updated 6/8/2006 11:40:19 AM ET 2006-06-08T15:40:19

Guests: Mudcat Saunders, Patrick Guerriero, James McAndrew, Jose Lagos

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Why, thank you, Rita.

And thanks to you at home for tuning in.  We always appreciate it.

Tonight, a furious exchange between last night‘s guest, Ann Coulter, and Senator Hillary Clinton.  Could Hillary be right for once?  And will the controversy help Coulter‘s book sales?  We‘ll tell you. 

Also, supporters of illegal immigration are outraged by billboard begging the White House to, quote, “stop the invasion now.”  Do they have a right to be mad?  What are they mad about, exactly?  We‘ll find out.

Plus the suspect known as the bikini strangler shows up in court to face charges of kidnapping, rape and murder.  Could Jerry “Buck” Inman be responsible for a string of rapes across the southeastern United States?  We‘ll bring you details in just a minute.

But first, a war of words between author Ann Coulter and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.  In case you‘ve been living under a rock, or in Canada, for the last 24 hours, here‘s a recap of why these two are at odds. 

Coulter went on “The Today Show” yesterday morning to promote her new book, “Godless”.  Here‘s what she said about the 9/11 widows.  Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, “GODLESS”:  If they have a point to make about the 9/11 Commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in someone we‘re allowed to respond to?  No, no, no.  We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die. 

MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, NBC‘S “THE TODAY SHOW”:   But aren‘t they the people in the middle of the story.

COULTER:  Because then if we respond, “Oh, you‘re questioning their authenticity.”  No, the story is...

LAUER:  So grieve, but grieve quietly?

COULTER:  No.  The story is an attack on the nation.

LAUER:  And by the way...

COULTER:  That requires a foreign policy response. 

LAUER:  And by the way...

COULTER:  That does not entail the expertise...

LAUER:  They also criticized the Clinton administration for their failures leading up to 9/11. 

COULTER:  Not the ones I‘m talking about.  No.  No.  No.  No. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Well, those remarks didn‘t sit well with the former first lady, now senator, who promptly denounced Coulter as, quote, “vicious and mean-spirited.” 

Coulter responded this way.  Quote, “If Hillary‘s so concerned about women, she should have a talk with her husband.  He‘s the one accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick.”

Joining us now to give us his opinion of this nasty war of words, as well as on Hillary Clinton‘s chances of regaining control of the White House, here‘s the great Mudcat Saunders.  He‘s the author of the book “Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What Democrats Must Do to Run them Out”.   He joins us tonight from Roanoke, Virginia. 

Mudcat, welcome.

MUDCAT SAUNDERS, AUTHOR, “FOXES IN THE HENHOUSE”:  I wanted to tell you about...

CARLSON:  What would Waylon do?

SAUNDERS:  Yes, but this is what I wore today.  And I need to change this, hillbilly persona.  So I wanted to try out my new persona on you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  What would Waylon do?  That is great.  You look great, Mudcat.  Just as I gave it up, you took it up.  Boy, you are—I think it‘s quite becoming on you. 

So tell me...

SAUNDERS:  Well, I found it.  It was free.  I found it, you know, in a Dumpster at Slim‘s Bait and Tackle in a honkeytonk (ph) just south of, you know, Secaucus, New Jersey.  Somebody had thrown it away. 

CARLSON:  It‘s a natural.  Guys going into a bait shop always take off their bowties first.  Kind of a rule. 

So Hillary Clinton wakes up this morning and she reads in the paper Ann Coulter‘s attacks on the 9/11 widows. 

SAUNDERS:  I better get this off. 

CARLSON:  You better, if you want to think straight, you‘ve got to have an open neck shirt.  So Ms. Clinton woke up...

SAUNDERS:  My daddy always told me, Tucker, if you put a tuxedo on a pig, you know, you still had a pig.  And too bad, he never met Ann Coulter. 

CARLSON:  Well, isn‘t Ann Coulter exactly what Hillary Clinton prays for, though, every night when she goes to bed?  Hillary Clinton needs people like Ann Coulter, because they give her a reason to exist and they make her appear reasonable.

SAUNDERS:  Well, you know, that‘s true.  You know, the one thing I can say, Tucker, is you‘re well aware I‘ve been working for the last five years trying to bring the Reagan Democrats back into what once was the big tent of the Democratic Party.  And as far as my efforts and other people‘s efforts, you know, like myself who want these people to come home, Ann Coulter is a godsend. 

CARLSON:  Well, is—but is Hillary Clinton essentially in a symbiotic relationship with Ann Coulter?  I mean, doesn‘t Ann Coulter in the end help Hillary Clinton?  And I say this with great sadness.  I say this as someone who agrees with Ann Coulter the majority of the time, but comments like these empower the lunatic fringe, I think, of the Democratic Party. 

SAUNDERS:  Well, you know, the wacktivists is what I call them with the Democratic Party.  It may empower them.  But, you know, I‘m one who believes, and I‘m going to say it, you know, tonight, that you know, somebody needs to get to Hillary Clinton, Tucker, and tell her not to run.  I‘ve been pouring over these maps.

CARLSON:  Not to run?  She‘s raised $27.5 million for her re-election campaign against nobody, essentially.  She‘s got more money than all the other candidates put together.  She has the name recognition.  I mean, why wouldn‘t she be the perfect candidate, apart from the fact she‘s scary?

SAUNDERS:  Well, because she would polarize our party and our country even further, and we don‘t need it.  I mean, this $27 million or so that Hillary has raised. 

You know, I think she ought to take a cue from John Edwards.  You know, John Edwards has raised $6 million this year, has you know, $7,000 in his PAC fund.  He‘s given money to other candidates. 

