updated 11/14/2007 2:31:23 PM ET 2007-11-14T19:31:23

Guests: Darla St. Martin, Roger Stone, Ed Schultz, Yidal Carmon

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  The Fred Thompson campaign is alive and if not well, at least healthier today with the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee. 

Welcome to the show.

In making its announcement, that committee said it believes Thompson is the Republican most likely to defeat pro-choicer Rudy Giuliani.  Fred Thompson‘s policy positions are not in perfect step with the pro-life movement. 

It doesn‘t support a constitutional amendment banning abortion, for instance.  He has called the 2005 Terri Schiavo case a family matter.  And he lobbied for a pro-choice group briefly in the early 1990s. 

So why Fred Thompson?  Why not John McCain? 

Well, in a moment we‘ll ask the co-executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. 

Also today, Bill Clinton invokes the “B” word, “boys,” in reference to Hillary Clinton‘s Democratic rivals.  Mr. Clinton said yesterday those boys have been getting tough on Hillary lately.  Mrs. Clinton‘s campaign says those words reflect Bill‘s southern heritage; they have nothing to do with gender. 

We‘ll tell you more in a minute.

We‘ll also talk about the failure of the Democratic Congress to do anything about Iraq.  “USA Today” reports the number of roadside bombs dropped 38 percent in September.  That‘s down from March. 

Well, that positive news coincides with the politico.com piece pointing out the congressional Democrats have forced 40 votes in the last year on bills to limit the president‘s freedom of movement in Iraq, and 40 times the majority party has failed. 

Why can‘t the Democrats get things done?  Are we lucky they can‘t? 

But first we begin with Fred Thompson and his endorsement today by the National Right to Life Committee. 

Joining me now is Darla St. Martin.  She‘s co-executive director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Darla, thanks for coming on. 

DARLA ST. MARTIN, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE:  Well, thank you for having me. 

CARLSON:  I was very surprised to hear the news that you all had endorsed Fred Thompson.  I like Thompson.  I‘m not attacking him at all.  But in light of a couple of things that he said on “Meet the Press” just the other day, about a week ago, I want to you listen to the first one. 

This is Fred Thompson talking to Tim Russert. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIM RUSSERT, “MEET THE PRESS”:  Could you run as a candidate on that platform promising a human life amendment banning all abortions? 

FRED THOMPSON ®, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  No. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t think it could be any clearer than that.  The Republican Party‘s platform is behind, endorses a amendment banning abortion.  Fred Thompson is not behind it.  Why would you endorse him? 

ST. MARTIN:  Well, did you know what he said?  He wanted Fred Thompson to promise an amendment.  Now, that‘s very different than wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

First of all, an amendment is a long-term goal of the movement.  National Right to Life is very much for a human life amendment, but it‘s a long-term goal.  It‘s not something that we‘re going to achieve in the next four to eight years. 

It‘s obvious that Fred Thompson is concentrating on those things he can achieve.  He says he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and he thinks the way that he can overturn Roe v. Wade is through the selection of judges who will interpret the Constitution according to its text and history.  Judges that would really take a legitimate look at the Constitution would not believe that there‘s right to abortion in the United States Constitution. 

CARLSON:  OK.  OK.

ST. MARTIN:  So that‘s the kind—that is exactly what the president needs to do, and that‘s what we very much appreciate a presidential candidate supporting. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Well, Fred Thompson went on in that same interview on “Meet the Press,” and he was asked more specifically by Russert, you know, what do you think of Roe v. Wade?  And he gave what I felt was a very revealing answer, which I‘m sure your familiar with, our viewers may not be. 

Here is part of it. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMPSON:  I thought Roe versus Wade was wrongly decided.  I think this platform originally came out as response, particularly Roe versus Wade, because of that.  Before Roe versus Wade, states made those decisions.  I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  “That even Fred Thompson disagrees with.”  He goes on to say, “That‘s what freedom is all about.”

Now, those decisions he‘s talking about are abortions.  He‘s talking about the decision to make an abortion.  That‘s what freedom is, says Fred Thompson, the decision to commit abortion if you want. 

How could you get behind that? 

ST. MARTIN:  Well, of course National Right to Life works throughout the country to pass laws in the state legislatures that protect unborn children.  And that is the system we have in this country. 

And that‘s all the National Right to Life Committee is really asking for, is to have overturned—Roe v. Wade overturned.  That‘s the very first step. 

The first step to protecting unborn children is to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Fred Thompson agrees with that.  That‘s a reasonable goal for him for the next four to eight years, to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

CARLSON:  OK, but...

ST. MARTIN:  The constitutional amendment is a very long-term goal.

CARLSON:  But again, with all due—right.

ST. MARTIN:  ... 20, 30 -- 20 to 30 seats would have to be overturned in the Senate before we could even begin the process. 

CARLSON:  I understand that.  But this question was not about the constitutional amendment.  This was about Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion. 

And Fred Thompson says people ought to have the right to have abortions—and I‘m quoting—“That‘s what freedom is all about.”

