updated 10/27/2006 11:22:58 AM ET 2006-10-27T15:22:58

Guests: Tom Tancredo, Roger Stone, Victor Kamber, Mark Williams, Rich Masters, Paul Nelson

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

We‘ve got a lot to get to today, including  a roundup of some of the closest races this election season. 

And something you have got to see, possibly the most over-the-top political ad ever made.  You‘ll meet the man who‘s running it.

But first, our top story of the day, the immigration mess.  President Bush signed a bill today authorizing 700 miles of fencing along our border with Mexico.  Here‘s part of what he said at the signing. 


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation.  And I look forward to working with Congress to find that middle ground. 


CARLSON:  It‘s no accident, of course, that the president signed the bill less than two weeks before Election Day.  In a “Newsweek” poll conducted just last week, 40 percent of those who responded trust the Democrats more to handle immigration, while 34 percent trust the Republicans. 

So, who gets most traction out of the immigration issue?  Especially today? 

Joining me now to answer that question, Congressman Tom Tancredo. 

He‘s chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for joining me. 

I‘m amazed by these poll numbers that Democrats are seen as more trusted on immigration.  What does that mean? 

REP. TOM TANCREDO ®, COLORADO:  Well, it could mean a lot of things, not the latest of which is that when the president talks on this issue, people don‘t like what he says.  And they—and he is, of course, the titular head of the party.  And so I don‘t like what he says. 

Your lead-in there which presents a dichotomy that is—set up two things, you know, either we are going to have a path to citizenship or mass deportation. 

CARLSON:  Right.

TANCREDO:  That‘s what he said.  Well, you know what?  There are alternatives to either of those two thing.  And we—I don‘t know anyone who actually says that, tomorrow, let‘s start rounding everybody up in this country here illegally and start mass deporting. 

I mean, could you—could you actually deport everybody who is here illegally?  Yes. 

CARLSON:  No.  But it‘s...

TANCREDO:  Well, you could, Tucker.  You could. 

CARLSON:  But politically you can‘t.  It‘s a red herring.  It‘s...

TANCREDO:  That‘s right. 

CARLSON:  You know, it‘s—right.  No, it‘s a distraction from the real conversation. 

But is this fence real?  Seven hundred miles of fence the president says, you know, it‘s not a law, it‘s going to happen.  But is it actually going to happen? 

TANCREDO:  Yes.  Still a good question. 

We‘ve passed an appropriations bill to put the money into it.  We passed an authorization bill that actually established where the fence should be built.  But now the Congress has got to go ahead and appropriate the money, and do so on a continuing basis. 

I am worried, of course, about what will happen if we lose control of the House.  You know, Tucker, I am not just a knee-jerk supporter of the party.  You know that is true.  But I am telling you this, that if we lose the House of Representatives, or the Republicans lose, we are not going to get 700 miles of fence, and we‘re going to have an amnesty in about, oh, six to eight months. 

So, it‘s  a worrisome thing, to say the least.  And I cannot say that just because we‘ve passed this bill and the president has signed it, you‘re going to start seeing 700 miles of fencing being erected on the southern border. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  No, you are—you are hardly a party hack.  In fact, you‘re one of the most articulate critic of your own party from the right.  And I really appreciate that.

Tell me, though, the political ramifications of this.  I know that you‘re, of course, opposed to illegal immigration.  I am, too.  I think a lot of American are.  But it‘s still not clear to me who wins the argument, who benefits. 

When this subject comes up, who gets the political points out of it? 

Republican or Democrats? 

TANCREDO:  Boy, that‘s a great question.  Here the problem we have as Republicans.  Kind of stamping our party with the image of anti-illegal immigration, and going to go—be strong on border security and all that. 

That‘s what we would like, and I think that would be a winning stamp, by the way, to have on your party.  But we can‘t do it if the president of your party is giving you a different message.  It certainly does not enable the Republicans to get out there and have an understanding about what we‘ll do if you reelect Republicans.

So it just is a very difficult political situation we are in here.  All I can do is hope people understand.  You know, look at each race by race, and I hope members use this to their advantage in every single race.  And—because you‘re not going to probably get it to be just an understanding that if they vote Republican, they‘re going to get border security. 

CARLSON:  But can you...

TANCREDO:  But individual Republicans have got to go after it. 

CARLSON:  Well, speaking of that, in individual races, can you think of any in which the anti-illegal immigration candidate is being dramatically helped because of his position on immigration?  Or vice versa?  Do you know of any candidates running for more open borders?

TANCREDO:  Against it? 


TANCREDO:  Yes.  No, I don‘t know anybody in the latter category. 

In the former, I can tell you that the governor of Oregon, I believe, is the one that has made—or the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Oregon has made tremendous progress.  And I‘m told it is specifically on this issue. 

I know that of course every single piece of literature I get in the mail from everybody running in Colorado—and I don‘t care if it‘s for a county commissioner or state legislator or a city council person—every single piece of literature and every ad that comes on television says, “If you elect me, I‘m going to help stop illegal immigration.”

CARLSON:  That‘s right.

TANCREDO:  And I don‘t know what the—county coroner is saying, you know, I won‘t bury him here, by golly, if they‘re not...

CARLSON:  No, it‘s right.  In fact, Harold Ford in Tennessee, Democrat running for Senate there, doing pretty well, is, of course, running to the right of President Bush on immigration.  I don‘t think—I agree with you, I can‘t think of a single candidate who is running for illegal immigration in this cycle. 


