Guests: Wendy Murphy, Nancy Soderberg, Mark Continetti, Joe Power, Paul Sharratt, Max Kellerman
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Thanks.
Thanks to you at home for tuning in. We appreciate it always.
Tonight the president of China is heckled on the South Lawn of the White House. Does President Bush deserve to be heckled for his diplomatic efforts regarding both China and Iran? And if Bush‘s foreign policy has failed, what exactly would be the Democratic alternative? We‘ll tell you in just a minute.
Also, the world‘s largest Baptist college threatens its female students with punishment if they pose nude for “Playboy”. Does Baylor have the right to tell its co-eds not to get naked in their free time? A civil liberties debate breaks out.
Plus, good news for all John Lennon fans. The deceased Beatle could soon be playing an encore engagement just for you. Lennon from beyond the grave, details in a minute.
But we start with a tense situation in Durham, North Carolina, tonight as Duke lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty await trial for the rape and kidnapping of a 27-year-old still unnamed stripper. Their teammates are beginning to suffer some pretty serious consequences.
Syracuse University announced today it would not accept any transfers from the Duke lacrosse team into its school. Syracuse athletic director Daryl Gross said such a move would be, quote, “inappropriate,” though he didn‘t bother to explain why it would be inappropriate.
Should other Duke players be punished for their association with two teammates who could very well be innocent? We welcome former prosecutor Wendy Murphy to help answer that question. She joins us tonight from Boston.
Wendy Murphy, welcome.
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good to see you, Tucker. Maybe we can kiss and make up.
CARLSON: Maybe we can. But first let me attack you by pointing out the obvious, that this is the fruit of things you and others have been saying on television. This—this rush to judgment we‘ve been watching unfold on cable.
MURPHY: My fault.
CARLSON: “These boys did it. They‘re men; they‘re bad. They must be rapists.”
MURPHY: It‘s all my fault.
CARLSON: I don‘t think it‘s all your fault. I do think it‘s partly your fault. It‘s the athletic director at Syracuse‘s fault. But don‘t you regret now, watching these—clearly innocent guys punished for something they didn‘t do, because people like you whipped America into a frenzy?
MURPHY: You‘ll forgive me if I reject your premise.
CARLSON: Go ahead.
MURPHY: And look, of course they‘re not clearly innocent. OK?
Forget that.
CARLSON: Well, the rest of the team, I‘m talking about. They haven‘t been charged with anything.
MURPHY: Even the rest of the team at this point. We don‘t know what their role was. So...
CARLSON: I don‘t know what your role was either. I mean, that‘s—what do you mean we don‘t know what their role was?
MURPHY: Assume—assume for a moment that it‘s unclear and that Syracuse, because it is very, very clear to all of us who understand the way colleges work, you don‘t have a right to go to college. It is a privilege.
CARLSON: Of course.
MURPHY: And if Syracuse doesn‘t want them because the sky is blue or birds are flying, that‘s good enough for Syracuse. And the bad taste that is in Syracuse‘s mouth about the whole team is kind of how the whole country feels, Tucker. Not just me.
CARLSON: I think former prosecutors like you may feel that way, but I think a lot of people are beginning to wonder if maybe the prosecutor in this case hasn‘t pretty dramatically overstepped.
There is undeniable evidence. You may call it defense spin, but it‘s real, that at least this boy Seligmann may not have been there when the alleged attack took place. It seems pretty clear that he was only overlapping with the stripper at the house for 20 minutes.
So look, maybe he did it, maybe he didn‘t. But it‘s not an open and shut case. And to claim it is, is spin.
MURPHY: Look it, 20 minutes is more than ample time to do the sort of things that she said he did to her. And it also makes sense that he wanted to book it out of there, because he was concerned about getting caught, which by the way, explains why he might have saved all of his receipts. Strange thing to do when you‘re in college, drunk, running around, trying to get money and go back to your dorm. Don‘t you think?
CARLSON: Does it explain why the stripper was smiling after? Is that
is that normally the disposition of a woman who has been raped?
MURPHY: No, no. You‘re all too happy to judge her post-incident behavior. But you don‘t seem to want to judge the boys‘ post-incident behavior.
CARLSON: I‘m happy to judge everyone‘s behavior. I‘m merely asking a question to which you‘re not the answer.
MURPHY: They all ran away, Tucker.
CARLSON: OK.
MURPHY: They all ran away. By the time the police got there just before 1 in the morning, they were all gone.
CARLSON: Run away?
MURPHY: What were they running from, Tucker?
CARLSON: Wait, this guy got in a cab, went to the cash machine, called his girlfriend, went to McDonald‘s, went to his dorm. He‘s not running away. I mean, come on.
MURPHY: That‘s your—that‘s your spin, Tucker.
CARLSON: OK, but back up.
MURPHY: The whole team ran away. You answer my question. What were they running from?
CARLSON: Maybe the party ended. I don‘t know.
MURPHY: No. The police were called, actually, and they knew it.
That‘s what they were running from, Tucker.
CARLSON: OK. OK, but—you may absolutely—you may absolutely be right. That is one way to interpret their behavior. And we‘ll find out.
But get back to a question that remains unanswered. It lingers in the air like a cloud. Why was this woman smiling? We have photographic evidence that she was after the incident took place. Maybe that‘s common behavior for someone who‘s been brutally assaulted. Maybe it‘s not. What do you think?
