Guest: Luis Carrillo
RITA COSBY, HOST, “LIVE AND DIRECT”: And that does it for me. Let‘s go to Tucker and THE SITUATION—Tucker.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Thank you, Rita.
Thanks to you at home to tuning in. It‘s good to have you with us tonight.
Absurdity enters the debate over illegal immigration. Is the Border Patrol engaging in racial profiling when it picks up Mexicans? We‘ll talk to a lawyer who‘s demanding the Department of Homeland Security investigate his claim.
And a nightmare crime with what appears to be an amazing ending tonight. An Amber Alert is issued for a newborn stolen from a mother. The suspect was posing as a nurse. Now there are reports the 5-day old baby has been found. We‘ll bring you the very latest.
Plus, the new “Superman” movie is coming out, possibly in more ways than one. Why the Man of Steel could be gay. You‘ll want to stay tuned for that.
But first, we turn to the wide-ranging terror plot involving up to seven countries. Seventeen Muslim suspects accused charged with planning the bombing of several Canadian landmarks tried to acquire three tons of ammonium nitrate when they were taken into custody this past weekend. That‘s three times as much as was used in Oklahoma City.
Two of those suspects were arrested in this country earlier this year while trying to smuggle guns and ammunition from the U.S. They also allegedly traveled to Washington, D.C., to shoot casing videos of the U.S. Capitol and other potential targets.
With all the recent focus on the Mexican border, shouldn‘t we be worried about a terror threat from the north, the Canadian border? Steve Emerson is an MSNBC terrorism analyst. He joins us tonight from New York.
Steve, thanks for coming on.
STEVE EMERSON, MSNBC TERRORISM ANALYST: Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: Was this a threat to the U.S., do you think, this plot?
EMERSON: The Canadian plot wasn‘t a threat to the U.S., but they were
involved with American Muslims who traveled to Canada in order to train
with them. And those Americans themselves are American-based Muslims from
Bangladesh as well as from another country, were involved in targeting U.S.
facilities in Washington. As you noted the Capitol. And they also had on
in their possession, jihad videos for detonating car bombs.
CARLSON: Peter King, the congressman from New York, the Republican, said this weekend he believed that Canada has, quote, “a disproportionately large number of al Qaeda members.” And it does, because of its lax immigration laws. Do you think that‘s a fair characterization?
EMERSON: I think it is a very fair characterization, in fact a characterization that the Canadian government has agreed—has actually concurred with in terms of their own assessments in previous years about the number of radical Islamic groups operating on Canadian soil.
It is definitely a place where dissidents are able to get asylum, much easier than they can in the United States. Where refuges have a lobby basically created for them. And in that lobby, you have radical Islamic groups basically getting citizenship for their members.
CARLSON: What‘s confusing to me here is the ideology. This is not a group of men from Waziristan, the people in question. And we don‘t know that they‘re guilty, incidentally, but we‘re assuming something was afoot, I guess. They‘re from Canada. They were born there. Where do they get this ideology?
EMERSON: Listen, they‘re no different than the guys that carried out the attack in July last year in London or the people that were plotting in Australia or the people that carried out the killings of Teddy Van Gogh, the filmmaker in the Netherlands. Or, for that matter, any of the numerous plots interrupted since 9/11 on American soil.
They‘re radical Islamic members that believe there‘s a war against Islam, period. And therefore, they‘re going to avenge anybody who‘s trying to attack the Muslim umar (ph) or country.
CARLSON: But I‘m wondering where this ideology comes from. I mean, is it—is it something that they learn at the mosque, online? How do they know each other? How do they communicate with one another?
EMERSON: Communicating is one thing. But the ideology, interestingly enough, does come from either some of the imams or clerics in the mosques, plus the literature that they actually get published via the mosques or via educational institutions, from Saudi Arabia, which exports to Wahhabism worldwide what they distribute in some of the mosques in the United States.
It‘s the same literature. It‘s a global jihad. It‘s the same language they all speak. And the Internet is the virus by which they spread it.
CARLSON: We‘re all of pretending, I think, even now five years almost after 9/11, that the war on terror has nothing to do with religion and that the threat we face is not rooted in the specific religion. I think that‘s kind of the official line everyone parrots.
Are law enforcement agencies, though, taking a more realistic approach and taking a closer look at places where fundamentalist Muslims congregate?
EMERSON: Since 9/11, there have been at least 50 mosques that have been cited in criminal references, in U.S. indictments or investigations, as being part of a jihadist culture.
And the fact of the matter is that‘s far more disproportionately higher within the Muslim institutional network than it is within Christianity or Judaism. That‘s a reality we have to face.
And therefore, it behooves the government to be doing far more intrusive surveillance and investigations in the Islamic community. And hopefully, they can get that with the cooperation of the Islam community, rather than get the opposition from the Muslim community, which contends somehow that they‘re subject, you know, to intrusive investigations and curtailment of their freedoms.
No curtailment of freedoms is being carried out simply by having an informant report about anti-American activities.
CARLSON: Is any, to your knowledge, mainstream Muslim group in the United States or Canada cooperating with law enforcement to try and root out the lunatics in their midst?
EMERSON: None of the, quote, top three-letter or four-letter groups are cooperating with the government in terms or saying to their membership, you should report directly. If the FBI contacts you, talk to them. You should report any suspicious activity directly to the FBI.
They want to be the interface with the Muslim community, between them and the FBI. They don‘t want the FBI coming in behind them or behind closed doors and not consulting with them.
