updated 3/1/2006 11:05:04 AM ET 2006-03-01T16:05:04

Guests: Bill Maher, Sara Carter, Juan Hernandez

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST:  And right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, comedian Bill Maher is here.  The host of HBO‘s “Real Time” is here to dish about George Bush, Jesus Christ, and why Hillary Clinton will never be elected president of the United States.  We‘re going to get into all of that in a minute, and I‘m going to ask him just what‘s wrong with the Democratic Party. 

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  No passport required; only common sense allowed. 

Thanks so much for being with me tonight.  Greatly appreciate it.  We have Bill Maher straight ahead. 

Plus, Mexico is considered America‘s friend, right?  But with illegal immigrants and drugs flooding into America from that country, is this the kind of friendship we could do without?  Got an explosive new report from the border.  That‘s going to be the topic of tonight‘s SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY showdown.

And Anna Nicole Smith goes to the Supreme Court.  She‘s only after half a billion dollars.  Is she going to get it?  Well, we‘re going to go inside the Supreme Court to find out exactly what happened when Ms. Smith went to Washington. 

But first, he‘s the host of “Real Time” on HBO and the author of “New Rules:  Polite Musings from a Timid Observer.”  He‘s Bill Maher.  He‘s back in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY tonight, and no topic is off-limits so let‘s get right into it.

Bill, I know you‘ve got to be proud of the president.  He‘s looking more and more Truman-esque every day.  His poll numbers are now down to about 34 percent, like Truman at the end of his last term.  What‘s going on with George W. Bush? 

BILL MAHER, HOST, “REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER”:  Nothing that hasn‘t been going on since he took office.  It‘s just people are noticing.  And some of his massive screw-ups are coming home to roost. 

You know, I feel—I know you‘re kidding me, but I really feel for some of my Republican friends, because it seems like the Republicans are in two camps now.  The one camp has come around to admitting, yes, we made a colossal error back in 1999 when we backed an empty suit named George Bush just because it was the same name as his father. 

Let‘s not forget that‘s how the guy got the job.  They came to him with a poll in 1999 and said, “You know what?  Among Republican candidates, you‘re leading.  You could be president.”  And he said, “Great, do I have to run, or do I just apply or do I sign something?”

You know, and then there‘s the 34 percent, who—I don‘t know what would have to happen to change these people‘s opinion of George Bush.  He‘d have to, you know, invade SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH:  He‘d have to invade SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY or maybe shoot somebody in the face with a shotgun on a hunting trip. 

(LAUGHTER)

So what does it say about the Democratic Party if George Bush is an empty suit in 1999, and he not only beats the best that the Democrats have to offer in 2000, but does it again in 2004? 

MAHER:  Well, first of all, he didn‘t really beat them in 2000, did he? 

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  Oh, whatever.  Yes, he did. 

MAHER:  Well, he didn‘t win the popular vote.  That‘s indisputable.  And, of course, with all the cheating that went on in Florida, he didn‘t really win that vote, either. 

But OK, he got to the president.  And, look, I never defended Al Gore for that.  I said, with what he had going for him, he should have won that election walking way, so let‘s forget about 2000. 

But, yes, you‘re absolutely right.  And everybody knows that the Democrats are lame.  The Democrats look like they‘re, at this point, going down the same road that they go down every year, which is to fish in the Republican pond, instead of going after those millions and millions of voter who would like an alternative, who would like something else. 

Hillary Clinton talking about flag burning, talking about moving to the right on abortion, you know, violence in video games, all these issues to triangulate, to become a centrist.  That‘s never going to work. 

People don‘t vote for the Democrats because they think they‘re too liberal; people don‘t vote for the Democrats because they don‘t stand for anything. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So Hillary Clinton, from the sounds of it, would be for you the worst-case scenario, because, of course...

MAHER:  Worst case. 

SCARBOROUGH:  ... everybody in Middle America thinks that she‘s too radical to be president, and yet you‘re saying she‘s actually selling out by moving to the center too quickly. 

MAHER:  And that‘s why I always say—you know, I like her personally, but she would be the worst of both worlds, because she wouldn‘t get those goose-hunters that John Kerry tried to get by, you know, getting in the goose-hunting outfit. 

You know, I don‘t know why the Democrats keep going after the faith-based NASCAR crowd.  You know, what about all those millions of Americans who don‘t vote, who say, “We‘re not that kind of people”?  We believe, for example, in science and rationality over faith and religion.  Uh-oh.  You still with me?

SCARBOROUGH:  Uh-oh, here we go.  Here we go.  So you‘re saying that, if you believe in Jesus Christ, you‘re diametrically opposed to religion—

I mean to science or rationality? 