Now, your an anti-abortion group, you believe abortion is killing.  How could you get behind someone who says, that‘s what freedom is all about?  I mean, that‘s a pro-choice position. 

ST. MARTIN:  I did not hear what you‘re saying you heard.  I heard him say that that‘s what would be allowed in the states.  But he believes that unborn children should be protected. 

I think that‘s one of the reasons our endorsement is so important.  We have worked very carefully. 

Fred Thompson has a 100 percent pro-life voting record in the Congress. 

CARLSON:  Right.  But that—OK.

ST. MARTIN:  And I think you‘re overlooking that. 

CARLSON:  Well, no.  Actually, I think...

ST. MARTIN:  He is willing to do everything that‘s necessary, that he is a president can do, that‘s reasonable to expect to have done in the next four to eight years to protect unborn children.

CARLSON:  I understand that argument.  I wonder—I wonder if you think it‘s important, however, to take a stand on principle.

Of course abortion is going to continue in this country probably for my lifetime, and I believe that‘s a tragedy.  But don‘t you think it‘s important to have someone who not only believes abortion is wrong—if you sincerely believe it‘s the taking of a human life, it‘s not clear to me how you can be in favor of allowing it.  How would you be pro-choice on killing?  You can‘t be. 

It doesn‘t make sense, does it? 

ST. MARTIN:  I do not think he‘s in favor of allowing it. 

CARLSON:  That‘s what he said.

ST. MARTIN:  He is pointing out the federal system is. 

CARLSON:  OK.

ST. MARTIN:  I am sure every single time he has had the opportunity to vote to protect unborn children in one way or another in the Congress he has done so. 

CARLSON:  OK.  But...

ST. MARTIN:  And I think that the line of questioning concentrating on theoretical questions does not reveal—if you really want to know why we endorsed Fred Thompson, it‘s because...

CARLSON:  I really do. 

ST. MARTIN:  ... for the next four to eight years, we think that he will do everything that‘s necessary to protect unborn children. 

CARLSON:  OK.

ST. MARTIN:  We think he will be a great pro-life president.  And to lead us off into theoretical questions that confuse people about who will really protect unborn children is not helpful. 

CARLSON:  Right.  I didn‘t find it confusing at all.  In fact, I found it very illuminating.  But obviously we don‘t agree. 

But I appreciate your coming on. 

Darla St. Martin from the National Right to Life. 

Thanks very much.

ST. MARTIN:  Well, thank you for having me. 

CARLSON:  Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and the Democratic Congress have had a year to force President Bush to change course in Iraq.  Their record, 0-40. 

Is the war over the war over now? 

And Hillary Clinton‘s fight for the Democratic nomination appears to have just begun.  Another day, another potential campaign trail faux pas by her husband. 

Will the Clintons regain their footing?  Have they really lost it?  

You‘re watching MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  There was some good news from Iraq today.  “USA Today” reports the U.S. military encountered 38 percent fewer roadside bombs in the month of September than it did in March.

Meanwhile, there was the same old news in Washington.  Senate Majority

Leader Harry Reid said today that Democrats in Congress will not approve

more money for the Iraq war unless President Bush agrees to start drawing

down U.S. forces.  You‘d pardon Mr. Bush if his reply was as simple as “Oh

yeah?” because politico.com today reviewed the Democratic Congress‘ record

imposing its will on President Bush‘s war policy and here‘s what it found -

the Congress is 0-40 -- 40 votes to restrict the president‘s discretion as commander in chief, 39 failures to pass both houses—both controlled by Democrats, by the way—and one veto that was not overridden.

A year since its election, has Congress lost the war against the war?

Joining us to discuss it, legendary Republican strategist Roger Stone and host of the nationally syndicated “Ed Schultz Show,” Ed Schultz himself. 

Welcome to you both. 

Roger, if you and I had talked about this a year ago—and we may have—the Democrats come to power, take over Congress, basically on the back of dissatisfaction with this war, would you have believed if I had predicted a year later the war would be more popular, Democrats would have gotten nowhere? 

ROGER STONE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  No, actually I think it was most unpredictable.  The two things I don‘t think we saw was there‘s no unanimity in the Democratic caucus on the war.  They‘re not monolithically left.  They‘re not monolithically against the war. 

And then secondarily, the surge, very much to my surprise, has bought the president some valuable time.  So I think it is surprising the Democrats haven‘t had the will, but they don‘t have the numbers. 

CARLSON:  But Ed Schultz, they may not—they may not have the numbers, but you‘ve got to figure if you‘re an anti-war Democrat, you‘re a sincere person who hates this war, and you voted for the Democrats to end it or at least slow it down, you‘ve got to be pretty angry and with good reason, don‘t you think? 

ED SCHULTZ, “THE ED SCHULTZ SHOW”:  Well, it‘s not a highlight for the Democrats right now, that‘s for sure.  And I think they‘re going to run into a problem with some credibility. 