You know, I think—you know, as I thought about it, you know, the collateral damage.  I was up meeting with the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus at their retreat in Philadelphia.  You know, once I left there, you know, it really stuck with me the collateral damage that could happen, you know, in 2008.  I mean, you know, we‘ve got Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, you know, up again in 2008.  We‘re got Mark Pryor in Arkansas up in 2008. 

CARLSON:  All candidates who‘d get hurt by Hillary.  I agree, but who‘s going to tell her? 

SAUNDERS:  What I‘m saying is, it‘s an anchor.  You know, I am worried that—I think that Hillary Clinton, you know, ought to look at the whole situation and make a statement that she‘s going to stay in the U.S. Senate and she‘s going to start working, you know, keep working for things, you know, that are important for America. 

And you know, in all fairness to Hillary Clinton, you know, I think that she‘s been, you know, chastised unfairly and has been labeled unfairly.  But in politics, Tucker... 

CARLSON:  Well, tell me, Mudcat...

SAUNDERS:  In politics, Tucker, reality—you know, perception is reality. 

CARLSON:  Of course it is. 

Fundraising, something you know well.  You‘re a Democratic strategist.  When—when Ann Coulter comes out with a book like this, do you see an uptick in Democratic fundraising?  I mean, is there a tangible financial benefit to Democrats in the wake of a controversy like this?

SAUNDERS:  Well, you know, I think there are tangible benefits.  I would honestly say that I think it‘s more at the grassroots level, is where that, you know, she makes the greatest impact, you know, on her negativity. 

Ann Coulter—I agree with what Rachel said last night.  You know, it‘s not really worth giving much credibility to.  I mean, you know my stance on God and politics.  I do not believe that God should be, you know, used in a divisive way. 

And—and you know, the way these people—you know, Tom DeLay‘s resignation, George Bush saying that Jesus was his favorite philosopher, I‘m sick of it.  And for Ann Coulter to talk about godless people to me, you know, and sure as hell‘s fire is going to rage when she gets there. 

CARLSON:  A prediction from the great Mudcat Saunders: she‘s going to hell.  Mudcat, thank you very much. 

SAUNDERS:  Thank you Tucker, come see me. 

CARLSON:  I will.

Now to the other top story of the day.  The Senate shoots down a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  Today‘s vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send it for an up or down vote in the Senate.  All that means a blow to the president, who was hoping the issue would energize his conservative base. 

One gay political group happy with the amendment‘s defeat is the Log Cabin Republicans.  The organization‘s president, Patrick Guerriero, joins us tonight from Washington.

Patrick, thanks for coming on. 

PATRICK GUERRIERO, PRESIDENT, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS:  Good to be with you.  Unlike Mudcat, I‘ll keep my tie on. 

CARLSON:  Well, it‘s a handsome tie. 

GUERRIERO:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  The reaction to this, the president putting up or supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, strikes me out of proportion, as a little bit hysterical.  You issued a press release saying, quote, “Great Republican presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan have united Americans and appealed to our best hopes, not our worst fears.” 

Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan would both be against gay marriage, don‘t you think?

GUERRIERO:  I couldn‘t speak to what the dead president‘s positions would be on issues of today.  What I do know is that both of those presidents, even though they were presidents during very difficult times for the nation, at times had more than half of the nation questioning their leadership, they chose to unite the nation around important matters. 

And let‘s face it.  We‘re in a real tough war in Iraq.  We have a government that‘s spending way too much money in Washington D.C.  We have Americans who wake up who are concerned about gas prices, and they‘re choosing whether they want to continue with the Republican leadership or have Speaker Pelosi. 

And I think the use of wedge issues like the issue of marriage have very short shelf lives, and the American people are smarter than most political consultants advisors and advisors.  And our party and this president should figure out a way to find a few issues where we can actually show leadership and win, rather than divide the America family. 

CARLSON:  But wait a minute.  A wedge issue is simply an issue on which people disagree, and all issues are, to some extent, wedge issues. 

Forty-five out of 50 states have had ballot initiatives of one kind or another affirming that marriage is between a men and women and should remain that way.  It‘s another way of saying people are pretty against gay marriage.  I mean, you may not.  I mean, opinions differ, but the bulk of Americans are opposed to it.  So why is it wrong for the president to respond to that?

GUERRIERO:  And that‘s the best case you could ever make for not having a federal constitutional amendment.  The fact is that good Republicans and good federalists believe that these type of issues should be dealt with by the states.  That is how we‘ve always held family and marriage issues. 

Vice President Cheney feels that way.  Senator Jack Danforth feels that way.  We had seven Republican senators, one more than two years ago, who voted that way, including conservatives like John Sununu and Judd Gregg.  John Warner, who said he‘s opposed to this amendment. 

The reality is that these type of issues not only divide the American family.  They not only insult taxpaying, law abiding gay and lesbian Americans.  They also divide the White House family and the Republicans when we need to unite behind the kind of issues that are going to help us win in November. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  People disagree, but that‘s not an argument against it.  Would you reject the rhetoric—I mean, I think you make a fair point that maybe the states ought to decide.  I mean, I‘m not mocking in any way your position.

GUERRIERO:  You‘re a good federalist.  I‘m sure you believe that states should decide and Washington politicians should stay out of this issue. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  It kind of depends on the issue, but I think that‘s a fair point. 

What I want to know, though, is do you reject some of the rhetoric against this?  I mean, do you think it‘s prima facia bigotry, as many of the left, including Ted Kennedy of your home state, Massachusetts, have said to support this amendment?  Why is it bigoted to support the status quo as it‘s been from the beginning of recorded history?  Marriage has always been between a man and woman.  That‘s not bigotry.

GUERRIERO:  One of the real opinions that I have that I‘ve expressed here is that states can decide that.  So some states like Massachusetts, where the majority of citizens support the freedom to marry for all people may see if marriage works.

