updated 10/15/2007 10:59:13 AM ET 2007-10-15T14:59:13

Guests: Amy Argetsinger, Roxanne Roberts, Hilary Rosen, Marl;ow Lewis, Ed Schultz

TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC HOST:  The prince of Tennessee looks like the king of the world today.  But would Al Gore really risk dramatically improving public persona with a run for president?

Welcome to the show.  Al gore won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning for his activism in the area of global climate change.  The Nobel Prize takes its place in his trophy case alongside the Academy Award his film received and the Emmy award he got for TV network last month.  All of this high profile adulation led the national news media, if not the nation in its entirety, to wonder if the former vice president will in the end run for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

Well it is fair and interesting question but it‘s not the only one that begs answering.  Among others, how accurate was “An Inconvenient Truth.”  In a moment we‘ll speak to an expert who suggests caution when any politician warns of the end of the world.

And what if Al Gore did enter the race for president.  The glow of today‘s news may convince you that Mr. Gore would be elected unanimously.  On the other hand remember 2000.  Would Gore be better politician this time around?  We‘ll tell you.

And for what it‘s worth former President Jimmy Carter wants Gore to run, what‘s that worth?  And what‘s worth to Hillary Clinton that no less than 1984 also ran Walter Mondale reportedly will endorse her?  And who is in line for the priceless Mike Dukakis endorsement?

Much fun to be had on that subject.

We‘ll get to the inconvenient truth of the Democratic presidential field that Al Gore may be more popular than any of them.

But we begin with “An Inconvenient Truth” the movie and its Nobel Peace Prize winning star.  Joining me with his insights into Al Gore‘s inconvenient truth is Marlo Lewis senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  Mr. Lewis, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON:  So here is my understanding of the debate to the extent there is one on global warming, that everybody agrees the earth is getting warmer.  There is some agreement that mankind, industry is responsible for some of that warming but there is no consensus where we can do much about it.  Is that your understanding of the state of the argument?

LEWIS: Not exactly.  I would say that a preponderance of scientists do believe that the recent warming, the warming of the past 30 years is largely the result of the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  I would say that most scientists, though, understand even if they don‘t public say—publicly say that there isn‘t a whole lot we can do about it.

For example, the Kyoto Protocol which is Al Gore‘s baby, he negotiated it for the Clinton administration, when Al Gore was vice president he asked Tom Wiggly (ph) of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a leading climate modeler, well, how much global warming have I just averted by negotiating the Kyoto Protocol?  And Tom Wiggly calculated 0.07 degree centigrade by 2050.  In other words, too small to even detect or measure or verify.

So, Kyoto of course is understood to be just the baby step in a grand plan.  But the baby step is estimated to cost the U.S. economy if we were to implement it, about $180 billion a year.  So you have to wonder how much 30 Kyotos would burden the global economy and whether that would be worth the small modification in global temperatures that we‘re going to see over the 21st century.

CARLSON:  So if Kyoto which was rejected overwhelmingly by the Senate, I believe, during the Clinton administration, wouldn‘t make—because it was considered too radical and too hurtful to the U.S. economy, if that would not make much of a difference in global climate.  What about the individual decision about what kind of car to drive, which is taken as kind of a signal of your moral standing, good people drive Priuses, bad people drive SUVs.  Is that really significant?

LEWIS:  Again, that‘s just a drop in the bucket.  But very interestingly, Tucker, if you were thinking about the Supreme Court decision which requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set emission standards for automobiles, CO2 emission standards, carbon dioxide standards, that‘s a regulatory Pandora‘s Box.  Al Gore and his friends are very strategic and what they‘re hoping that once the Environmental Protection Agency starts regulating the drop in the bucket they can be litigated into regulating the entire economy.

And really prohibiting, for example, any new coal fired power plants from being built.  Basically constraining the economy at 1990 levels of production and population.  And then ratcheting it on down from there.  So the potential for economic damage is very high.  From these policies.

CARLSON:  Let me just say, the argument that Gore and many people support Al Gore‘s point of view, position on global warming make, is that if you disagree, even in the particulars even in a relatively minor way with his position that you are clearly in the pocket of the polluters, taking money from some kind of carbon-based energy company.  Are there totally independent scientists who don‘t believe we can do a lot about global warming?

LEWIS:  Oh, yeah, of course.  In fact many of the scientists who are regarded as skeptics have been authors of the IPCC reports.  For example, my friend, and I am very proud to call him a friend, John Christy (ph), a satellite scientist and Roy Spencer, they have both written chapters for the - or they have been lead authors of IPCC reports, at least John Christy has, I know Roy has contributed.

So there are independent scientists out there.  I think, though, that one of the things—Al Gore is often now lauded at least in this current episode of winning the Nobel Prize, he‘s lauded for having put global warming on the map and wakened up the world so now we can talk about it.  But in fact Al Gore and the—I would say the global warming movement generally has actually had the affect of stifling discussion by insisting that everybody tow their party line.  And that if you don‘t you‘re a bad human being.  At the very least you‘re in the hip pocket of some greedy polluter.  And that puts a chilling affect on speech.  Unfortunately.