They definitely put out the word that the war against Islam as opposed to there‘s a war against terrorism. They are not helpers in this to fight against Islamic extremism. They are enablers.
CARLSON: That is really a shame. Steve Emerson from Washington.
Thanks a lot, Steve.
CARLSON: Well, as the terror threat across our northern borders makes headlines tonight, there are troops on our southern border at this hour. Some 55 Utah National Guardsmen are stationed near Yuma, Arizona. That‘s the home of The Nation‘s biggest U.S. Border Patrol station.
The troops are part of the president‘s plan to send up to 6,000 National Guard members to the border to perform support duties. The idea is to free up immigration agents to focus on border security.
Not everyone is on board with this plan, though, to beef up border security. My next guest charges Border Patrol agents practice racial profiling when they target illegal immigrants.
With us now, attorney Luis Carrillo. He joins us tonight from Burbank, California. Thanks very much for joining us.
LUIS CARRILLO, ATTORNEY: Thank you for having me.
WILLIAMS: So as I understand your allegation, it is this, that the Border Patrol engages in racial profiling when it pulls aside people who look like illegal immigrants. Is that correct?
CARRILLO: Well, that is—that‘s correct. That‘s what happened in this particular operation, which is called desert denial.
What occurred was that the Border Patrol was approximately 200 miles from the Mexican border, and it engaged in an operation where they would drive alongside vehicles, flash their flashlights inside their vehicles. And all the occupants who were Latinos, they would pull over those vehicles.
That‘s prohibited by the federal Constitution, by the Fourth Amendment. That‘s one concern. The second concern is that they were 200 miles from the border, utilizing about 40 plus agents, over 25 vehicles.
And I want you to look at this map. You see the first circle, that‘s Las Vegas. You see the second circle? That‘s Barstow where the operation took place, near Barstow.
CARLSON: Are you saying...
CARRILLO: They were actually closer—they were actually closer to Las Vegas than they were to the actual Mexican border, which is down here.
CARLSON: But are you—we can argue about whether or not the Border Patrol ought to be active away from the border. That‘s a separate question. But as long as the Border Patrol is attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants are you suggesting that they should pay no attention to the appearance of people they‘re looking for?
CARRILLO: No, this is what I‘m suggesting. While they were devoting all these resources along interstate 40. They took away 40 patrol—
Border Patrol agents. And so what occurs when that happens. The drug smugglers, the human smugglers, they have 40 less agents to worry about so that they can do their business.
CARLSON: Well, wait a second. I mean, I don‘t know. Are you telling the Border Patrol how to use its resources now?
I mean, look, the point is, if you‘re against the presence of illegal immigrants in the country—I don‘t know whether you are or whether you‘re not—but you‘ve got to recognize, they‘re not just on the border. They‘re all over the country. And if you‘re going to be, you know, rounding up illegal immigrants, you‘re not going to be just doing it by the border. I mean, it just makes sense.
CARRILLO: No, no, it doesn‘t make sense. Because when you have scarce resources, when you have to call the National Guard to the border, why take away 40 agents from the border? Keep them on the border where they belong. Instead of—they‘re closer to Las Vegas, when they conducted this investigation, than they were to the border.
CARLSON: Again, I‘m not sure that‘s a serious point.
CARRILLO: The worst part of it was—the worst part of this was that they engaged in racial profiling in the middle of the night.
CARLSON: What do you mean—what do you mean racial profiling? See, that‘s where you lose me. Racial profiling. The vast majority of illegal immigrants who come over the border from Mexico are Latino. They‘re Mexican, Central or South American. Mostly Mexican and then Central American.
So I don‘t know. Why wouldn‘t you pay attention to someone‘s appearance? It‘s telling. It tells you a lot of what you need to know.
CARRILLO: No. No, no. You need other circumstances. You actually have to—either you have intelligence, suspicious driving, changes of vehicles, not just to focus in on individuals who happen to be driving from Arizona on Interstate 40 to California on Interstate 40 near Barstow in the middle of the night.
And the only way that the Border Patrol agents would stop the people is after flashing their lights inside the vehicles, look inside and determine they were Latinos inside the vehicle. And then they would pull over those occupants.
CARLSON: Were they illegal immigrants? I believe...
CARRILLO: That is prohibited by the federal Constitution.
CARLSON: That‘s not specifically prohibited by the federal Constitution. I actually...
CARRILLO: You cannot stop somebody just on their racial appearance.
CARLSON: That‘s not in the federal Constitution. As—you‘re a lawyer. You must know that.
CARRILLO: The Fourth Amendment prohibits stopping an individual merely on their facial appearance. The Fourth Amendment prohibits that. You have...
CARLSON: That‘s maybe how it‘s interpreted, but the Constitution doesn‘t mention it.
Look—look, but the bottom line here is, the Border Patrol pulled over people who turned out to be illegal immigrants. I think you‘re leaving that part out, are you not?
CARRILLO: No. But at the same time the Border Patrol pulled over people that were United States citizens. You‘re leaving that part out. They pulled over United States citizens as well as undocumented persons.
And I happen to represent three U.S. minors, little kids, 12, 7 and 3, who were pulled over as part of this process. So that‘s an intrusion on their liberties when they‘re singled out solely because of their race. That‘s very disturbing. That‘s very disturbing. That‘s very disturbing to pull over somebody by the appearance of their race.