How can the Democrats go home and say, remember back before ‘06 I told you we were going to stop the war and we didn‘t get it done?  This is an issue that the Democrats are going to have to eventually get to the money to keep their credibility if they‘re going to go home and campaign and say, hey, you send us to Washington, we‘re going to get something done. 

The majority of Americans do not like a $1.2 trillion price tag and no idea on how to pay for it.  The leadership of the Democratic Party is failing core Democrats.  I can‘t say that any stronger.  I hear it every single day. 

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have got to go to the funding and straighten this thing out, Tucker.  This is not what the American people want. 

I heard you before the break say, well, you know, this is really popular.  No, it‘s not.  They don‘t like the $1.2 trillion price tag and no idea on how to pay for it and then talk about tax cuts. 

CARLSON:  Oh, no, no, no.  I was not...

SCHULTZ:  What is it the Democratic leadership doesn‘t get?

CARLSON:  I was not suggesting that the war is popular.  The war is unpopular.  It‘s only less unpopular than it was when the Democrats came in. 

Listen to this number, Roger. 

According to—no, but that‘s a significant number.  You‘d think that after a year of the Democrats being in power that the war would be less popular, but that is not true. 

According to Pew, 44 percent of Americans now believe the war is going well.  More significant even than that, if you ask people, what‘s the first news story that comes to mind, only 16 percent say Iraq.  It is not in the public conversation in the way it was a year ago, Roger.

Why is that? 

STONE:  Well, first of all, we I guess have a strategy.  Prior to this, it‘s not clear that the administration had any war strategy other than buying time with American lives.  Now at least there is a cogent military strategy which seems to be affording some limited results.  That‘s bought the administration time. 

But the other factor here is that there is a substantial number of Democrats who aren‘t for this war, who recognize that the war is unpopular in their districts, but they understand you just can‘t withdraw tomorrow and leave the country to collapse into chaos.  That causes real problems on the left of the Democratic Party, where the important grassroots groups like MoveOn.org and others are pressure points against the war. 

The Democratic Party is going to join the Republicans in being blamed for this war across the board in an anti-incumbent fever...

SCHULTZ:  I agree.

STONE:  ... if the Democrats don‘t step forward and at least listen to their own grassroots constituency, which is over there on the left. 

CARLSON:  No, that‘s I think a really interesting point.  But why, Ed—

OK, so we have this news today that roadside bombs, IEDs, which really have been the motif of this war, the tragic motif of the war in Iraq, are down.  That‘s measurable.  I don‘t think anybody‘s contesting the accuracy of those numbers because, again, they‘re pretty easy to measure. 

Should the Democrats celebrate this?  I mean, why not just come out and say this is a great victory for our armed forces and rah-rah? 

SCHULTZ:  Well, it‘s a victory from the standpoint if you believe that this policy is the right way to go to settle things in the Middle East.  Keep in mind there‘s been a lot of ethnic cleansing throughout that country.  No wonder the violence is down.  And the presence of American forces had made a difference.  But if they listened to the Democrats three years ago and said we didn‘t have enough boots on the ground, maybe this would be further along. 

The point is, is that no one in the Republican Party and in the administration is being pressured by the Democrats to start a drawdown, to start slowing down the spending, to give us some light at the end of the tunnel.  All this garbage about fighting them over there so we don‘t have to fight them here has worn thin.  We need to start seeing a drawdown. 

Now, if you want to say that this is a victory after $1.2 trillion and the way we‘re treating our veterans and the lack of equipment—it‘s going to take 10 years to recapitalize our military.  We have depleted our resources.  This has been a failed policy and there‘s no end in sight.  And I‘m just not going to let the Democrats off the hook on this. 

CARLSON:  All right.

SCHULTZ:  I know where the American people are.  They want an end on this. 

CARLSON:  We‘ll be right back. 

Old Bill Clinton says the boys are being tough on his wife—boo-hoo—but by “boys” he doesn‘t mean rivals who are all men.  He means gender neutral competitors. 

Sure he does. 

Plus, Republican Tom Tancredo gets attention with a startling new ad about illegal immigration.  It‘s worth watching, and you can watch it here in just a moment.

We‘ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  The Hillary Clinton campaign says it wants to move past the gender issue, despite its overwhelming support from women.  Well, Bill Clinton either didn‘t get that memo or ignored it, or maybe it never existed in the first place. 

Speaking in South Carolina yesterday, the former president said of his wife‘s rivals in the Democratic Party, “Those boys have been getting tough on her lately.”  Mrs. Clinton‘s campaign was quick to clarify that Mr.  Clinton was using a southern colloquialism.  He was not pointing out that every other contender is a man. 

Here with their assessments of this, welcome once again legendary Republican strategist Roger Stone and host of the national syndicated “Ed Schultz Show,” Ed Schultz. 

Ed Schultz, whining about the gender thing again.  First it was the all-male arena of presidential politics.  Now it‘s her husband, who already implied that America was sexist because it wasn‘t falling in line behind his wife.  He‘s referring to her opponents as “boys.” 