CARLSON:  Tom Tancredo...

TANCREDO:  So that‘s the lay of the land...

CARLSON:  I really appreciate you coming on.

TANCREDO:  ... as far as I can see it, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Thanks for the update. 

Now for a roundup of some of the key races going on nationwide, one

that‘s generating a whole lot of heat and a lot of press coverage, Webb

versus Allen in Virginia.  It was, of course, supposed to be a slam-dunk

re-election for Senator George Allen, who had been a popular governor of

that state, and then came a long summer of mini scandals and major distractions. 

Now Democrat Jim Webb leads.  He‘s leading Allen 47 percent to 44 percent in the latest poll. 

Here to handicap that race, among others, Republican strategist Roger Stone.  He joins us from Cleveland. 

Roger, welcome. 

ROGER STONE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  Glad to be here.  The surest—the surest way, by the way, to get that 700 -- 700,000 (sic) miles of fence built is to give the contract to Halliburton.  That would probably do the trick.

CARLSON:  Actually, Halliburton...

STONE:  Then the government would build it.

CARLSON:  ... probably would do a good job.  It might be expensive. 

Here‘s the problem...

STONE:  But the government sure would build it. 

CARLSON:  Yes, they would. 

Here‘s the problem for George Allen, it seems to me.  He is running against a candidate, a Democrat, Jim Webb, who appeals, I think, to a lot of Republicans.  There is a crossover appeal. 

I don‘t know if you‘ve seen the Peter Boyer piece in “The New Yorker” this week.  It‘s absolutely terrific.  It‘s about that race, but it has this, among others.  It has this quote from Jim Webb. 

This is Jim Webb talking about Jane Fonda, the liberal icon.  He says, “Jane Fonda can kiss my ass.  I wouldn‘t go across the street to watch her slit her wrist.”

Now, that‘s—that‘s the Democrat in this race talking. 

If you‘re the Republican, how do you run against that guy? 

STONE:  Well, first of all—well, first of all, I think it‘s important to recognize that Webb served in the Reagan administration...

CARLSON:  Right.

STONE:  ... as secretary of the Navy, and that this is the first time in my memory that in a southern Democratic primary, the more conservative candidate won when Webb wanted an upset over, you know, a more typical left wing Democratic Party operative that he defeated. 

CARLSON:  Right.

STONE:  Webb clearly has brought appeal.  Remember, Virginia has no parties.  You can‘t register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. 

Any—any—you don‘t register by party, and any person can vote in any party primary.  So you have a great tradition here, I think, of a conservative majority in Virginia.  And Webb is very attractive to those people. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  So it‘s almost...


STONE:  A series of gaffs.  Sure.  A series of gaffs here by Allen has made this a race. 

CARLSON:  What‘s going to happen?  Is the momentum on Webb‘s side, do you think?

STONE:  Well, again, I think that the question of George Allen is an interesting one.  Here‘s a guy who grew up in Newport Beach, California, grew up in southern California in the ‘60s and ‘70s, or ‘70s and ‘80s, and, you know, the cowboy boots, the chewing tobacco, the confederate flag.  Where does all of this stuff coming from?  Because he‘s not a good old boy, not given his pedigree. 

So, you know, I think to a certain extent the voters have caught up with a little bit of that, and now when he finds out that he has Jewish heritage, instead of him embracing it, which is what any wise candidate would have done, he was kind of sheepish about it.  I just think it has been a series of real gaffs that have made this a race. 

CARLSON:  Tennessee, Harold Ford running against Bob Corker.  Harold Ford staking out the position as the evangelical in the race, I think brilliantly, and I think to good effect.

This ad, though, funded by the National Republican Party that is being denounced as race-baiting, a criticism for the record—I think it‘s ridiculous; I don‘t think it‘s a racist ad—but it‘s clearly an ad that Republicans, many of them are embarrassed of.  And I‘m wondering if you think there will be a ricochet effect, where this ad winds up hurting the Republican in the race more than helping him. 

STONE:  I think there is every possibility of that.  First of all, this was a race that shouldn‘t be close.  Theoretically and on paper, a candidate as liberal as Harold Ford should not be able to win. 

This is a minority candidate in a southern state.  It should technically be very difficult.  But this race is extremely competitive. 

Now, I frankly think this ad is an overreach for the fact that—that the Democrat is breathing down the Republican‘s neck.  And Ford looks to me like he may well be headed to taking Frist‘s seat in the U.S. Senate. 

CARLSON:  Finally, stem cell.  You‘re seeing that play out in the McCaskill-Talent race famously, the Michael J. Fox ad which had a lot of people very exercised.  But too little attention has been paid to the fact, I think, that this subject is helping Democrats with suburban voters, I believe, across the country.

Stem cell research, a lot of moderate voters...

STONE:  No question about it.

CARLSON:  ... some Republicans even want it.

What is the dynamic here?  Do you think that Republicans are going to lose because of this issue? 

STONE:  I think, first of all, that it is—it is an issue with enormous power, because really what you‘re selling is hope.  This is about hope. 

And I‘ve actually found, looking at Republicans, there is an outright Republican majority for stem cell research.  It tests very well and is very popular among both Democratic and Independent voters.  And even self-described evangelicals, in many cases, favor more extensive stem cell research. 

So I think this is costing us very badly in the Missouri Senate race.  I think it turns out voters who are not sympathetic.  And Republicans who oppose stem cell research do so at their own peril. 