CARLSON: I think you have a point. I think, though, it‘s going to be very difficult to apprehend illegal immigrants if you ignore their appearance, whether it‘s based on race or what they‘re wearing or other criteria.
Mr. Carrillo, thanks for joining us.
CARRILLO: Thank you.
CARLSON: Still to come, President Bush comes out for an amendment banning gay marriage. Are Republican voters still interested in that topic? Do they care? We‘ll have the answer in just a minute.
Plus, the president of Duke University says he‘s taking a risk in reinstating the men‘s lacrosse team. Isn‘t it about time he reinstated the three players falsely charged with rape. A hot debate ensues, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our policy should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was President Bush earlier today speaking out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Some are calling it a transparent attempt to play conservative voters. Will it work is the question?
Here to debate that, Air America radio host, Rachel Maddow, joining us tonight from New York.
RACHEL MADDOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Tucker. Nice to see you.
CARLSON: Nice to see you. I am convinced this is a subject in which decent people can disagree. I fact, I know, because I know decent people who are on both sides of this question.
That is what gets me exercised, is the claims to the contrary. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts said this, just the other day, quote, “A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple.”
In other words, you are not allowed to disagree. If you do disagree, you‘re a bigot. I just think that‘s a conversation ender, not a stopper. And it‘s an outrageous thing to say.
MADDOW: Well, he‘s calling the question as to why the Senate right now is calling the question as to what the purpose is of spending this much political time, political energy and resources of the U.S. Congress that could be spent on other things, doing this.
Nobody believes this will pass. It has nowhere near the votes to pass in the Senate, nowhere near the votes to pass in the House. And it probably wouldn‘t pass the state legislatures either. This isn‘t going to happen in terms of law. So why are we doing it now? We‘re doing it now for—as a stop for the conservative right.
CARLSON: Of course. That‘s exactly right.
CARLSON: It‘s the same reason that Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, started performing gay weddings in San Francisco, which was a sock to his constituency, the gay constituency.
MADDOW: Or was, you know...
CARLSON: That‘s politics.
MADDOW: Or it was, you know, to rally (ph) the civil rights of the constituents.
CARLSON. That‘s right. And maybe in this case, it‘s an attempt to protect marriage.
My only point is, all this talk about politics and politics, I can‘t believe it. Politics is, in a democratic system, a process of appeasing your base, the people who voted for you. And doing things that the people who elected you want you to do.
There‘s nothing necessarily sinister about that. Why are we pretending there is?
MADDOW: No, but what we‘ve done is we elect people. We elect a president. We elect a Congress that are supposed to pass laws and enforce them.
What they‘re doing right now on gay marriage is not about that. What they‘re doing right now on gay marriage, Arlen Specter has talked about this on the judiciary committee in very open terms. He said, “I‘m against this, but I‘m going to let it pass through and I‘m going to let it go to the floor of the Senate so they can have the debate that they need in order to get votes on this issue in November.
This is an issue that is purely—has only political ends. It has nothing to do with anything real going on in the country.
CARLSON: Wait a second, though. You can‘t separate politics from what is real going on in the country, as you put it. I mean, you‘re absolutely right. The Bush—in one way. The Bush administration is doing this because they want to reassure conservatives they‘re conservative. They‘re not, but they‘re pretending they are for the purposes of the midterm election.
MADDOW: They at least know how to play them for larger purposes.
CARLSON: That‘s right. I don‘t think there‘s anything wrong with that, A. B, the process of politics is the process of using rhetoric to convince people of something.
A debate on gay marriage is what we need. You don‘t want this settled in the courts. You want this settled at the ballot box. You want the people to decide what they want. You want democracy to work. Why are we afraid of democracy?
MADDOW: How are you any more in favor of democracy by imposing a federal constitutional amendment that restricts what states are allowed to do on this? How are you in favor of democracy by being in favor of that than against it? The idea that there‘s some sort of procedural, conservative fairness going on here is ridiculous.
CARLSON: No. I‘m not saying there‘s procedural conservative fairness. I‘m merely saying the attempt by gay rights groups to get gay marriage enshrined in law through the courts—is a less—hold on. I‘m not attacking them for doing that. I‘m merely saying that‘s a less democratic way of getting your will than voting is.
MADDOW: Tucker, the last time I checked, the basis of our constitutional democracy we had three branches and one of them was the courts.
MADDOW: The courts weren‘t some communist influence coming in here from Cuba to change our laws? The courts are part the way the American government makes our systems with law.
I know. And in Massachusetts, in my home state...
CARLSON: Why is that? I‘m merely saying why not let voters have a say in this?
MADDOW: In Massachusetts, there was a Supreme Court—state Supreme Court ruling that that said gay marriage ought to be legal. Right?
Since then, the Massachusetts state legislature has not overruled it. What the Federal Marriage Amendment would do force the Massachusetts system of government to change something that the state legislature has not expressed an interest in doing. Why is that a conservative value? Why is that more Democratic? Why is that more fair?
CARLSON: I‘m merely saying it is a good thing for members of the Senate to get out there and tell us what they really think. Democrats, for instance, can explain why they‘re opposed to gay marriage, as almost every single one of them is in the United States Senate.. They can explain—they can explain to people like you, gay Democratic voters, why they‘re against it. Republicans can explain why they‘re against it. We can all talk about it in an open way, without euphemism. And I think that‘s good for the country.
MADDOW: The euphemism here is the whole idea that gay marriage is somehow more dangerous to marriage than divorces is. Right? You know, and I don‘t want to be lectured by divorce to George Allen about how horrible I am for marriage, when he‘s the one who broke up his own marriage.