CARLSON:  Without question, no matter where you are in the debate I think it‘s impossible to disagree with what you just said.  There‘s authoritarian mindset on the part of lot of advocates of Gore‘s position.

LEWIS:  Bobby Kennedy Jr. basically saying that these companies, who, energy companies are traitors.  And then by implication anyone who is any way associated with them as my organization has been in the past, with one of the named companies, then we‘re traitors, too.

And of course punishment for treason is what, death or maybe lifelong jail sentences.  And so when you get global warming zealots talking, some people who may not have my gusto might actually be intimidated into keeping their opinions to themselves.

CARLSON:  Right.  I mean, there‘s no question we‘re dealing with a faith-based movement here and all the kind of millennialism that entails.  Very quickly, one of the people are so intense on the subject, though, even pretty normal people is that this stuff is scary.  The former vice president said, I believe today, that we‘re looking at in our lifetime, next 20, 30 years the total disappearance of the polar ice caps, is that a consensus among scientists that‘s going to happen?

LEWIS:  There are model projections—no.  Not the total—there are model projections that say that by mid century there might be a disappearance of the polar ice cap in the summertime.  It would still be—part of it would still be there in the winter.  But you have to wonder what exactly that means in terms of human welfare, even to the welfare of species because remember, back in the early part of the period of the Holocene, that‘s our current period between ice ages, the Arctic was four to five degrees Celsius warmer than it is today for thousands of years.  And similarly during the last interglacial, and yet we have polar bears. 

Somehow they managed to survive.

The Arctic ice cap also as you know floats on water so when it melts, it doesn‘t raise sea level rise.  It doesn‘t raise sea levels and some people listening to what Al Gore say, think we‘re all going to drown.  It doesn‘t work that way.

CARLSON:  Okay.  I‘m going to cancel my plans to move to higher ground then.  Marlo Lewis, thanks a lot for joining us.  I appreciate it.

LEWIS:  You‘re welcome, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Well, Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize.  Does that mean if he were to run for president he would win?  Plus Barack Obama wants to become president if he doesn‘t win the Democratic nomination would he accept a lesser role, that of Supreme Court justice.  We‘ll tell you just ahead.  This is MSNBC.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.

Al Gore‘s mantle got a little more crowded today as the former vice president took home the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on global warming.  That victory also brought back all the Gore in ‘08 talk.  But if Gore decides to take on his fellow Democrats, could he actually win the nomination or is it just wishful thinking by some?

Gore himself has given very few signs he has any intention of running so the bigger question may be if Gore endorses somebody who is it going to be?  And will it matter?

Well, joining us now to answer these questions and more we welcome Democratic strategist and MSNBC political analyst Hilary Rosen and host of the nationally syndicated “Ed Schultz Show”, Ed Schultz himself.

Ed, I want to play clip from the “Today” show from this summer of July 5 of Al Gore, I think this is the key to whether he will or will not run.  Here he is.


AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT:  If I do my job right then all of them will make this their top issue.  None of them have yet, some of them have made good positive statements, but it‘s still treated as a side issue.  And I will predict for that you within the next 500 days this issue will be the number one issue on the agenda.


CARLSON:  So, the issue of course is global warming, Ed.  No candidate on the Democratic side made much less the Republican side has made global warming the centerpiece of his or her campaign.  I don‘t think anyone of them is going to.  This seems perfect rationale for Gore to jump in.

ED SCHULTZ, “ED SCHULTZ SHOW”:  Well, he‘s going to be pigeonholed, Tucker, as a guy who is on one-issue candidate.  I would venture to say that the war is the number one issue, healthcare is second.  The environment very important on the list, but I don‘t think it‘s enough to throttle Al Gore into the top spot and for him to win the nomination.  Besides that, we‘re inside 90 days before the Iowa caucus and it would have to be a miraculous campaign, an unbelievable grassroots effort for him to be able to make a mark.  I don‘t think he‘s got those kinds of funds right now.  And a lot of people are kind of tapped out.  It‘s a battle out there in fundraising because Hillary and Obama have raised a ton of dough.

CARLSON:  He could just take his own Google stock and self finance.  But Hilary, I agree with Ed, what Ed just said completely.

I don‘t think that issue is enough to propel him to the nomination much less the presidency.  However, you got to kind of wonder do Democrats really believe Al Gore?  If you take what Gore says about the environment at face value, if you really believe what he says, there is no issue more important than global warming, if you believe Al Gore.  So why is it not the top issue on the Democratic side?

SCHULZ:  Well, I think it‘s a timing issue, I think everybody is concerned about the environment and the Democrats, liberals, far more important than the Republicans.  I just think that it‘s just not number one within the next 13 months.

CARLSON:  Hilary, what if Gore endorses?  He hasn‘t endorsed anyone, of course.  But if were to endorse Barack Obama would that make any kind of difference in Obama‘s support in say, Iowa?