CARLSON:  Interesting.

Roger Stone, from Cleveland.

Thanks a lot, Roger. 

STONE:  Glad to be here. 

CARLSON:  Still to come, it looks like some Democrats may have a new election strategy; act like right-wingers.  Is it working? 

And Republicans recruit their own celebrities to answer Michael J.  Fox‘s stem cell ad.  They include a World Series ace.  That story and the ad when we return.



HAROLD FORD JR. (D), TENNESSEE SENATE CANDIDATE:  I started church the old-fashioned way.  I was forced to.  And I‘m better for it.

I‘m Harold Ford Jr., and here I learned the difference between right and wrong.  And now Mr. Corker is doing wrong.


CARLSON:  That was a campaign ad from Harold Ford Jr.  He‘s a candidate for the Senate from Tennessee and a Democrat.  That‘s right, he‘s a Democrat.

There was a time when you wouldn‘t expect to see a Democratic candidate shoot a campaign spot in a church.  But times have changed.  And now some Democrats are looking a lot like conservative Republicans. 

Is it a winning strategy? 

Joining me now to answer that question, Democratic strategist Vic Kamber.  He joins us from Washington. 

Vic, thanks a lot for coming on. 


CARLSON:  I want to read you just a line from Harold Ford‘ Web site.  You just saw him strolling through the church, denouncing his opponent in God‘s house. 

You sign on to haroldford.com, or whatever it‘s called, click on “My faith is my guide,” and you learn that he‘s running for Senate “... to put my faith and beliefs into action.”

Harold Ford is running for Jesus.  What do you of that? 

KAMBER:  I think it is wonderful that he is willing to share his faith with us.  And what‘s wrong with that? 

CARLSON:  You tell me.  I‘ve heard for years...

KAMBER:  Tucker, it‘s your—it‘s your—no, this is your...

CARLSON:  ... you denounced Jerry Falwell for doing it.

KAMBER:  ... your problem, that you have a stereotype that you want to see all Democrats fit into.  And Democrats, just like Republicans, don‘t fit into that stereotype. 

CARLSON:  No, it‘s actually...

KAMBER:  Arnold Schwarzenegger is vastly different than George Bush. 

CARLSON:  Of course.

KAMBER:  Mayor Bloomberg is vastly different than Jesse Helms.  And they‘re all Republicans.

CARLSON:  Absolutely.  And that is an absolutely fair point.  And, in fact, Harold Ford would have to be one of my all-time favorite Democrats.  I‘ve known him for a long time, and I genuinely like the guy. 

But here‘s the point.  It is not a question of Republican or Democrat. 

It‘s a question of principle. 

And for many years, my whole lifetime, Democrats have articulated the following principle: you ought not to drag religion into the political arena, or vice versa, because both wind up sullied.  And it‘s wrong, it‘s immoral, indeed, Democrats have argued, to imply that God is on your side.  It‘s wrong. 

Now here, Harold Ford is doing just that. 

KAMBER:  I didn‘t hear him say God is on his side. 

CARLSON:  Oh, come on.

KAMBER:  I heard him say he is on God‘s side, which is a vast big difference.  Remember, we‘ve had a priest, Father Drinun (ph), we‘ve had a nun in the Congress before. 

I mean, religion has always played a part.  Reverend Danforth, who is a Republican from Missouri.  We‘ve had a number of ordained ministers of both parties.  Religion has always played a part in American politics. 

All I heard Harold Ford say is he is on God‘s side.  Not God is on his side. 

CARLSON:  If there was—if there was a Republican running an ad, standing in church denouncing his opponent, I would be the first one to say, yuck, get out of church, pal.  This is a political ad. 

But here, here‘s the point.  I think it‘s pretty clear, and I think you‘ll agree, that a lot of Democrats, very wisely, have decided to run culturally conservative campaigns.  Jim Webb in Virginia denounced affirmative action as “state sponsored racism.” 

Here‘s what he said about Bill Clinton when Clinton left office.  “It is a pleasurable experience to watch Bill Clinton finally being judged even by his own party for the ethical fraudulence that has characterized his entire political career.”

This is the man who‘s running as a Democrat. 

KAMBER:  Right.

CARLSON:  Is he a good, loyal Democrat? 

KAMBER:  Sure.  And he has—and Bill Clinton has campaigned for him and said, “If I only campaigned for those people who have said nice things about me, I wouldn‘t be campaigning for anybody.”

There is a reality here.  Tucker, you know, both parties, again, you run who you are.  The phony in the party is—of either party is the person that stands up and says what‘s expedient in terms of trying to please the Bill Clintons of the world. 


KAMBER:  Jim Webb is who he is. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  That‘s true.

KAMBER:  He was a Republican.  He was appointed by Reagan.  He has now turned parties, mainly over the war—was his first position—and now he is finding a major difference with himself and George Allen.  He is still who he is as a human being. 

CARLSON:  No, you‘re right.  I agree.  I don‘t think Jim Webb is a phony at all.  In fact, he is so authentic that, if he gets elected as a Democrat, he‘s going to blow your minds with the things he says.  Trust me!

KAMBER:  Well, and I think—no different.  I mean, this is what—again, not—you‘re—I‘m here as a Democrat.  But look at Sue Collins, look at Olympia Snowe, look at...

CARLSON:  Right.