Other states like Connecticut, New Jersey, California will have civil unions.  Other states, and you‘ve mentioned many of them, will deny any kind of recognition for gay and lesbian couples. 

And the reality is the American experience shows that states will experience all of those policies and figure out what works. 

Let‘s keep Washington politicians focused on winning the war on terror, cutting taxes, controlling spending.  Our Republican Party and this president need to be more disciplined on things that American families care about.  We‘re going to end up turning Congress over to the Democrats.

CARLSON:  That—that‘s for sure.  And you can add immigration to that.  Patrick Guerriero, thanks for joining us.

GUERRIERO:  Good to be with you.

CARLSON:  Still ahead, the illegal immigration debate rages across the country tonight.  The latest, billboards that read “stop the invasion now.”  They‘re being called misleading and divisive.  But are they?  That story is next.

Plus, a follow-up on a story we first brought you last night, a popular high school class president barred from his own graduation because of gang threats against him.  Is it fair?  I‘ll talk to the police chief behind that decision when THE SITUATION continues. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come, is all the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter helping her sell more books?

Plus, British cops arrest a man allegedly involved with a Canadian terror plot.  Are arrests on American soil coming soon?  We‘ll tell you.  Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

So by reintroducing the possibility of banning gay marriage, is President Bush grasping at straws to energize his Republican base?  And is it working?  For answers, we bring in MSNBC political contributor, Flavia Colgan, joining us tonight from Burbank, California. 

Flavia, welcome. 

FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Flavia, you are the author of a column on this exact issue, which I want to quickly...

COLGAN:  Editorial.  Editorial. 

CARLSON:  Editorial.  Editorial, column, opinion.  What Flavia thinks. 

OK.  Here‘s the bottom line.  I want to quote some of it back to you. 

COLGAN:  OK.

CARLSON:  You point out that two Republican pollsters quoted in “Newsweek” recently saying this issue will not help Republicans in the midterm elections.  And yet, you say in the next paragraph that the president is doing this purely for political reasons. 

In other words, the Republicans are hurting themselves by reintroducing the question of banning gay marriage, but they‘re doing it for political reasons.  Both can‘t be true.  Either they‘re doing this because they think it‘s going to help or they‘re doing it because they believe it, in other words out of principle.  Which is it?

COLGAN:  Well, both can be true.  The White House and the

administration can be tone deaf and think that at this point, like I said -

I mean, they‘re trying to do a Hail Mary here.  They think that they‘re going to rev up their base on this. 

But I think that they‘ve gone to the well too many times.  And I think that right now it‘s an issue of priorities.  Even for those who are against gay marriage, I think that when you look, you know, at the deadliest month we‘ve had thus far in Iraq, the fact that we still don‘t have a unity government there, gas prices, health care and so many of the issues that matter to Americans, I think a lot of people feel that time and energy and attention were hijacked, so that for two days people can be debating on the floor a bill that they knew for a fact was going nowhere.

CARLSON:  Come on.  Wait, wait.  I just...

COLGAN:  It‘s cynical, and it‘s manipulative pandering.  And it‘s politics as usual. 

CARLSON:  I can‘t buy that.  I can‘t buy that at all.

COLGAN:  Yes, I do buy that.

CARLSON:  Think of it—think of it this way.  Hold on.  Slow down. 

Let‘s pull back a tiny bit.  OK?

A hundred years from now, which will be remembered more vividly: gas prices in the month of June 2006 or the redefinition of marriage for the first time in human history? 

I think people on both sides, those who are for gay marriage and those who oppose gay marriage, recognize this is a question of world historic significance.  This is a huge deal, no matter what side you‘re on.  The gay rights activists know it‘s a big deal.  The anti-gay rights activists know it‘s a big deal.  Let‘s stop pretending it‘s a minor issue.  It‘s not.  It‘s huge.

COLGAN:  Well, No. 1, unfortunately, the American people do not agree with that in terms of their priorities.  It keeps polling dead last. 

And when they see a Louisiana senator standing on the floor saying this is the most important issue above Katrina and so forth, it does not sit well with the American public. 

In terms of talking about 100 years from now, I frankly think that this issue, like anti-miscegenation laws         and a lot of other things, is going to fall by the wayside. 

And what I do think is that a lot of Americans who maybe feel uncomfortable with gay marriage or, like myself, think that marriage—you know, the word “marriage” is a religious issue and should be decided by the churches.  You know, a lot of people feel, as Patrick said, that this is a states‘ rights issue. 

But more importantly, a lot of people know that the Constitution is one of the most sacred documents ever between a government and it‘s people and that it was written to ensure and protect the rights of all Americans.  And since the Bill of Rights, those amendments have been used to expand those rights.

CARLSON:  Wait a second.

COLGAN:  And for the first time in history...

CARLSON:  OK.  I know.  This will be used to take...

COLGAN:  ... this is writing discrimination into the Constitution.

CARLSON:  Hold on.

COLGAN:  And people do not feel comfortable with that. 

CARLSON:  First of all, every right granted to one group takes a right away from somebody else.  That is kind of the nature.  So that is, I think, a false claim on the one hand. 

But I guess more to the point, there is no right to gay marriage.  I mean, gay marriage may be a great idea.  I‘m not even arguing against gay marriage.  But there‘s no recognized right to gay marriage. 

Moreover, if there is a right to gay marriage and it‘s bigotry to oppose gay marriage, as you‘re saying, then why aren‘t Democrats supporting gay marriage?  I don‘t—which Democrats actually support gay marriage?  I can‘t really think of any.

COLGAN:  Well, look, you‘re not going to get an argument from me that I think Democrats should stand up and, you know, obviously be a little bolder on this.  As I mentioned, I‘m not in favor of gay marriage in terms of the word “marriage.” 