CARLSON: I—I think it‘s cruel of you to point out George Allen. But I agree with your point. Divorce is more dangerous to American life than gay marriage. I agree with that.
MADDOW: So let‘s ban divorce and have a principled discussion instead of this political campaign.
CARLSON: I‘m sort of open to that possibility. I think divorce is awful, by the way.
MADDOW: We‘ll ban divorce, you and I.
CARLSON: Thank you, Rachel Maddow. We can take that up on tomorrow‘s show. See you, Rachel.
CARLSON: Still to come, find out what this 21-year-old mom did while driving with her 4-year-old -- 4-month-old daughter. Got her in big trouble with the law. We‘ll tell you more.
Plus, forget about “Brokeback Mountain”. Hollywood‘s real gay hero is Superman. The all American icon being marketed as gay. Will it work? We‘ll tell you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD BRODHEAD, PRESIDENT, DUKE UNIVERSITY: I am, I know, taking something of a risk in reinstating man‘s lacrosse. The reinstatement is inevitably probationary. If we begin to see patterns of irresponsible of individual or team behaviors familiar from the past, the athletics director will have no choice but to revisit this decision. And we won‘t hesitate to do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was Duke University president Richard Brodhead, a pretty charismatic character, as you can tell, announcing the lacrosse team will play next season but only under strict rules that include no underage drinking.
This year, season was canceled in April, first after a stripper accused members of the men‘s lacrosse team of raping her at a team party. Co-captain David Evans and players Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty still face rape charges, despite of a complete lack of evidence against them.
Here to talk about the case, MSNBC ANALYST and FORMER PROSECUTOR, Wendy Murphy joining us tonight from Boston.
Have you ever seen a lamer statement than that by Duke University president Richard Brodhead? The never should have suspended this team in the first place. The train didn‘t do anything wrong.
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes. You‘ve got to stop introducing the segment by announcing that there‘s no evidence and no one‘s ever done anything wrong on the team.
Look, at the end of the day, there are some people will say this was too much of a punishment because a lot of the players really didn‘t do anything wrong. And many of them weren‘t even there. And for them, this was really harsh punishment. They were sent to win the national championship.
And others will say this wasn‘t harsh enough. They had a long history of extremely bad behavior, not withstanding the rape charges. And they really needed a harder whack than this.
CARLSON: I guess the ones who have seen it don‘t know what they‘re talking about. Haven‘t read the report done by Duke University itself, which...
MURPHY: Tucker, you haven‘t read any reports of any value that say anything about the...
CARLSON: James Coleman, a left wing law professor at Duke had this to say. None of the misconduct involved fightings, sexual assault or harassment or racist slurs.
It turns out that their behavior on trips was exemplary. They‘re respectful of people who serve the team, including bus drivers, the airline personal trainers, a quick—et cetera. Actually, it turns out that the team is really well behaved except some of them got loaded under age and urinated outside. I‘m serious.
MURPHY: Yes, they were really well behaved. Are you kidding?
CARLSON: I‘m not kidding.
MURPHY: I‘m not even going to, you know, indulge that debate, Tucker.
CARLSON: Why, because it‘s...
MURPHY: To suggest they were well behaved. Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?
CARLSON: You‘re comparing lacrosse players who have been, in most cases, accused of nothing. Nothing has been proved against any of them. You‘re accused comparing them to Hitler now?
MURPHY: No, I‘m actually just calling attention to the fact that your brain doesn‘t have any moments of common sense sometimes. They‘ve all done very bad things. Maybe they‘ve all not been convicted of rape, but they have a very ugly history of bad behavior.
CARLSON: What the hell are you talking about? I honestly don‘t know what you‘re talking about.
MURPHY: ... a long time ago and then maybe the rape wouldn‘t have occurred, Tucker. Then we wouldn‘t have this segment.
CARLSON: Honestly—Wendy, I honestly don‘t know what you‘re talking about. This is a team with a 100 percent graduation rate. That has—you know, 80 percent of them have a 3.0 or higher.
MURPHY: And a 70 percent drinking rate. And a 40 percent bee on the sidewalk rate. Shall we go on?
CARLSON: It‘s college. People drink. I‘m dead serious. I think by the—by the model...
MURPHY: Public drunkenness, urinating in public. You would be so proud, wouldn‘t you, Tucker.
CARLSON: I think that there is not a single thing I‘ve heard about the behavior of this team, except for that one e-mail written by some moron on the team, saying awful things about the person involved. Apart from that, I haven‘t heard a single thing that shocks me or bothers me.
MURPHY: Whatever they did on the night in question—whatever they did on the night in question, forget the rape. You should hang your head in shame for saying that between the racial remarks...
CARLSON: When they hired two strippers for a party and drank beer?
MURPHY: ... threatening to rape a woman with a broom stick, calling her names the minute she walked in because she was black? Are you kidding me? You should be ashamed saying this is a bunch of nice guys.
CARLSON: First of all, Wendy, this is coming from a woman who has made what I think are very clearly false allegations. So the fact that you would get up there and proclaim that they made racist remarks as if it were fact rather than a totally unproved allegation. Shows the recklessness.
MADDOW: One of the neighbors—one of the neighbors reported that to police. And you can call them false all day long, Tucker. But what just means you‘ve got potatoes in your ears because you‘re not listening to any of the evidence. You don‘t care that police, prosecutors, forensic experts, a grand jury all disagree with you. You don‘t care. You‘ll just keep saying nonsense.