KAMBER:  ... any number—look at Lincoln Chafee.  They‘re Republican who differ from the mainstream of their party, but they are the party.  That‘s why the Republicans are the majority today, because they have an umbrella.  So do the Democrats have an umbrella. 

CARLSON:  I think—I think you make a smart point.  But very quickly, you do see a national trend here?  Because there is a national trend.

In the South, Heath Shuler, for instance, running in North Carolina, pro-gun, anti-abortion, evangelical, talks about hunting all the time.  I mean, how many Democrats this season are running for legal abortion and gun control?  Like openly?  I don‘t really see any. 

KAMBER:  Well, there are a number of Democrats that have been sportsmen all their life.  They are proud of their sports—you know, one of the longest-serving Democrats—or longest-serving member of the House of Congress was on the board of the NRA.


KAMBER:  And he‘s the longest-serving member of Congress, and he‘s from Michigan, the Detroit area. 

So, I mean, you cannot categorize what you‘re trying to do.  People are who they are.  And the base of the Democratic Party is broad.  The umbrella is broad. 

We are left of center, Democrats.  Republicans are right of center. 

But both have this umbrella. 

CARLSON:  It‘s—I think it‘s great news, if it‘s true, that the crazed cultural left is relaxing its grip on the Democratic Party.  And that appears to be happening.  And I‘ll be the first to, you know, tip the hat I‘m not wearing to that development. 

Vic Kamber.

KAMBER:  And I‘ll tip the hat to the crazed Republican right who lets go and lets us get back to the center. 

CARLSON:  That‘s me.  Thanks, Vic.

KAMBER:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Still to come, you‘ll meet the candidate behind perhaps the most remarkable campaign spot ever made. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Instead of spending money on cancer research, Ron Kind voted to spend your money to study the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes. 


CARLSON:  And that‘s only the beginning, ladies and gentlemen.  Wait until you hear the rest and meet the man who made that ad.

And a reporter who doesn‘t just get the story, she is the story. 

See it on “Beat the Press” when we return.


CARLSON:  Time now for “Beat the Press”.

First up, a coincidence of the most unfortunate kind.  A news anchor at the local ABC station in Los Angeles is doing his best, his public duty, in fact, to alert viewers to a criminal on the loose.  Well, unfortunately for him, the police sketch of that criminal looks remarkably, stunningly like, well, like the anchor himself. 

Take a look at this. 

CARLSON:  Ouch. 

Now, news anchors are quick to blame everyone else for their own faults, I have noticed after six years of working in this business.  But this is one case in which the graphics guys really do deserve to be fired immediately. 

And I hope they were. 

Next up, a clip that comes to us courtesy of Spanish language television, and let it serve as a lesson to all of you out there who think being a sideline reporter is a cushy, glamorous job.  It‘s not. 

Watch what happens to Ms. Maria Martinez.  Tragic.






CARLSON:  We‘re only laughing because she wasn‘t badly hurt.  That badly hurt. 

There she is again.  Watch.  Sorry.

Well, still to come, in a year of negative campaign ads, a couple from Rick Santorum really stand out.  Does his opponent really conduct staff meetings from prison?  You would think so if you watched one of the ads. 

And then there‘s Kinky Friedman, who takes the highest possible road with his ad. 

It‘s part of our roundup of the top campaign spots of this season. 

They‘re terrific.  Don‘t miss them.

We‘ll be right back.


CARLSON:  Still to come, what is probably the most over-the-top campaign commercial ever made.  We‘ll talk to the man behind it.

And how my old pal Jerry Springier got booted off “Dancing With the Stars” last night.  We‘ve got the inside story.

All that in just a minute, but right now here‘s a look at your headlines. 


CARLSON:  With a historic mid-term election approaching fast, we want to show you some of the most significant and entertaining campaign commercials on the air.  We‘ve enlisted the help of a couple of experts to do that.  Joining us from Washington, D.C., Democratic Strategist Rich Masters and from Sacramento, California, talk radio host Mark Williams. 

Welcome to you both.  The U.S. Senate race in Missouri has generated of course a lot of controversy this week.  In a campaign ad supporting stem cell research, actor Michael J. Fox who himself suffers from Parkinson‘s disease shakes pretty severely.  Well radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh accused Fox of exaggerating his symptoms for the camera.  Now opponents of stem cell research, including some prominent athletes and actors, have released their own commercial.  Take a look at this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Amendment two actually makes it a constitutional right for fertility clinics to pay women for eggs.  Low income women will be seduced by big checks and extracting donor eggs is an extremely complicated dangerous and painful procedure. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Twenty five women have died and 6,000 have complained of complications.  Missouri, don‘t be fooled. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Why does it cost $28 million to convince Missourians that an amendment to the constitution is good for them? Maybe because it is not.  Don‘t be bought. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You know now.  Don‘t do it.  Vote no on two. 


CARLSON:  Mark, it‘s an OK ad, it makes some points.  We didn‘t play the whole thing, there are parts of it I think are even certainly more compelling.  The ad goes on to talk about human cloning and how it‘s involved in certain kinds of stem cell research.  It makes a pretty good case against it.  But here‘s my point, it‘s not a case you often hear. 

There is a reasonable case against certain kinds of stem cell research on moral grounds.  This is like brave new world stuff and we should stop and think before you do this.  And yet you almost never hear that case made.  Republicans have done about the worst communications job I have ever seen in my life on this topic.  Why?