MAHER:  No.  Well, that is sort of the policy of our government right now, yes, but I‘m just saying—no, you can believe in Jesus Christ or whatever you want, but for a couple centuries we kept that out of politics.  This is a rather new development that we have this twice-born president who brings it into every policy decision. 

I‘m just saying that John Kerry had one line in his speech in 2004 about, “What if we had a president who believed in science?”  But then he just dropped the ball on that, like everything else. 

Like I say, we need someone to be an alternative.  Did I vote for John Kerry?  Yes.  But did he really represent my point of view?  No.  He did more than the other guy, but he didn‘t represent my point of view.  And I don‘t think a lot of people...

SCARBOROUGH:  Who does represent your point of view? 

MAHER:  Well, me.  That‘s why I do this, Joe. 

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, exactly, other than you.

MAHER:  But I mean, even a lot of the things that Ralph Nader said—if you look at his platform—you know, some of it is too radical, but most of it—that is where the Democratic candidate should be. 

The Republicans are in ascendancy because, 40 years ago, they took it on the chin, because Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, and people like that lost, were jokes.  I remember when Ronald Reagan was a joke.  The idea that he would run for president caused people to laugh. 

Barry Goldwater lost by 60 million votes.  But they had ideas.  And they stuck by them.  And they took their lumps for a while until people came around to those ideas. 

The Democrats have to do the same thing.  They have to say things like, “Let‘s make the environment an issue of national security, because it is what‘s going to kill us.”  They have to say, “Let‘s end the drug war.”  They have to say a lot of these things that they should have been saying for years and let the people come to them. 

They will come to them, because those are good ideas. 

SCARBOROUGH:  But, you know, Bill, the thing that I don‘t understand is, when you have a candidate like Al Gore running in 2000, he listens to pollsters who tell him, “Don‘t talk about the environment.”  The environment was Al Gore‘s strongest suit, but they say, “Don‘t talk about it, because you‘ll offend people in West Virginia.” 

MAHER:  Right.

SCARBOROUGH:  Don‘t talk about guns, because you‘ll offend people in Tennessee.  Don‘t talk about any of these issues, because you‘ll offend people in red-state America.  And they do always listen, and then they end up losing those states anyway, which seems again to feed back into your original theory:  Don‘t hunt in red-state swamps. 

MAHER:  That‘s exactly right.  And that‘s why they deserve to lose.  That‘s why Al Gore deserved to lose and why it was especially disheartening when John Kerry four years later used the same playbook, the one was already demonstrated to be a loser.  Curious, isn‘t it? 

SCARBOROUGH:  So let‘s talk about something that‘s been in the news the past couple of days that actually should help Democrats out if they know how to use it correctly, talking about the president and the port deals. 

Now, I‘ve always ridiculed Democrats for being out of touch with Middle America.  But on this story, the president couldn‘t be any more out of touch with red-state America in trying to shove through this ports deal for a country who, after all, was connected in some way with 9/11. 

What‘s going on in the White House on this one? 

MAHER:  Joe, you‘re the White House guy.  What are you asking me for? 

I‘ve always thought that they were out to lunch and out of touch. 

But, yes, and put the politics aside.  Obviously, it‘s bad issue for them politically, but it‘s also just bad policy for the security of America.  I said on my show Friday night, what do you think their reaction would have been in 2004 if John Kerry had stood up at the debates and said, “I have a different plan, to put Arab countries with ties to 9/11 terrorism and extremism in charge of our ports.  That‘s my plan.”  What do you think Karl Rove would have made of that? 

You know, if George Bush is so sanguine about having Arab countries guard our ports, why doesn‘t he put them on his own personal security detail?  Let‘s have Dubai take care of the Secret Service that watches his back. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, I‘m sure that would change things.

Now, I want to show our viewers what you had to say about the NSA eavesdropping scandal.  I want our viewers to take a quick look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER:  If you‘re so worried about the privacy of your cell phone calls, stop making them when you‘re in line at Starbuck‘s. 

(LAUGHTER)

Oh, please.  Americans don‘t want privacy; they want attention.  They‘ll put a camera in their shower and show it on the Internet.  Take it on television, they‘ll marry strangers, and eat a cow‘s rectum, and ice dance with Todd Bridges. 

(LAUGHTER)

They‘re trying to get on a show called “Big Brother”!

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, my theory‘s always been—because I used to be very frustrated when I was on the Judiciary Committee when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno would try to get these roving wiretaps, so they could tap people‘s phones and get access to information. 