It‘s pretty unseemly, don‘t you think?

SCHULTZ:  Well, this is the second time that the former president has injected himself into the news cycle by making a couple of comments.  And I‘m not sure it‘s helping. 

First of all, he said that they were swift-boating Hillary, and then he had to clarify that.  And now he‘s come out with this gender comment.  Who‘s running the campaign?  I think we‘re seeing early on here that Bill Clinton could be a hindrance, and Hillary is going to have to go out and reidentify with a lot of Americans that she‘s calling the shots on this campaign. 

I think that Hillary Clinton has done a lot of things right.  I think when you‘re the frontrunner and there‘s a lot of people who are looking for her to fail, she‘s going to get a lot of attention. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  You‘re right.  You‘re absolutely right.

SCHULTZ:  And so her slipups are going to get a heck of lot more of attention than anybody else.  But I don‘t think Bill Clinton is helping her too much right now. 

CARLSON:  Well, she‘s certainly done a whole lot right.  That‘s why she is the frontrunner.

But I wonder, Roger, about the message here.  It seems a little mixed.

On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, she‘s a tough, strong woman, tough enough to fight off al Qaeda.  On the other hand, you have, she‘s a girl, you‘re not allowed to be mean to her, and her husband is really in charge.

The two don‘t mesh. 

STONE:  Well, this entire gender thing is a canard.  It‘s a political tactic that I think was cooked up by Mark Penn and Bill Clinton. 

Here‘s the problem.  She got nailed.  She‘s from New York State.  Governor Eliot Spitzer has an insane plan to give driver‘s licenses to unidentified illegal immigrants, which is a security issue, really not an immigration issue. 

Called upon to tell us where she stood on that proposal, she tried to have it both ways.  And she got nailed by several of her opponents.  That is, by the way, their job, try to make some traction against the frontrunner. 

This has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with her attempt to have it both ways and her attempt to finesse a politically correct policy by Governor Spitzer, which, by the way, has driven his approval levels in a new poll today to an all time low of 41 percent, with only 25 percent in the latest Sienna College poll saying they would vote to re-elect him.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with gender. 

CARLSON:  Well, New Yorkers are smarter than they look. 

I wonder, Ed, what you make of the scripted question issue.  MSNBC reported in 1999 that while running for Senate, Mrs. Clinton‘s campaign scripted questions, at least one at an event like this.  She was caught recently doing it. 

And then we hear from the girl who gave the scripted question at the event that someone from Hillary‘s campaign said to her, well, don‘t ask about her opponent‘s health care plans because she doesn‘t know enough about that. 

It sounds to me like her staff doesn‘t really trust her, that‘s why they‘re scripting questions. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, this is not what Americans want to have again.  This is Bush lite.  This is Bush all over again.  This is a managed campaign. 

I realize that Senator Clinton has taken a lot of questions off the cuff and the spontaneity has been there on the trail, but when you call a press outing and you‘ve got all the press there and you try to manipulate the information this way because maybe you think your message isn‘t getting out, you know, I really find that hard to believe.  How can you raise $100 million and then have hard time of getting your message out and have to stoop to this level of going out there and getting people to ask the right questions, especially a college kid who is probably pretty enamored by being ask to do it in the first place? 

CARLSON:  Well, it‘s kind of pathetic.  I mean, you‘ve got to think, Roger

I mean, whatever you think of John Edwards—and I don‘t think a lot of his campaign—nobody is scripting his questions.  You can throw any question you want at John Edwards and he can handle it.  He‘s tough enough to deal with a real question, is he not? 

STONE:  Well, I think this has to do with some of the inadequacies of Hillary Clinton‘s candidacy.  I mean, she doesn‘t say anything per chance or off the cuff. 

She‘s so rote.  She‘s so robotic.  She‘s so mechanical.  She‘s so not Bill. 

Bill floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee.  He‘s good on his feet, he enjoys the give and take, and there‘s probably no wonkish question he couldn‘t come up with an answer for.  Hillary needs an index card or a briefing from Mark Penn to tell what you she had for breakfast, and that‘s a problem. 

CARLSON:  Yes.

SCHULTZ:  I disagree with that.  No, I think Hillary Clinton is very intelligent.  I think that she‘s very good on her feet.  I don‘t think that she‘s afraid of the spontaneity of it all. 

That‘s what surprises me.  She doesn‘t have to stoop to manage questions. 

I can‘t believe she did that. 

CARLSON:  Yes.

SCHULTZ:  I think she‘s brilliant.  I think she‘s got a tremendous amount of talent. 

CARLSON:  Well, we‘re going to find out, because you can‘t script an entire primary campaign. 

We‘re going to be right back.

And when we come back, the Bill Clinton Library has millions of documents that pertain to his wife‘s experience as first lady.  The experience she talks so much about.  The problem is most of the documents are still secret and you can‘t see them.

Why is that? 