MARK WILLIAMS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  The problem is just as you‘ve outlined here, we‘re talking not about stem cell research, we‘re talking about a particular kind of stem cell research.  The theatrical games being played by guys like Michael J. Fox don‘t help at all.  He has medication which allows him to behave in a little less aggressive manner when it comes to the movements that Parkinson‘s causes. 

But as he admitted before his testimony in Congress, he stayed off of it because he wanted the movements to be exaggerated.  I mean that‘s like Jerry Lewis taking a kid on Labor Day and kicking the crutch out and saying, see, we need to cure this because the other crutch isn‘t good enough. 

CARLSON:  You‘re going with the Limbaugh line that this guy, Michael J. Fox is exaggerating for theatrical effect. 

WILLIAMS:  He is.  Absolutely he is, he‘s also misleading the debate. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not following you down that dark alley, I have to say.  I don‘t know anything about it.  The guy looks severely ill to me and I am not willing—

WILLIAMS:  I know he‘s ill but he has medication that can help him and he has admitted not taking the medication before he does these things so that people might see the full effect of the Parkinson‘s, which I suppose is legitimate.  But this isn‘t a debate over stem-cell research or even Parkinson‘s, it‘s a debate over whether or not Missouri should create an entire race of itty-bitty people so they can be destroyed and used in medical experiments. 

CARLSON:  Rich, are Democrats afraid of being tied to human cloning?  Are they worried about that or do they see stem cell research as just a purely a winning issue for them?

RICH MASTERS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  I mean I think if you look at the American public, public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research, the vast majority of Americans support it.  I think you bring up a good point.  And I think there is a point where you have to stop and there is a line that can be drawn when we talk about this brave new world stuff.  We are talking about human cloning.  No one is for that.  Democrats, you know are not for human cloning.

CARLSON:  Some people are for it actually.

MASTERS:  Well some people are for it but you‘re talking about the fringe.  And I think what they‘re trying to do is they‘re trying to pay Democrats in the fringe.  The truth of it is Democrats on this issue, and a lot of Republicans like Nancy Reagan and others are in the camp of science.  Pro-life people should actually be pro-life.  Let‘s go ahead and try to enhance the quality of life and let‘s see what we‘re going to be able to have. 

Keep in mind, these embryos have already been created.  The choice is either, you know, we use them for science or we throw them in the trash.  I would rather err on the side of trying to save and make lives better.  As far as Michael J. Fox goes, you know it‘s just ridiculous to say that this is theatrics.  He had to do something to demonstrate what Parkinson‘s can do Tucker. 

WILLIAMS:  How about demonstrating what the medicine that‘s available

today and the treatment today can do.  I‘m Michael J. Fox, I take this

medication, wouldn‘t it be great if I didn‘t have to?  Instead of trying to

make people believe that Republicans are against the idea of stem cell

research.  I‘m for stem cell research.  I‘m just not for creating a race of

itty-bitty Petri dish people so I can kill them to inject in somebody else

CARLSON:  I think you‘re explaining it pretty well.  Certainly better than I have heard most Republicans explain.  Republican aren‘t good at explaining stuff it seems to me. 

MASTERS:  No they‘re not. 

CARLSON:  Here‘s who actually I think is most of the time.  Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, he is trailing of course his Democratic opponent Bob Casey by a pretty good margin.  Looks like he‘s going to lose.  But here is one of his ads and it shows how Senator Santorum imagines Casey‘s campaign staff holds its meetings.  Watch this. 


RICK SANTORUM:  I‘m Rick Santorum and I approve this message. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Meet Bob Casey‘s campaign team.  A Philadelphia politician who gave Casey almost $400,000.  A Philly businessman who gave Casey $31,000.  A New Jersey developer, $100,000.  And several more of Casey‘s largest contributors are under investigation, including Casey‘ hand picked campaign finance chairman, leading to an obvious question, where does Casey hold his campaign meetings?


CARLSON:  I love ads like that Rich, because I guess I‘m a mean guy.  Here‘s my question though.  Corruption seems to be working for Democrats this season.  It clearly hasn‘t been working as an issue for Santorum, maybe because it‘s unfair, I don‘t know. 

And I don‘t think it‘s working for Kean either in New Jersey.  His opponent, the incumbent senator, appointed senator Menendez who is under investigation himself and Kean is still not leading.  Does this only work for Democrats this year?

MASTERS:  I don‘t know.  I mean, you know, the truth of it is, that is a very old ad, to be real honest with you.  As a Democrat, I study these kinds of things.  The truth of it is, I think that that ad probably was run at first by a Democrat running about 20 years ago.  That almost word for word.  Those kinds of ads where you have the smoke-filled rooms and the cronyism and corruption, this is not an original ad.  I mean it‘s funny, but it‘s not very original and I don‘t think its working.

CARLSON:  These guys, all these political consultants, and no offense to you guys, all of whom are quite rich, I‘ve noticed.  But they all recycle their ads.  They‘re lazy and it‘s all a formula, haven‘t you noticed that, the cookie cutter ads?

MASTERS:  That‘s why I don‘t think they‘re working because I think people have kind of seen this necessarily before and people I think in Pennsylvania have already made their decision on Rick Santorum.  And you know, I mean, I think he‘s trying to do whatever he can possibly to kind of salvage it, but right it‘s not working.  And I‘m not sure it would work on either side of the aisle frankly at this point, even though . 

