updated 10/9/2006 12:39:30 PM ET 2006-10-09T16:39:30

Guests: Leslie Sanchez, Tom Tancredo, Pat Campbell, Stephanie Miller, Eric Egland

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Welcome to the show.  I‘m Tucker Carlson.

A lot to get to today, including what could turn out to be a major Republican betrayal on the planned fence along the Mexican border.  You thought we were getting one.  You were wrong.  You‘ve been lied to, it turns out. 

And why video showing insurgent attacks on U.S. troops are turning up on YouTube. 

But first we get right to the top story of the day.  That is, of course, the holy fallout. 

ABC News reporting three additional former pages are complaining about sexually e-mails and instant messages from former congressman Mark Foley.  Meanwhile, the disgraced congressman‘s former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, has been meeting with the FBI.

But the question no one‘s answered so far—and many have tried—who is behind the original leak?  Where did these e-mails, these IMs come from in the first place? 

With the latest on that, the first person we thought of to answer the question, MSNBC‘s David Shuster in Washington. 

David, what do you know? 

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT:  Well, Tucker, there are two theories.  One is that the Democrats somehow had these e-mails, had this story and simply sat on it until the month before the election and then let it loose.  The other theory, of course, is that, no, this was just confined to Republican circles. 

When you go back and you try to answer this question, first of all, you go back to ABC News.  They were the first to break this story.  They said that to the extent their sources had any political leanings, they were Republicans.  “The Hill” newspaper, which matched ABC‘s reporting on, they said that their source was a Republican Hill staffer. 

Furthermore, ABC says a blog and a Web site that was trying to get this information to the FBI in the summertime, that ABC had no knowledge of that until last week.  However, this particular liberal group on another blog, they are getting a lot of attention.

The liberal group that was trying to get this information in the hands of the FBI this summer, it‘s called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.  On July 21st this summer they tried to forward some e-mails to the FBI.  They did not get any response.  The FBI says the information was incomplete.  The group says, no, the FBI‘s just trying to cover its tracks. 

But a week later this mysterious blog suddenly is created.  That‘s called Stop Sex Predators.  It‘s sort of innocuous in the beginning, and then in September, September 21st, they start making references to Congressman Foley, and then a couple of days later, this blog starts printing some e-mails about Congressman Foley. 

Again, ABC News, which then had the story, the first broadcast story a couple of days after that, says it had never heard of this blog, didn‘t know anything about the liberal group that was trying to get this information to the FBI.  And a lot of people, Tucker, are also suggesting, look, it doesn‘t really matter who was the original source of this story. 

CARLSON:  Right.  Oh, I agree with that.  Of course—I mean, of course.

I mean, it‘s hard for Republicans to complain about this story coming out since, do you really want Foley‘s behavior to remain secret?  Of course not.  But what would be—so I think that‘s a phony complaint on their part. 

SHUSTER:  That‘s right.

CARLSON:  But what would be the motive, if, in fact, Republicans are the ones who leaked this information to the press?  What would be their motive, do you think? 

SHUSTER:  Well, the motive, first of all, that a lot of people seem to be talking about is betrayal, the idea that somebody who was close to Foley who either felt betrayed by him—and it may have been a Republican—who felt that Foley‘s behavior was somehow out of line and that Foley was not taking responsibility, may have simply just wanted to damage him and didn‘t realize the cascading fallout that this would have. 

The other may simply be politics.  It may be, perhaps, that there were groups that somehow thought it was politically advantageous for the story come out.  But that second theory doesn‘t seem to be holding up, again, because the story really only took off after ABC first reported it.  And again, Brian Ross, a reporter at ABC, says that to the extent his sources had Republican leanings, they were Republicans.  In other words, no Democratic involvement in the initial broadcasting of this story.

CARLSON:  And finally, David, Stop Sex Predators, this Web site, this impromptu Web site, seems to be the key to the story.  Can we find out—is there any way to find out who owns it?  Someone has to pay for the space on this bandwidth, correct?  Can we find out who that person was? 

SHUSTER:  Well, we‘ve tried.  And what‘s so remarkable is the person who is responsible for this Web site, they have had a few communications with news organizations, but their communications have been via e-mail and through an e-mail address that you can‘t identify who they are. 

So, for whatever reason, that particular Web site creator wants to keep his identity private and is not offering any information about his political background or leanings.  But there‘s also some indication that regardless of whether this particular Web site creator is pleased with how this story has developed, there are also some indications that even this person did not know that ABC was working on the story, did not have the information.

And furthermore, it‘s worth pointing out, Tucker, as well, ABC said that they first started looking at this story in August.  And this would be before the Web site of—this person who created this Web site, but that Brian Ross couldn‘t pursue this story because he was working on Katrina coverage.  So the timeline still doesn‘t rally work out as far as placing this mysterious Web site in how this story got leaked out and got into the mainstream media. 

CARLSON:  There is—there is a bigger story here, I am convinced. 

David Shuster, thank you very much.

SHUSTER:  You‘re welcome.

CARLSON:  This has been a week of bad news, and worse news for the Republican Party.  A congressman is caught making sexual advances toward underage pages.  Then the party apparently tries to cover that up.

With stories like that, not to mention the current debacle in Iraq, why would anybody vote Republican?  It‘s a question voters themselves will be asking next month and it‘s a question right now for our next guest. 

She‘s Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez.  And she joins us from Washington. 