MURPHY: Here‘s a real honest answer.
CARLSON: Yes.
MURPHY: I don‘t care.
CARLSON: You don‘t care?
MURPHY: I don‘t care why she looked a certain way in a photograph, because I know this. She has vaginal trauma. She had anal trauma.
CARLSON: Right.
MURPHY: She had strangulation injuries.
CARLSON: Right.
MURPHY: And you want to look at her face. I say let‘s look at her genitalia, Tucker.
CARLSON: There‘s also photographic evidence that she was injured when she showed up to the party. She had, and it‘s clear from the photographs, apparently, she had abrasions on her legs. Who‘s to say that those abrasions stopped on her legs?
I‘m merely asking the obvious question.
MURPHY: No one said they raped her legs, Tucker.
CARLSON: Right. But that does suggest that perhaps she had experienced trauma before she showed up at the party. But still, smiling is inconsistent with having been attacked merely moments before. Strangled, beaten, and raped in various ways.
MURPHY: And going silent, taking the fifth and hiring high profile criminal defense attorneys is inconsistent with innocence.
CARLSON: I‘m not sure about that. With people like Wendy Murphy on the loose, you know, attacking you on cable TV shows, I think it‘s probably wise to hire a lawyer. But let‘s get back to your culpability here.
MURPHY: And not all of the guys did that. I want to be clear about something.
CARLSON: Right.
MURPHY: A few of the guys actually cooperated fully, gave statements to the police, and I think are probably testifying against their teammates, and good for them.
CARLSON: Why shouldn‘t they get into Syracuse? If I were to say, “Look...”
MURPHY: They should. They should. Yes.
CARLSON: So you‘re not defending...
MURPHY: Let‘s find out who they are. Let‘s have a party for them.
CARLSON: So in other words, in order to get into Syracuse, you have to believe that your teammates committed rape? Is that the threshold?
MURPHY: No, you have to be an honest citizen, cooperate with an important criminal investigation.
CARLSON: Right.
MURPHY: Then you get into Syracuse, and that‘s the way it should be.
CARLSON: So if you‘re honest, you concede Wendy Murphy‘s point of view. And if you‘re a liar, you disagree. Is that what you‘re saying?
MURPHY: If you‘re criminal thug, obstruction of justice is your thing, I‘m not letting you in if you‘re the Dean.
CARLSON: Boy. You wouldn‘t have let me into your college, I have the feeling. Wendy Murphy, thank you very much.
MURPHY: You bet.
CARLSON: Earlier today, President Bush met with Chinese President Hu Jintao at the White House. Both were greeted by a heckler on the South Lawn. Bush later apologized for the outburst. He also asked Hu for more cooperation in addressing the nuclear ambitions of both Iran and North Korea.
On Tuesday, Bush received some cooperation from the other side of the aisle. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said America could deter Iran‘s nuclear abilities through military force.
However, Senate minority leader Harry Reid was quoted as saying there are no good military options for Iran and that our lack of diplomatic involvement shows the Bush failure in foreign policy.
Well, so if the Republican foreign policy if failing—and it might be—how would the Democratic version be any better? For the answer, we welcome the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and author of the book, “The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might.” She‘s Ambassador Nancy Soderberg. She joins us tonight from Jacksonville, Florida.
Thanks for coming on.
NANCY SODERBERG, AUTHOR, “THE SUPERPOWER MYTH”: My pleasure.
CARLSON: I‘m a little confused, maybe more than a little, by Senator Reid‘s remarks. Yesterday he said, and is quoted by the A.P. as saying, that the United States ought to take the lead in forcing Iran to dismantle its nuclear program.
This strikes me as contrary to every Democratic complaint I‘ve ever heard about Bush, which is that he‘s a go it alone kind of guy, and instead, Democrats are saying he ought to pull back and let the international community take care of things. Which is it? Is Bush too multilateral? Too unilateral? What is the critique?
SODERBERG: Well, the critique of the Bush administration is that they‘ve been pursuing foreign policy with ideological blinders. I call it the superpower myth, where they believe that because we‘re the world superpower, we can do whatever we want, primarily through military means and without allies.
That myth got us into Iraq. It‘s cost us allies, friends. Anti-Americanism has spiked. It‘s prevented us from getting a deal earlier with Iran. Nothing is going on with North Korea, even though they‘re turning out nuclear weapons.
Democrats recognize that you‘ve got to look at the facts and pursue a policy that actually was fairly successful in the—you know, under the Clinton administration of America leads but you‘ve got to have—be a persuader not just an enforcer.
CARLSON: OK. Is it a wise choice, though, do you think, for Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader to say military force is off the table? I mean, don‘t you sort of need to—at least the implied threat of military force to get the country you‘re trying to influence to pay attention?
SODERBERG: I think you do. And the problem with not having a Democrat in the White House is you‘ve got lots of Democrats out there who have different opinions, different views. Until we have another Democratic nominee or president, you‘re not going to have Democrats speaking with one voice on foreign policy.
My own sense is you‘re not going to take military table—military options off the table with Iran, but right now there isn‘t an eminent threat from Iran. And we need to use the bully pulpit of the United States, the superpower status, on the moral and political weight, as well, to try and get the international community to convince Iran that the cost of pursuing a weapons program isn‘t worth it.
