I will say, for that other case, that‘s what the prosecution recommended.  And the judge adopted it.  And I think it‘s really important to know.  These are the hardest cases to prove.

It‘s hard to get victims to go forward.  This was—Cashman‘s case was one that was a plea.  It didn‘t matter.  The one—the other case, the victim was not willing to go forward.  They ultimately pled.  And I‘m hoping at least the prosecutor took the plea because maybe there was nothing else to get. 

But Cashman‘s case has affected us all to look nationally at how these cases are prosecuted. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  No doubt about it, Bill Fallon.  Thank you so much. 

Greatly appreciate it.

And I‘ll tell you what.  Anybody, again, that looks at this case and thinks that a little girl that is—I take it very personally.  I know so many of you that I have talked to take it very personally, too, that have kids. 

To think about your child being raped for four years between the ages of 6 and 10, I mean, I don‘t want to even tell you what would happen if somebody had done that to one of my boys between the ages of 6 and 10.  They would have a lot more to worry about than prison time.  I will guarantee you that.  And no judge could save them from justice. 

But to have 60 days, 15 days in jail for every year that this beast raped this little girl, it‘s just indefensible.  I don‘t know how any father, any mother, any grandfather or—grandfather could come on this or any other show and defend it. 

I‘m joined now by Tucker Carlson.  He‘s host of “THE SITUATION WITH

TUCKER CARLSON.”

Hey, Tucker, what‘s the situation tonight? 

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON”:  You make a really good point, Joe.  Where is the father here?  Where‘s the uncle here meting out their own kind of justice?  I‘m not endorsing vigilante justice, but I am endorsing vigilante justice in this case. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, where is NOW?  Where‘s the National Organization of Women, who are always opposing... 

CARLSON:  I totally agree with that.  That‘s exactly right.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Fighting for women‘s rights, but they are not fighting for this little girl‘s right, any more than they fought for the rights of Juanita Broaddrick or other people that came forward during the Bill Clinton investigation. 

CARLSON:  Because they‘re utterly corrupt. 

And speaking of corrupt political groups, we have an amazing story tonight of a gay group that is planning to infiltrate the White House Christmas—I mean, Easter egg roll this April.  I‘m going to talk to the head of the group.  And the idea is, they are going into this group, which is for kids, this day in Washington on Easter, and don these T-shirts and make a political statement.

And I guess my position on this is not even—I mean, not even attacking the group.  I‘m attacking the idea that you would use a children‘s event to make a political statement.  I don‘t care if you are the NRA or National Right to life, or, in this case, a gay group pushing for transgendered rights.  I just think it‘s wrong to impose that garbage on kids, period.  We‘re going to talk to the head of the group and have him defend it, yes. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  I agree with you.  And I agree with you also.  If the NRA wanted to hand out shotguns at an Easter egg hunt, I would be against that, too. 

CARLSON:  Of course. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, Tucker—thanks a lot, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Thanks, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  Greatly appreciate it.

Make sure you tune into “THE SITUATION” at 11:00.  It‘s coming up next. 

And, when we come back, a couple of would-be ATM thieves drive their way into tonight‘s flyover country.  We will show you. 

And the most bizarre TV reunion we have heard of in a long time. 

See who the Long Island Lolita is sitting down with coming up next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s time for another flyover of SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, of course, the stories that have fallen under the mainstream media‘s radar, but not ours. 

Our first stop, Fort Worth, Texas, where a convenience store security camera catches two would-be thieves during a truck through a store window.  Now, the pair unsuccessfully tried to steal at a cash machine and they later led police on a chase and got away. 

And, also, our stop, Long Island, New York, for the millions of Americans who have been clamoring for it, finally.  The Long Island Lolita, Amy Fisher, sits down with Joey and Mary Jo Buttafuoco for a televised reunion.  Now, Fisher, of course, made headlines 15 years ago when she shot Mary Jo at the time.  The 16-year-old Fisher was having an affair with Mary Jo‘s husband, Joey.

Fisher spent seven years in jail.  And the Buttafuocos have since divorced.  But now all three say they want to sit down and they hope the reunion will provide closure and quality reality TV.

And, when we come back, much more—a famous forensic expert today gets his chance to search George Smith IV‘s cabin and find any clues he can to what happened to the missing groom.  We will give you the latest. 

And, also, “Joe‘s Schmoe” tonight, one message, but several schmoes.  We will explain. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  He‘s best known for his work on the O.J. Simpson murder trial, where his work provided to be a critical component in the case.

Well, today, Dr. Henry Lee went aboard Royal Caribbean‘s Brilliance of the Seas, the ship that honeymooner George Smith IV vanished from in July. 

For more on Dr. Lee‘s onboard visit, let‘s go to Miami and NBC‘s Michelle Kosinski. 

Michelle, bring us up to date.  What did the doctor find? 

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  Hey, Joe.

Well, he says he‘s found something in searching that stateroom, but at this point he can‘t tell us exactly what it is.  That‘s right.  He worked on the O.J. Simpson case.  He worked on the Michael Skakel case.  And now he‘s taking on this case, hired by George Smith‘s widow.

And keep in mind this is now about seven months after Smith disappeared, after the FBI has already searched that room, after countless other passengers have been in there.  But he has specialized scientific equipment that he says could potentially pick up, you know, trace amounts of blood or DNA, other types of evidence. 