HILARY ROSEN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY:  Well, All of the Democratic candidates want Al Gore‘s endorsement.  I think the fact that it‘s a strong field is one of the reasons why he hasn‘t endorsed yet.  And he does use this issue as a little bit of leverage to encourage them all to speak out more.  And I think that it will succeed.  This is a great victory for him today.  I‘m extraordinarily excited for him.

CARLSON:  Why would it take his encouragement?  Again, if you believe what he says, you look at rock which is a big bad deal it will have ramifications for generations.  You compare that to global warming as Gore describes it, that‘s Apocalypse, that is going to destroy our ability to live on the planet in short order, according to Al Gore.  Why wouldn‘t that take precedence over what is going on in Iraq?

ROSEN:  Well, I think it‘s one of the reasons that Al Gore is where he is right now which is trying to influence the larger debate.  It‘s exactly where he wants to be, Democrats have short-term issue and long-term issue.  In the short term it‘s hold the administration‘s feet to the fire in Iraq in the long term it‘s, do we have better vision for this country than the republicans are taking us down?  And it‘s on that long term vision about how we‘re going to do better for our kids and do better for the economy.  Those are the issues where global warming really comes into play.

And I think Al Gore is exactly right.  And I do think that the Democratic candidates are going to follow him there on that vision.

CARLSON:  I wonder, Ed, global warming is one of the debates that‘s pretty popular with rich people who debate Suburban versus Prius and other kind of arguments that only take place in a rarefied world on the coast.  I wonder when people in the middle of the country figure out that Al Gore‘s solutions is going to make everything in their lives more expensive from the electricity .

ROSEN:  That‘s just ridiculous.

CARLSON:  It‘s not ridiculous at all.

ROSEN:  Completely ridiculous.

CARLSON:  Not only is it not completely ridiculous, it‘s beyond dispute.

ROSEN:  There‘s no economic data that says what you just said.  In fact, it‘s just the opposite.  Most of the studies are showing ...

CARLSON:  The is totally false.

ROSEN:  . that new investment in renewables and other things can create economic resurgence in many areas of this country where we‘re completely dependent on foreign products.

CARLSON:  So, wait, you are saying that .

ROSEN:  It does offer economic opportunity for everybody across the board.

CARLSON:  So you are saying that when fuel prices rise, which is beyond dispute the inevitable result .

ROSEN:  Fuel prices will not rise if we have energy independence in this country.

CARLSON:  You‘ve got to be kidding.

ROSEN:  We‘ve got to find alternative fuels.

CARLSON:  I think.

ROSEN:  If we stop focusing on .

CARLSON:  I think you need listen to what Mr. Gore is saying a little more carefully.

ROSEN:  I listen to him all the time.

CARLSON:  Kyoto itself would cause fuel prices to rise dramatically.  In every sector which would make everything more expensive.  I‘m not saying it‘s not worth it.  I‘m just saying that‘s the truth.  And I don‘t think people get that.

ROSEN:  I don‘t think Al Gore believes there‘s a trade off between economic prosperity and the environment.

CARLSON:  Everybody can have everything.  OK.  Right.

ROSEN:  And I don‘t believe it either.

CARLSON:  So it‘s all free ice cream.  OK.  Well that‘s.  You know.

ROSEN:  It‘s not free ice cream.  It‘s good planning.

CARLSON:  Of course it is.  We can save the environment and it won‘t cost us anything.  We can still keep hiring our nannies and keep driving our big cars.  That‘s not true.  We‘re going to have to sacrifice big time if we follow Gore‘s prescription.  And maybe that‘s good idea, maybe it‘s not, be we should at least honest about it.

ROSEN:  It‘s not much sacrifice, it‘s sort of thoughtful planning for people.  I think they have been practical about people‘s expectations.

CARLSON:  All right.  We‘ll be right back.  Barack Obama says he‘s starting off the next phase of the presidential campaign and that means going after Hillary Clinton, the front runner.  Are we saying goodbye to Mr. Nice guy, will it work?

Plus, Turkey has been a key ally for the U.S. with the war in Iraq, that might not be the case for much longer.

Turkey is warning of serious repercussions if Congress declares the killing of Armenians by Turks genocide.  Why would Congress do this and endanger relationship for something that happened so long ago.  Answers ahead.


CARLSON:  Bye-bye Mr. Nice guy, that‘s the word from Barack Obama‘s campaign today.  From now on Obama says he will draw a sharper contrast between himself and Hillary Clinton.  It will be interesting to see what sticks.  But why bother telling us what you‘re going to do, why not just do it.

Well, here to tell us what Obama‘s strategy is all about, Democratic strategist and MSNBC political analyst Hilary Rosen and the host of the nationally syndicated “Ed Schultz Show,” Ed Schultz.

Ed, why not just if you‘re going to go negative on Hillary, which may or may not be the right thing to do, I think it probably is, why don‘t you just do it, why do you have to come out say this is what I plan to do?