I do feel that gays have the right to the 1,400 or so benefits that I think ensure stability and, certainly, you know, if your partner of 20 years is dying in a hospital bed of cancer, right now you wouldn‘t even be able to go in and hold their hand. 

I do not believe that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage.  I think that adultery, I think that—I think that abuse, I think that divorce, a lot of other things are a threat. 

CARLSON:  I agree.

COLGAN:  I think that not allowing two people to come into a union...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Then why the hell isn‘t Hillary Clinton coming out for gay marriage if it‘s so great?  I mean, why don‘t they take—I mean, why doesn‘t someone grab the Democrats by the shoulder?  Why doesn‘t some gay rights group say, “Look, either you support what you know to be morally right, gay marriage, or we‘re not supporting you”?  I mean, why doesn‘t someone take a stand in principle?  All this rhetoric about how it‘s a question of rights and you‘re a bigot if you oppose it.  Why doesn‘t someone come out for it?  Show some spine. 

COLGAN:  One—well, one reason I would say is the threat that Republicans keep talking about is completely manufactured, because as you pointed out, 45 of the states already have laws—already have statutes or their constitution bans gay marriage.  We also have the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which the Supreme Court is not going to be overturning any time soon. 

CARLSON:  You‘re giving your party a pass.  Hold them to a high standard.  Make these people behave. 

COLGAN:  No, I‘m not giving—no. 

CARLSON:  Flavia, you can do it.  You‘re the one. 

COLGAN:  I believe that they should tell the American public what I have just said on this program.

CARLSON:  OK.  When they...

COLGAN:  Is that freedom means freedom for all Americans and that gays have the right to the same benefits and that it undermines their families and the children that are in those families.  Because trust me, gays are shedding blood already in Iraq. 

CARLSON:  All right.  We‘re out—we‘re out of time, Flavia.  But I think you ought to hold the Democratic Party to the high standards you‘ve just elucidated on the show.  And I appreciate you for elucidating them.  Thanks. 

COLGAN:  And I think you should do the same for your Oscar-worthy grandstanders in the Republican Party. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  First of all, they‘re not mine.  I‘m—I‘m so far out.  I don‘t identify with anybody anymore.  But thanks, Flavia.

Still to come, sure Ann Coulter‘s attack on the 9/11 widows was offensive, but more to the point, will it sell books?  We‘ll debate that next.

Plus, convicted sex offender Jerry “Buck” Inman confesses to strangling a college student with her own bikini top.  How many more murders did this character take responsibility for today?  We know.  We‘ll tell you when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Tonight‘s “Under the Radar” segment comes to us from Bristol Township, Pennsylvania.  That‘s where high school senior and class president Tyrone Lewis has been barred from attending his own graduation. 

The star basketball player, along with his family, have received death threats after Lewis‘s sister testified against a gang member accused of murder.  Police say it‘s just not safe to have Lewis and his family at the graduation ceremony. 

Here to explain why Tyrone Lewis can still go to school but not attend graduation is Bristol Township police chief James McAndrew, joining us tonight from Philadelphia. 

Chief McAndrew, thanks for coming on.

CHIEF JAMES MCANDREW, BRISTOL TOWNSHIP:  You‘re welcome, Tucker.

CARLSON:  So if it‘s too dangerous for Tyrone Lewis to go to graduation, why is he allowed to go to the movies or out to dinner in public restaurants or to church?  I mean, isn‘t he putting the public at risk in any place he is? 

MCANDREW:  The threats—the rumors and the threats we got were for a specific location, and that was at graduation.  That‘s why we‘re focusing on graduation. 

CARLSON:  Is the police department that you run unable to secure a graduation ceremony?

MCANDREW:  Are we unable to secure it?

CARLSON:  Yes. 

MCANDREW:  No.  That‘s not the case at all.  If it was just Tyrone, we would have no problem with him going to graduation, but there are other 414 students.  There are approximately 4,000 spectators that will be there. 

CARLSON:  Right.

MCANDREW:  There will be school personnel who have volunteered their time for the ceremony, and there will be police officers there.  And although we get paid to do that, we still don‘t like to be targets. 

CARLSON:  Right.  Well, I mean, nobody does, of course.  But this is the United States.  You‘d think that the police department would be able to provide security sufficient for a kid, especially if he‘s the class president, to go to his own graduation. 

MCANDREW:  We are—we are going to do security, and we‘re going to remove all the threats that we possibly can as part of that security.  And taking him out of the ceremony is part of that. 

CARLSON:  But he‘s not a threat.  He‘s the target of a threat.  It doesn‘t seem unfair?

MCANDREW:  That‘s exactly right.  It is unfair.  It really is.  There are two—two big things in a teenager‘s life.  First time is probably their driver‘s license and the second time is graduation from high school.  And we‘re taking one of those away from him.  And we don‘t feel good about that; we really don‘t. 

CARLSON:  But why—why is it the police department‘s right to decide whether he goes to graduation or not?  I mean, since when does the police department get to determine whether you can go to graduation?

MCANDREW:  The police department is not deciding that.  The police department has recommended to the school administrators that he be removed.  The decision...

CARLSON:  But they said...

MCANDREW:  The decision to do that is up to the school administrators. 

They agree with our recommendation. 

CARLSON:  But I mean, that—actually, they‘ve said, and I‘m quoting now a vice president of the school board.  He said, quote, “I can‘t go against law enforcement‘s recommendation.”  So, in effect, you‘re deciding. 

MCANDREW:  In effect.  In effect, there‘s no doubt in my mind that our recommendation caries a lot of weight.  Yes.

CARLSON:  So Tyrone Lewis, I mean, can‘t—if people are planning to murder him at a high school graduation, you can‘t believe that he‘s safe just because he‘s not at high school graduation.  I assume you‘ve got a 24-hour police detail following him?