CARLSON: I honestly know quite a bit about this case now, because I find it compelling. I have never seen a case in the number of years covering crime as a reporter, where the accused were so clearly not guilty. And that‘s why the more I learn about this case, the more convinced I am that these guys didn‘t do it.
MURPHY: Did the attorney send you those—did the defense attorney show you those DNA reports. They forgot to fax them to me.
CARLSON: This is available in the public domain now.
MURPHY: DNA reports, I want them on your desk—on my desk by tomorrow. Or you have to stop saying there‘s no evidence.
MURPHY: I want the police reports. I want the statements. I want it all before I pass judgment. How come you don‘t?
CARLSON: Actually, you‘ve passed judgment already on the team. You have night after night...
MURPHY: The prosecutors are idiots. Prosecutors aren‘t idiots.
MURPHY: I think they‘re all a bunch of conspiring idiots.
CARLSON: You know what, I don‘t have reflexive faith in every police officer simply because he has a badge or every prosecutor simply because he has the power to put people in jail.
MURPHY: Let‘s pretend you—let‘s pretend you understand math on some basic level. Statistically speaking, if over 99 percent of people indicted are, in fact, guilty, just play the odds, Tucker.
CARLSON: What are the odds? Is that how justice in America works? More people are guilty, so you want to speak, too. I can‘t believe someone empowered you to be a prosecutor at one point in this nation‘s history. Wendy, that is terrifying.
MURPHY: I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.
CARLSON: I‘m really glad you‘re a justice analyst now and not a...
MURPHY: You should be. Somebody needs to bring common sense to your show.
CARLSON: Wendy Murphy, completely insane, but delightful nonetheless.
Thanks for joining us.
Still to come, should murderers and rapists have a say in who leads the free world? You may be surprised by how many states are changing their laws to let felons vote.
Plus an ominous date is now only half an hour away. What does Patrick Kennedy‘s drug rehab stint have to do with signs of the coming apocalypse on 6/6/06? The answer is revealed on tonight‘s “Top Five”. Stay tuned.
CARLSON: Still to come, should the Man of Steel be marketed as a metrosexual? Would appealing to Superman‘s gay friendly qualities be more destructive than Kryptonite?
Plus, a new study finds moms who are strict have fat kids. Why is that? We‘ll tell you in just a minute. But first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.
CARLSON: Now to a story about ex-cons casting votes. A group called the Sentencing Project is encouraging states like Rhode Island, Tennessee and Florida to reform felon voter rights so that convicted murderers and sex offenders, among others, can help choose the next president.
Will such a move really help felons or just help the Democratic Party? Marc Mauer is the executive director of the Sentencing Project and the author of “Race to Incarcerate”. He joins us tonight from Washington, D.C.
Mr. Mauer, thanks for coming on.
MARC MAUER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SENTENCING PROJECT: Good to be here.
CARLSON: You say in your literature that ex-cons are, quote—are disenfranchised from the right to vote. Don‘t they disenfranchise themselves, though, by committing crimes?
MAUER: They‘ve committed crime and they‘ve gone to prison as punishment for their crime. There‘s nothing wrong with that. But I think we need to realize there‘s a fundamental difference between the legitimate punishment of your crime and forfeiting your basic rights of citizenship.
These people have come out of prison. They‘re living back in the community. They have all the obligations and responsibilities of other citizens, and yet, they‘re still denied their right to vote in so many states.
CARLSON: But that‘s not right, though. I mean, in most states, as I understand it, it‘s felons on parole or probation who can‘t vote. I mean, if someone is on parole or probation, he hasn‘t paid his debt to society. He‘s still doing it. And our deal is with felons on parole or probation, we say, “Look, we‘ll let you out, but you have to live by a special set of rules.” And one of these rules is you can‘t vote. What‘s wrong with that?
MAUER: Well, a special set of rules say you have to get a job. You need a place to live. You have to pay taxes. You have to do everything else that a law-abiding citizen can do, but the one thing we say then to them is that no, you can‘t vote. Now...
CARLSON: No. We also say you can‘t—you can‘t own a firearm.
Should we change that, too?
MAUER: Because that‘s a question of public safety. Whether you can vote has nothing to do with public safety. It‘s a punishment we impose against their rights of citizenship.
CARLSON: Wait, wait, wait, wait. With all due respect. What do you mean it‘s not a question of public safety? You‘re choosing the people who run the most powerful country in the world.
I mean, I would—I would argue, and I‘m sure you would agree, the right to vote is a far more important and more powerful right than the right to own a firearm.
MAUER: It‘s a powerful right.
CARLSON: Why are we turning that over to people we don‘t think are capable of owning a gun?
MAUER: Because if you own a gun of you‘re demonstrated that you don‘t know how to use that, you can cause real harm. I don‘t think anybody is going to cause harm by voting for the wrong candidate.
CARLSON: You don‘t take voting very seriously, then.
MAUER: That‘s a question of democracy. We shouldn‘t be telling people who they should be voting for.
CARLSON: So you don‘t trust—just to make it totally clear to our viewers, you don‘t trust ex-cons, ex-felons, people convicted of violent crimes and now out of prison. You don‘t trust them to have a gun. But you do trust them to vote for president, because I mean, how could that hurt? I think it‘s what you just said.