CARLSON:  I like the guy.  Mark, Santorum does look like, I mean let‘s be honest, it looks like he will lose unless lightning strikes.  Sum it up in like three sentences, why is he losing?

WILLIAMS:  He is losing because he didn‘t pay attention to all politics is local.  He tried to be too much of a national player while ignoring what was going on in Pennsylvania.  And I‘ve got to say, at the risk of sounding flip, as a native Bostonian who has lived and worked in Philly, I‘d be hard pressed to think of a political meeting that hasn‘t taken place in a jail cell at some point along the way. 

MASTERS:  I‘m from Louisiana. 

WILLIAMS:  As a documentary, not a commercial. 

CARLSON:  It‘s a bipartisan phenomenon.  Well President Bush made a campaign stop last week for beleaguered Pennsylvania Congressman Don Sherwood.  Polls show that Sherwood who admitted a five-year extramarital affair narrowly trails his Democratic opponent, Chris Carney.  In his own campaign ads, his own ads, Sherwood apologizes to voters for his behavior.  Watch this. 


DON SHERWOOD:  I made a mistake that nearly cost me the love of my wife Carol and our daughters.  As a family, we‘ve worked through this because of my deep regret, our love and the fact that the allegation of abuse was never true. 

While I‘m truly sorry for disappointing you, I never wavered from my commitment to reduce taxes, create jobs and bring home our fair share.  Should you forgive me, you can count on me to keep fighting hard for you and your family.  I‘m Don Sherwood and I approve this message. 


CARLSON:  In other words, Rich, yes, I had a mistress.  No, I did not beat her up.  Here‘s my question. 

MASTERS:  But I brought home the pork, too. 

CARLSON:  But isn‘t that what the election ought to be about? I thought Democrats had foresworn sex-based personal attacks with Clinton.  But no, here they are attacking this poor Sherwood character because he had a girlfriend.  Who cares?

MASTERS:  Did you see the Democratic ad attacking him for it?  No. 

This is an issue in his district.  It is an issue that he created himself.  He felt the need as he looked at his polls, that voters in his district were appalled at his behavior, whether or not he assaulted the woman or not is irrelevant.  But I think he saw it had an effect and he thought it had an effect so much that he had to go on and apologize for it.  I mean it‘s pretty bizarre.  Democrats haven‘t been running on that in that district quite frankly. 

CARLSON:  Mark, if you have to go up on the air with the ad, I did not beat my mistress, is it even worth running at that point?

WILLIAMS:  Probably not.  But if you‘re a 65-year-old guy and the mistress was 20 something, there is always a job pitching Cialis for you down the road somewhere.  I think it will boil down to whether or not as you say he brings home the bacon.  If he brings home the pork, I got to tell you, my experience across this fruited plain is in the local district, they don‘t care if you‘re an axe murderer as long as the community center got built. 

CARLSON:  That‘s probably right.  Well, finally, the Texas governor‘s race, and despite a heart felt on air endorsement from this very program, independent candidate Kinky Friedman is still not expected to win.  And yet, his campaign may have produced the most unusual, maybe the most moving ad of this year.  Watch it. 


KINKY FRIEDMAN:  Folks, I heard an old time preacher read from the book of John the other day.  He said the good shepherd knows and recognizes his own and his own know and recognize him.  And when the wolves come, the hired hands flee but the good shepherd stays.  Folks, we don‘t need a politician as governor anymore.  We need a good shepherd.  I want to be your good shepherd.  I‘m Kinky Friedman and that‘s why I‘m running for governor of Texas. 


CARLSON:  God, that ad just gets me.  There is something about that.  I think it‘s one of the prettiest ads I‘ve ever seen in my life, but also one of the weirdest.  Rich, if you think about it, here is a self-described Jewish cowboy quoting Jesus from the gospel of John.  Literally, that‘s an extended Jesus quote.  Saying how he wants to be the good shepherd which is of course Jesus‘ name for himself.  What the hell is that? Not that I‘m against it, I‘m for it, but I‘ve never seen anything weirder. 

MASTERS:  There has never been really a candidate any more bizarre than Kinky Friedman.  And this fits right in with his kind of, his whole unconventional campaign where it leaves people scratching their heads.  I was in Texas last week.  People on the streets love him.  They‘re laughing about it.  And I was looking for a place where I could vote absentee for him frankly. 

CARLSON:  I feel the same way.  Mark, if you actually read, now I don‘t want to devote too much time to what is essentially a fringe candidacy.  On the other hand, if you actually read Kinky Friedman, who has been a writer, a novelist and a journalist all his life, he is an incredibly deep man.  I would say deeper than almost any politician I‘ve interviewed and I‘ve interviewed hundreds of them.  He is really a truly interesting person.  I don‘t think it would be the worst thing in the world if Kinky Friedman won, and that‘s why I endorsed him. 

WILLIAMS:  The first thing I wonder is how California missed out on this guy. And the second is, that you‘re right, he‘s a brilliant cutting edge, very edgy out there satirist who looks like some guy that just came off of the set from “Hee Haw.” I don‘t imagine that it‘s a news item that he is not likely to win.  But he certainly is an interesting character.  Unfortunately in his case, it is all revolving around his views on Judaism.  I think one of his books is called, “They Don‘t Make Jews like Jesus anymore.”