But I found that the attitude in Middle America was, if you ain‘t doing anything wrong, you don‘t have anything to worry about.  Isn‘t that the problem the Democrats have by talking about this NSA eavesdropping story, too, that most Americans just don‘t care? 

MAHER:  Yes, but that‘s not right.  And you know very well, Joe, that that‘s not what our Constitution says.  That‘s not the idea of the Fourth Amendment.

SCARBOROUGH:  No, no, I‘m not talking about our Constitution. 

MAHER:  Hey, if you‘re not doing anything...

SCARBOROUGH:  I‘m talking about the American people.  As I tell you...

MAHER:  Yes.

SCARBOROUGH:  ... I was frustrated in the Judiciary Committee because you couldn‘t get it through people‘s thick skulls how dangerous this could be. 

MAHER:  I agree.  Look, I don‘t condone George Bush doing this.  The reason why I‘ve semi-defended this is because of things like the port deal, because he handles homeland security so badly in every other way that I feel completely naked. 

Do I think that wiretapping is the tool we should be using, illegal wiretapping to watch Al Qaeda?  No.  But if that‘s the only tool in his box, you know, he‘s going to be president for three more years.  He‘s the guy in charge of our national security. 

Is he fighting the war on terror the way I would?  No.  He‘s fighting it stupid and dirty.  Would I have invaded Iraq?  No, stupid.  Would I use torture?  No, dirty and stupid. 

But, you know, he‘s using the tools in his tool box that he wants to use.  You know, would I use a putty knife and a saw, whatever he‘s using?  No, I would have picked a hammer and the screwdriver. 

But, you know, again, he‘s going to be president.  This is the tool he‘s working with.  You know, if it‘s the only one we‘ve got, I‘d rather have something than to be naked out there. 

It‘s plainly illegal, but if he thinks this is what‘s going to stop the attack—I live awfully close to the port of Long Beach and the port of Los Angeles where almost half of the cargo comes into this country.  And these ports were rather porous even before we were going to turn them over to Dubai. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, no doubt about it.  In fact, if you look at our entire infrastructure, I‘ve got to believe that the ports have to be the most vulnerable part.  They‘ve been neglected, not only since 2001, but well before that, a very dangerous situation. 

Bill, stay with us.  We‘ve got a lot more ahead when we return.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER:  No, to the vice president‘s credit, he did own up to it on FOX News.  He said the fault is his, he can‘t blame anybody else.  Boy, it‘s amazing.  The only time you get accountability out of this administration is when they are actually holding a smoking gun.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER:  I know we were a big laugh about how the Muslims are rioting over a cartoon.  Yes, but then I read that the top climatologist at NASA was shut up by the White House from talking about global warming.  And we have a big laugh about how medieval the Muslims are, but what could be more medieval than silencing a scientist? 

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  And we‘re back with Bill Maher.  He‘s the host of HBO‘s “Real Time.”  And, Bill, I don‘t know that...

MAHER:  That was a good point that guy just made, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  That was a—I thought it was hyperbole. 

MAHER:  I don‘t know who that was, but...

(CROSSTALK) 

SCARBOROUGH:  I mean, tens of thousands of people rioting in the streets because of a stupid cartoon.  I don‘t know that I would compare that to this NASA guy supposedly being silenced.  He‘s out talking and saying what he wants to be said. 

But let‘s talk about the Muslim cartoon.  When I look at pictures on the TV—remember, I‘m one of these guy that believed that we can bring democracy to the Middle East.  It makes me want to just throw my hands up in the air and just say, “I give up; you can‘t reason with these people.” 

I mean, what‘s your take on that? 

MAHER:  Well, you can never reason with any religious people.  And that‘s any religion.  That‘s our religions, too, Joe, because religion isn‘t reasonable. 

I‘m not surprised that religious people would riot over a cartoon or do anything else that‘s absolutely ridiculous, nonsensical, non-rational.  What bothered me was the administration‘s response. 

And their response was that a cartoon making fun of Islam is unacceptable, just as it would be a cartoon making fun of Christianity or Judaism.  No, that‘s not the right response.  The right response is:  Look, a cartoon can be offensive.  It can be wrong.  It can be degrading.  It could be slap-happy fun.  But it‘s not unacceptable. 

We‘re the West, remember, where they accept people?  We tolerate. 

That should have been the response. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, you know, we are the West, though, Bill.  And, I mean, compare—you just sort of made a moral relativity argument between Muslims rioting in the streets and people of all other religions.  You don‘t see evangelical Christians pouring into the street protesting, and burning things, and killing each other when Hollywood decides to do “The Da Vinci Code.”

I mean, there‘s a huge difference between the way Arabs are reacting and how Christians react. 