SCHULTZ:  Well, there‘s still enough time between now and the Iowa caucus where he can say a heck of a lot more.  I think the strategy for Obama has been, don‘t say it in July when nobody‘s paying attention.  Get close to the caucus and then let her have it.  And I think there‘s more coming.  I spoke with him personally this week he says it is a timing issue, it is about pacing.

He‘s not paying attention to the polls, the key here, Tucker, is that Obama‘s got money.  He may be behind in some of the polls nationally but he is very close in Iowa and I know for a fact that he‘s got more boots on the ground than anybody—any other candidate in Iowa right now.  He‘s not traveling as much as John Edwards is, but he‘s got more boots on the ground and his infrastructure is strong.

So I think Obama is just making a very calculated move.  He‘ll step up the attacks on Hillary Clinton and her positions, not personally.

CARLSON:  I must say, Hilary, I would love to see Obama do actually get some traction here.  And I‘d love to see a real race.  But just unfortunately it‘s amateur hour here.  He‘s attacking Hillary Clinton for voting on this resolution in the Senate declaring the Revolution Guard in Iran a terrorist organization.  He is saying that‘s bad.  He didn‘t even bother to vote on that.

ROSEN:  There is some dissent in his campaign right now, I also talked to the campaign this week.  There‘s some ongoing dissent about whether it‘s worthwhile for him to continue to try and harp on the differences between them such as they are, such as they aren‘t on issues of war and national security.  Obviously Democratic voters have already decided that Hillary Clinton is—has changed her views evolved her views about where she thinks this war can go.

So I think there‘s some—a lot of argument inside the campaign right now that he should be focusing more on the economic populism arguments.  That should be talking about a new generation of leaders.

CARLSON:  And tying her to lobbyists and saying, what do you mean like she‘s .

ROSEN:  Trying to tie the Clintons to some of the things that we know the Republicans are going to try and tie her too.  I‘m not saying that‘s going to be successful but nobody to date has tried in that the Democratic Party quite so effectively.  And the Obama campaign I expect to come out with more of those kinds of differences than ultimately a little less focus on trying to convince people that she‘s wrong in Iraq.

CARLSON:  I have to say, Ed, it‘s not very compelling argument, this idea that Hillary Clinton cast this wrong vote on Iran, right, this essentially symbolic vote on Iran.  But Barack Obama didn‘t even bother to cast it.  He said I was in New Hampshire, it‘s hard to get back.  To which the Hillary campaign responded, if you felt so strongly about it why didn‘t you show up and vote on it.  I have to say, I‘m siding with Hillary on this.  They‘re right.  Why didn‘t he vote on that?

SCHULTZ:  Well, it was an issue of logistics and when the vote was held.  But the fact is he‘s come out saying where he stands on it.  I think issue with the Clinton camp that they would support that kind of a vote because that‘s a heck of a way to do diplomacy when you come out telling somebody they‘re a terrorist state, the Revolutionary Guard needs to be marked up as almost the enemy before you even have any negotiations with them.

I think Obama has got some in his favor.  He‘s drawing big crowds, he‘s going to start getting more media because of that as we get closer to it.  But he‘s also demographically way ahead of Hillary Clinton.  He‘s bringing a lot more younger people to the process than the front runner is right now.  And I think that‘s something that the Clinton camp has got to be concerned about.

Connecting with young people is going to be key down the stretch and Obama‘s got the money to do that.  I think it‘s a very calculated move on his part to hold off on all these attacks until it‘s really going to count.  I think this is going to be a heck of a race.

ROSEN:  There‘s something else there .

CARLSON:  I‘m sorry but we have to take a break.  We have a hard out, we‘ll be back in just a moment.

We can tell you about Jimmy Carter.  He says the Democrats will pin the presidency in ‘08, which Democrat does he want to see in the White House?  We‘ll tell you.  Plus Barack Obama, if he doesn‘t win the nomination could he be selected as running mate or is he better suited for more permanent slot perhaps on the Supreme Court?  This is MSNBC.




JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  I‘m delighted and hope that this might encourage him to consider another political event.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC ANCHOR:  Are you suggesting maybe that he would be the most effective candidate in 2008? 

CARTER:  I don‘t think there‘s any doubt that Al Gore would be the best qualified person to be president of the United States.  He was obviously elected both in Florida and around the country in 2000.  And I‘ve always hoped that he would be coming back again some time. 


CARLSON:  Former President Jimmy Carter on “MORNING JOE.”  Who books that show?  That person needs a big raise, impressive.  In any case, Carter went on the show, taking break from his Bush bashing book selling tour to laud Al Gore and essentially to endorse Gore for president.  Carter‘s vice president and the landslide victor of the ‘84 election, Walter Mondale, on the other hand, has indicated Hillary Clinton is his choice for the White House.  We‘re still waiting for words from George McGovern and Geraldine Feraro (ph) and the ghost of Hubert Humphrey.

What weight do the endorsements of Democratic party elders, particularly Mr. Carter, hold in the race for the nomination.  Well, back to discuss it, two relative youngsters from that party, Democratic strategist and MSNBC political analyst Hillary Rosen, and host of the “Ed Schultz Show,” Ed Schultz. 