And, you know, it is a hotel room, key in mind, so chances are you‘re going to find some DNA, but will it be relevant to this case?  Lee also wanted to use a weighted mannequin and throw it over the side, but Royal Caribbean said, you know, probably not a good idea while other passengers are getting on board, getting ready for another cruise.

But he was able to spend about four hours on board.  And Lee has said himself he thinks has about a 50/50 shot of figuring out what happened to George Smith—Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Michelle, is there any background on why George‘s wife got Dr. Lee? 

KOSINSKI:  Well, she has said publicly that she needs to know what happened here.  She has publicly criticized authorities with Royal Caribbean, although they have defended themselves.

They said that they have acted quickly, that they have cooperated fully with the FBI investigation.  But just sort of as one more thing that she could try, she has hired Dr. Lee.  And he has said that he‘s taken this case because, frankly, he feels sorry for the family.  And he thought maybe there‘s something else he could do, even though that room has just been used so much.

But we saw them on two balconies today, using equipment, taking all types of different tests.  So, he‘s hopeful that, with what he says he found today, he might be able to get something out of it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Lawrence Kobilinsky, what could he be searching for? 

You‘re a forensics expert.  What is he looking for in there?

DR. LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, JOHN JAY COLLEGE:  Well, he‘s clearly looking for trace evidence, especially bloodstains. 

The issue is that there was a lot of bleeding.  We saw the heavy bloodstain on the canopy.  Presumably, there was something that happened, very traumatic, inside that stateroom, and there may be blood that still remains in that room, maybe in tiny little droplets on the ceiling, on the walls, perhaps under the rug.  All of that can be done with high-tech equipment, using alternate light sources, Luminol staining, for example.  And there are other methods to look for such tiny droplets of blood. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Lawrence, what‘s the chance, though, seven months later?  Think of all the people who have been in the room.  What if I go out and play whatever that thing is they push across decks and one of those discs hit me.  I come back and I‘m bleeding a little bit.  I go into the room and there are my drops of blood on the floor. 

KOBILINSKY:  Joe, you‘re absolutely right.

SCARBOROUGH:  It seems—seven months later, it seems next to impossible, doesn‘t it, to get anything on George? 

(CROSSTALK)

KOBILINSKY:  I think you‘re absolutely right.  Whoever said 50/50 is being very, very optimistic.  I think that the chances of finding evidence that the FBI doesn‘t already know about is slim to zero. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

Thank you so much, Lawrence Kobilinsky.  Greatly appreciate it.

Michelle Kosinski, thank you so much for that report. 

And shuffleboard, right?  Shuffleboard.  I don‘t do the cruise scene, friends, don‘t do the cruise scenes.

We are going to be right back with tonight‘s “Joe‘s Schmoe.” 

Plus “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON,” kids, it‘s just minutes away.  So stick around. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  You can take SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY with you on the road wherever you go.  Just go to iTunes and get your free podcast.  No porn on there, I promise.

We will be right back with tonight‘s “Joe‘s Schmoe.”

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s time for tonight‘s “Joe‘s Schmoe.”

Now, last week, Osama bin Laden made new threats on America.  And, over the weekend, Democrats hit the talk show circuit, but not to urge America to unite against that madman.  No, they used their Sunday morning to wage war on the man they think is enemy number one.  And because of their lack of focus, well, they‘re tonight‘s “Joe‘s Schmoe.”

Take a look. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “LATE EDITION”)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK:  Karl Rove is doing what he does as a trademark, putting politics what‘s good for the country. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “FOX NEWS SUNDAY”)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS:  Karl Rove is just trying to exploit what he considers a fear factor in American politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “LATE EDITION”)

SCHUMER:  What Karl Rove is doing is trying to change the subject away from the incompetence of this administration at home and abroad. 

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS:  And this is exactly what Karl Rove does. 

Osama bin Laden‘s going to die of kidney failure before he‘s killed by Karl Rove and his crowd. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “LATE EDITION”)

SCHUMER:  If Karl Rove wanted to win the war on terror, he would want to unite America. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY:  As Karl Rove has evidenced, with how you divide America, rather than lead America. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH:  Talk about talking points. 

Hey, Democrats, here‘s the problem, OK?  I‘m going to give you a free one here tonight and help you out.

You think Karl Rove and George Bush are the greatest threat to America‘s national security.  America thinks it‘s Osama bin Laden.  That‘s your problem.  You have got to focus.  And, you know, Bob Schieffer was asked if he thought Osama was parroting John Kerry on the tape he released last week.  Remember, we talked about that on Thursday?  This is what Bob Schieffer said—quote—“These people seem to have tremendous access.  And television being what it is, and now with satellites and so forth, these things go all over the world.  Perhaps he did.”

And, again, like I said last week with Tucker, it‘s not the Democrats who are parroting Osama bin Laden.  It‘s Osama bin Laden parroting the Democrats. 

It‘s bad news for them now.  It‘s bad for them in ‘06 and in 2008. 

That‘s all the time we have for tonight. 

“THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON” starts right now. 

Hey, Tucker, what‘s the situation tonight, buddy? 

CARLSON:  Joe, you‘re the best.  And I‘m not embarrassed to say that at all. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You‘re the best.

CARLSON:  Thank you, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  Thanks.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC.  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 MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

Watch Scarborough Country each weeknight at 10 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,