MAUER: Well, what‘s the problem? I mean, last election we voted between Bush and Kerry. Now, is there any reason why an ex-felon would favor one of them over the another one because of their positions on crime or something else? Was one of them somehow soft on crime or soft on burglars or anything else?
CARLSON: Oh, so what you‘re saying, in other words, is voting is such a big deal that felons ought to have the right to do it, but its not such a big deal that we ought to worry about the consequences of that?
MAUER: I think we should worry about the consequences.
CARLSON: So it‘s a big deal or not?‘
MAUER: The consequences are the same as for everyone else. That‘s why when an election time comes around, I am trying to get my friends and people to vote for the candidates I support just as you do and everybody else should, too.
The consequences are important. That‘s why we need all Americans
participating in that. We have a country that has the lowest turnout of
any industrialized nation. And I don‘t see why we should be looking for
CARLSON: I don‘t see why we should be looking at other ways to do
something as important as vote, it seems to be. Why extend the vote to all
felons. I think most people
We want people with you if you‘re done good judgment to do something as important to vote. Why extend the vote to all felons? I think most people would agree if you‘ve done a short amount of time for marijuana possession, maybe you should be able to vote and carry a gun as far as I‘m concerned.
But if you are a convicted murderer, for instance, that‘s not the same as being convicted of a minor drug offense. Why give blanket voting rights to felons?
MAUER: It‘s not the same because a murderer may get 20 years in prison where a marijuana person may get a couple of months in prison. The different, though, is that they‘re out in the community. They‘re living there.
If we want people to be connected with community and reduce their prospects for crime, we want them to be engaged. We want them to feel connected between the community. If the message we send is you‘re a second class citizen. You can‘t vote, that‘s only going to encourage behavior that violates the law. What we want to do is have them feel the same obligations that the rest of us do as good citizens and be connected with the community. I don‘t care (ph) if there are safety reasons.
CARLSON: I don‘t care—yes, I don‘t care if they feel good about themselves or not. But I appreciate you coming on and making your case.
MAUER: The answer is thanks very much, Marc Mauer.
CARLSON: We turn now to a man who is not a felon, as far as we know, but who many feel ought to have his voting rights revoked, nevertheless. He is the “Outsider”, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: Hola.
CARLSON: Hola, Max. They answer is no one disenfranchises me, Tucker.
This month about the movie “The Maternal” returns. Fabulous man. The Man of Steel has long been a hero in the gay community. So there is added excitement about the release later this month of the movie “Superman Returns”.
The May 23 issue of “The Advocate”, the national gay magazine, ran the headline “How gay is Superman?” The answer is that he‘s not gay at all, really. But that doesn‘t mean Hollywood is ignoring his loyal gay following.
Warner Brother studios has bought advertising time on a gay cable TV channel and Topps trading card has produced a card with Superman literally coming out of the closet.
Here‘s the question, is Hollywood wise to appeal to a gay audience in this case?
Interesting. I don‘t think so, Max. At least—you know, I don‘t have a feeling about Superman being gay one way or the other. And if you want to market Superman as gay, great.
But I think as a marketing strategy, simultaneously pitching “Superman” to gay movie goers and families probably is a self canceling proposition. You‘re probably going to turn off at least one group. I don‘t think you can—you can market to both at the same time.
KELLERMAN: I don‘t know. The “Batman” live action TV show, as a television critic, someone who analyzes this media is probably the best television ever made was simultaneously an action TV show to kids. I used to run around going, “Na, na, na, na, Batman” all day. And it was a comedy, a campy comedy to adults and worked totally on both levels. And kids were completely oblivious to the idea that it was a comedy. I mean, “Sesame Street” works the same way. It‘s going to be done—it is gay, the marketing, in a subtle enough way that I don‘t think kids get it.
CARLSON: And by the way, I just think there‘s a difference here because it has to deal with sexuality. Not simply because it‘s gay sexuality. But it‘s sexuality in adults. It‘s two adult. It‘s too sophisticated and for those reasons, I think it‘s threatening to a lot of parents. And even parents who aren‘t anti-gay are going to say, “You know too much? That‘s a too much over the heads of my kids.
KELLERMAN: In the words of Big Bad Hank. Or maybe it was—it‘s someone in Sugar Hill. I don‘t think it was the kid. He‘s a fairy, I do suppose, flying through the air in panty hose.
I mean, Superman has always been sort of gay in the “South Park” sense of the word.
KELLERMAN: The way they use gay of mean disparaging and kind of young.
“Spider-Man”, Wolverine, The Hulk. Basically, the Marvel comic characteristics were cool. And for a little bit more sophisticated audience. And Superman was kind of simple and innocent and, quote unquote, “gay” in that way.
CARLSON: To get explicit about it. For him to come out and drop Lois Lane for Lewis Lane just seems a little shocking. And I think it‘s going to turn parents off. I‘m not an expert. My guess.
KELLERMAN: There‘s nothing about Superman.
CARLSON: I know, I know.
KELLERMAN: ... that suggests that he‘s gay. But he has appeal to gay people or gay men.
CARLSON: I don‘t think it‘s going to work.
Well, if you‘re being strict with your kids, you might just be making them fat at the same time. That‘s the finding of a new study, anyway.
Research published in “Pediatrics” magazine shows strict mothers are five times likely to raise overweight first graders than mothers who are more flexible with their kids‘ schedules. The flexible parents were not negligent. They were just less intense than the strict parents.
One of the authors of the study says kids in stressful households may overeat to escape the pressure. I put this in the absurd study file, Max. Discipline doesn‘t make fat kids. Too much food does, also genetics.