Leslie, thanks for joining us.


CARLSON:  What is the answer to that?  Why would people in the face of all of this, why exactly would they vote for the Republican Party? 

SANCHEZ:  I tell you, there‘s no doubt there‘s some in the Republican Party that probably deserve a kick in the fanny, I‘ll agree with you there.  But let‘s look at the alternative.  The American public does not deserve a Democratic Congress. 

We had to be mindful and need to remember the Dan Rostenkowskis, need to remember we never had education reform, immigration reform, or even welfare reform in a real way.  And you have to remember, we may not agree with all of the votes, you know, and there may be particular votes that Republicans are upset by, especially swing votes like Hispanics and women.  But overall, Republicans stand as the party of lower taxation, growing small businesses, a healthcare that is the envy of the world.  And as long as we can remain, you know, kind of committed to those principles and get past the politics, we are going to continue to retain a Republican majority. 

CARLSON:  But we haven‘t had immigration reform.  I agree that Democrats would raise taxes.  They say so.  They would do so.

SANCHEZ:  And raise the minimum wage, which Nancy Pelosi is talking about now. 

CARLSON:  They would, absolutely.  And they would do that immediately. 


CARLSON:  So—but apart from those issues—they‘re significant, but they‘re not the whole package—Republicans don‘t seem to offer very much.  I mean, they—when it comes to spending, they spend more than the Democratic Congress did under the first George—the first George Bush.  I mean, spending is out of control and it‘s Republicans in charge. 

So, I don‘t know, the rationale seems to be evaporating. 

SANCHEZ:  No.  Tucker, you‘re right.  There‘s a lot of conservatives upset about prescription drug benefits, there‘s a lot of things they‘re upset about that have been appropriated and the money‘s there.  But you have to look at all of the successes that we‘ve had.

Education reform is one of those things that‘s lost under the rug with No Child Left Behind.  Immigration reform is a tough thing, and also Social Security, the third rail of American politics that the president has tried to use his political capital just to gain some momentum.  But ultimately, you have to look at that this is a Congress and a Republican Party that believes in our commitments abroad internationally, especially when it comes to strengthening our force and our presence around the world. 

It‘s a very delicate situation.  But the alternative or the lack of alternatives that the Democrats provide in terms of cutting and running policies in our foreign policy agenda, there‘s such a clear distinction between Republicans and Democrats.

CARLSON:  You know, but it‘s a distinction between bad and worse.  I mean...

SANCHEZ:  It‘s a distinction between...

CARLSON:  It‘s a good thing the Democrats are so irresponsible, or I would be rooting for them at this point.  I mean, this country is weaker because of Iraq.  I really want to punish someone for that.  And the people responsible for that, I hate to say it, are Republicans. 

SANCHEZ:  I think you‘re right.  I think a lot of people are mad about  particular votes.  I‘ll give you that.  But look at the alternative. 

This is a country that the Democrats—remember the days when they liked -

they were praying on the fact that they hope that there‘s some other type of terrorist attack or some other type of negativity in our economy.  That‘s what the Democrats are rooting for.  That‘s the difference between how Republicans are optimistic about our economy, optimistic about small business growth, optimistic about Latinos and minorities growing and assimilating into America.

That‘s the distinct difference and what continues to grow and make America strong.  And the fact that the Democrats have failed continually to provide an optimistic agenda or any type of leadership shows why Republicans are this committed to vote.

CARLSON:  Wait, but with all due respect, your—I mean, your rationale for electing Republicans is the opposite of an optimistic agenda.  You‘re saying, you know, the Democrats are scary.

I‘m actually agreeing with you.  I think Nancy Pelosi is not good for America.  You don‘t want Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Mikulski and people like that, you don‘t want them in charge.  But that‘s hardly an optimistic reason to vote Republican, is it?

SANCHEZ:  There‘s two prongs to that.  One is, what would the Democrats do if they were in power?  And two, what is the choice and alternative that the Republicans pose?  Not only strengthening our defense, continuing to grow and build businesses, keep taxes low, allow us opportunities in education reform, and continue to make—for America to have a good health system that is the envay of the world. 

Like I said before, Tucker, it‘s plain politics.  I mean, the fact that the Democrats today came out with their 100-day plan, what, five weeks before the election, it took them 12 years to figure out what they want to stand for?


SANCHEZ:  You know, and is this Nancy Pelosi or the Democratic caucus—because...

CARLSON:  No, I agree.  Look, they‘re terrible.  They‘re a joke.  And it‘s just a good thing.

I mean, when the Democrats finally figure out what they believe and if they believe something that normal people agree with—I mean, that‘s a big “if,” but let‘s say they come around to that—it‘s over for the Republican Party.  I mean, it really is. 

SANCHEZ:  I don‘t think it‘s going to be, especially because the Democrat Party, as you know, Tucker, better than anybody, is mobilized and controlled by the fringe elements on the left.

CARLSON:  Oh, I agree.

SANCHEZ:  They are so out of touch with mainstream voters, so out of touch with women.

CARLSON:  And that‘s—that‘s all Republicans have for—going for them at this point, sadly.

Leslie, thanks a lot for joining us.

SANCHEZ:  Sure.  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Still to come, remember that 700-mile fence Congress promised to build along our border with Mexico?  Ha!  Were you dumb enough to believe it?  It‘s not going to happen.  We‘ll tell you why. 