CARLSON:  Yes, that was a song that he wrote, it‘s actually a great song.  But then I remember being on the set at another network where I then worked, pulling the overnight shift as an anchor in 1998 when the returns came in that Jesse “The Body” Ventura had won in Minnesota.  Jesse “The Body” who was about, a quarter as smart as Kinky Friedman, a third as interesting, and really kind of a jerk, honestly. 

Anybody who‘s ever dealt with him can tell you and I can too.  And he won.  It didn‘t look like he was going to win.  He was basically in the same place roughly that Kinky Friedman is now at about the same time going into the election.  Rich, is it truly inconceivable this man could win?

MASTERS:  I don‘t think it‘s inconceivable.  I mean I think there is a strain in American politics that are a pox on both of the houses of politicians.  You saw it in California with Schwarzenegger, he was kind of an outsider of character.  He is a Republican running on completely Democratic issues.  You saw Jesse Ventura. 

You saw kind of the rise of Ross Perot had he not completely self-destructed of his own accord.  I think Americans really are looking for one of those kind of independent cowboys who aren‘t beholden to either party.  And so I honestly think that you know, he‘s interesting and I don‘t think it‘s inconceivable.  I would be stunned but not entirely—I wouldn‘t faint. 

CARLSON:  He has his own shelter for homeless dogs.  I don‘t know, he won my vote there.  Thanks guys.  I appreciate it.  

Still ahead, it‘s the single most entertaining campaign spot of this election season so far. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Ron Kind spent your money to study the masturbation habits of old men. 


CARLSON:  His opponent doesn‘t care about the good people of Wisconsin.  All he cares about is sex! You‘ll meet the candidate behind that ad in just a moment.  Plus Borat shows up to his movie premier in style on a mule driven cart.  Wait until you hear what he said to a female entertainment reporter when he arrived.  Amazing.  We‘re coming right back.


CARLSON:  Election Day is a little more than a week and a half out and the political ads are getting, what‘s the word, zestier.  Take for example the heated race for Wisconsin‘s third district congressional seat, it‘s currently held by Democrat Ron Kind.  What you‘re about to see is an actual campaign ad.  It was approved by the Republican challenger and former marine, Paul R. Nelson.  Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  With our service men and women facing death every day, what kind of Congressman would try to gut military spending? The wrong kind.  Ron Kind.  That‘s right.  Congressman Ron Kind has repeatedly voted to deprive our troops of the funding they need to fight for us.  But Ron Kind has no trouble spending your money.  He would just rather spend it on sex. 

That‘s right.  Instead of spending money on cancer research, Ron Kind voted to spend your money to study the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes.  Instead of spending money to study heart disease, Ron Kind spent your money to study the masturbation habits of old men.  Ron Kind spent your tax dollars to study something called the bisexual, transgendered and two spirited illusion Eskimos, whoever they are. 

Ron Kind even spent your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia.  Ron Kind pays for sex but not for soldiers.  If Ron Kind had better priorities, you wouldn‘t be having to hear this.  Ron Kind is out of touch and soon he‘ll be out of Congress. 

PAUL NELSON ®, WI CONGRESSIONAL CHALLENGER:  I‘m Paul R. Nelson and I approve of this message.


CARLSON:  Paul R. Nelson joins me now from Milwaukee to explain his ad.  Mr. Nelson, I appreciate your coming on. 

NELSON:  Hello Tucker, thanks for having me on today. 

CARLSON:  Why do you suppose the congressman, your opponent has voted to get teenage girls to watch pornographic movies?  What would be the point of that vote?

NELSON:  Well Tucker, my reaction when I first saw this ad was probably the same as yours and maybe many of your viewers.  This cannot possibly be true.  And that‘s why we have put the amendment vote number, the NIH grant studies number on the ad itself.  So people can do their own research and they can look at it again and again on our Web site at www.paulrnelson.com

CARLSON:  But wait a second here.  Studying the masturbation habits of old men? Explain that to me. 

NELSON:  Tucker, I have no idea why our federal government is funding this kind of nonsense.  And that‘s exactly .

CARLSON:  Is that an issue of concern in your district?

NELSON:  I wouldn‘t expect, Tucker, that would be a big issue of concern in our district. 

CARLSON:  What about Vietnamese hookers? Do you have a problem with those?

NELSON:  It isn‘t a matter of whether or not I have a problem with Vietnamese hookers. 

CARLSON:  I mean but is that a huge issue in the third district of Wisconsin? What about transvestite Eskimos.  Is there a single one in your district?

NELSON:  Not that I‘m aware of. 

CARLSON:  What is all this about and why are you running a campaign ad about it? I mean it seems so far out.

NELSON:  Tucker, what we‘re talking about here is a gross waste of taxpayer money.  And remember, we‘re also talking about funding our military.  Ron Kind is a San Francisco liberal after the form of Nancy Pelosi herself.  And we‘re just pointing out that Mr. Kind, instead of funding our military, my fellow marines who are fighting and dying in the war on terror even today as we speak, he is funding sex studies for these remote groups. 

CARLSON:  Not just so remote, also teenage girls watching porn.  Who are the teenage girls and where are they watching porn?

NELSON:  Well I would expect at any college frat party in America, you could probably find folks doing that kind of thing.  But the point is here Tucker, these are the kind of waste of taxpayer dollars that has resulted in a $250 billion budget deficit this year. 