MAHER:  Well, first of all, there‘s plenty of violence that is caused by Christians in this world.  Look at Northern Ireland in the last 30 years, OK?  We‘re no better.  We are just a little older as a civilization. 

The Muslim civilization and the Muslim religion, Islamic religion is younger.  Yes, Sunni and Shiite are killing each other right now in Iraq because of some discrepancy over what they believe in a common religion.  OK, this went on in the 16th century, I believe, in Europe after Martin Luther‘s revolution.  I do believe that Christians and Protestants slaughtered each other for an entire century.  So we‘re not better.  Any time...

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, 500 years ago.  Come on, that‘s 500 years ago.  We‘re in the 21st century, for God‘s sake.  Don‘t cut these people slack because of what we were doing in 1550. 

MAHER:  Joe, Joe, you read my book, I think, my book about when you drive alone, you drive with...

SCARBOROUGH:  Of course.

MAHER:  OK, I made the point over and over again that we are not just different than their civilization, that we are better, that the things we believe in, equality of the sexes, protection of minority rights, rule of law, are not just different.  We‘re better. 

So, yes, I‘m definitely on that page.  I‘m just saying 500 years ago is when we were age-wise where the Muslim civilization is now.  We‘re an older civilization.  We‘ve had our enlightenment.  We‘ve had our reformation.  They need theirs. 

Yes, I agree.  We‘re older and better. 

SCARBOROUGH:  OK, so let‘s move on to flag-burning.  You brought it up before with Hillary Clinton.  What do you say to a vet who says, “I fought in Vietnam,” or, “I fought in Korea,” or World War II, “and I didn‘t put my life on the line to see some young punk burn the American flag on courthouse steps”? 

MAHER:  Well, the first thing I would say was there‘s nothing that gets my respect more than someone who actually fought for this country, you know?  When people say to me, “Boy, Bill, you‘re brave.”  I‘m like, “Please, brave is actually fighting for our country, being in the line of fire, taking bullets.  That‘s brave.”  What we do, that‘s not brave, not on that scale. 

However, flag-burning, or arresting people, outlawing flag-burning is just wrong.  I‘m sorry.  It‘s very basic issue, which is, what do you believe in, the concept itself, the idea, or the symbol for that idea? 

OK, the concept, the idea of free speech has to be more important than the thing that stands for free speech.  I‘m sorry.  If you don‘t see that, there‘s a very limited respect I can have for your acumen. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, speaking of constitutional issues, I‘m sure you‘ve heard about this South Dakota piece of legislation that it looks like the governor is going to sign.  It may come up to the Supreme Court. 

Do you think we may see Roe v. Wade overturned?  And, more importantly, if it‘s overturned, do you think that‘s going to have a big impact on politics in 2006 and beyond? 

MAHER:  Well, yes.  I think it‘s actually going to be a good thing for the Democrats because this is finally an issue that will energize their base. 

You know, one of the voting blocs that voted least, I think, the least in the last election was single, young women, who obviously would be affected by this more than anybody else. 

I don‘t think it‘s also coincidence that Alito has not even sat down

on the Supreme Court and South Dakota throwing him the fastball right down

the middle.  It reminds me of that time Mickey Mantle was trying to hit a -

I think he was trying to break Ted Williams‘ record or somebody was going

that he was at the end of his career.  And he literally signaled the pitcher, you know, “Throw it right here.  This is where I need it.”  And, you know, he popped it out of the park. 

That looks like what this is like to me, “Just throw it right down the middle and let Alito do his thing.” 

SCARBOROUGH:  So are you for abortion under all circumstances? 

MAHER:  I don‘t know what that means, all circumstances.  But, yes, I think it should definitely be the decision of the woman. 

Let me point this out, because we have been talking about religion.  I have respect for the other side on the abortion debate in the way I don‘t on other issues that become religious, because you don‘t have to be religious to be against abortion. 

I understand what they‘re talking about.  I don‘t agree, but I get it, what they‘re talking about, that that is a life.  I mean, if you see a sonogram, it does look like a little person in there.  It‘s a disgusting, awful thing that has to happen. 

But, as I said, you know, this is not like a lot of other issues, gay marriage, which are just absolutely irrational, and dumb, and come from the Bible or some other thing that has no relevance, this is an issue that‘s real.  And I get where they‘re coming from. 

SCARBOROUGH:  When you stay the Bible has no relevance, you obviously know that you‘re offending over 100 million people in America. 

MAHER:  Well... 