And who would you support for president, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? 

You may be surprised at who comes out ahead.

We‘ve got those numbers when we come back. 



REP. DENNIS HASTERT ®, HOUSE SPEAKER:  A lot of people wanted us to address the issue about the border.  And we did exactly that.  And, you know, last Friday, we culminated in appropriations that did fix the border.  So, you know, we have a good story to tell.


CARLSON:  You‘re watching Speaker of the House Denny Hastert of Illinois.  As their world crumbles around them, many Republicans have been trying to highlight at least one accomplishment on immigration reform, especially to build a 700-mile-long fence along our border with Mexico.  But in a late-night session last week, Congress actually agreed to a series of loopholes that would allow the money to be spent on other projects, not the fence. 

Congress even pledged in writing that Native-American tribes, among many others, would get a say in the exact placement of the structure.  In other words, veto power. 

We‘re not really getting a border fence, Mr. and Mrs. America. 

Here to talk about that, Congressman Tom Tancredo in Denver, Colorado.  He‘s a Republican from Colorado.  And we are, as always, honored to have him here.

Congressman, I don‘t think I‘ve been as mad as I was when I read “The Washington Post” this morning in a long time.  This is a lie.  We‘re not getting this fence, are we?

REP. TOM TANCREDO ®, COLORADO:  I don‘t—I don‘t know, buddy.  I just don‘t know at this point in time. 

I have been saying, of course, every time I get the chance that regardless of all the other stuff that has come out, regardless of the Foley stuff, regardless of the fact that we have not lived up to Republican principles, we should be returned to office as Republicans because we are committed now, at least the House is totally committed, to border security.  Look, we passed the bill for the 700-mile-long fence. 

Now, I knew, Tucker—I knew that there were problems inside the bill.  And it certainly wasn‘t, you know, a perfect thing.  But is—that‘s generally the case with most of the stuff we pass in Washington. 

And what I wanted to do with the bill was to get a foothold.  To get—you know, if we once get the authorization passed, if we get some money in it, then every year we can pump away at the construction of the fence.  But, what really worries me and what really is extremely unnerving...


TANCREDO:  ... is this letter from the—that was from, I guess, as I got it from “The Post”—I mean, it‘s the first I heard of it, too, just a little bit ago—from Speaker Hastert and the majority leader in the Senate, Frist, to Chertoff, saying essentially, don‘t worry, you don‘t really have to build this thing.  That just...


CARLSON:  It‘s unbelievable.

TANCREDO:  If this is all true...

CARLSON:  What do you make—what do you make of this?  It says, “In a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans”—I‘m quoting “The Washington Post” now—“GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native-American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would have a say in the exact placement of the fence.”

That‘s veto power.  Why the hell would Indian tribes have veto power over the fence?  I mean, I don‘t get that at all. 

TANCREDO:  Well, we were going to have—for one thing, we were going to have a problem with them regardless of this—of this commitment.  You know, they have a—the fact is that they have sovereign immunity for a lot of things because they are a sovereign nation.  So we were going to have a problem there anyway, believe me.  This other part...

CARLSON:  Wait.  What do you mean sovereign nations?  Wait, hold on.

TANCREDO:  Well, I mean...

CARLSON:  The United States government, the federal government is in charge of our border, is it not?  I mean, we don‘t have countries within our country, do we?

TANCREDO:  Well, that‘s a—that‘s a good question.  That‘s a good question.

In Arizona there‘s an Indian tribe, the (INAUDIBLE), that actually overlaps the border.  And they claim, of course, that they should be allowed to come back freely, that they should not be bound by any sort of restrictions on that.  And that if we do anything like putting a structure over their “land,” their reservation, that they can have veto power.  That was going to be a problem before this—this thing ever started. 

CARLSON:  You know what?  We hate—we hate ourselves.  We‘re a masochistic nation.  That‘s kind of the bottom line, in my opinion.

TANCREDO:  Well, it seems to me...

CARLSON:  If you can‘t even stand up and say it‘s our border, we get to control it, then what‘s the point of having a country? 

TANCREDO:  Well, you‘re absolutely right, of course.  That‘s the whole—that‘s another debate that I thought we had settled about the reason why you need to have a fence. 

Actually, in terms of the Indian reservation thing, I could have lived with that, because you know what?  I‘d—if they were going to complain about it, if we couldn‘t get it through a court, which we would probably have to go to court on, I would build a fence around the reservation, on our—you know, I mean, on the inside part, the part that overlaps into the United States.  You build it on that part instead of the border.  You‘re still going to do the same thing in the long run. 

But, like I say, there were problems, but a foothold is what we needed.  I am worried about this letter, this letter from Hastert and Frist to Chertoff.  That—because that—that, to me, is a deal breaker. 

I certainly never heard of it before.  And if it‘s true, if it‘s all accurate, then I‘m infuriated.  I don‘t know what step to take next, because frankly I just heard about it. 

CARLSON:  So sum in a macro way here, what‘s going to happen to your party, the Republican Party, in the midterm elections, what, 32 days from today?  I mean, is it—is it over? 

TANCREDO:  Well, if we can‘t—if we cannot live up to the commitments we‘ve made to the American people about border security and with what you just introduced this whole segment with, the segment about the speaker, you know, talking about border security, if we can‘t live up to that, Tucker, this thing—we can stick a fork in it as far as the politics is concerned and us controlling the Congress of the United States.  You know, we‘re history. 