We‘ve got a little bit of time. And we‘ve wasted five years in trying to do that. Now, I think the message has gotten through to the White House that we need to do that.
CARLSON: So there‘s not an imminent threat? I mean, that would, I guess be news to Israel, which is saying at least publicly that there is an imminent threat. Israel keeps pretty close track.
SODERBERG: I don‘t think Israel—actually, I don‘t think Israel does say that.
CARLSON: Really?
SODERBERG: It depends on what you mean by eminent. There is general...
CARLSON: I don‘t know what you mean by imminent, but a couple of years.
SODERBERG: Well, a couple of years is not imminent. A lot could happen. I think Iran has been greatly exaggerating its program. The intelligence assessment is that they‘re years away from it.
It doesn‘t mean it‘s not a crisis and a problem, but I don‘t think anyone has got the—they‘ve gotten cocked and ready to go in Iran.
What you need in the White House today is an administration that doesn‘t run its policy on ideology, I think, particularly with Iraq. We need to recognize that we‘ve made mistakes in Iraq, that we‘re going to be there for the future. And we need to begin to bring the international community in through partnerships and make it clear that we recognize mistakes have been made.
We ought to be rotating out the secretary of defense, not the press secretary and shooting the messenger.
CARLSON: OK, OK. That‘s—that‘s an excellent slogan, and some of the substance of what you said may absolutely be right. I‘m not even contesting it. I‘m merely suggesting that, in order to replace the Republican president and Congress with a Democratic president and Congress, you kind of need a plan—right—to replace their plan.
And my question is, is the Democratic view of American policy in the Middle East closer to Senator Joe Lieberman‘s view or Senator—or closer to party chairman Howard Dean‘s view?
SODERBERG: Well, I think it‘s somewhere down the middle. Basically, again, there‘s not one Democratic view. We‘re not a monolithic group that says, “Here‘s what we‘re going to do.”
CARLSON: But they‘re opposite views.
SODERBERG: There—we love to argue, Democrats. But I think the general sense is if you look at basically how the last Democratic president pursued policy is probably the best way of looking at it, where you use force to back up diplomacy, you promote American trade, you recognize that China, as Bush apparently now does, is a—can be a partner, not necessarily an enemy that‘s going to replace the Soviet Union.
I think the president‘s visit from China today shows that we‘re learning we have to engage the world and that we can‘t go it on our own.
CARLSON: Wait a minute. Wait, I think certainly hard-liners in the Republican Party would say Bush has been sucking up to China from the very beginning. I guess it depends on your perspective.
Let me ask you a very specific question about a very specific policy in Iraq. It was—it was the position of your last nominee, John Kerry, that the United States ought to withdraw all troops from Iraq, ultimately. And dismantle and abandon all military bases in Iraq, leaving no American presence in Iraq at all.
It seems to me that would make the war completely a pointless exercise. If we can‘t even have a military base there in the future, what was the point of having all those men die?
SODERBERG: I don‘t think that‘s exactly the characterization I would give John Kerry‘s position.
CARLSON: That‘s what he said.
SODERBERG: But it‘s very clear what we need to do in Iraq is we are there right now.
CARLSON: Right.
SODERBERG: And whether it‘s a Democrat or a Republican president, we are going to be there. I personally think we can‘t withdraw until there‘s two things that happen: some semblance of a stable government. It doesn‘t have to be a Jeffersonian democracy but some semblance of a government, which we don‘t have yet.
And some semblance of security forces, police and army who can take over the job of the military. That‘s a couple of years away.
It‘s OK to talk about timetables so we send the message to the Iraqis that we‘re not there forever. We don‘t want to take over their oil. But we aren‘t going to meet any specific timetables. It‘s going to depend on events on the ground. And that‘s going to take some time.
As Tom Friedman likes to say, you know, we broke it; we own it.
CARLSON: Yes. Well, one of the reasons we broke it is because Tom Friedman suggested that we do that. Just my view.
Nancy Soderberg, Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, thanks a lot for joining us.
SODERBERG: My pleasure.
CARLSON: Still to come, so we now find out that the Georgia congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, didn‘t slap a police officer after all. She punched him with a closed fist. Should she be charged with battery and do time? Good question.
Plus, call them protesters, call them hecklers, call them loose cannons. Don‘t call them boring. In a minute, we‘ll unveil our top five crowd gone wild moments. Stay tuned for that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Still to come, the rise and fall of the Republican machine.
Has the GOP been hijacked by greed and corruption? Of course.
Plus, we‘ll talk with two men who plan to televise a pay-per-view seance with one of rock music‘s most beloved figures. Imagine that. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Remember 1994? That was the year the Republican Party took control of Congress, promising to reduce the size of government and make politicians accountable to the people who elected them. They failed, of course, on both counts. But exactly how they fail makes for an interesting story.
Joining us now, Matthew Continetti, the author of “The K Street Gang:
The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine”. He joins us from Washington.
Matt Continetti, thanks for coming on.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI, AUTHOR, “THE K STREET GANG”: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: What is—your point, which I read last night, your book, rather, does I think make the case conclusively that the Republican Party has sold out its ideals. But what‘s the point at which this happened? What‘s the turning point after 1994, do you think?
CONTINETTI: I think it was a gradual process, actually. You know, after the ‘94 elections, the new Republican majority really made an attempt to tie themselves closely to the lobbyists who work on K Street in downtown Washington.