MCANDREW:  No, he does not.  But this threat, as I said before, is specific for graduation. 

CARLSON:  Right.  But I mean...

MCANDREW:  This is not—this is not—you have to understand that in this—in my first part of this decision making is the fact that both him and his sister were involved in two horrific acts of violence. 

CARLSON:  Yes.

MCANDREW:  That‘s No. 1 on the list of our decision making things.  So the other things, coupled along with the rumors, you know, we feel good about our decision. 

CARLSON:  Well, Chief, I mean, I understand that you‘re attempting to preserve public safety here, but do you see the larger problem, which is this seems like giving into gangs.  You‘re allowing a gang to determine who gets to go to graduation and who doesn‘t.  And that just seems like the kind of thing that shouldn‘t happen in America in 2006.  And you should be the one preventing it from happening. 

MCANDREW:  This is not a gang—this is not a gang thing.  Although -

although his sister was involved in that shooting, and that homicide that they were involved in was gang-related, the other part of it is, the other rumor is not gang-related. 

You have to understand that the person who was murdered, Anton Cofield, and Ahman Fralin, who is now in the hospital because of his wounds and is paralyzed from the neck down, are cousins.

CARLSON:  OK.

MCANDREW:  So you have two families.  One family have lost members of their family, homicide and in the hospital.  And the other family, one is in prison and the other one is going to college. 

CARLSON:  But still, allowing—it just seems like thugs are in control, and that just seems an unfortunate message. 

MCANDREW:  That couldn‘t be further from the truth.  This little township does not have a gang problem. 

CARLSON:  OK.

MCANDREW:  We can see—we can see the beginnings of a gang problem.  We do not yet have a gang problem.  Hopefully, we won‘t, because we‘re taking measures to curtail that. 

CARLSON:  Chief James McAndrew.  Thanks a lot for joining us, Chief. 

MCANDREW:  You‘re welcome.

CARLSON:  Still ahead, Pee Wee Herman is making a come back, believe it or not.  Perhaps it will inspire celebrities in tonight‘s “Top Five” list not to give up their Hollywood dreams just because of a little indecent exposure.  Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come:  Will Ann Coulter‘s comments about 9/11 widows make her book sales soar or tank?  Plus, Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie talk wedding plans—details in just a minute.

But, first, here is what else is going on in the world tonight.

(NEWS BREAK)

CARLSON:  Now to the latest salvo in the immigration wars: billboards with the slogan “Stop the Invasion, Secure Our Borders.”  They are going up in major cities across the country to protest illegal immigration.

Today, Los Angeles unveiled a 52-foot sign near the 210 and 605 interstates.  Tomorrow, San Diego gets a sign half-a-mile from the Mexican border.  And Miami already has a massive billboard on Interstate 95 warning illegal aliens to keep out. 

Hear to tell us why the billboards paid for by private citizens ought to come down, Jose Lagos.  He‘s the president of the Honduran Unity.  He joins us tonight from Miami. 

Mr. Lagos, welcome. 

JOSE LAGOS, PRESIDENT, HONDURAN UNITY:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  What—what could possibly be wrong with these signs? 

LAGOS:  Well, actually, we‘re not mad.  As a matter of fact, we are glad to have this kind of debate.  And we do agree with securing our border.

And that‘s why support that a solution be given.  And that is why we are supportive of the president‘s comprehensive immigration reform.  And—and the Senate has taken action.  And that‘s why we call upon our members of Congress to take action, because we do agree to secure the borders.  But we are going to keep—keep having this illegal immigration until we secure the borders, but having this comprehensive immigration reform.  So, we are looking forward...

CARLSON:  Wait, but until we do—OK.  So, you are conceding the

borders are not secure?  Until we have secure borders, it is, in effect, an

an invasion.  An invasion is a—is a migration of a group of people without the consent of the people who own the land to whom they‘re migrating.

I mean, it‘s—it‘s an invasion.  I don‘t—I don‘t know what‘s wrong with saying so.

LAGOS:  Well, it‘s—it‘s—well, of course, we—that‘s—that‘s the beauty of living in this land of—of liberty, the different of expressions.  And—and, of course, everybody has the right.  And—and that‘s fine, if that‘s—that‘s—that‘s the opinion, of course, and that‘s the law of the land. 

And, of course, we do believe in securing the borders.  But in order to avoid...

CARLSON:  Well, if you believe in secure borders, then why—what—what problem could you have possibly with this billboard, which is calling for secure borders?  I mean, why aren‘t you endorsing this billboard and what it stands for? 

LAGOS:  No, no, I—we‘re not—we are not against people placing billboards. 

Today, you can have one that says, “Stop the Invasion, Secure Our Borders.”  Tomorrow, we can have a billboard saying, “Support the Comprehensive Immigration Reform of President Bush,” not only to secure the borders, but to have a—a guest-worker program, in order to people come legally to the country.  And that‘s part of the debate. 

I mean, having the billboard, that is just one of the elements of the big, gigantic debate of immigration reform. 

CARLSON:  Right.  But—but here‘s—here‘s the...

LAGOS:  And it‘s healthy. 

CARLSON:  Here‘s the problem with the debate, OK?  First of all, comprehensive immigration reform is a code phrase, as you know, for amnesty.  I mean, that‘s—you know, secure the borders, whatever that means...

LAGOS:  It‘s not an amnesty. 

CARLSON:  ... and, of course, make legal the 12 million people who are here illegally. 

Second...

(CROSSTALK)

LAGOS:  But that‘s the reality.  We have 12 million people.  And what are we going to do it about it?  We are just going to, you know, get out of here?  I mean, it‘s unrealistic and it‘s unreasonable.

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know why it‘s unrealistic.  It‘s totally realistic. 

If you‘re—if you‘re—I don‘t know, if you don‘t want people who don‘t belong here, you can ask them to leave.  It‘s—it‘s our country.  I don‘t know why that‘s unrealistic or wrong to consider. 