CARLSON:  Are you embarrassed?  I mean, how do you feel about that?  You have been a Republican for a long time. 

TANCREDO:  Infuriated.  All my life—I mean, believe me, buddy, ever since I have been able to vote and registered to vote, I have been a Republican. 

I am infuriated.  I am so disappointed.  I wanted to go out there and make the case for the Republican Party to be returned to office.  I don‘t know what I‘m going to do about this. 

CARLSON:  Well, I think—I think a lot of people want you to run for president.  I know a lot of people who would quit their jobs to work on your campaign.  So why don‘t you do that? 

That would be fun.  Start a new party.  The Tancredo party...


TANCREDO:  Well, that‘s an option. 


TANCREDO:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Congressman Tancredo, thanks for joining us. 

TANCREDO:  You bet. 

CARLSON:  Coming up, it‘s been a week to forget for the Republican Party, as we have been talking about.  Can the White House rewrite an increasingly dismal script, or are Republican candidates doomed in the midterms?

And attacks on American troops in Iraq are being caught on tape and posted on YouTube.  It‘s disgusting.  Who‘s behind it?

That story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Time now for “Beat the Press:.

First up, the frontrunner for sentence of the year.  This comes courtesy of “The Hill,” the newspaper that describes itself as for and about the Congress. 

The last line of yesterday‘s editorial about the Foley scandal read - and we are quoting now—“Hastert and Boehner need to get on the same page or Republican troubles will continue to mount.”

No.  I think we can safely say if they were to share the same page, the troubles would intensify.  Because that‘s really sick. 

Not to judge. 

Next up, Northwestern University‘s News at 7:00 project.  Some say Katie Couric changed the future of news when she moved to CBS and became the first female evening news reader.  But to students at Northwestern, a woman in the anchor chair isn‘t revolutionary, it‘s laughably tame, almost 19th century stuff. 

It created a mockup of what they say a modern newscast ought to look like. 

So take a look at the future of news. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Hi.  My name is Alex Bants (ph).  I‘m taking a break from fighting zombies to bring you the national news update. 

NASA gave shuttle Atlantis the all clear to come home Thursday after a stem (ph) to stern inspection prompted by a mysterious (INAUDIBLE) found no damage to the ship. 

Excuse me just a second, folks.  Sorry about that. 


CARLSON:  That was just a little bit of conflict of interest here.  As a living, breathing news anchor, I obviously have good cause to argue against being replaced by the cartoon version.  On the other hand, you‘ve got to ask yourself looking at this, is this going to bring people into news or turn them of? 

What do I know?  Maybe it is appealing to see your anchor turn and blow away zombies with an automatic weapon in the middle of a newscast.  I don‘t know.  My guess, that probably is the future.

And finally, our “Clip of the Week”.

Just incase you don‘t know, some schools still do practice corporal punishment.  And if you‘re not quite sure what corporal punishment is, the FOX News Channel comes to the rescue.  Watch this latest installment of news you can use. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  OK.  Now let me ask you something, Principal.  Are you going to do the same strength of a paddle that you would do if you were actually disciplining right now? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  No.  It‘s all in the wrist, and the more you flip the wrist the more power that‘s put on to the paddle. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  OK.  There you go. 


CARLSON:  No, that‘s not gay porn.  That‘s news, according to FOX.  That‘s right, that‘s news.  A little paddling on FOX.

Love it. 

Still to come, Nancy Pelosi says she‘s got a plan to “drain the swamp” of Republican rule, and she says it will only take 100 hours.  Pretty impressive.  Paul Bunyan-like, really. 

We‘ve got the story.  We‘ll be right back.   


CARLSON:  Who gets your vote for president of the United States, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?  You might be surprised who comes out ahead in that poll. And videos of attacks on American troops are turning up on Youtube.  Who‘s behind it?  We‘ll get to all that in just a minute but right now, here‘s a look at your headlines.

MARGARET BRENNAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT:  I‘m Margaret Brennan with your CNBC market wrap.  Stocks turning negative on disappointing economic news and a shakeup at GM.  The Dow closing the day down more than 16 points, the S&P 500 down 3-1/2.  The NASDAQ off more than 6.  General Motors fueling today‘s declines after the company‘s biggest shareholder, Kirk Kerkorian, dropped plans to buy 12 million shares of company stock.  Kerkorian ally Jerry York also abruptly quitting GM‘s board, both men disappointed over failed three way tie up talks between GM and Nissan Renault.  The latest jobs report also putting pressure on the Dow, just 51,000 new jobs added last month, the smallest amount in a year.  On the bright side, unemployment edged slightly lower.  And video sharing website youtube.com reportedly catching Google‘s eye.  The “Wall Street Journal” says Google is in talks to buy Youtube for about $1.6 billion.  Now back to Tucker.

CARLSON:  Time now for three on three where we welcome two of the sharpest people we know to discuss three of today‘s most interesting stories.  Joining us from Orlando, Florida, Pat Campbell host of “The Pat Campbell Show” on 540 WFLA.  And from Burbank, California, Stephanie Miller, she is host of the nationally syndicated “Stephanie Miller Show”.  Welcome to you both. 