And I think over time, that eroded kind of any wall that had separated the public policy decisions that should probably be in the hands of elected officials and the lobbyists, who are only accountable to their clients.
CARLSON: It‘s an interesting choice, though, on the part of Republicans. On the one hand, lobbyists know a great deal about legislation, so it‘s understandable that members listen to them. On the other hand, lobbyists are not for small government by definition.
So why would Republicans pay attention, people like Tom DeLay, who are committed to small government, supposedly, pay attention to lobbyists?
CONTINETTI: Well, I think the answer is simple: campaign donations. And lobbyists are excellent at gathering huge amounts of donors and throwing fundraisers.
When you look at the career of Jack Abramoff, who I write about in book, one of his specialties was arranging these fantastic fundraisers at the MCI Center or FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland, or at his restaurant, Signatures.
CARLSON: I guess people like Jack Abramoff, though, are by definition malleable. I mean, they‘re lobbyists. They don‘t purport, necessarily, to believe in anything.
The troubling part about your book to me, anyway, was your description of ideologues corrupted by money and by power and influence. Grover Norquist, someone you think of as a true believer, a real conservative, you point out actually just kind of sold out early and often.
CONTINETTI: Well, remember that Mr. Norquist is part of a clique that included Mr. Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed. And there‘s a technique—the K Street conservatives, is what I call it in the book. Their technique is to cloak private interests, whether it‘s their own or the interests of their clients in conservative and ideological language. So they kind of melt the borders between ideologues and just flacks.
CARLSON: What about all the watch dog groups? I mean, conservatives were really good in the ‘70s and ‘80s about setting up these groups like the Heritage Foundation, Cato on the libertarian side of things, to pay attention to what politicians do and to call B.S. on them when they, you know, for instance, sold out to lobbyists.
Why—why didn‘t these groups raise more of a fuss when the Republicans did it?
CONTINETTI: It‘s hard to say. I mean, in fact, one of Abramoff‘s techniques, and I write about this in a chapter in “The K Street Gang”, is harnessing the power of conservative opinion makers, taking them on these lavish trips to various clients, whether they were Indian tribal casinos or golf resorts in the Northern Mariana Islands. And so he would kind of show them these places and talk about his clients‘ cause in conservative language. And oftentimes, the opinion makers fell for it.
There are also oftentimes where Abramoff also paid columnists to write columns favorable to his clients. And these writers took the money.
CARLSON: That‘s just repulsive. What‘s the response been to this book so far? You‘re not a staffer at “The Nation”. You‘re not a lefty. You‘re a conservative. You work at “The Weekly Standard”, where I used to work. How have conservatives in Washington greeted your analysis?
CONTINETTI: You know, it was surprising to me, though pleasantly so, is that there are a lot of conservatives in the country who are really concerned about what‘s happened to the Republican Party since it took power in 1994 and 1995.
They kind of see an erosion of the ideals of the party. They, of course, see that government continues to expand and expand and get into our lives in manifold ways. And so I think that they‘re grateful that someone from the right, like myself, would write about these issues and kind of report the facts. And that‘s all I try to do in the book and in my writing for “The Weekly Standard.”
CARLSON: Have you been attacked as a traitor or a turncoat?
CONTINETTI: No, not—not yet, though I‘m fully expecting it.
CARLSON: Well, it‘s certain to happen. I wrote about Grover Norquist once, and I‘m still trying to live it down among conservatives, though of course, I am one. So good luck to you. Matt Continetti, thanks. Great book.
CONTINETTI: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Coming up, does a college have the right to tell it co-eds to keep their clothes on? What‘s happening at Baylor University in Texas? We will bring you the naked truth about it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: As we mentioned earlier, a diplomatic incident on the White House South Lawn marred a visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao today. A Chinese woman standing on the press camera platform heckled Hu as he began speaking, an embarrassing scene for both presidents but certainly not unheard of.
Politicians are often the choice targets of verbal slings and arrows. But sometimes unruly spectators will result to more than just verbal disruptions to get their points across, as you‘re about to see in tonight‘s “Top Five”.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CARLSON (voice-over): They‘re the bane of every politician and every celebrity, those outspoken, usually rude, sometimes amusing hecklers who will resort to any means to steal the spotlight and often do.
Take, for example, Robin Ficker, D.C. lawyer by day, die-hard heckler by night. His loud taunts to visiting NBA teams have justifiably earned him the title of the most obnoxious fan in America.
ROBIN FICKER, D.C. LAWYER: I did have Gatorade thrown at me a number of times.
CARLSON: Showbiz reared its ugly head when a streaker exposed his little Oscar during the 1974 Academy Awards ceremony.
Everyone loves the old pie in the face gag. Everyone except maybe 1970‘s conservative activist Anita Bryant and Microsoft chief Bill Gates. At least it wasn‘t an apple pie.
The late James Miller, a.k.a. Fanman, sailed into notoriety 13 years ago when he paraglided into the ring during the 7th round if Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe‘s bout in Las Vegas. Ringside fans thought the stunt was below the belt and pummeled Miller to a pulp.
As a Hollywood heavyweight, few wanted to mess with this guy.
GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ®, CALIFORNIA: I‘ll be back.