LAGOS:  And—well, but—Tucker, but what are these 12 million people doing? 

I mean, they are working.  They are paying taxes.  They have children.  They are buying homes.  I mean, we don‘t talk about that, you know?  We just talk about the other side of the coin.  But let‘s flip the coin toward this debate, and I think not only a negative part ...

CARLSON:  Oh, so you are not for secure borders? 

LAGOS:  ... but a positive.

CARLSON:  I mean, it‘s..

(CROSSTALK)

LAGOS:  We are for secure borders, but it‘s a reality.  We already have...

CARLSON:  What I hear you saying is making apologies for people who have come here illegally and criticizing Americans who don‘t want them here. 

LAGOS:  No.

We are not criticizing America.  First of all, I‘m American.  And I speak English.  I‘m a registered voter...

CARLSON:  Well, of course.  I‘m not...

LAGOS:  ... and part of the assimilation.  I mean—and I was undocumented myself, too.  And here I am.  I‘m not harming anybody.

And we are supporting the comprehensive immigration reform of the president, secure our border, have a guest program for people to come here legally to the country, and pay a fine, those that are here.  And I think it‘s part of the debate and, you know, part of seeing not only the negative aspect, but the positive aspect.  And we are totally for the president‘s plan.

And we call Congress to approve it as soon as possible. 

CARLSON:  Jose Lagos, thanks for joining us. 

LAGOS:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  We turn now to a man who lives by one simple credo:  People like the sound of my voice. 

He is the “Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host Max Kellerman.

And, Max...

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Yes?

CARLSON:  ... people do like the sound of your voice. 

KELLERMAN:  I would describe it as mellifluous.

CARLSON:  Or melodious, either one, maybe both.

Well, speaking of Ann Coulter, she‘s not going to win many fans with the comments she made about 9/11 widows on this show yesterday.  But will her over-the-top words help sell her books?  Coulter has made a fortune by making controversial, sometimes outrageous claims in her best-selling books.  But has she gone too far this time?  Will even her loyal readers be turned off by her suggestion that 9/11 widows are—quote—“enjoying their husbands‘ deaths”?

Max, I think she actually has gone too far.  And I say that as someone who likes her generally.  And I think it is going to hurt her book sales this time.

You actually think it is going to help.

KELLERMAN:  Yes.  It should help her book sales.

Look, I—I don‘t generally agree with what Ann Coulter has to say, although I have not read any of her work.  Tucker, it—I have heard you describe it as well-written.  I found that hard to believe...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  It actually—you know what?  Ann Coulter on television and Ann Coulter in print are very different.  I mean, I think she comes off as severe, sometimes, on TV.  She comes off as very severe in print, but also clever. 

She is actually a witty writer.  And even when I don‘t agree with her, I—I think, you know what?  This woman can put down the prose.  It‘s impressive.

KELLERMAN:  And—and people like me, who have never had a—I mean, you know, obviously, she produces a response.  And she casts herself as the villain.  Politically, on television, if you watch her, she casts herself, certainly to the left, and even to center, as a villain.  And people love to hate villains. 

She, I think, is probably the person right now that people most love to hate.  And, as a result, they will be interested in reading her.  I might read her.  And I have never read her before.  And that tells me something.

CARLSON:  Yes, but I think she—these comments alienate her base.  I mean, she is not running for anything, but she has a base of people who put her on the best-seller list four times in the past.

And, incidentally, as of tonight, she was number two on Amazon.  So, you know, this book will probably be a best-seller.  But I think it will sell fewer copies because this comment specifically, attacking 9/11 widows, not just their political activism, but them personally, saying, you know, that their husbands were likely to divorce them anyway, and that they‘re delighted their husbands died, I think people who like her will see this as just too mean, over the top.

KELLERMAN:  Let‘s say her bottom line is that this particular book sells fewer copies than it would have had she never made these statements in a kind of loud, obnoxious and public way. 

Let‘s say even that‘s the case.  The fact is, we‘re talking about her

on your show right now.  On the radio, she‘s an issue.  She‘s a topic.  I -

I discuss her on the radio right now.  She couldn‘t be any hotter.  She is number two on Amazon.  And, so, even if it—it hurts the sales of this particular book, which I don‘t think it will, I think, ultimately, it will help drive sales.  In the long run, she has made herself a larger figure on the national scene as a result of these comments. 

CARLSON:  Yes, Morton Downey Jr. was a huge figure right before he disappeared from public view.

Ann Coulter is appealing when she, you know, irritates and infuriates the liberal left.  When she irritates normal people, though, I think she hurts herself. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, we can only—we can only hope. 

CARLSON:  Notice the distinction between...

KELLERMAN:  I can only hope she has really hurt herself this time.

CARLSON:  We generally don‘t pay a lot of attention to the state of Hawaii on this show, but has our 50th state done something so over the top, we had to sit up and take notice?  You bet.

Senator Daniel Akaka—his real name, by the way—says Hawaiians ought to be allowed to govern themselves, independent of the U.S.  Constitution.  Senator Akaka has proposed a bill in Congress that would give indigenous Hawaiians a sovereign, race-based government. 

So, is a different set of rules for Hawaiians a good idea?  Of course it‘s not.  You might be Hawaii, but you are still one of the United States, and you have to play by our rules. 

Max will defend Hawaii, but only because he once had a pretty nice vacation at the Four Seasons in Maui.

KELLERMAN:  It‘s a fact.

CARLSON:  Not reason enough to defend...

KELLERMAN:  It was a working vacation.

CARLSON:  ... racial separatism, which is what this is.  It is bad for our country.  It is bad for Hawaii. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, I mean, with Native Americans, there is a kind of a quasi or semi-autonomous state of affairs, right, on reservations... 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Has it helped American Indians?  No.