First up, not a good week for Republicans, not a good week at all.  In the upcoming midterm elections they look grim.  As we just discussed in addition to the Foley scandal, the United States is still of course waging the war in Iraq.  The 700-mile fence on the Mexican border looks like a big lie.  Republicans are scrambling to stop the hemorrhaging, will they succeed in time for next month‘s elections.  Pat, if you could sum up in one sentence, why vote Republican right now when you—


CARLSON:  Yeah, what‘s the rationale?

CAMPBELL:  Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric used to

start each meeting with what‘s the reality? Here‘s the reality in central

Florida.  I have three Republican congressmen in my listening area, Rick

Keller, John Micah, Tom Feeney.  They‘re all going to win re-election by a

comfortable margin and here‘s why.  First of all the Democrats have fielded

incompetent components but more importantly all three of these guys are on

the right page on the two issues that matter the most to voters and my

listeners here in central Florida, those two issues being the war on

terrorism and secondly illegal immigration.  By the same token, if our

junior senator Mel Martinez who‘s a Republican down here, if he were up for

re-election right now, there‘s a very good chance he‘d lose because he‘s

abandoned his base on the core issue, which is illegal immigration.  

CARLSON:  Ah, interesting.  So you‘re saying that Republicans who are staying true to their promises and true to the kind of core Republican ideology are going to do well and those who waiver won‘t? 

CAMPBELL:  On the issues that matter most. 

CARLSON:  What do you think of that Stephanie?  Let‘s just say, let‘s narrow it down to one issue, illegal immigration.  So the Democrats take over the House and the Senate and they‘re going to have to contend with that issue right there.  And I think that there are a lot of Democrats, blue collar Democrats who are very opposed to illegal immigration.  Is the Democratic Party going to change its position on that issue if it wins?

STEPHANIE MILLER, HOST, “STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW”:  Well, I‘m sorry, I‘m still adjusting Pat‘s saying that Florida is a-ok for Florida, for Republicans the land of Katherine Harris and Mark Foley.  Good job.

CARLSON:  Central Florida I think he was saying.

CAMPBELL:  I told you the reality of my area, three congressmen. 

They‘re all going to get reelected by a comfortable margin.  

MILLER:  Ok, all right.  It‘s been a bad—it‘s been really the most embarrassing week I think Tucker for Republicans, well since you were on “Dancing with the Stars”, no offense.  But—

CARLSON:  You can‘t hurt my feelings Stephanie, it‘s impossible.  

MILLER:  Listen, I think they should use that tape of you for ads.  This is, if you thought the tap dancing around the Foley scandal was bad, take a look at this.  But you know I just think that the Senate bill is a good bill on immigration.  I think that most Americans want something done about border security, we can all agree that the president has done a disastrous job on border security.   But I don‘t think we want to make felons out of people who are here as they‘re trying to make a living. 

CARLSON:  We can really agree on that, can we really?  Because in fact the Democrats are even farther to the left, even less in favor of securing the border than President Bush.  So it‘s sort of hard to criticize Bush for not being tough enough if you‘re a Democrat.  I mean I don‘t know how that works exactly.  In other words can you name a single Democrat?

MILLER:  We want border security, but we also want comprehensive

reforms and I think the Senate bill makes a lot of sense.  You know, it‘s

interesting watching the president try to suck up to his big business

buddies while still trying to keep the Hispanic vote and try to be tough on

security and he‘s clearly doing a bad job  

CARLSON:  Well I guess the Democrats don‘t have that problem because they‘re simply letting as many illegals come into this country as possible because they know that 90 percent of those, at least the Hispanic ones are going to be Democratic voters. 

MILLER:  Yeah.

CARLSON:  But that‘s true.  The Republican Party is an awful lot of—

MILLER:  That‘s exactly what we‘re for Tucker, we‘re for letting in as many illegal people in as possible.  That‘s exactly the Democratic platform.  

CARLSON:  That is the Democratic platform, that is absolutely the Democratic position and it is unfortunately the big business Republican position.  And it‘s been the reality by the way for the last 10 years.  Name a single Democrat in the United States Senate who is for truly locking down the border and preventing illegal immigration.  I can‘t think of one.  

MILLER:  What does locking the border down mean? You mean a fence?  Is that what you‘re talking about?

CARLSON:  Yeah, how about preventing people—

MILLER:  A fence that‘s never going to happen? 

CARLSON:  It won‘t happen because the left and big business are united against it because each one gains something from having a lot of non-citizens in this country.  But ordinary people are mad about it.  

MILLER:  Well, exactly.  And the president needs to crack down on his big business buddies. 

CARLSON:  Hmmm.  Yeah, I think it‘s only half the equation.  A decade of Republican rule in the House of Representatives, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi chomping at the bit to become the first female House speaker.  Pelosi vows quote, “To turn the most closed and corrupt Congress into the most open and honest Congress.”  She claims the only way to make necessary changes in the United States is to quote, “Drain the swamp of GOP sewage.”  Now Pat, here‘s the most amusing line I‘ve read in a long time.  This is in a wire story about Mrs. Pelosi and her plans.  I believe she will sadly be speaker in about a month.  But here‘s her plan.  She says immediately upon taking power, Democrats in the Congress will raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.  Why? Here‘s what she says, and I‘m quoting here.  “We believe in the marketplace.” We believe in the marketplace so much that we‘re going to use the power of the federal government to tell employers what they have to pay.  That‘s how much we believe in the marketplace.  I mean that‘s (INAUDIBLE).  