CARLSON: But the yolk was on Arnold Schwarzenegger when he decided to flex some political muscle. This was either the act of a disgruntled voter or a well-armed movie critic.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CARLSON: Arnold didn‘t even flinch, you notice.
Last month, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles jumped into the public debate over illegal immigration.
The war on terror isn‘t going to be won through immigration restrictions,” Mahony thundered from the pulpit. He went on to scoff at the idea that al Qaeda terrorists would bother to walk through the hot desert from Mexico just to attack the United States.
The cardinal‘s opinions about national security were taken seriously by the press, by and large. Still, you had to wonder, is Roger Mahony really a man capable of recognizing a threat when he sees one? Apparently not.
According to today‘s “Los Angeles Times”, Mahony let at least 12 priests continue to work around children, in some cases for many years, after they‘d been accused of molesting kids.
Mahony was warned twice about the behavior of one of his priests. The cardinal did nothing about it. That priest ultimately pleaded guilty to four counts of lewd conduct with a child under 14.
And yet despite all this, Mahony still has the gall to lecture the rest of us about our moral inferiority because we don‘t support illegal immigration. At this point, Roger Mahony is not in a position to tell anybody anything. He‘s lucky he‘s not in jail.
Mahony ought to spend the rest of his life on his knees begging for forgiveness from God and from those boys whose lives his priests destroyed.
And incidentally, we have asked repeatedly for the cardinal to come on this show to debate illegal immigration or anything else he‘d like to talk about, and that offer still hands.
Still to come, Debra LaFave and Pamela Rogers are now infamous for their sexual romps with teenage students. Are these two teachers about to rear their beautiful heads once again?
Plus, imagine a paranormal experience featuring Beatles legend John Lennon. Minus Yoko Ono, of course. Would you like to participate? We‘ll tell you how when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Still to come, why is a Texas university threatening students who want to pose for “Playboy”?
Plus, if you punched a cop you‘d better believe you‘d be in jail. Why doesn‘t that rule apply to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia? We‘ll get to that in just a minute. But first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.
(NEWSBREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
This April 24 psychics from around the world will gather to contact the spirit of John Lennon. They hope, among other things, that the late Beatle will channel new lyrics and new music to them. For $9.95, you too, can watch the show that will culminate in a seance on pay-per-view television.
Joining me now, Joe Power, a medium for the show, “The Spirit of John Lennon”. He‘s on the right of your screen. And Paul Sharratt, he‘s the executive producer of this same project. He‘s sitting on the left.
Paul and John, thanks for coming on.
PAUL SHARRATT, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, “THE SPIRIT OF JOHN LENNON”: Thank you for having us, Tucker.
CARLSON: So Joe, you‘re going to contact the spirit of John Lennon, is that right? How are you going to do it?
JOE POWER, MEDIUM: Yes. I‘m going to be contacting John Lennon, the spirit of John Lennon. John has already been to me. I‘ve already contacted John Lennon.
CARLSON: So how does one—just for our viewers at home who might want to talk to him, as well, how does one go about contacting John Lennon, since he is dead?
POWER: Right. I‘ve previously contacted John Lennon in England at one time through another rock star, famous rock star in England, going back last year. So when I had this opportunity, John—I asked John whether he wanted to come through, and he said he did. So we go on with the show.
CARLSON: Well, without asking to give away any trade secrets, can you be a little more specific? Do you sit in a dark room and light a candle? Do you call out his name? I mean, how does one contact a dead person?
POWER: Well, the—when you say a dead person, to me, their energy is alive. They‘re living. I asked John Lennon did he want to come close to me. I felt his energy come close to me. He said he did. I said on live TV that I was going to predict that we would catch John Lennon on TV, and we have done that.
CARLSON: Now, Paul Sharratt, you‘re the executive producer of this upcoming program. Do you expect to get song lyrics from Mr. Lennon on live TV?
SHARRATT: Well, what we‘ve done is we‘ve divided our show into three parts. We‘ve been in Liverpool in the old haunts of the Beatles, the Jack-o-lantern (ph) and The Cavern with Joe. We also have been to India. We‘ve had a crew in India for two week that have found the psychic readers and the psychic people who were involved with the Beatles.
And we do have in Hindi some words that have been translated by the Indian legal government, and some music played on a sitar by a psychic reader which is at this moment being put together by orchestrators in music to see what we have.
CARLSON: Do you expect some copyright problems? I mean, I‘m not sure copyright law as it is in the United States touches on lyrics from beyond the grave. Does it?
SHARRATT: I think we might have a problem to know who to pay the copyrights to. But I guess we‘ll sort that out, if it happens, if it‘s accepted.
But I think we have to be serious and say there are thousands and millions of people in the world who do believe that one can get in touch with spirits on the other side. And though I myself am a skeptic, Joe—
I‘ve seen Joe at work. He is a psychic medium, and I believe he has some very interesting things to show us and to tell us in this program.
CARLSON: Now Joe Power, I don‘t think Yoko is foursquare behind this project. I know there are a lot of John Lennon fans who are calling it disgusting and obscene.
What do you think of that? I mean, it does seem a little intrusive. And to the people who knew John Lennon personally and loved him, can‘t you why they‘d be sort of offended by your claims that you‘re talking to him and profiting from it?
POWER: I think—I think when Yoko Ono sees the show, which I‘m sure she will, and many millions of viewers right around the world will be astounded in what‘s taking place.