ROSEN:  Jimmy Carter was the first president I worked for though. 

CARLSON:  There you go.  You tell me then.

ROSEN:  He and Al Gore are actually good friends and have spoken quite a bit over the last several years.  So it‘s not unusual at all that he would come out and say that about the vice president.  And it‘s just a nice relationship and I expect that that was that. 

CARLSON:  Is there a—they‘re both southern Baptist moralizers.  So I can see the connection.  Is there a constituency that follows Former President Carter?  Do people—this is not my world, so I‘m asking you a sincere question.  Are the Democrats who say, well, Jimmy Carter is for him; I will be too?  

ROSEN:  Well, I think President Carter‘s gone through an evolution in his post-presidency.  He was at his lowest point when he left the White House and I think now he does have a lot of credibility, because he does one thing that most politicians don‘t do.  He‘s just completely honest all the time.  He just says what he thinks.  And I think that there are a lot of people who trust that and so I do think he has influence. 

CARLSON:  Walter Mondale, apparently, according to “The Hill,” Ed, is going to endorse Hillary.  It does raise—and this is question we face every four years—the Mike Dukakis question.  What ever—Apparently he‘s still alive, teaching in Massachusetts.  He was the standard bearer of your party.  Why does nobody listen to him any more? 

SCHULTZ:  Young voters don‘t care who endorses who.  It‘s what‘s in it for them and that‘s where they stand, Tucker.  I have tremendous respect for former President Carter and also some other people that are coming out, like you said, Walter Mondale.  But I don‘t think that is going to register with the under 35 crowd, which I think is going to decide who is president of the United States in ‘08. 

CARLSON:  Do you have enormous respect for Mike Dukakis? 

SCHULTZ:  You know, he was a man that stood up and said things that weren‘t very popular.  And I think over the long haul I think he might have been correct on a number of issues he didn‘t get credit for.  But his endorsement—I mean, look at this, you had Howard Dean just before the Iowa caucus went down visited Jimmy Carter.  You think he‘d like to have that trip back?  It didn‘t do anything for him.  You had Al Gore come out and endorse Howard Dean.  That didn‘t do anything. 

I just think all these endorsements are over played.  And I think it makes for a good media story, gets people talking a little bit.  But the brass tacks of it, I don‘t know if it has any real impact on any voters or not, especially young kids. 

CARLSON:  Hillary, do you think—not to belabor this, but it‘s a little bit unfair to Mike Dukakis.  I mean, here Al Gore was unpopular, the object of ridicule.  And now he‘s won an Oscar, an Emmy, and a Nobel Peace Prize.  He‘s been redeemed in the eyes of most people, I think.  I‘m totally sold.


ROSEN:  He worked extra hard. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t begrudge him that.  What about Mike Dukakis?  He is treated like a syphilitic serial killer by Democrats.  They‘ve ostracized him.  Why is that? 

ROSEN:  There‘s one big difference.  Mike Dukakis won very few states and Al Gore actually won the presidency.  And so you can argue there‘s a much bigger constituency for him.  But I think that Ed is right over the long term, in terms of national endorsements.  Where endorsements matter and why Hillary Clinton benefits from Walter Mondale‘s endorsement is on a state by state basis.  There are some states, Iowa, you know, having former governor Vilsack supporting Hillary Clinton is significant.  When local politicians can bring their resources, their contacts and their mobilization to a candidate, that matters.  But that‘s on a state by state basis.  I think national endorsements matter less. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I think you‘re probably right.  Ed, Jeff Tubin has an interesting piece, in which he suggests that Hillary Clinton is not likely to name Barack Obama her running mate, vice presidential candidate.  But why wouldn‘t she appoint him to the Supreme Court?  What does you think of that?  What does he think that have, since you talked to him lately? 

SCHULTZ:  I have not talked to him about that.  But what a tremendous compliment, that there‘s somebody out in there in the legal profession who is in front of the camera quite often for another network, stepping forward and saying, you know, this guy is Supreme Court quality.  I think it‘s a good compliment for Barack Obama.  I don‘t think it‘s going to happen.  I don‘t think that they‘re ever going to be on the same ticket. 

But Barack Obama is unquestionably one of the most talented Democrats to come along on the American scene I think in a couple of decades.  He is attracting—and he has a very Bobby Kennedy approach to all of this.  People are gravitating to him.  He‘s raising the money.  Forget the polls.  This is going to be a marathon.  It‘s not going to be a sprint.  I think that having somebody say something like that makes people think about his candidacy and his quality. 

CARLSON:  Hillary, there‘s a genuine, I think, outrage going on Capitol Hill.  It‘s being ignored because of this Al Gore news today.  But the House—the House Foreign Affairs Committee has voted to call the killings of Armenian Christians by Turks around the time of the First World War genocide.  I don‘t have a problem with that in the abstract.  I think it probably was genocide and I‘m on the Armenian side. 