KELLERMAN:  No, a few, a few, a select few, but, no, not the majority, I don‘t think you can say. 

But the point is, there is precedent for it.  In fact, the federal system, in the first place, leaves open the idea that there can be various levels of government, right?  I mean, that‘s—that‘s what we have. 

CARLSON:  Right.  I mean, federalism, exactly right, is a principle enshrined in the Constitution.  The founders were for it.  It wasn‘t based on race.  And that‘s the difference here.  The idea that your bloodline, your genetics, give you rights that other Americans don‘t have is a poisonous idea. 

KELLERMAN:  Well...

CARLSON:  It‘s an idea that‘s—we can trace to the founding of the country.  It‘s an idea that we have rejected time and again—thank God—and we should reject it again now. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, yes, although—and Hawaii is technically part of the United States.

But, Tucker, it‘s—I mean,  why is Hawaii part of the United States?  It‘s really a strategic—there‘s a—there are strategic reasons that Hawaii is one of the 50 states.  It‘s three hours by plane from our western-most points.  I mean, it‘s—it is and it isn‘t, kind of.  You know, it‘s...

CARLSON:  Well, I mean, you could say that about a lot of places.  You could say that about Maryland...

KELLERMAN:  Alaska.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  ... you know what I mean, or Utah.  Those are two states that we wouldn‘t...

KELLERMAN:  No, no, no.

CARLSON:  ... consciously, willfully accept into the union, but we have for strategic reasons, because it...

KELLERMAN:  but I...

CARLSON:  ... you know, makes the continent whole.

KELLERMAN:  I think there are—it—there—at the core of this is actually—and, yes, the racial component doesn‘t pass the smell test—but at the core of this is the affirmative action argument, which you consistently reject, but I find some value, and I think there‘s some legitimacy to it, the idea being that a certain group of people—you know, in fact, on last night‘s show, the gentleman came on from North Carolina, where reparations were being paid to—essentially...

CARLSON:  Right. 

KELLERMAN:  ... to the descendants.  And you‘re saying it‘s not fair to taxpayers, who had nothing who had nothing to do with it.

CARLSON:  Right. 

KELLERMAN:  But, in the larger sense of fairness, while taxpayers today in North Carolina, white taxpayers, say, although it‘s all taxpayers, may have had nothing to do with that, the fact is, being white in North Carolina, you‘re—you are enjoying privileges that being black did not confer upon you until very recently, and, culturally, maybe still haven‘t conferred on you.

CARLSON:  What about being Hispanic or Indian?  I mean, I don‘t know.  As soon as you start treating people differently on the basis of race, I think you—you commit a moral crime, A, and, B, you create an unworkable country, as we have seen around the world.

KELLERMAN:  But if—but if—but if race has been the basis of differential treatment in one direction for decades, or even centuries, then, to balance the scales of justice, you can say that—that treating people differently based on race the other way...

CARLSON:  Two wrongs don‘t make a right, Max. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Take us right back to kindergarten.

Max Kellerman, thank you, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  I love the sound of your voice. 

Coming up on THE SITUATION:  There are new arrests tonight in the massive terror plot to blow up targets just north of our border.  Has the case spread to the U.S. now, though?  We will tell you in just a minute.

And don‘t forget, we will be listening to your calls tomorrow night.  Give us a ring—the number, 1-877-TCARLSON.  Let us know what is on your mind.  We will play it.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Coming up: a confession in the bikini murder case.  Why was the career criminal out of jail in the first place? 

Plus, Brad and Angelina go on the record about their wedding plans. 

Are they about to tie the knot?

CARLSON:  I, for one, am dying to know—all that and more when THE SITUATION comes back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  On tonight‘s SITUATION “Crime Blotter”:  A registered sex offender confesses to the murder of 20-year-old Clemson University student Tiffany Souers. 

Jerry Buck Inman was arrested in Tennessee yesterday, and returned to South Carolina today to face charges of murder, rape and kidnapping.  Souers was found dead in her off-campus apartment on May 26.  She was strangled with her own bikini top.  Inman has also confessed to two rapes last month, one in Tennessee, the other in Alabama.

British police have now arrested two men in connection with that alleged massive Canadian terror plot.  Authorities say a 21-year-old man and a 16-year-old were involved in a plot to attack Canadian targets and to behead the prime minister of Canada.  The British pair joins the 17 Canadian citizens arrested last week. 

Well, you are going to want to wake the kids for this next story, because a Saturday morning TV legend is making a comeback.  The Cartoon Network will re-air all 45 original episodes of “”Pee-wee‘s Playhouse” beginning next month.  The pop culture kiddie show starring Paul Reubens as Pee-wee Herman earned a remarkable 22 Emmys during its initial run in the 1980s.

But CBS boarded up the “Playhouse” in 1991, after Reubens was arrested for exposing his pee-wee in a Florida porn theater.  His embarrassing saga prompted us to scour the nation‘s police blotters for other celebrities caught red-handed, so to speak.

Here now is tonight‘s “Top 5” list.  But, first, send the kids back to bed. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON (voice-over):  Sure, they are used to smiling for the camera, but when those glamorous mugs suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law, well, now, there‘s an arresting sight. 

As a model and actress, sexy Tawny Kitaen made quite an impression on her fellow stars.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HANKS, ACTOR:  Have I have sex with anyone in this room tonight?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  But then few ever knew the flip side of Tawny, until her 2002 brawl with then husband Chuck Finley, a pro baseball pitcher.  Talk about beauty and the beast.  Tawny was both. 

He is no stranger to the court, but, in 1997, sportscaster Marv Albert found himself in court, accused of biting a female sex partner.  He said it was consensual.  She said it was a personal foul.  Eventually, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARV ALBERT, SPORTSCASTER:  What I did was wrong. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Well, as they say in sports, let‘s see that again.  Yes!