We‘re talking about John Lennon here that has actually come through. His voice will appear on the 24th of this month. And I‘d like to see what the viewers have to say then. We‘re talking about the great John Lennon that‘s actually, you know, come through.
CARLSON: Now finally, Paul Sharratt, as the producer of this, as the ring master of this program, are you a little concerned that John Lennon will miss his final show, so to speak? I mean, what happens if he doesn‘t show up? You‘re kind of in trouble. You‘ve got all these pay-per-viewers, right?
SHARRATT: This is one of the problems, of course, of producing a show. We did the spirit of Diana. And you‘ve got to remember that the two shows, both “The Spirit of Diana” and “The Spirit of John Lennon”, concerned two people who were totally involved in the spirit world, who believed in an after-life and believed you could talk to people in an after-life.
Diana‘s show turned out to be a wonderful tribute to Princess Diana, showing a side of her that nobody had seen before. This show, from what I‘ve seen up to now and what is happening as we speak with experts looking at tapes, I believe will be a wonderful tribute to John Lennon, should offend nobody at all, and I really don‘t see that as a justifiable criticism.
CARLSON: All right. We‘re going to be offering Yoko Ono equal time to rebut it. But in the meantime, good luck. Paul Sharratt, Joe Power, thanks.
SHARRATT: Thank you very much.
CARLSON: We turn now to a man who, without question, will be tuned in to the pay-per-view Lennon seance, bucket of popcorn at his knee. He is “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: Hocus-pocus is hocus-pocus, Tucker. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, these guys. It‘s all the same to me.
CARLSON: Yes, it‘s all the same. Scientology really is the same as Christianity. That‘s a very good—that‘s a very good point. No. We‘ll debate that on another show.
But first, what do you think, Max, would happen if you slugged a cop? You‘d get in trouble. You‘d go to jail. Unless, of course, you‘re a member the United States Congress.
A report filed by Capitol Hill police says Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia struck an officer, quote, “in his chest with a closed fist” during an altercation last month. McKinney tried to bypass a metal detector in the Longworth House Office Building, and the cop attempted to stop her. That‘s when she threw a punch.
A grand jury has not yet decided whether to bring charges against McKinney, who claimed racism was behind the incident.
Shouldn‘t our lawmakers be held to their own laws, Max? McKinney should be charged. Max believes if you‘re an elected official, you should be able to beat up whomever you like and not be punished for it.
Look, Max, you smack a cop, you go to jail. I‘m sorry. And it shouldn‘t be the law, but it is.
KELLERMAN: Listen. This is an outrageous situation. And even playing the race card. I mean, if anything, if you are a black woman and a white police officer approaches you, the sense of entitlement to even do something like that could be the race card in reverse.
But here‘s the defense, Tucker. If her customary behavior was to go through the metal detectors every day without the—without the identification, and every day they let her through. And then one day they stop her, and she feels she‘s being—and her impression of what‘s going on is that there‘s inappropriate behavior on the part of the police officer, then in that context, she may feel that the officer, even if she‘s mistaken, from her point of view, that the officer is not enforcing the law. He‘s imposing himself, and she‘s defending herself.
CARLSON: You know what? I—believe it or not—I don‘t like Cynthia McKinney at all, but I‘m sympathetic to that. I‘ve been hassled by security guards many times, and I‘ve often wanted to punch one. But I don‘t, because I don‘t want to go to jail.
My only point is not that she didn‘t have to a right to be mad. She probably did. But if you hit a cop, you go to jail. That‘s the law that applies to me. It ought to apply to her.
KELLERMAN: I think, in fact, if anything, more than a racial issue; it‘s really a gender issue. Because if she were a man, I doubt she would have closed her fist, as being alleged, and hit a police officer. But a woman feels a little bit differently about it.
CARLSON: That‘s right.
KELLERMAN: The gender issue comes into effect maybe there and feels a little bit more entitled or at least safer under the law of doing something like that.
CARLSON: Because a man would have, you know, gotten a baton to the face, no matter who it was.
KELLERMAN: Yes. Oh, yes.
CARLSON: Well, if your college aspirations include posing naked for “Playboy” magazine, you shouldn‘t even bother applying to Baylor University in Texas. School officials there have warned their students they could face discipline if they pose for “Playboy” magazine.
The magazine sent photographers this week to interview Baylor women for a college issue run in October. A school spokesman said punishment could include expulsion.
“Playboy” says it doesn‘t want to get anyone kicked out of school.
Baylor is the world‘s largest Baptist university, incidentally.
Max, believe it or not, I‘m on Baylor‘s side here. You, as usual, find yourself on the side of pornography.
Look, you should have the right to pose for “Playboy” if you want. The point here is that “Playboy” is using Baylor to sell—and other colleges to sell magazines.
If you want to go do, say, a gay porn video, Max, I‘m not going to stop you. I can‘t. I wouldn‘t even try.
But if you want to do a gay porn video that says, you know, “The Men of ‘The Situation‘ Do Gay Porn”, I would say, “Hold on, slow down. You can‘t use the show in order to promote your gay porn video.”
KELLERMAN: How much federal money do you get, by the way? Are there people working on this show getting money from the government to work on this show?
CARLSON: Zero. We are totally free of federal entanglements.
KELLERMAN: That‘s not the case with Baylor. Even private universities, there‘s plenty of federal money there.