However, the Turks are vital ally internationally right now.  They‘re mortally offended by this.  The Turkish ambassador has been withdrawn from Washington temporarily.  The Turks are saying they‘re going to punish us for this.  We‘ve alienated them by doing this.  Why are the Democrats pushing this right now? 

ROSEN:  Well, first of all it‘s not just the Democrats. 

CARLSON:  It is—It is not just the Democrats.

ROSEN:  -- Republican from Virginia is the co-sponsor of this resolution as well.  So, this is a long standing issue, where members of Congress feel very strongly that we‘ve never stood up as a country to condemn the Armenian genocide, kind of because of the Turkish bullying.  I think, look, nobody buys really the threats from Turkey.  They have a mutual interest with the United States to remain strong military allies, economical allies.  It‘s just not really realistic to think that they‘re going to erase those strong mutual interests just because the United States Congress wants to do a very important symbolic vote. 

CARLSON:  But hold on.  I thought the Democrats are forever lecturing us how the president has alienated the rest of the world by his swaggering, by his moralizing, by his pointless symbolic displays of superiority that makes the rest of the world mad.  That‘s exactly what the Democrats are doing, exactly. 

ROSEN:  Excuse me, the president has alienated the rest of the world by invading a country, occupying it for a long period of time and deciding what form of government and political system they‘re going to be. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not defending Bush. 

ROSEN:  -- millions of dollars and our American troops.  That‘s—

CARLSON:  What are we getting out of this? 

ROSEN:  -- than have an opinion about whether a genocide actually existed.

CARLSON:  It‘s not an opinion.  It‘s a resolution passed, about to be passed in the Congress.  My questions is why is this in our strategic interest?  Nancy Pelosi said today, we‘re doing this because we‘ve always wanted to.  There‘s no good time.  The Democratic leadership supports it.  OK.  How does it help us as a country? 

ROSEN:  It‘s consistently been in our strategic interest to have a moral authority that says, when genocide happens, whether it‘s in Bosnia, whether it‘s in Darfur, or whether it was, you know, years ago in—

CARLSON:  Ninety years ago. 

ROSEN:  That is something that the Americans people are not—is not acceptable.  The fact that the Congress is doing this is the right thing to do.  The fact that they‘re being attacked for it by the Bush administration is simply preposterous, as if somehow the Congress is going to alienate people with a peaceful overture, but yet what the Bush administration is doing in the Middle East is less peaceful. 

CARLSON:  I honestly think, Ed, that this is demented.  I honestly don‘t understand how it helps America.  I‘m not endorsing the Turkish point of view or apologizing for genocide.  Again, I think it probably was genocide.  But it doesn‘t help us.  It hurts us in demonstrable ways.  I‘m not taking the Bush side in this.  I‘m taking an objective point of view.  What‘s in it for us?  I‘m totally missing this? 

SCHULTZ:  Well, the timing is not the best.  That‘s for sure.  We got bigger fish to fry.  the last thing we need is the Turks to go into northern Iraq and get into it with the Kurds. 

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

SCHULTZ:  We need to simmer the tensions right now.  That doesn‘t mean we can‘t take a stand on this later.  But I think you can look at the reaction of the Turkish people on this and realize that this is over-reaching.  There‘s a time and place for every diplomatic effort.  There‘s a time and place for every political fight.  I think the timing on this is bad.  We have lost the high ground.  I agree with Hillary on that, that we need to restore the moral authority in our own camp. 

But I think the timing of this is not good.  It‘s going to aggravate a potentially dangerous situation that I‘m not sure militarily we‘re going to be able to handle.  The last thing we need is another hot spot in that region. 

ROSEN:  It‘s just not in the Turks‘ interest. 

SCHULTZ:  I think they‘re making a mistake on this.

CARLSON:  You don‘t—the Turks are absolutely threatening us, Hillary, as you know.  They said, point blank, we‘re going to respond and we‘re going to hurt you for this.  You don‘t believe them? 

ROSEN:  I have no particular insight to the Turkish military strategy in terms of a direct relationship.  But I can tell you that I do not believe that the leadership, the Democratic leadership in Congress, who does have much more access to intelligence reports, would put this country‘s interests at risk by doing this.  I think it‘s an empty threat. 


SCHULTZ:  Well, they‘re going on with the vote.  They‘re going on with the vote.  I think it‘s the wrong thing to do.  We‘re not even paying attention to the reaction of the Turkish people. 

CARLSON:  It‘s going to be hard sell to explain to people that you somehow are better off because a 90-year-old genocide has been described as a genocide.  It just doesn‘t—I can‘t relate to it.  Maybe there are a lot of people who are excited about it.  I‘m just not one of them.  Thanks very much.  I appreciate you both coming on.  Happy Friday. 

Coming up, we‘re digging up the dirt in Washington.  We‘ll break down the Capitol Hill connections that brought Fred Thompson and his wife together.  You‘ll be surprised.