SCARBOROUGH:  And this goes back to what we—this goes back to what we talked about a time earlier when you were on this show.  You think that‘s being disrespectful to people‘s faith, to their value system?  The thing that is most important to them, for you to say that the Bible doesn‘t have relevance or isn‘t important? 

MAHER:  Well, I‘m sorry, Joe.  You know, I‘m sorry if I offended anybody.  But somebody has to say these kinds of things.  Somebody has to stop...

SCARBOROUGH:  Why? 

MAHER:  What?  Why? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes. 

MAHER:  Because religion does so much more harm than good.  And as long as we constantly give it a free pass, as long as nobody questions it because, when you say those words, “That‘s my faith,” everybody backs off. 

I‘m sorry, but faith means the suspension of rational thinking.  And the Bible is an anthology.  It‘s an anthology of many works written a long time ago.  Some of it is wise.  There are some good things in the Bible. 

But I like to look at the Ten Commandments as sort of a microcosm of the Bible.  Are there some good things in the Ten Commandments?  Yes, two of them are actual laws:  Don‘t kill—OK, that‘s a good one; I think that‘s good to teach people that—and don‘t steal, also good. 

The rest of the eight of them?  I don‘t know.  Don‘t work on Sunday?  Doesn‘t have a lot of relevance, really, does it, Joe?  Don‘t swear?  Is that really as important as don‘t kill and don‘t steal?  Don‘t make statues of other gods and pray to them?

You see what I‘m saying?  Some of it is good; some of it is, you know, an old book of Jewish folk tales. 

SCARBOROUGH:  What about—let‘s end, though, on an even more lofty level and talk about what went on in the Supreme Court today with Anna Nicole Smith.  Do you think, because she slept with an old man, she should get all of his money? 

MAHER:  I‘m so glad you asked me that, Joe, because it‘s such a good plug for my show this Friday, because it‘s going to be our ending piece.  I‘m going to make my commentary on that case. 

But, yes, just to give you a small preview, I do believe that she should get the money.  I think, in this country, we should reward hard work, and she worked for it.  I mean, it‘s between her and the son.  The son did nothing but wait around for the old man to die, whereas she spent 14 months with that guy.  And her case is basically, “Eww, I touched it.  Pay up!”

SCARBOROUGH:  There you go, Bill, a strong believer in the Puritan work ethic and that hard work pays off.  Bill Maher, thanks so much for being with us.  As always, we greatly appreciate it. 

MAHER:  Thank you, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  And coming up next, a new report says most of the illegal drugs that flood into America come through Mexico, and the surprising reason we‘re not demanding Mexico does more, and why we give them millions of dollars to keep drugs out. 

Plus, now I‘ve seen everything.  Anna Nicole Smith, as we said, goes to the Supreme Court.  We‘re going to be talking to a reporter who was inside.  We‘re going to have a special SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY look at Anna‘s rocky road to her big, big day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Seventy-five percent of all the drugs that flood into the United States comes through Mexico.  This while Mexican drug lords and military police launch raids into American border towns.  We‘re going to talk about that controversy coming up straight ahead, but first, here‘s the latest news you and your family need to know.

(NEWS BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  If cameras weren‘t there to record it, who would have believed it.  Anna Nicole Smith showing up today to the Supreme Court asking for half a billion dollars.  Did she get hers?  We‘re going to talk so somebody inside the courtroom who‘ll let us know.

And why are two southern states fighting over the peach?  We‘ll show you in tonight‘s “Flyover” of SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, those stories straight ahead, but first a coalition of Texas border sheriffs are going to testify on Capitol Hill this week about the Mexican military coming into the United States, into their border town areas.

Now this comes as a startling new report shows that more than 75 percent of drugs that come into America flood through Mexico first.  But our government continues to grant Mexico special status as a nation, helping with the war on drugs.  And that costs you and me money because we actually give them tax dollars because of this so-called status.  This again, while 75 percent of the drugs come into America comes through Mexico first. 

Now investigative reporter Sara Carter discovered the report and we asked her why our tax dollars were helping the Mexican government, even though that country seems to refuse to help us. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SARA CARTER, “INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN”:  Over the last 10 years, we spent $400 million, well nearly $400 million to assist Mexican military and law enforcement officials protect our border.  And yet, we still have an increase in narcotics coming across the border there hasn‘t been a decrease, but yet we have accredited Mexico with being a country in compliance. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Sara, you‘ve talked to a lot of these border agents.  How demoralized are they by the fact that the United States government is paying Mexican law enforcement officers $400 million to protect the borders and yet 70 to 75 percent of all the drugs that Americans get come through that Mexican border? 