Max will attempt to defend this nonsense.
You know, this is just a way to make moms feel guilty, like they need more reasons to feel guilty. You know what I mean? That they‘re funding every psychiatrist in the world. And I don‘t think they need another reason to feel bad about themselves. You‘re fat because of your genetics and because you eat too much.
KELLERMAN: Well, the study, it‘s like the study about why don‘t people sleep. Remember, you had someone on. And then they were quoting this kind of very Dr. Phil not really qualified to be talking about that sort of thing, not that smart kind of, you know, homespun philosophy.
It‘s hard to sleep because we‘re so stressed when in fact, most people don‘t sleep because they don‘t feel they accomplished enough during the day not because they‘ve done so much.
Same thing with eating. Overeating because they‘re dealing with stress. No, that doesn‘t really mean anything. Let‘s be specific. The reason an overly strict parent may lead to an obese kid is because eating is one of the things that a child with a very strict parent can control in their own life when they‘re alone.
By the way, kids with very strict parents at times have bathroom issues or around their friends will curse a lot or anything that‘s self-empowering that a kid can do to empower themselves at an age when they really don‘t have a lot of control over their own lives.
Eating is one of those things, and I find it believable that, not for the reasons the study begins—but believable for that reason that a kid with an overly strict parent wore overeat.
CARLSON: Yes, but it‘s one of these, like, counterintuitive things that smart people always say. You know, the children of religious people grow up to be atheists. Actually, the children of religious people grow up to be religious most of the time.
And I think if you don‘t want to your kids to be fat, pay close attention to what they eat. Doesn‘t make you a bad parent.
KELLERMAN: Yes. I agree if you do it in a healthy way. If you obsess over it, then you know, it‘s like the opposite of love isn‘t hate. It‘s ambivalence, right?
If you obsess over it, then the message to the kid is not to eat in a healthy way, it‘s there is something special about eating that requires a lot of attention. And you‘re highlighting the sort of importance of that.
And if they feel that they don‘t have control over their own lives, then a way to do what they want to do, not just the rebellion thing, not just tell your kid not to eat and they‘ll eat. Tell them to eat and he won‘t. It‘s not just the rebellion thing. It‘s that, you know, in religion is not exercising the same kind of control with that.
CARLSON: I know. Total psycho. But short of that, I don‘t think it‘s Mom‘s fault. I‘m standing up for moms tonight, Max.
KELLERMAN: I know. Apparently now what do I hate, God, puppy dogs, mothers?
CARLSON: And mothers.
KELLERMAN: It‘s unbelievable.
CARLSON: Apple pie tomorrow night.
KELLERMAN: I must be a miserable human being.
CARLSON: Max. Max Kellerman. A great man. Thanks, Max.
KELLERMAN: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Coming up on THE SITUATION tonight, a major development in the search for a newborn baby kidnapped by a woman posing as a hospital nurse. Is the parents‘ nightmare any closer to being over? We‘ll tell you when we come back.
VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER: Coming up, the search for the bikini killer heats up in South Carolina. Plus, O.J. Simpson joins Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson in the celebrity sex tape hall of fame.
CARLSON: It‘s an exclusive club. THE SITUATION comes back in 60 seconds.
CARLSON: We begin tonight‘s SITUATION “Crime Blotter” with some late breaking good news. Police say they have found a newborn baby kidnapped from her home in Lubbock, Texas, yesterday afternoon. Five-day-old Priscilla Maldonado was reunited with her parents tonight, more than 24 hours after a woman posing as a nurse snatched the child on a visit to the child‘s home.
Cops say the baby, who was sick with jaundice, was found alone in a car port in 104 degree heat. The woman has been taken into custody.
Police investigating the murder of a 24-year-old Clemson University student, Tiffany Souers, say they‘ve received more than 200 tips since setting up a hotline on Friday. They still have no suspect, though.
Souers was found dead strangled with her own bikini bathing suit top on May 26. Police say the alleged killer tried unsuccessfully to use Souers‘ bank card six times after the killings.
This woman eliminated herself from the mother of the year contention over the weekend by taking her 4-month-old baby for an early morning drunken car ride. Police say 21-year-old Devon Lee Hammond partied all night, then strapped her infant daughter into a car seat before crashing into a curb at about 4 a.m.
Hammond reportedly kicked, screamed and spit at officers who tried to arrest her. Depressing.
Well, a check of the clock indicates we are just minutes away here on the East Coast from June 6, 2006, or 6/6/06. Never one to miss a gimmick, Hollywood is capitalizing on this numerical oddity by releasing a remake of the 1976 satanic classic, “The Omen”.
Well, here on THE SITUATION, we‘re commemorating 6/6/06 with have a special top five list, the likes of which you probably won‘t see again at least for another 1,000 years.
Tonight, the “Top Five” signs that the apocalypse is certainly just around the corner.
CARLSON (voice-over): The entertainment business certainly pays the devil his dues. So we decided to give the nod to the disciples of evil. You might say the devil made us do it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am the devil, and I am here to do the devil‘s work.
CARLSON: Tell an off-color joke in Boulder, Colorado, and there might be hell to pay. Lawmakers there are considering putting your freedom of speech on hold by hooking up a hotline to report anyone who tells offensive jokes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It‘s government‘s business to do what it can to have a big community.
CARLSON: Turns out Big Brother is alive and living in Boulder.
AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Milwaukee.