Plus, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf says that defeating terrorism is more important than democracy in his country.  How does that jive with our current foreign policy here in the United States.  The Bush administration caught between a rock and a hard place.

This is MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MARKET REPORT)

CARLSON:  For the last two weeks, the Hillary Clinton campaign juggernaut has faced ever sharper critiques from fellow Democrats.  Well, never to miss a critique on the Clinton campaign Republicans want in, too.  So here is what they‘re saying.  Reportedly less than half of one percent of the papers at the Bill Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock have been made public. 

GOP.com has began an online campaign called ClintonLibraryCard.com.  It‘s demanding to know what is in those papers that might pertain to the former first lady.  Are the Clintons hiding something?  If they‘re not hiding anything, why don‘t they unlock the papers for the rest of us to see? 

Back with us, Republican strategist Roger Stone and host of the nationally indicated “Ed Schultz Show,” Ed Schultz.  Roger, you worked for Richard Nixon.  You‘ve been in politics for a long time.  Is there any good reason why the Clintons wouldn‘t be opening up their papers for reporters to rifle through? 

STONE:  Well from a strictly political point of view there is a very good reason; there is likely to be things in there that are unvarnished and potentially embarrassing. 

CARLSON:  But, I mean, in the public‘s interest?  Is there any reason

STONE:  In the public—no, there‘s none.  There‘s a very good political interest, which is why the papers are not public today.  Look, as someone who has lived through the embarrassment of every time there is a release of new Nixon papers, and he says something else bizarre that we didn‘t know about, or that‘s embarrassing if you‘re an admirer of his, it‘s a painful process.  So whatever is in those papers are things that the Clintons would rather not talk about before the next election. 

CARLSON:  I think—here is, Ed, what Hillary Clinton said on Larry King in 2004.  This is being sent around by the Republican party.  This is a talking point.  But it‘s also her words and I think it‘s true.  She says, one of the things the library really stands for—it physically stands for openness, with all the glass and the light.  But he, my husband, wants it to be place where people come and really study, and everything‘s going to be available. 

That has turned out to be so far comically far from the truth.  Why not just get it all out now before she‘s president? 

SCHULTZ:  Well, I think in an age where the American people are demanding transparency and open government, I think it‘s—this is going to have to come out.  The ugly side of it may be that it could show a temperament that Senator Clinton has that she might not be too happy about, to have—to be revealed right now.  It‘s going to come out eventually.  It‘s going to have to come out.  The American people are going to demand it.  It‘s kind of a soft under belly of the campaign right now.  It‘s a touchy spot with them. 

But I think that Senator Clinton is going to step forward and make sure that those documents come out before the election, if she‘s the nominee.  I don‘t know if they have to come out right now.  Why do they have to come out right now? 

CARLSON:  So Democrats can make an informed decision about who ought to be the leader of their party, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  And without this information, it‘s harder for them.  I suspect what we‘re going to learn is she has less experience than she claims to have, and that she spent a lot of her time as first lady doing ceremonial things. 

SCHULTZ:  -- as a diplomat.  She‘s got the experience of going around the world as a diplomat.  She‘s very popular in other countries. 

CARLSON:  When was she a diplomat? 

SCHULTZ:  -- as a uniter.  I think she‘s got invaluable experience that the other candidates don‘t have. 

CARLSON:  Well, it would be nice to know a lot more about it, and not just from her autobiography.  Roger, I want you to take a look at Tom Tancredo‘s latest ad—Tom Tancredo, of course, the congressman from Colorado running for president, frequent guest of the show—I think he‘s on tomorrow.  He has a new ad that ties national security to immigration, an issue he‘s very hot on.  Here‘s the ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM TANCREDO ®, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Hi, I‘m Tom Tancredo, and I approve this message because someone needs to say it.  There are consequences to open borders beyond the 20 million aliens who come to take our jobs.  Islamic terrorists now freely roam U.S. soil, Jihadists who froth with hate, here to do as they have in London, Spain, Russia.  The price we pay for spineless politicians who refuse to defend our borders against those who come to kill.  

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Now, I look at that ad and people are appalled by that ad.  It‘s disgusting.  It‘s over the top.  I think that ad is totally defensible.  I love that ad.  I think it‘s kind of true.  Tom Tancredo may be an imperfect vessel for that message.  How long until someone who can actually win the nomination says something like that?  Is that out of bounds? 

STONE:  Again, you‘ve seen this in New York, perhaps the most liberal state in the country other than Massachusetts, where 72 percent of the voters are against Governor Spitzer‘s plan to give drivers license to illegal immigrants.  This is an issue with very real power.  Now it is the reason d‘etre to the Tancredo candidacy.  It‘s what his candidacy is all about.  So it‘s obvious that he‘d be the guy to bring it up. 

But ultimately to rally the majority of Americans who are concerned about our porous borders and the fact that we‘re not aware of who is coming and going, and the security questions, this is going to be a powerful issue in the general election.  And both candidates are going to have to modify their positions to get with those Americans who are concerned. 