(MUSIC)

CARLSON:  It was no laughing matter for Eddie Murphy back in 1997, when a West Hollywood cop caught the comedian in the company of a transsexual prostitute. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDDIE MURPHY, ACTOR:  I don‘t think that‘s funny.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Murphy, good samaritan that he is, explained, he was merely giving his new friend a ride home. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MURPHY:  Be somebody.  Be a ho.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

CARLSON:  Then there is the 1998 arrest that begs the question, why does a successful rock musician have to solicit sex in a public men‘s room?  Unfortunately for George Michael, he uttered a careless whisper to an undercover Beverly Hills cop and was sentenced to perform community service.  Isn‘t that what got him in trouble in the first place?

Thespian Hugh Grant seemed to have it all, good looks, charm, a skyrocketing film career, and a beautiful girlfriend, until, one night in 1995, when he took a walk on the wild side and picked up this Divine companion on Sunset Boulevard.

Comedian Jay Leno later posed the question that could be asked of everyone on tonight‘s “Top 5”:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO”)

JAY LENO, HOST, “THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO”:  What the hell were you thinking? 

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON:  Still ahead on THE SITUATION:  Like most parents, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie held a joint press conference today to discuss the birth of their daughter.  We will tell you about the bombshell Jolie dropped when we come back.  Stay with us. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  You have waited 23 hours and 56 minutes for it.  It‘s here, Willie Geist and the “Cutting Room Floor.”

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  If that‘s true, you lead a very pathetic life. 

(LAUGHTER)

GEIST:  I feel sorry for you.

Before we get to this, Tucker, I want to take one moment to recognize Rick Kaplan...

CARLSON:  Yes. 

GEIST:  ... the president of MSNBC.  He stepped down today, a good friend, a supporter of this show, and a good friend and a supporter to a lot of us personally.  And I just want to thank Rick and wish him the best. 

CARLSON:  I agree.  He first hired me nine years ago.  Then he hired me again last year.

GEIST:  Hired you again.  He much know something.

CARLSON:  Hope he hires me again someday soon.

Rick Kaplan, thank you.

Well, in their ongoing effort to keep the birth of their daughter as private and normal as possible, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie held an international news conference to discuss the matter today.  Pitt and Jolie spoke in Namibia, where their daughter, Shiloh, was born on May 27.  The couple claims to have no immediate wedding plans.  Jolie said—quote—

“There is nothing in the air.  The focus is on the kids.”

GEIST:  Tucker, would you—this is an honest question—would you marry Angelina?  I—I have concerns.  I don‘t think you sign a lifetime contract with that ball club.  I think you want to leave yourself an out. 

CARLSON:  Her eyes spook me so completely, I would be afraid to go to sleep in the same room as Angelina. 

GEIST:  It is almost on Jennifer Wilbanks‘ level. 

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  No, it is really is.

GEIST:  There are just so many layers that I think, over the years, as they‘re peeled away, you would find things you didn‘t want to see.

CARLSON:  I get a Lorena Bobbitt vibe, honestly.

GEIST:  Watch it Brad.

CARLSON:  It‘s just a vibe.

Nothing stirs up World Cup soccer excitement quite like a friendly match between semi-exotic zoo animals.  A South Korean amusement park today staged a game between teams comprised of parrots and guinea pigs.  The final surreal touch was the cheering section of monkey and zebras.  All of this was an attempt to get the country excited about the South Korean soccer team‘s first World Cup soccer match next week. 

GEIST:  That‘s just terrific end-to-end action there, Tucker.

(LAUGHTER)

GEIST:  Well, one thing I will say, that guinea pig is killing them in goal.  Get the monkey in there.  The guinea pig, it‘s like he‘s never played soccer before.  It‘s like he doesn‘t want to be there.  And, if you don‘t want to play, you know what?  Get back in the cage and run through the paper towel dispenser, the tube, or whatever that is that you do. 

CARLSON:  You know, this is not about the competition in the World Cup.  This is about the competition for title of world‘s weirdest country. 

GEIST:  Exactly. 

CARLSON:  And I think South Korea is beating Japan.

GEIST:  Well, Japan, two weeks ago, you will remember, had fish playing soccer in a tank. 

(LAUGHTER)

GEIST:  So, that is a neck-and-neck race. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Neck-and-neck.

GEIST:  Too close to call. 

CARLSON:  Good point.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  No, this is not a transvestite hooker working a street corner in South Florida.  Didn‘t mean to get your hopes up.  It‘s, in fact, a police officer working undercover, deep undercover, to catch drivers who violet traffic laws. 

Officer Terry Goldman (ph) of the West Palm Beach Police Department slips on 13-inch heels, a dress, and a wig, paints on some makeup, and catches people who run red lights. 

GEIST:  All right.  Come on. 

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

GEIST:  There are plenty of ways to go undercover, or you could just go plainclothes.  They don‘t know you‘re a cop.  Indulge your eccentricities on your own time, not on taxpayer money.  That‘s my opinion in this matter.

CARLSON:  It‘s unbelievable:  No, I‘m really—this is my job.

GEIST:  Right.  Right. 

CARLSON:  It‘s like—it‘s like athletes who shave their whole body, and he goes:  No, really, it helps me.

No, come on.  You are into it.  You like it. 

GEIST:  Exactly:  Chief, I want to go hand out some parking tickets in a Little Bo Peep costume. 

(LAUGHTER)

GEIST:  Like, come on, dude, you‘re not fooling anybody.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Thank you, Willie.

GEIST:  All right, Tucker.

CARLSON:  That‘s it for us tonight.  Join us tomorrow. 

We will see you then.  Good night. 

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

Watch The Situation with Tucker Carlson each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,