What bothers me about this, I mean, I suppose they have the right to do it. I suppose. What bothers me about it is this behavior is taking place off of campus.
And in particular, “Playboy” is not, I would argue, and I am arguing,
pornography. Pornography is “Hustler” magazine. Pornography are
photographs that show sex acts. That‘s not “Playboy”. “Playboy” is mostly
I mean, sure there‘s some...
CARLSON: I agree.
KELLERMAN: So now—so now we‘re trusting administrators to...
CARLSON: But it doesn‘t...
KELLERMAN: ... who I don‘t believe are demonstrating the intelligence to make that determination what is art and what is pornography.
CARLSON: Trust me. I don‘t think most college administrators have any intelligence at all. I think they‘re unable to judge even the most simplest—even the simplest things. That‘s not the point.
The point is Baylor students are being asked to use the Baylor name to sell a product. And it almost doesn‘t matter what it is, whether it‘s pornography or “Playboy” or adult diapers. You know what I mean? Or birdseed.
KELLERMAN: Yes.
CARLSON: It doesn‘t matter. Baylor has a right to decide how its image is used in commerce.
KELLERMAN: That is true. However, and I suppose again there is federal money involved. But I suppose right under the law, they can do it. It just bothers me.
If she were to pose nude for a famous photographer or for a portrait by a famous artist, would that be pornography? So I mean, maybe Avadon, or maybe not Avadon any more, but maybe some other famous photographer is taking the picture for “Playboy”. Does that make a difference to them? The whole subject bothers me.
CARLSON: Yes, I can see that. But, again, if the photographer is selling the picture as Baylor University‘s own, you know, Wendy McMaster, I think Baylor has a right to say, you know, “Pay us or don‘t do it.” All right?
KELLERMAN: I mean—I mean, maybe she‘s just—it‘s a statement of fact. Where do you work? Where do you go to school? It‘s a statement of fact.
CARLSON: Yes. I‘d be against it if I were Baylor. But Max Kellerman standing up for porn, as always. You‘re a consistent man, Max. Happy weekend.
KELLERMAN: Thank you. You, too.
CARLSON: Coming up, Jesse Jackson came on the show and said he‘d pay the college tuition of the alleged victim in the Duke rape case, whether her story turned out to be true or not. We‘ll discuss Mr. Jackson‘s idea of generosity when we come back, and we will.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER: Coming up, another after-school private lesson from a teacher to her teenaged pupil.
Plus, an update on the creepy old man who gave door-to-door breast exams.
CARLSON: Well, as you can see, it‘s a high toned show and getting more so. We‘re back in 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for voicemail segments. Sitting in for Ryan Seacrest, I‘m Tucker Carlson. All week we have solicited calls from you. All week, you‘ve left messages on our voicemail. Let‘s listen to some. First up.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Diana. I saw your interview last night with Jesse Jackson about the rape with the black woman and the two white guys. I think this thing is turning into a race thing, and I find it totally offensive that because she was a stripper, she‘s being offered a scholarship. What about the other single women out there who are working two, three jobs? Why are we not offered the same opportunities?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: Diana, you raise an excellent point. I mean, first, Jesse Jackson is a phony and a bigot, and I don‘t know why people don‘t just say so out loud. It‘s liberating to note the obvious in his case.
But you‘re absolutely right. What does it say to single mothers of two who aren‘t hookers? Right? Who are earning a legitimate living with dignity and self-respect? This woman is a civil rights hero. She may be a victim, but not a civil rights hero.
Next up.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Faruk in San Francisco. You said that a mosque is more likely to be used as a site for terroristic (ph) things than a synagogue. This kind of generalization about the Muslims is completely wrong and generates hate. I reject and resent your presumption that just because somebody is a Muslim and worships in a mosque makes them even marginally more likely to commit a terrorist act.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: True, it doesn‘t make them marginally more likely; it makes them much more likely. I wasn‘t suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists. Most Muslims are completely decent people and one hopes are opposed to terrorism. But the polls don‘t necessarily show that, but one hopes that.
But the facts are—and they‘re not opinions, they‘re facts—that terror attacks in 2006 are far, far more likely to originate in mosques than in synagogues. It‘s a statement of fact, and it makes me sad, as it does I‘m sure you.
Next up.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. This is Guinevere from Edgewood, New Mexico. And I just wanted to say that I watch someone else playing video games. I watch my husband play, and it‘s very fun, and the whole point is how passive it is. By the way, you should talk economics more. You‘re very sexy when you do.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: You watch your husband play video games, and you like it. You are the perfect wife. That is so sweet. He doesn‘t need to do anything other than sit and play with the joy stick, and you enjoy that. So impressive. I personally think it‘s a little too passive. If I tried that at home, I‘d get booted right off the couch and out the door. But good for you. You‘re a very talented woman.
Next up.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What up, Tucker? It‘s your man Mark in Los Angeles. Two points. One, Willie Geist needs a spin-off show. And two, I was wondering if you could get the contact info to that hot blonde teacher that was doing her 13-year-old student. Because I‘m about to get a fake I.D. saying I‘m 13.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: Good luck—good luck with that, Mark. As for Willie Geist getting his own show, amen. He will have many opportunities. As long as he can keep doing this one, I agree with that. I‘m Willie‘s biggest booster. Willie Geist will be a household name before we‘re old.