CARLSON:  See, Ed, I think it would be really smart for the Democrats

to jump on this issue.  Why not run an ad like that.  I think the Democrats

it‘s not a partisan issue.  Democrats should get out ahead of this. 

SCHULTZ:  No, it‘s an American issue.  You‘re spot on.  Well, security, OK.  I think the security is at the boarder.  But the point here is that, whatever party or whatever candidate can convince the American people that they can deal with this issue, I think they will win the White House.  I think it‘s bigger than the war.  I think it‘s bigger than health care, jobs and the economy.  It‘s all about what can you do to protect America. 

Now, I don‘t think the Democrats, any of them—I know they want to be compassionate and loving and all this kind of stuff, do the right thing and do the humane thing, but the fact is we got laws on the books.  Democrats are going to have to get tough and defend these laws.  As far as Tom Tancredo‘s ad, you know, when you‘re low hanging fruit, you can take out commercials like that because you got nothing to lose.  Somebody‘s got to say it, but you don‘t see any of the other top tier Republicans candidates taking out an ad like that because there would be a push back on it. 

CARLSON:  Also, a lot of them are for open borders, no matter what they say.  Here is John Edwards‘ new ad, Roger, which—I don‘t know why, it just amuses me.  It‘s so Venezuelan, as in Hugo Chavez.  Here it is.  It‘s on health care.  John Edwards‘ new spot. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  When I‘m president, I‘m going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my cabinet, I‘m glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage, but if you don‘t pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I‘m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you.  There‘s no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don‘t have health care. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  This is like the kindergarten chewing gum rule; if there‘s not enough to go around nobody gets any?  Unless everybody has perfect health care, nobody gets health care? 

SCHULTZ:  It‘s a great ad. 

CARLSON:  You think so? 

SCHULTZ:  It‘s a great ad.  Absolutely, it‘s a great ad.  In fact, I think it‘s the best ad—it is the best ad that‘s been out there on health care by any candidate, because it speaks to the American people that this inside the beltway mentality, this group of people who have got a great retirement and great benefits and good health care has not done the job for the American people to fix this, other than to tell them to go get a savings account.  Edwards is hitting them right where it counts.  I think the American people are going to respond to this ad.  I think it‘s a brilliant ad.

CARLSON:  Maybe they will.  I think it‘s still demagogic.  I mean, the truth is these are members of Congress.  If you have high paying prestigious job, your life is easier in every single way.  You make more money.  You get a better table at a restaurant. 

SCHULTZ:  They‘re the decision makers, Tucker.  They‘re the decision makers.  What have they done for the American people who don‘t have insurance.  Here comes a candidate saying, I‘m going to fix that.  I‘m going to make it even.  I think it‘s brilliant. 

CARLSON:  Wait, so should every American get the same salary as a member of Congress?  This is—think about it for a second. 

SCHULTZ:  But I think a catastrophic type of health care plan that covers everybody is where Edwards has been all along.  Now he‘s telling middle America, look, I‘m going to Washington and I‘m going to make it right.  These people that are making decisions on your health care, you‘re going to have the same thing or they‘re not going to have it.  He‘s telling them they got to move on it by June of ‘09.  He gives a deadline. 

Nobody gives deadlines in Washington.  I think it‘s going to play well. 

CARLSON:  What do you think, Roger? 

STONE:  First of all, this is about elitism versus populism, more perhaps than even health care.  I can tell you, having tested it many times in polling, it enrages people that members of Congress have got this very fat benefit package of benefits and the taxpayers don‘t.  It infuriates them.  So some very smart political consultant who works for John Edwards came up with a very good ad, which is really about us and them.  It‘s really about populism.  And if he is elected, which I don‘t think he will, that deadline will slip.  That‘s my prediction. 

CARLSON:  Yes,  I want to ask you both about what you think of this—

Richard Engel—NBC‘s Richard Engel did an interview with Pervez Musharraf, the leader of Pakistan, in which Musharraf essentially said, look, if I have to choose between protecting my country from terror or bringing democracy to this country, I‘ll choose the former.  Security is more important than freedom. 

At the same time, Benazir Bhutto is complicating the situation in Pakistan, a nuclear armed country filled with lunatics who hate us.  Here is my question to you, Roger; who in the Bush administration thought it was a good idea to encourage Bhutto to go back to Pakistan and make the situation there even more complicated.  Who is that stupid?  Do you know his name? 

STONE:  Yes, I couldn‘t toll you that I do.  But I do know this, Benazir Bhutto is a Georgetown graduate, very connected in the higher echelons of elite foreign affairs opinion.  She and her husband have not been able to loot the country in some time.  They‘re ready to go book loot some more, steal some more, for which she and her husband were indicted last time they were there. 

Bringing her back in the picture was terrible idea.  I‘m no fan of the general, but democracy isn‘t for everybody, particularly right now.  Right now I think security in the region and crushing the terrorists is a higher priority than Benazir Bhutto and her husband getting back in the trough. 