CARLSON:  To be fair, as you know, I‘ve looked at your Web site.  And on the issues, I agree with you completely, incidentally.  And I think you‘re wise enough to know, the Republicans are in charge and they can‘t control their spending either, I mean let‘s be totally honest here.  Who are those mug shots? When you say the masturbating men, you have pictures of these two old guys.  Who are those guys and did you get their consent before putting their pictures up? 

NELSON:  Those folks are folks at the ad agency.  Certainly the verbiage of this ad came right out of the congressional record and I think with Mr. Foley and different ones in the Congress, we could have probably just taken mug shots of congressmen themselves.  But we determined that might not be the best use of .

CARLSON:  Is this spot helping?

NELSON:  Absolutely.  This spot goes to the heart of what‘s wrong in Washington, D.C.  Why our money is being wasted by politicians, instead of being spent on legitimate uses.  That‘s what we‘re pointing out in this ad Tucker. And frankly my opponent, Ron Kind, is terrified of this ad.  He has even gone so far as to threaten litigation against television stations if we play this ad. 

CARLSON:  And has it been running?

NELSON:  Absolutely.  We‘ve been playing it in Madison, most recently, just because those folks appreciate it so much. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Well, I sure appreciate your coming on.  Paul R.  Nelson, not a friend to transvestite Eskimos.  But really the producer of one of the funniest ads I‘ve seen in a long time.  Thanks very much. 

NELSON:  Thank you Tucker.

CARLSON:  Well everyone‘s favorite bigoted Kazakh reporter works the red carpet at his movie premier.  You‘ll hear from Borat himself when we come right back.


CARLSON:  If you‘ve watched the first 56 minutes of the show you probably think you know everything that happened today.  But no, here‘s Willie Geist to fill in the blanks.  

WILLIE GEIST:  There‘s so much more Tucker.  I have to say Nelson can say all he wants, I don‘t think we‘re doing enough to study Vietnamese hookers in this country.  And I‘ve always had a mind for public service, so I would be willing to help out with the study.

CARLSON:  That may be a freelance project for you.

GEIST:  Yes, I think so, I‘m going to look into it.  Quick note, Naomi Campbell in trouble again.  This time she scratched her drug therapist in the face.  She was arrested in London, the woman came into the police depot with scratches all over her face.  You just can‘t find good drug therapists any more.  Naomi Campbell once again beating up the help.  It‘s really not flattering is it Tucker? 

CARLSON:  She is just a hell cat, that Naomi, it‘s kind of appealing. 

GEIST:  She is.  I think the drug therapist needs to do some better work. 

CARLSON:  Cheers to the man who can tame her.  

GEIST:  There isn‘t one, I‘m afraid.  Well Tucker, it‘s kind of like the death of your 95-year-old grandmother. You knew it was coming, but that doesn‘t make it any less sad.  Your good friend Jerry Springer was voted off “Dancing with the Stars” last night.  Jerry got a little choked up at the end of the show, it was too upsetting for us to show you here, so these are some highlights of him.  He was the crowd favorite but in the end his utter inability to dance finally caught up to him. 

And, Tucker, believe it or not, there were some tears at the end of this.  He got a little bit choked up, had to step away from the microphone.  This competition actually means something to people.  I don‘t know if you got far enough along to get choked up at the end, but, Jerry Springer, getting choked up for “Dancing with the Stars.”

CARLSON:  I was choked up with gratitude and relief.  I think Jerry, who is really just an excellent guy in every way, you spend seven weeks doing anything, especially something as difficult as that show, and I think you get emotionally invested in it.  I thought he was a pretty good dancer, it tells you how low my standards are.  

GEIST:  Better than you thought.  And last week actually he was so certain he was going to get kicked off, they had the two people left and then they didn‘t kick anyone off and he threw his head back in exasperation, like do I really have to stay here for another week and dance.  So, he‘s probably a little bit relieved today. 

CARLSON:  Yes I think it was all a pose I think he wanted to win. 

Quickly Willie, your prediction, who is going to win? 

GEIST:  I like Joey Lawrence.  I think Mario Lopez is too good.  I think viewers and voters resent that.  He‘s as good as some of the dancers, Joey Lawrence is my dark horse.  

CARLSON:  I think that‘s very wise.  I agree. 

GEIST:  Well, the highly anticipated new Borat movie premiered in London last night Tucker.  Borat showed up to the red carpet event in a mule driven cart surrounded by Kazakhstani prostitutes or at least women dressed like them.  He stopped to talk to an English reporter and was shocked to hear a woman could hold such a position.  


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I‘m a journalist, in England ladies are allowed to be journalists. 

BORAT:  It‘s ridiculous.  In my country we say to let the woman be a journalist is like to give a monkey a gun. 


GEIST:  How can you not go see this next Friday, November 3 when it comes out? Look at this man, how could you not go see that movie?  We‘d love to speak to Borat, apparently he‘s not doing a whole lot of press.  But boy, wouldn‘t that be fun to have him on this show Tucker? 

CARLSON:  It would be really the culmination of a dream, Willie.  

GEIST:  And in the words of Larry King, we would give him the full hour. Wouldn‘t we Tucker, if Borat .

CARLSON:  Tonight, Borat! To give a woman journalistic credentials is like giving a monkey a gun.  

GEIST:  He studied in the United States for a few years but he hasn‘t totally picked up on our customs has he.  

CARLSON:  Willie Geist, reporting from headquarters.  Thanks Willie.  That‘s our show for today, thank you for watching.  Up next, “HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS.”  Stay with us, tomorrow and all next week for politics up to the minute.  See you then.



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