CAMPBELL:  You know, Tucker, Nancy Pelosi is a joke.  I watched her on the floor of the House earlier this week.  She gets up there and she goes, “I‘m a grandmother, I‘m a Catholic and I‘m outraged.”  And she was talking about Congressman Foley.  Yet I read in “The American Spectator” today, that back in 2001 she shows up at a gay pride parade in San Francisco and is standing by Harry Hay.  Now Harry Hay for those who don‘t know, was one of the big founders behind the modern day gay movement, but he was also a huge proponent and supporter of adults having sex with children.  He was a promoter of Nambla.  Now Nancy seems to suffer from what I like to call selective outrage.  She‘s also talking about if elected, she‘s going to restore civility to the House.  These are the same people right now who are engaged in what I call modern day McCarthyism, a witch hunt if you will.  Instead of going after witches, we‘re going after gay Republicans, they‘re circulating a list right now of prominent gay Republicans and their staffers and they‘re planning on outing them.  What‘s to be gained by destroying somebody‘s life by hurting people?  This is the kind of civility she‘s going to bring to the House, she can have it.   

MILLER:  Please, Pat, you come from the party of gay bashing.  You just won an election gay bashing.  Are you really seriously—I mean seriously, let me write all this down.  Let‘s see, we‘re for letting in as many illegals as possible and we‘re for adults having sex with children?  Is that really what you‘re trying to say Democrats are for? 

CAMPBELL:  Hold on Stephanie, they‘re already doing it down here in Florida in our governor‘s race, Davis is 21 points behind.  What are they playing right now? Charlie Crist is gay. This is the party that supposedly deplores the personal destruction yet their experts in it. 

MILLER:  The right is the one that‘s out there right now all saying that this is because he was gay that he‘s a pedophile.  Ninety eight percent of boys that are molested are molested by—

CARLSON:  One at a time here.  Stephanie, you heard that allegation just a moment ago from Pat that in the race down in Florida, Democrats are accusing Crist of being gay.  I mean is that not true?  How do you respond to that?  

MILLER:  I haven‘t heard that, but Democrats clearly are the party that has supported gay rights and Republicans are the ones that have used them as a scapegoat in the last election.  They have people—I‘m not outing anybody.  

CAMPBELL:  The Democrats are the ones circulating the lists, it‘s not the Republicans.

MILLER:  You have people on the right since the Foley scandal broke that have said we should not let gay people run for Congress.  This shows us why—Pat Robertson just said yesterday that oh—

CAMPBELL:  Pat Robertson is a kook.  

MILLER:  -- he‘s a gay guy, this is what gay people do is have sex with children.  Oh please.

CARLSON:  I think everybody right now, all three of us, can agree that Pat Robertson is kind of a kook. 

MILLER:  I think we can all agree on that.  

CARLSON:  Speaking of the Democratic Party—I think we can.  Will we see a showdown between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008?  “Newsweek” reports some prominent Democrats believe that 45 year old Obama will indeed run.  His advisors say they don‘t see his inexperience as a liability. Question is, who‘s the better candidate, Obama or Hillary?  It‘s one of those questions Stephanie that it almost seems like a setup, like this couldn‘t really happen.  But the truth is, it could really happen.  Who do you think is a better candidate? 

MILLER:  I have to tell you, when I saw Barack Obama speak in the last convention, I mean I stopped breathing, I mean that‘s to me what leadership looks like and what unity looks like. I don‘t know if you know this Tucker, but my dad ran for Vice President with Barry Goldwater in 1964.  And I don‘t think he or Goldwater would recognize their party today.  What do the Republicans stand for any more?  They don‘t stand for small government, they‘ve given us a $300 billion deficit.  They don‘t stand for personal responsibility, they‘ve blamed everybody but the kitchen sink for the Foley scandal.  They don‘t stand for getting government out of our lives any more.  You know, so I just think that somebody like Barack Obama, just really, he‘s a leader. That‘s what leadership looks like. 

CARLSON:  I thought his speech was fine, he seems like a charming guy.  I spoke to him once and liked him a lot actually.  I didn‘t think his speech was that good though and I‘m wondering, you know, it wasn‘t bad, but it wasn‘t incredible.  You know, it wasn‘t Mario Cuomo or anything like that.  I‘m wondering are Democrats putting too much on this man‘s shoulders.  He‘s been in the Senate for about 20 minutes.  Is it too much to expect he can lead the party back to the White House?

MILLER:  See, there you go, it‘s like oh, he hasn‘t been in politics long enough.  But I‘m thinking oh yeah, because politicians are so popular right now.  You want to be in politics for as long as possible, you know.  I think he has all the leadership skills. 

CARLSON:  What do you think Pat, which candidate do you believe would Republicans be less happy to go against?

CAMPBELL:  Tucker, I watched Barack Obama debate my friend Allan Keyes in the Senate race in Illinois and quite frankly, Allan Keyes ran circles around him.  He‘s not ready for prime time.  He may be good, two or three cycles down the road, by far right now the better of the two candidates is Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And again I‘ve said it before, Republicans underestimate her at their own peril.  

CARLSON:  Why, I mean to be fair, Allan Keyes, whatever you think of Allan Keyes as a professional debater, and he‘s a great speaker even if you don‘t agree with him, he is a brilliant speaker.  