CARLSON:  Are we willing to admit that on a bipartisan basis here, Ed?  Maybe democracy isn‘t the highest goal?  Are Democrats prepared to admit that the neo-con theory of bringing democracy and democracy giving birth to freedom and stability is a crock? 

SCHULTZ:  I think that loose nukes are a big issue.  I think that Musharraf has been able to keep them under control, and that‘s really got to be our number one issue.  That doesn‘t mean that we can‘t push forward on all the other issues.  He has said now that he‘s going to have elections.  The Americans—I think we got to keep him to his word on that. 

But it‘s a volatile situation.  It would probably, in the short term, do us well to make sure that he stays in power, and then move forward with the free elections and move forward on democracy as it goes along.  We can‘t be the world‘s policemen.  This is something that we got to make sure we get right, the loose nukes and who controls them. 

CARLSON:  All right, Ed Schultz, Roger Stone, thank you both very much.  Up next, Jihadists bent on our destruction use websites to promote their case.  We‘ll have the Latest data about anti-American extremism online and find out what we are doing about it, if anything. 

Plus, superstition can lead to many crazy things, but marrying a dog? 

Willie Geist is back and he gets to the bottom of the unlikely reunion. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  The Internet has proven to be fertile ground for anti-American Jihadist who coalesce and communicate in their virtual world about their plans for our world.  Despite the current lull in American concern about the terror threat, the threat does remain high.  Yidal Carmon spends his life investigating it on the Internet.  Here with his current assessment of Jihad online and the west‘s ability or inability to stop it is the president of the Middle East Media Research Institute, Yidal Carmon.  Mr. Carmon, thank for coming on. 

YIDAL CARMON, MEMRI PRESIDENT:  Thank you for having me. 

CARLSON:  So, if you discover a Jihadist website using an American Internet service provider, what could be done about it? 

CARMON:  Well, the main thing is this; the Internet providers do not know who they‘re hosting.  They are not supporters of terrorism.  They‘re not criminals.  They just don‘t know who are they hosting.  And they need to be made aware of what they‘re doing.  And we think that through such a systematic process, where they are made aware of that, the whole phenomenon of Internet jihad can be wiped off.  And the consequences of this phenomenon will be just erased. 

The National Intelligence Estimate of this year was that Islamists Jihadist websites are the source of home grown terrorism, 16 intelligence agencies in America said so.  It‘s proven by the facts.  These websites are indoctrinating the youth.  They are encouraging them.  They are recruiting them.  And they also provide them with know how, the guides how to create the bomb, how to explode, whatever is needed, kidnap, kill, et cetera. 

All this is on the Internet in America, because America is the Internet and the Internet is America. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  So there aren‘t very many Internet Service Providers in the United States.  If you go to one of them and you say, we have discovered this Jihadist website advocating violence and it‘s on your servers, do you they take it off?  Do they close down the website?  How do they respond? 

CARMON:  Absolutely.  We have not encountered one case in which, when they were made aware of it, they did not remove it.  By the way, it‘s not only Jihadist websites, it‘s rMD+IN_rMDNM_also anti-semitic websites.  It‘s also Islamophobic websites.  All this is abundant on the Internet.  On Youtube there were Nazi movies from the ‘30s.  They were removed.  The killer in Holland had an extensive Internet activity.  It was removed by request of the national authorities. 

In the course of our studies, we found out that there are hundreds of fountains, so to speak, of this venom, and thousands that are duplicating it and repeating it.  All this can be removed because this is the source of home grown terrorism.  The paper, the main paper in the Middle East said that this is—like 99 percent of the recruitment happens through the Internet.  Indeed, I would say that one cannot imagine the development of the worldwide jihad without the Internet. 

CARLSON:  It‘s absolutely remarkable.  Can you, by finally—by looking at these sites, determine where the people who are creating them live? 

CARMON:  Yes? 

CARLSON:  You can? 

CARMON:  We can tell after looking at the site—we have ways to find out who their ISPs are.  And in most cases, they are in America.  And in most cases, the moment the ISPs are told, they remove them.  They have no interest in hosting such site.  They have no interest in hosting Islamophobic.  But this has to be a very systematic project, done by NGOs, research institutes like us, not by the government, because we don‘t want the government to intervene in this.  So it will be a civic activity. 

CARLSON:  Good for you for doing it.  Mr. Carmon, president of MEMRI, I appreciate your coming on. 

CARMON:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  O.J. Simpson has said there were no guns involved in his personal Las Vegas sting operation.  I know you find this hard to believe, but it turns out O.J. may not have been telling the entire truth.  Willie Geist is back and he brings us some pretty damning testimony from Vegas today.  That‘s in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Just this very morning, someone came up to me in Scottsdale, Arizona and said, where is Willie Geist?  I miss him.  She spoke for all of us.  Thank heaven, Willie is back today for a one day only performance.  Willie Geist. 

WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT:  Not one day only.  We‘ll be back and forth.  I just like to spend as much time here as possible.  I‘ve got bunk beds with Brian Williams, racing car bunk beds.  It‘s fun.  We do sleep overs.  It‘s a good time.

Tucker, you know how I love Paris Hilton, right?  It‘s been a real emotional roller coaster ride for me this afternoon.  Imagine my glee when a story crossed the wires today that said Paris was taking up the cause, get this, of out of control drunken elephants in India.  The story went that Paris was moved to action when she heard that elephants were drinking farmer‘s rice beer and then marauding around drunk, some of them being electrocuted by power lines. 

Well, as I immediately began to lobby NBC brass for network time to do a live primetime special, the Associated Press retracted the story, because it turns out the quotes attributed to Paris about the drunken elephants were utter B.S.  But, Tucker, I think it says something about Paris Hilton that even for a moment I considered that this could possibly be true because it is Paris Hilton, that she was actually looking out for the drunken elephants. 

CARLSON:  It actually says something about the Associated Press.  You have a story like that, you would never recheck it.  It‘s too good to check.  Only a ninny would call back to make certain that the quotes were accurate.  I‘m disappointed. 

GEIST:  It also—it‘s Paris Hilton.  Does it matter if it‘s true? 

Why even retract that story?  Who cares? 

CARLSON:  It‘s a metaphysical question.  But I agree with you. 

GEIST:  Are there consequences of it not being true?  Not really. 

CARLSON:  If Paris Hilton speaks in the forest and no one hears? 

GEIST:  It‘s a true story.  Let‘s go with it.  Anyway, it would have been fun.  Well, Tucker, as you know, it‘s hard to have a bad time in Las Vegas.  But things do seem to be going south quickly in Sin City for one Orenthal James Simpson.  One of the men who accompanied O.J. into a Las Vegas hotel room on the now infamous sting separation testified today that Simpson told him to bring a gun to show that their group meant business. 

Simpson has maintained that he never saw any guns or asked anyone to bring guns into the hotel that day. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ALEXANDER, TESTIFYING AGAINST SIMPSON:  He kind of leaned

forward.  It was like, hey, do you think you can get some heat?  You think

you can get some heat just in case things go wrong, just in case, you know

they may have heat.  Can you bring some heat? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  What did that mean to you? 

ALEXANDER:  That meant that he wanted me to help him to acquire some guns. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GEIST:  Whoops, so, I don‘t know.  I like to usually take O.J. at his word but that‘s pretty damning.  Don‘t you think? 

CARLSON:  But O.J. didn‘t even seem to hear it.  Someone said to me today, you know, O.J. is so medicated, we may need to call the paramedics.  Looking at that picture, I agree. 

GEIST:  He does have a glazed over look on his face.  This doesn‘t seem like it‘s going very well for him.  They actually might get him on this one if he‘s telling people to bring guns. 

CARLSON:  Al Capone and tax evasion.

GEIST:  Unfortunately.  Tucker, the people putting together the list of the 50 greatest TV icons clearly didn‘t include cable news personalities, because you and i, nowhere to be found.  TV Land and “Entertainment Weekly Magazine” chose Johnny Carson as the greatest TV icon of all time.  I guest we can concede that one.  He did host “The Tonight Show” for 30 years and we‘re just getting started.  After Carson, the top five looks like Lucille Ball at number two, Oprah at number three—she doesn‘t take kindly to bronze medals—Bill Cosby number four, and Walter Cronkite is fifth. 

Tucker, it‘s actually a very interesting list.  I do have to take exception,  Sarah Michelle Geller is on the list of the top 50 greatest icons.  That‘s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”  I don‘t know.  I think you and I could have edged in above her. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know—I wouldn‘t know her if she got in the shower with me.  And where‘s Johnny Knoxville?  He deserves a spot. 

GEIST:  I actually agree with that, ahead of Buffy.  You‘d be psyched if she got in the shower with you, by the way.  Finally, there is, without question, good reason  to be concerned about Pakistan, but apparently I‘m the only member of the mainstream media watching what‘s happening next door in India.  If you don‘t think a nuclear India presents a threat with its escalating weirdness, here‘s a smoking gun, the slam dunk intelligence, if you will. 

This guy is marrying a dog.  No other way to put it; he‘s looking to change his karma after he accidentally killed couple of dogs two years ago.  Since that day, he‘s lost part of his hearing.  So to change his luck, he held an elaborate ceremony where he married a dog.  The couple is, of course, registered at Pet Smart, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Call me sick—I don‘t know, I‘ve seen weirder things.  I love dogs. 

GEIST:  Really?  I‘m worried about India.  I‘ll be honest. 

CARLSON:  Willie Geist. 

GEIST:  Good to see you. 

CARLSON:  Thank you.  That does it for us.  Time now for “HARDBALL” with Chris.  Have a great night.  See you tomorrow.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

END   

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.

Transcripts

Watch Tucker each weeknight at 6 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,