And later, she‘s back; Anna Nicole Smith may be dead, but the mystery surrounding what killed her continues.  We‘ll get the latest from our former Playboy playmate expert, Bill Wolff.  That‘s all coming up. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  We spent the last 46 minutes and 22 seconds telling you what‘s going on in official Washington.  Time now for the news from beneath the dome, from the catacombs beneath the capital city, the gossip from Washington.  Joining Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, the ladies of the “Washington Post‘s” universally read gossip column, “The Reliable Source.” 


CARLSON:  Happy fall.  You have the actual explanation for how Fred Thompson met his wife.  How did that happen. 

ROBERTS:  We have the physical explanation.  We can‘t explain how they ended up together. 


ROBERTS:  It‘s a mystery. 

ARGETSINGER:  The story came out last week, but we ran out of—we weren‘t able to talk about it last week.  Very important though.  If you are every trying to meet Mr. Right, here is what to look for.  Jerri Thompson met him in a grocery store in Nashville in the checkout line—

ROBERTS:  July 4th, when he was a senator.

ARGETSINGER:  And she noticed him because the then bachelor had—he was buying a can of beanie weanies and half a wrapped tuna sandwich. 

ROBERTS:  How sad is that.  I think that‘s when she saw she had a good target here. 

CARLSON:  Just to recap here, Fred Thompson, the most popular and famously single member of the United States Senate—out of 100, he‘s number one—he‘s looming around at night alone—

ROBERTS:  No.  This is in the afternoon.  This is on July 4th afternoon. 

CARLSON:  In the afternoon.  OK, but he‘s buying his own food in the grocery store? 

ROBERTS:  He‘s buying beanie weanies and pre-made—half a pre-made tuna fish sandwich.  How sad is that?

ARGETSINGER:  I think the American people can relate to that.  I think it‘s going to be good for Fred Thompson‘s campaign. 

CARLSON:  Do we believe this? 

ROBERTS:  Yes, we do. 

ARGETSINGER:  I kind of do. 

ROBERTS:  Who would make that story up about themselves?  And then he carried her groceries to the car.  And then she invited him to a 4th of July party that night.  Then my favorite thing is that she said, I‘m not really—I was never really an older man kind of person. 

ARGETSINGER:  Older man kind of dater. 

ROBERTS:  But he won her over when they were at lunch discussing campaign financing.  He said he basically—I was trying to remember—he wanted to lift the veil or lift the skirt or something off the whole corruption of it.  And she fell in love.  She fell in love. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know if I‘m buying that.  I don‘t know.  It‘s pretty good though.  It‘s a good story. 

ARGETSINGER:  But that‘s old news.  We have a new—

CARLSON:  What‘s the fresh news. 

ARGETSINGER:  The fresh news -- 

ROBERTS:  The fresh romance? 

ARGETSINGER:  Fresh romance; Harold Ford, who had long run as Washington‘s most eligible bachelor, is giving up the title.  He got engaged.  This is the former Democratic boy wonder, Congressman from Tennessee, who lost a Senate race last fall.  He is now working at the DLC and Merrill Lynch.  He‘s got himself engaged to Emily Threlkel (ph), who is in her mid-20s.  She works in fashion in New York.  He proposed to her in Paris over the weekend, last weekend where she was working.  They have been dating two and a half or three years.  They met at a family wedding. 

And, as we found out later in the week, it turns out, Harold Ford‘s future step father in law is a very prominent Wall Street money guy, a guy named Anson Beard (ph), used to be a big muckety muck at Morgan Stanley, who for many years was a big Republican donor.  Fortunately for family unity and harmony, he had a change of opinion several years ago, started giving to the Democrats in a big way, just in time for his future step daughter-in-law to meet Harold Ford. 

ROBERTS:  What did he give about 28,000 to Harold? 

ARGETSINGER:  Yes, to Harold and to the Democratic party of Tennessee. 

ROBERTS:  It‘s good to have rich family. 

ARGETSINGER:  Everyone gets along in this family. 

CARLSON:  So he‘s basically kind of a bipartisan type father-in-law. 

ARGETSINGER:  It sounds like he‘s more of Democrat now. 

ROBERTS:  That‘s good for Harold, because there‘s lots of rumors that he‘s either going to try to run for Senate next year or possibly governor in 2010 of Tennessee. 

CARLSON:  Amazing. 

ARGETSINGER:  We need a new eligible bachelor in town.  We need some nominees. 

ROBERTS:  Who do you think is a good eligible bachelor? 

CARLSON:  I wouldn‘t recommend a single friend of mine.  Most of them work in the media, so you can see why.  You make Washington sounds like such a romantic city. 

ROBERTS:  It can be romantic.  We can talk about campaign finance. 

CARLSON:  No.  No chance.  On that happy note, have great weekend. 

I‘ve heard of bride dressed in all but white.  But this is ridiculous.  She‘s on a role from the start.  A walk down the aisle with Bill Wolff after this. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Lot of television networks have an environmental reporter, an automotive reporter, but very few have a former Playboy playmate reporter.  We do.  His name is Bill Wolff and he joins us now. 