Keep those calls coming. The number, 1-877-TCARLSON. That‘s 877-822-7576. We‘ll play the best of your voicemails again next Thursday and every Thursday, so keep calling.
Still ahead on THE SITUATION, what does rapper Snoop Dogg have in common with ahead of his time rapper Wild Bill Shakespeare? The answer, of course, lies in “The Cutting Room Floor”. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: It‘s that time again. Time for the cutting room floor, and the great Willie Geist. Here he is, ladies and gentlemen, Willie Geist.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: Hello, Tucker.
Before we get started here, I want to bring a little bit of an update. Remember the 78-year-old guy who was going around giving free breast exams last night?
CARLSON: Yes.
GEIST: We have video. Here‘s his perp walk. There‘s no real news. I just wanted to show you the perp walk. But you know what? Look at—I actually feel bad looking at him. This is the thanks you get for joining the fight against breast cancer.
CARLSON: Not to be mean, he looks like he could use a breast exam a little bit in that picture.
GEIST: Yes, those pants are a little high. But anyway, he‘s going to the slammer. You just cannot—I‘ve always said—go door-to-door and feel up women. You just can‘t do it.
CARLSON: Actually, it turns out you can. Two of them fell for it.
So actually, it does work. That‘s the sad truth.
Well, the strength of former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, is not limited to diplomacy. It turns out she‘s a terror in the weight room, too. Albright tells the “New York Times” magazine she can leg press up to 400 pounds. That‘s a lot, especially for a 68-year-old woman. Not quite sure how that came up in the interview, but we‘re glad it did.
GEIST: Tucker, the idea of Madeleine Albright in spandex doing leg presses will haunt my dreams forever and ever and ever.
CARLSON: It‘s actually disgusting, to be totally honest.
GEIST: It is. Personally, I‘d rather see, like Lawrence Eagleburger in tights. Give me another secretary of state.
CARLSON: You know what? I‘ve lived in Washington for a long time, and as someone who actually has seen Lawrence Eagleburger in tights, I can tell you, it‘s not that bad.
GEIST: You‘ve seen him in tights?
CARLSON: Sure I have.
GEIST: Want to tell us anything?
CARLSON: No.
GEIST: OK.
CARLSON: I don‘t want to brag (ph).
Well, there are some proud people in Westerville, Ohio, tonight. That‘s because their very own Wendell‘s restaurant has been honored as having the finest bathroom in the country.
Wendell‘s is a sports bar whose restrooms feature framed art and a wonderful array of top of the line toiletries. This is the fifth year the nation‘s best bathroom award has been handed out.
GEIST: That actually—that bathroom looks kind of lame, actually.
CARLSON: It does. It does.
GEIST: That‘s why I hate awards, Tucker. They‘re so subjective. I can name you 10 better bathrooms.
CARLSON: Really? Name one.
GEIST: Mine actually.
CARLSON: Right, but that‘s...
GEIST: Marble tops.
CARLSON: That‘s not public except during—maybe on Saturdays.
GEIST: Right. You know what I will tell you? The worst bathroom in America on any given day, Rosie O‘Donnell‘s after lunch. It‘s bad.
CARLSON: That‘s repulsive.
GEIST: It is. It‘s not a good place to be.
CARLSON: I was going to say Shoney‘s in Greenville, South Carolina. That‘s the worst I‘ve ever been to. I keep a personal list in the glove box of my car.
GEIST: Yes, they don‘t keep that one real clean.
CARLSON: No, they really don‘t. Waffle House also has a spotty record in the john department.
Well, through the majesty of rap music, Snoop Dogg has secured his legacy as one of the great American storytellers. Now he‘s looking to build on that legacy. Reports say Snoop plans to release his first novel in October. It will be called “Love Don‘t Live Here No More.” It‘s the story of a young man‘s struggle to make it out of the mean streets and into the world of hip-hop, presumably a less mean world.
GEIST: Yes.
CARLSON: It is expected to be the first book in a series of books written by Snoop.
GEIST: Snoop the author. I can‘t wait for that. This, though, Tucker, obviously the latest salvo in the East Coast-West Coast literature wars. And I just hope John Updike resists the urge to fire back. Because we have to stop the madness.
CARLSON: I totally agree with that.
Next time John Updike is cruising down the Vegas strip in his convertible Bentley late at night, you know what I mean? He better look behind him and make sure Snoop is not waiting for him.
GEIST: That‘s right. He actually plays the role of Biggie, because he‘s East Coast. But let‘s not split hairs.
I don‘t want to beat a dead horse, but can we see the 78-year-old guy again?
CARLSON: Yes.
GEIST: The perp walk. Come on. There he is. You sad, sad soul.
CARLSON: Now, what do you suppose his pitch was, Willie?
GEIST: This is a lesson to young people everywhere.
CARLSON: It is.
GEIST: You can‘t do it.
CARLSON: Heavy set older man with doctor‘s bags showing up on your doorstep, offering to touch your breasts.
GEIST: Yes, no thanks. Don‘t do it. And, again, I lay blame at the feet of the two women who said yes. They should have a perp walk themselves.
CARLSON: I do, too. Blame the victim. We specialize in that.
Willie Geist.
GEIST: All right, Tucker. See you.
CARLSON: Have a great weekend.
And you, too. Have a great weekend. That‘s it for us this week. See you Monday.
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 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.
Transcripts