CARTER:  They‘re shocked, Joe.  You know, I—at the end of December, I received this Mexican military incursion card.  You know a lot of law enforcement officials still believe today that Mexican military are working for, you know, the cartels along the border towns assisting them in shipping narcotics into the United States.  In December a very frustrated agent who had an arms standoff with Mexican military sent me this card and it‘s unbelievable.  It‘s a card issued by the Department of Homeland Security to our border agents in the Tucson sector and it tells them exactly what to do if Mexican military incur into the United States.  I mean, if you look at the card, it tells our border patrol agents to escape, evade, and counter ambush. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Wait, wait, wait a second, Sara, are you telling us U.S.  documents handed to our border agents are saying if Mexican law enforcement officers come into our country, cross our border, they‘re told to hide in the bushes? 

CARTER:  That‘s exactly what it says, in fact, it even goes as far as saying hiding near landmarks makes you easier to locate, so avoid it.  It‘s unbelievable. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Let‘s bring in Juan Hernandez, right now.  He‘s a former advisor to Mexican President Vicente Fox and he‘s author of “The New American Pioneers.”  Thank you so much for being with us, Juan.  Obviously Americans listening that 75 percent of narcotics that come through the Mexican/American border are going to be very upset tonight.  Can you tell them why you believe that Mexico is a good neighbor to America despite all these things we just heard?

JUAN HERNANDEZ, FMR. ADVISER TO VICENTE FOX:  Well, Mexico is a good neighbor.  And to hear your guest, my goodness, you would think that we had next door a terrorist country.  No, we have a country that loves the United States next door, there are 42 million of us Hispanics living in the United States and I have family members south of the boarder, in Mexico and other countries south of the border.  So we need to look at this in context. 

For decades, the mom and dads in Mexico, the general public in Mexico has been telling the United States do something about your drug appetite.  It is causing crime in our country, Mexicans have been saying, forever.  Mexico doesn‘t have a drug problem, a drug appetite at all.  It has been growing little by little, but in no way can it be compared to the appetite we have here. 

If in Mexico, there is hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars wholesale for the drugs, it is a billions in the United States.  Now, I‘m not blaming just the United States for the problem.  There are countries who produce it, there are countries where—through which it goes through, like Mexico.  Mexico doesn‘t produce most of the drugs.  And then there are countries like the United States that consume it.  We need to work together with our friends next door. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Juan, it does sound, though, like you‘re blaming the United States‘ appetite on the fact that 75 percent of the cocaine that comes into this country comes through Mexico. 

HERNANDEZ:  But, my friend, it‘s for example, the tunnels that we discovered recently.  And I‘m very glad we found that tunnel.  By the way, Mexico found the tunnel, not the United States.  But how much drugs can get through that tunnel, I know it‘s fairly large.  We‘re talking about trailers and trailers and ships and planes that come into the United States from many places to be able, once again, to satisfy the appetite of so many people up here that are taking drugs. 

CARTER:  But Mr.  Hernandez.

HERNANDEZ:  What are we going to do in this country when we spend a lot of money here—let me finish, my dear friend.  You spoke a long, long time bashing Mexico, your friends south of the border.

CARTER:  I‘m not bashing Mexico.

HERNANDEZ:  We need to invest a lot of money and time in this country to help our dear citizens to not use so much drugs. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Sara.

CARTER:  Mr.  Hernandez, I‘m just stating the facts.  I‘m just stating the facts. 

HERNANDEZ:  No you‘re not, Sara.

CARTER:  In Mexico, I mean, just as early—look, just as early as two weeks ago, less than two weeks ago, armed men went into La Manana (sic) newspaper, threw a grenade and used automatic weapons against a reporter.

HERNANDEZ:  Oh my goodness, Sara.

CARTER:  Who were reporting on the drug.

HERNANDEZ:  You‘re talking.

CARTER:  This is a fact.  Many, your chief of police killed last week..

HERNANDEZ:  I think you‘ve watched too many movie, my dear Sara. 

CARTER:  Wait, Mr. Hernandez, let me explain.  I have gone Mexico many times and I think it‘s a beautiful country and I enjoy Mexico just like many, many people in the north enjoy Mexico and go there often.  But the thing is, is that your own people, when I go down into Mexico and interview people in colonial Lorales (ph) and (INAUDIBLE) and in different areas along the border, they say that the Mexican government has abandoned them.  They were the ones that gave me the information on the Mexican military.  It wasn‘t the United States.  I didn‘t receive this information from Congress.  I received this information from your own people, from the people of Mexico who are fed up and frustrated with a government that continues to ignore them. 