BILL WOLFF, MSNBC VICE PRESIDENT:  You know, I applied for that job and didn‘t get it.  They made me vice president of prime time programming instead.  They felt I had more qualifications.  Lucky me, Tucker.  Happy Friday. 

Rare is the story that combines the most salacious and low brow, with high-minded politics.  This one probably doesn‘t either, Tucker, but it‘s close.  Search warrants were issued in California today on the office of Anna Nicole‘s former psychiatrist, Dr. Christine Resovich (ph).  That‘s Anna Nicole Smith, who died some time ago.  The warrants are apparently in connection with pills, Tucker, the pills that appear to have contributed to Anna Nicole‘s death. 

Now, how, you ask, does this involve high-minded presidential politics?  Because, Tucker, California Attorney General, former governor and 1992 presidential candidate Jerry Brown was the man behind the warrants.  Mr. Brown said in a press conference this afternoon that he ordered the warrant because he has reason to believe a serious crime has been committed.  Rest easy, California, Jerry Brown is back on the case.  Can you believe it, Tucker? 

CARLSON:  Well, considering, Bill, that Jerry Brown is the governor I grew up with in the state of California. 

WOLFF:  How did that go for you? 

CARLSON:  You know what, nothing would shock me about Jerry Brown. 

I‘ve gotten to kind of like him over the years because he‘s hung in there.  Unlike most people, he‘s actually gotten more reasonable as he‘s gotten older, which wasn‘t too hard in his case. 

WOLFF:  Low standards. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not surprised. 

WOLFF:  First presidential candidate with an 800 number.  I won‘t say it on the air.  But I remember it to this day.  I was between job opportunities in ‘92, Tucker, watched a lot of C-Span.  I remember that number to this day.  Always admired the innovation.  Now I admire him for going after justice in California for Anna Nicole Smith. 

CARLSON:  Amazing. 

WOLFF:  The big ecological news today, Tucker, was of course Al Gore‘s Nobel Prize.  As a representative of this hard news segment, I congratulate him.  It‘s not the only eco-news.  Dateline Italy, (INAUDIBLE) all that stuff.  On that romantic peninsula, designer Ambra Fabi (ph) has created a new fashion line out of recycled garbage or spotzatura (ph), as it‘s known there.  The enchanting fall line includes items made from postcards, film, fishing nets, umbrellas, soft drink cans, and soda pop tops.  May I just say, belisimo. 

And priced to move, Tucker.  They wear garbage in Italy.  That is garbage, my friend. 

CARLSON:  You know they look good while they do it.  That‘s the thing about Italians.  You can throw an Italian woman in garbage and she‘ll still turn heads.  That‘s pretty impressive.

WOLFF:  They look good and they‘re well fed and I support the movement.  This jacket is made of coffee grinds, and today I wore shoes made out of banana peels.  Funny day around the office. 

CARLSON:  You look great, too. 

WOLFF:  Thank you.  While Italian designers turn their attention to the preservation of environment, here in America we turn to toilet paper.  CheapChicWeddings.com just held its third annual make a wedding dress out of toilet paper contest.  And Tucker, you‘re looking at the results.  More than 100 aspiring designers of toilet paper, of whatever ply they chose, used tape, glue and TP to put together these beautiful bridal looks.  And the winner, one Hannah Kim (ph). 

Can you guess the state?  I won‘t tell you.  It‘s New Jersey.  Duh.  Of course it‘s New Jersey.  Her design included capped sleeves and pleated insets—sets, whatever those are.  And she took home 500 bucks.  And a designer, where else but Canada, wants to make the toilet paper design into an actual dress, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Are we—can I ask you a question, are we in the middle of world-wide depression?  Is there a famine going on?  Why are we making clothes out of garbage and toilet paper?  Why can‘t we use cotton fabrics as we have for a millennia? 

WOLFF:  My big problem with this is, a toilet paper dress means you have to wear white.  And not every lady can.  Finally, some red meat politics for you, Tucker, “Radar Magazine” has done its poll about the field of candidates for the 2008 presidential nominations, and various other hot political topics. 

Among those topics, who is more hated, President Bush or Paris Hilton?  The winner or loser I suppose is Paris Hilton, hated by 67 percent of respondents, compared to just 54 for the president.  Is Vice President Cheney going to heaven or hell?  Well, that one didn‘t come out too well for Mr. Cheney.  But then again, the results are not binding. 

Finally respondents were asked which Democratic candidate was most macho and the winner, with 37 percent, most macho, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.  May I say, she wears macho well, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  She‘s one rough dude.  Though I don‘t think—I think if they polled members of the media, who do you hate more, the president or Paris Hilton.  I think the answer would be a little different.  We make money from Paris Hilton. 

WOLFF:  She‘s ratings magic. 

CARLSON:  She‘s ratings magic, ratings gold.  Bill Wolff from headquarters.  Thanks a lot. 

WOLFF:  Have great weekend. 

CARLSON:  That does it for us.  Thanks for watching.  Up next, HARDBALL with Chris.  Have a great weekend.  See you Monday.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2007 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2007 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 6 p.m. ET


Discussion comments