CAMPBELL:  I‘ve been very impressed with what I have seen from Hillary.  She‘s a political animal.  Every move is perfectly calculated in advance.  She‘s presidential timber.  Barack Obama may be down the road, but not right now.  She‘s more suited for the job.  She‘s ready for the gig.  

CARLSON:  I tend to agree with you, I think she has more experience, I think she‘s tougher, I think she‘s probably a harder candidate to beat than liberals think at this point.  But we‘ll find out.  Thank you both. 

MILLER:  That‘s exactly why we shouldn‘t have her run because you guys both think we should. 

CARLSON:  Who knows?  Stephanie, Pat, thank you both.  Reports say Kim Jong Il is planning to test a nuclear weapon this weekend.  Is he crying wolf or is it time for the U.S. to sit up and start worrying about North Korea?  Has that time come?  Plus Youtube comes under fire for providing video that shows the ugly realities of war.  Is the website out of line?  Discuss it when we come right back.


CARLSON:  The Department of Homeland Security says Saddam Hussein absolutely may not take a commercial flight in this country.  Wait until you hear some of the other ridiculous names on the government‘s no-fly list. 

Plus Youtube under pressure to remove graphic video of American soldiers at war.  We‘re back in 60 seconds.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Before we get to this segment, a correction of sorts on yesterday‘s show.   I took off after House Democrats, some of them including Henry Waxman of California, (INAUDIBLE) Hoyer of Maryland and others for failing to punish Jerry Studds, a fellow Democrat who was caught in 1983 having sex with a male congressional page.  I said that they did not vote for censure.  Well it turns out that in fact it‘s a little bit more complicated than that.  They voted against censure in a procedural vote, it was all part of a debate over how much to punish Jerry Studds.  They along with a lot of other Democrats attempted to water down the punishment.  But in the end, they did vote for censure.  So I was wrong and I apologize.

Well time now for a look at stories I just don‘t get.  We begin with another potentially explosive confrontation between North Korea and the rest of us.  


CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE:  I think the United States would have to assess what options we have, but I just want to note, it would be a very provocative act by the North Koreans.


CARLSON:  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacting to news that North Korea may be planning an underground nuclear test perhaps as early as this weekend.  The United Nations Security Council is warning Kim Jong-Il his country will face consequences if he does detonate a nuclear device, not clear what those consequences might be.  Analysts still doubt the extent of North Korea‘s nuclear threat though.  Most agree the country lacks technology to make a nuclear bomb small enough to mount on a missile.  The question is, does that country have the technology to make a nuclear device at all?  We act like we know that nuclear weapons have already been made by North Korea, but we don‘t know that actually.  We know very little about what happens in that county.  This could all be an elaborate bluff.  I‘m not saying it is, I‘m saying we ought to keep open the possibility that it is before we act on any of this.  It‘s all speculation. 

Next, is our government‘s airport security program a fly-by-night operation? 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  They could be couriers or they could be operatives or they could be suicide bombers, it doesn‘t matter, we have to keep them all off. 


CARLSON:  Terrorism expert Roger Cresy explains the goal behind the government‘s no-fly list, people not allowed to board airliners because they may have terrorist connections.  But just how accurate is that supposedly secret list.  Consider it contains the name of Saddam Hussein, even though of course he is now behind bars.  Bolivian President Ivo Morales is also on the list and so are 14 of the 9/11 hijackers.  They‘re all dead needless to say.  Meanwhile some of the world‘s most dangerous terrorists never made that list.  Homeland Security Officers have spent the last three years trying to fix the problem, but $144 million later, they have yet to come up with a solution.  How depressing.  Sometimes you wonder are we fighting the last war, the last war being the moment at which those 19 hijackers took over five airplanes and turned them into suicide machines?  Are we spending all of our energy and all this money planning for a repeat of that event? That‘s not going to happen again.  Let‘s be creative.  Something the government rally is.

Finally, is the Iraq war evolving into a ghoulish internet entertainment device?

You might think so, judging from these disturbing website images.  These are actual videos of American soldiers being attacked by Iraqi insurgents.  The videos haven‘t been posted by the enemy, they‘re being put there by internet users here in the U.S.  And they‘re becoming a popular feature on such sites as Youtube and Google video.  Watchers say it‘s an unprecedented look at war.  Critics say it‘s just sickening.  In response Youtube is now working to delete some of the more graphic videos from its site, videos we can‘t show you here. 

Well from Youtube to the endless number of blogs, the internet has provided a place for soldiers to post their unsanitized version of the truth about what‘s happening on the ground in Iraq.  A new book called “The Blog of War”, frontline dispatches from Iraq and Afghanistan, is a collection of often gut wrenching internet blog entries from American soldiers.  Major Eric Egland has fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he‘s a contributing author to the book.  He joins us now from Sacramento.  Eric thanks a lot for joining us. 


CARLSON:  Who‘s putting these images on Youtube?

EGLAND:  I don‘t know who is.  It could well be either people who are hostile to our interests or soldiers returning from combat or even still out in the theater?  So who‘s putting them up is something I don‘t know.  But what it does touch on is the bigger issue is that the immediacy of available footage and perspectives from the battlefield is a real challenge in today‘s warfare. 

CARLSON:  What does that mean?  You just came back from overseas, as you said you have served in both theaters.  Why does this make it more difficult for a soldier on the front lines? 