HERNANDEZ:  Let‘s talk a little bit about the incursions of the military.  I‘m sorry, but the last incursion we have of the military of Mexico was to help with us the disaster of Katrina.  We‘re not having the military coming into Mexico helping with the drugs.  That is ridiculous.

SCARBOROUGH:  Sarah, we just heard, though that the reports of these incursions that you‘ve been talking about, the Homeland Security Department‘s been talking about really are fictitious.  Where are you getting this information? 

CARTER:  I received this information from the Department of Homeland Security, our Department of Homeland Security‘s documents.  These are—the incursions are actually documented by customs and border patrol agents, by law enforcement officials, and further, beyond that documentation, FBI officials in Texas were documenting these incursions in the 1990‘s as well and sending them to the FBI headquarters. 

HERNANDEZ:  Oh, let me interrupt, please.  Please let me interrupt. 

I‘m sorry Sara, but the comments that you.

CARTER:  Go ahead and interrupt, but it‘s the fact. 

HERNANDEZ:  .say that you say that have—but, Sara, the documents that you say that have that you got from Homeland Security, Homeland Security denies that those documents exist.  Mexico denies that the army is coming into Mexico.  The only one that thinks that is going on is you, Sara. 

CARTER:  No, that is incorrect.  Because “Los Angeles Times” two weeks after I reported this found the same documents.  In fact, the “L.A.  Times” found the documents showing even more incursions than what I had documented.  So, and you‘re telling me that our law enforcement officials are lying when they have armed standoffs with Mexican military?  Or men dressed in Mexican military uniforms?  That‘s hard for me to believe, Mr.  Hernandez that everybody else is lying and that Mexico is telling the truth. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, we‘re going to have to leave it there.  Sara Carter, Juan Hernandez, thank you all so much for being with us tonight. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH:  A great debate.  I‘m joined now by Tucker Carlson, he‘s host of “The Situation with Tucker Carlson.”  Tucker, what‘s the situation tonight? 

TUCKER CARLSON, “THE SITUATION”:  Yeah, that was a pairing.  That was compelling television, Joe.  Sorry, I was so wrapped in that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It was.  My dear Sarah, you are silly. 

CARLSON:  I‘m on Sara‘s side.  He‘s smooth, but I‘m on her side. 

SCARBOROUGH:  They‘re both great.  They need to take it on the road, Tucker.  Like me and me I think. 

CARLSON:  I tell you, anytime, Joe.  You name the venue, I‘m there. 

SCARBOROUGH:  One with the bowtie, one—yeah, there you go. 

CARLSON:  Tonight.

SCARBOROUGH:  What have you got tonight, buddy? 

CARLSON:  Tonight, HBO next week premiering.

SCARBOROUGH:  My dear, Tucker.

CARLSON:  .a new show on polygamy.  Much outrage on this show.  We‘re going talk to an actual polygamist tonight, a woman, who for 24 years, was in a polygamist marriage with seven other women.  She says polygamy is the ultimate feminist arrangement.  It is good for women, polygamy.  And in my view, we‘re going to get polygamy anyway, because once we redefine marriage, why not have polygamy?  So it‘s going to happen whether you like it or not.  This woman‘s going to give you insight into what it may look like when we do get it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Are you saying—are you predicting that polygamy is the wave of the future?  Something all the kids are going to be doing in the next couple years? 

CARLSON:  I‘m saying once you accept that marriage is no longer just between one man and one woman.  Why does it have to be limited to two men or two women?  There‘s no argument for that?  Once you open up marriage to new definitions, what is the argument against polygamy?  There isn‘t one.  I‘m not endorsing polygamy.  I‘m merely pointing out the obvious.  We‘re going to get it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You‘re not—OK, so, just for the record.  You can tell me I got to go, but just for the record, Tucker Carlson is not endorsing polygamy. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not—not on this show anyway. 

SCARBOROUGH:  If you want to get the rest of the story you can do it by tuning into Tucker Carlson and “The Situation” coming up next at 11:00. 

CARLSON:  Thank you Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  Thanks Tucker.  Coming up next here, Anna Nicole Smith goes to the Supreme Court.  Did her case dazzle the justices?  Well, we‘ll show you what happened. 

And, from “Our Kids Today” file, a sticky story from Detroit.  Wait until you hear what one youngster did to a piece of art worth more than a million dollars.  Stick around, “Flyover” coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Ms.  Smith goes to Washington and it may never be the same.  The former stripper and “Playboy” playmate took her case to Supreme Court today.  Smith‘s in the middle of a nasty legal battle with her late husband‘s son.  She said she was promised a portion of his $1.6 billion estate.  And MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O‘Donnell was at the Supreme Court today to observe the sights and the scenes and the spectacle. 