CARLSON: Unlike old generals, retired politicians don‘t necessarily fade away. Take Al Gore. Can the rumors that he‘s planning another run for the White House be merely hearsay or an inconvenient truth?
GORE: Love that line.
CARLSON: Hell hath no fury like the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Yet, voters there were willing to overlook Mayor Ray Nagin‘s profound incompetence and just elected him for a second term.
MAYOR RAY NAGIN, NEW ORLEANS: New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina. It‘s going to be a chocolate city after.
CARLSON: Nearly one month after crashing his car while under the influence, Congressman Patrick Kennedy is out of rehab and preparing for yet another reelection campaign.
REP. PATRICK KENNEDY (D), NEW HAMPSHIRE: I‘m going to take whatever the charges are that the court and authorities put before me, and I‘m going to accept those charges.
CARLSON: Lucky for Kennedy, Rhode Island Democrats and Capitol Hill cops are willing to look the other way. Don‘t try that at home.
She‘s the hotel heiress who inherited no discernible talent, except for attracting attention. Is it any wonder Paris Hilton leaves us asking what‘s she really hiding behind that devilish grin?
CARLSON: Chilling. Still ahead on THE SITUATION, did O.J.‘s exhaustive search for the real killers take him to a hotel room for a videotaped menage a trois? We‘ll have the juicy details when we come back.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for “The Cutting Room Floor.” Joining us, often suspected, never convicted Willie Geist.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: Never convicted, Tucker. Speaking of never convicted, tomorrow night a programming note. Ann Coulter on the show. If you thought you and Wendy Murphy was good, wait until tomorrow night.
CARLSON: You know, everyone seems to knock Ann Coulter. I like Ann Coulter.
GEIST: Good. We‘ll see how you get along. We‘ll see how you two get along tomorrow.
CARLSON: I do. It‘s fashionable to hate Ann Coulter, but I like her.
GEIST: It will be fun tomorrow night.
Guy Goma, remember our friend Guy Goma from the BBC?
GEIST: Everyone remembers the story there. He was there for a job interview. They put him on the air as an IT analyst. He has now hired a London-based agent. He has a book and movie deal in the works. I‘m not sure how long a book or how long a movie. Might be a short film.
CARLSON: He didn‘t even have 15 minutes of fame. He had about three minutes, 40 seconds of fame.
GEIST: He was going to be the IT guy at the BBC. Now he‘s going to have movies about him, just like that. So good for you, Guy Goma.
CARLSON: I‘ll watch.
GEIST: Yes, I‘ll watch.
CARLSON: Guy Goma.
You may remember hearing the news last summer that Olivia Newton-John‘s boyfriend went missing after a deep sea fishing trip off the coast of Southern California. Patrick Dermott was believed to have fallen overboard, and he was presumed dead.
Well, he didn‘t look all that dead when he was spotted hanging out in Mexico recently. The “Daily Telegraph” from Sidney, Australia—which is never wrong, incidentally—reports that the German has been seen by three different witnesses in places like Cabo St. Lucas. He‘s reported to be in massive debt.
GEIST: Well, if you‘re going to fake your own death, Cabo is a good place to do it. Don‘t you think? He just picked the most exotic location he could. It‘s a tricky business, though, faking your own death. There are so many bases to cover. Almost not worth it. You know?
CARLSON: That‘s true. I‘m hoping—I mean, I‘m not saying hoping he‘s dead, but if he is alive, I hope he didn‘t notice I just called him Dermott rather than McDermott. You know, the sad thing is, he probably is dead.
GEIST: He doesn‘t deserve the Mc. No, he‘s sitting in a bar in Cabo.
CARLSON: O.J. Simpson is denying that he‘s the man in the new sex tape being sold on the Internet. We all know an O.J. Simpson denial is as good as gold. David Hans Schmidt, who‘s become the Scorsese of celebrity sex tapes, is charging $19.95 for a video he said shows O.J. engaged in a menage a trois with an ex-girlfriend and a hooker in a hotel room. An attorney for O.J. says, quote, “The tape is garbage. O.J. would never do anything like this.”
GEIST: We couldn‘t show you the good stuff on this, obviously. If O.J. takes a closer look, he may want to take credit for this. There‘s some good stuff happening in there.
CARLSON: Did you watch it?
GEIST: No, I didn‘t, actually. I saw a blurred out version of it.
GEIST: We do know this: he will not rest until the real actor is found in this video. Right? He will not rest.
CARLSON: Very good.
If you‘re like me you don‘t begin a day without a Pat Robertson protein shake. GNC health supplement stores began selling Robertson‘s special shake last summer, but the company just announced it has ended its relationship with the televangelist.
The 76-year-old Robertson has credited the shake with helping him leg press 2,000 pounds. That‘s 665 pounds more than the current world record. The recipe will still be available on the CBN web site. Thank heaven.
GEIST: He ought to let somebody know about that world record.
I‘ve never had a Pat‘s Power Shake, but I start every morning with an Al Sharpton Energy Bar. You just have one of those. Thirty minutes of cardio and you are good to go for the whole day. Delicious.
CARLSON: Man, I‘d protest for that bar. I really would.
GEIST: Me, too.
CARLSON: I‘d chain myself to the health food store just to get one of those bars.
GEIST: We‘ve got to talk to Al about that.
CARLSON: We definitely do.
GEIST: All right, Tucker.
CARLSON: Thank you. That‘s it for us tonight. Have a great night.
See you tomorrow.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.