EGLAND:  Well the challenge with anything in politics, business or warfare is getting your message out, along with our victories on the battlefield, we have got to do a better job of showing the American people what‘s going well.  And the enemy at the same time is trying to do the opposite to show the Iraqi people in the world audience that things are going very poorly for us.  And so I think it shows that we need to be able to counter this with our sort of instant messages from the troops whether it be in the form of blogs, like the “Blog of War” brings together a lot of blogs, or in posting videos that shows the things that we are doing in terms of standing up a government and taking a fight to the enemy.  

CARLSON:  Is it demoralizing for soldiers in, say, Baghdad to see video like this on the internet? 

EGLAND:  Yeah, I don‘t think it helps morale.  But at the same time this is what a lot of troops are seeing, so I‘m not so sure that it‘s demoralizing to the troops.  Because these things informally circulate all around.  I mean when you‘re in theater, you‘ll get video clips sent to you all the time just through informal networks.  But I think the real audience is the American public because these are coming up on these sites that are widely viewed by a public audience.  And I think the goal is to drive down public opinion and try to show the public a real negative side that‘s very eye-catching and disturbing, like you said. 

CARLSON:  It‘s interesting, I mean there‘s virtually no coverage of the war in Iraq on American television.  You flip on news channels, you would have no idea that we have all these soldiers over there and that they‘re dying and we‘re fighting this battle against the insurgency.  I mean you just never know.  Do you know that?  I mean when you you‘re off fighting the war for us, do you know and do other soldiers know that we‘re not covering them, that people aren‘t paying as much attention here to what‘s happening there?

EGLAND:  Yeah, absolutely Tucker.  And you touched on an important point.  You know what we‘re talking about is all this information flowing from the battlefield back home.  But you have to remember with today‘s connectivity, the information is flowing the other direction too. And so the soldiers will come back from their patrols and their raids and things like that and then they‘ll be at the dining facility or the gym or in their private rooms and they‘ll be watching the news reports.  And so a lot of people joke that it seems like a lot of the reporting and the goal is from the enemy to just get one flaming car bomb a day on the news and if they can just do that, that will keep that relentlessly negative tone to any coverage that might come out. 

And if I can, let me just give you an example of how effective the enemy is at using the media.  Try to condense this.  But the Iraqi police found an abandoned car right next to a bridge near the green zone, a critical point where hundreds of civilians walk by every day.  The Iraqi police saw it, thought it might be a car bomb.  It turns out that it was.  They were able to disarm it before it hurt anybody.  Well immediately after they disarmed it, a camera crew walked out of an abandoned building, a building that had been abandoned for six or eight months for operational reasons, and it was a camera crew with a fully dressed anchor type person there and they said they were filming the river. Well obviously there was no reason for them to do that.  And so what they did is they drove to the next bridge, and 30 minutes later, another car bomb went off, killed three people and the footage from that was beamed on al-Jazeera that night.  Those people had al-Jazeera credentials.  So it shows the enemy is so effective at getting their message out immediately. 

CARLSON:  That‘s frightening.  If only we could get the press releases for the impending car bombs, that would be a big help.  Eric Egland, thanks a lot for joining us, I appreciate it.

EGLAND:  Thank you Tucker.

CARLSON:  These soccer fans have a funny way of showing their love for their team.  What started this airport brawl between players and their fans?  We‘ll tell you when we come right back.  Look at that.  Whoa.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  He‘s on vacation next week, so here‘s your last chance to see him for a while.  Willie Geist joins us.

WILLIE GEIST:  Me too, I‘ll miss everybody.  Tucker, I have an important message for you. This applies to you specifically.  It‘s a reminder most of us probably did not need, but a German pharmaceutical company issued a warning yesterday reminding us that hemorrhoid cream is not intended to be used on your face.  Got that.  Models often use Preparation H to get rid of puffy eyes, and beauty magazines have offered the tip to the general public.  That German company warns getting the cream in your eyes is very dangerous.  That warning, once again, avoid spreading hemorrhoid cream on your face whenever possible.  Tucker that kind of throws a wrench in your morning routine, doesn‘t it?  To go right from the mud mask to the Beore no strips now. 

CARLSON:  You know what Willie, if we can help other people, it‘s worth it. That‘s how I feel.

GEIST:  Talk about news you can use.  That‘s it if I‘ve ever seen it.  Tucker a Brazilian soccer club must have been thrilled to see a group of its fans assembled at the airport to welcome the team home after a tough loss this week.  The problem is, the fans were there looking for a fight with their soccer heroes.  The fans were so frustrated with the loss that they showed up to shout insults at the players that led to a little trash can throwing and then to this full-fledged brawl. Unbelievable.  I guess it kind of disqualifies you as a fan if you‘re willing to fight your team.  Because you‘re not really a fan of the team.  And I don‘t want to sound like a (INAUDIBLE) here Tucker, but this is what separates us from the rest of the world.  

CARLSON:  I totally agree with that.   

GEIST: You know what I mean.  When the Yankees loose, I don‘t show up at the airport to dropkick Derrick Jeter.  I‘m sad but I don‘t want to fight them, you know what I mean.

CARLSON:  And they turn up their noses at us.  Good for you Willie.

GEIST:  We‘re better.

CARLSON:  I agree with it completely.  Willie Geist thank you.

GEIST:  All right Tucker.

CARLSON:  That‘s our show, thanks for watching.  Up next, “HARDBALL” with Chris.  See you Monday.



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.


Watch Tucker each weeknight at 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. ET


Discussion comments