Norah, tell what you saw in there. 

NORAH O‘DONNELL, MSNBC CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT:  I must tell you, it was a fascinating day at the Supreme Court today.  There were hundreds lined up outside to try to get a seat inside or to just catch a glimpse of Anna Nicole Smith who arrived very slender, dressed in black with big sunglasses and a giant diamond cross under a her neck. 

Inside the courtroom, she sat very quietly.  She cried occasionally when the justices and judges, and I should say lawyers mentioned her late husband‘s name.  Justice Steven Brier, at one point, probably best summed it up best by saying, quote, “It‘s quite a story.”  And it is quite a story.  It‘s a Texas soap opera and that‘s why it was so fascinating today, because this is a legal drama that has been going on for 10 years that is about hundreds of millions of dollars. 

So at issue today in the Supreme Court was this issue, when can federal courts hear state issues?  But what‘s so interesting is while the justices had to decide that, they really seemed less interested in that particular matter.  They were more interested in whether there were damages done Anna Nicole Smith.  In fact, they seemed very sympathetic towards this former “Playboy” model and, in fact, looked like they may rule in her favor.  I loved learning, in this case, that it‘s been alleged that Pierce Marshall, who‘s the son of this oil tycoon, actually slipped in three pages into the will after his father had signed it.  We also learned, from the attorney for Anna Nicole Smith, who dropped this bombshell at the very end of—inside the courtroom today that, in fact, there are billing records that show that at the end of the late oil tycoon‘s life, he was asking his lawyers to draw up a—some papers that would have given Anna Nicole Smith some money, but those papers never saw the light of day.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much, Norah.  Sounds like a fun day for you. 

O‘DONNELL:  It was, it was. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Anna Nicole Smith looked like a million bucks today, or well, maybe that‘s 400 or so million bucks, that she‘s been looking for.  You know, quite a transformation for this reality queen/stripper from Mexia, Texas.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNA NICOLE SMITH, FORMER PLAYBOY PLAYMATE:  He loved me unconditional, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Ma‘am, how long.

SMITH:  My husband loves me. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  When he died, how long had it been since you‘d seen him? 

SMITH:  You got the gown, you got to buy shoes, you got to pay hair and makeup.  I mean, it‘s very expensive to be me.  I mean, it‘s terrible. 

I know nothing about nothing.  Oh, yeah.  Oh, yeah. 

Two thumbs up.  If I had more thumbs up it would be more thumbs up. 

Kill me please.  Just get myself out of my misery, please. 

I‘m going on a diet. 

There‘s three things people seem to think about me.  They think I‘m rich.  I‘m not rich.  I‘m going to be rich.  They think I‘m a gold-digger and they think that I‘m fat. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH:  A gold-digger?  Why would anybody think that?  You know, she cleans up real nice when $450 million on the line. 

When we come back, fruit fight! Why two states are battling over the peach.  And later, tonight‘s “Joe Schmoe.”  Stay with us, we‘ll tell you who it is.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s time for another “Flyover” of SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, the stories that may have fallen under the mainstream media‘s radar, but certainly not ours. 

Our first stop, Montgomery, Alabama, where things aren‘t exactly peachy tonight between two southern states.  Alabama politicians had the audacity to make the peach their official tree fruit.  But their good neighbors, next door in Georgia aren‘t too pleased.  Georgia is, after all, known as the “Peach State.”  But you know what?  Now that we think about it, both California and South Carolina actually rank ahead of Georgia and Alabama in peach production.  Friends, it‘s getting ugly out there, we‘ll keep you posted with the coming peach wars. 

The next stop, Detroit, Michigan where a visit to the Detroit Institute of Art has turned into a nasty, sticky situation for one child after he stuck his gum on a painting worth $1.5 million.  The picture is expected to make a full recovery after curators figure out the exact chemical breakdown of Wrigley‘s Extra Polar Ice chewing gum.  School officials say the 12-year-old confessed immediately and has been suspended by the school.  But they say the kid learned his lesson.  Yeah, a $1.5 million lesson.  We‘ll be right back with “Joe Schmoe.”

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  And we end our show tonight with tonight‘s “Joe Schmoe” and we choose city councilors in Boston, Massachusetts.  It seems that public record show that at least five of 13 councilors have failed to pay income taxes, city taxes, even parking fines.  One councilman hasn‘t paid his fines since 1977.  Nice.  Real nice.

That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  “The Situation with Tucker Carlson,” a man who always pays his taxes on time, starts right now.  Hey Tucker, what‘s “The Situation” tonight?

Real nice.  Real nice.

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

END   

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.

transcript

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

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,