updated 7/15/2005 11:48:24 AM ET 2005-07-15T15:48:24

Guest: Charley Gasparino, Larry Noble, Max Kellerman


TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Rove feels the heat.  But is it a criminal case or bipartisan bickering? 

JOE WILSON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR:  That's simply not true. 

CARLSON:  Is Governor Arnold muscling in on a shady business deal? 

Why some scientists predict this is the prescription to a happy future.  Biker chicks rumble with the U.S. Patent Office.  And is this a hazardous display of Southern charm?

JESSICA SIMPSON, ACTRESS:  I think something bounced up into my undercarriage. 


CARLSON:  Welcome to THE SITUATION.  I'm Tucker Carlson.  Happy Bastille Day to our French viewer. 

Our show tonight is stacked with some remarkable stories, including new antimissile equipment for U.S. airplanes, why Tom Cruise is now official unwelcome in Gaye Paris, and a series of unlikely arguments from Max Kellerman, who will join us live from Las Vegas.

On the panel tonight, the host of one of the best shows on television.


JIM CRAMER, CNBC HOST:  High-quality, diagnostic company being thrown away because it was (INAUDIBLE) area about (INAUDIBLE) that's ridiculous!  That's a good company!


CARLSON:  You recognize him.  From CNBC's “Mad Money,” every night at 6:00 p.m. Eastern, it's Jim Cramer.  Also with us, “Newsweek” business writer and author of “Blood on the Street”—it's a terrific book about financial scams during the stock market bubble—Charley Gasparino. 

Well, our first situation involves the mystery surrounding Chief Justice William Rehnquist.  Just minutes ago, Justice Rehnquist told the Associated Press, “I'm not about to announce my retirement.  I'll continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.”

Rehnquist was released from the hospital just today after checking in yesterday with a fever.  He continues to fight the thyroid cancer first diagnosed in October of last year. 

He is a very, very sick man.  He missed 44 oral arguments this year, 5 months on the court, and yet he's staying on anyway.  You've got think that there's some profound reason he's doing this.  He's 80-years-old.  He's been on the court since 1972...


CRAMER:  This guy is a completely rigorous guy, OK?  And he's also a great America.  I'm putting him in that camp.  Let him stay until...


CARLSON:  Of course.  Well, there's no way to get him—I mean, we have no choice.  He gets to stay as long as he wants. 

CHARLES GASPARINO, AUTHOR:  How do you get these guys off?  No way.

CARLSON:  I think—short of impeachment.  And I'm not suggesting he should be off.

GASPARINO:  Or if he dies. 

CARLSON:  But I'm suggesting, at some point, you know, should there be a mechanism for...

CRAMER:  Well, he could be the last to go.  I mean, the guy's digging in his heels.  You got to respect that.

CARLSON:  It's a pretty old court.  I mean, John Paul Stevens is 85-years-old. 

GASPARINO:  This guy fought in World War II.

CARLSON:  Yes, he did.

GASPARINO:  Graduated, I think, number one in his class at Stanford, earned two masters degrees all before he was 30.  He's a pretty remarkable man. 

CARLSON:  I still think, though, at some point, you're going to see a lot of people retire from the Supreme Court.  I think you could see up to four during Bush's second term. 

CRAMER:  But I got to tell you.  I think that, -- I don't want to get too existential at the top of the show.

CARLSON:  That's all right.

CRAMER:  But you know, I think a lot of people feel that when you quit work, you die, OK?  I think this guy's got...

CARLSON:  I think you're right. 

CRAMER:  And I think this guy—look, God bless him.  I hope he goes through the whole term.

CARLSON:  That is a phenomenon that you see a lot, honestly, in television, you know?


CARLSON:  That's exactly right. 

GASPARINO:  No one's really answered the main question.  Has his work suffered?

CARLSON:  I think he's a great justice.  And he seems like a great person.  And you know, I wish him Godspeed. 

GASPARINO:  You haven't checked his work out, obviously. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I have. 

CRAMER:  He didn't look that good in that picture today.


CARLSON:  We're going to have a lot more on Chief Justice Rehnquist as the show progresses.  But now, former Ambassador Wilson went on the “Today Show” earlier this morning and called for President Bush to fire Karl Rove for telling a reporter that his wife works at CIA. 

And that was just the beginning of a long day.  The rest of the day became a name-calling free-for-all straight out of junior high school, starting with Wilson's appearance with Democratic senator from New York State Chuck Schumer, that was followed by Republican responses.  Here they are. 


JOE WILSON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR:  The fact somebody decided that they would go ahead and leak classified information for the purposes of achieving a political end is simply unacceptable. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  This is purely politics, pure and simple.  Joe Wilson's attacks were a political sham.  They were then; they still are today. 


CARLSON:  Here's my question.  It's a political question.  Do Democrats really want to make this about Joe Wilson?  Not only is he unappealing and a bit of a drama queen in person, refers to himself in the third person like Fidel Castro, but there's also a lot of evidence that he's not very honest. 

They have a pretty good case that something bad happened at the White House, Democrats do, that this name was released, this identity was released.  Tying themselves to Joe Wilson makes the whole thing just seem like a partisan game...

GASPARINO:  Overly politicizing the whole thing. 

CARLSON:  That's right.  A bad tactic. 

GASPARINO:  Let's face it.  Rove lied at some point.  He was involved in this, right?  Didn't he initially say he had no involvement? 

Now, I'm not saying he's not guilty of anything.  Obviously, there's a high hurdle here.  It's intent, you know, knowing revealed the name.  We don't know anything of that yet.  And I guess we will soon.

But, you know, they have a good case.  And I think they're now just going over the top. 

CARLSON:  But you're from New York.  Why would Schumer do this? 


CRAMER:  I mean, it's interesting that this wasn't done for Sunday for Monday, because that's really what he's (INAUDIBLE) but my take is this.  Rove has got to play by the Martha Stewart playbook, in other words, do the opposite.  He's got to stay clean from now on.


GASPARINO:  To tell the truth?  Tell the truth?

CRAMER:  No, because whatever he did was nothing.  It's what he does from now forward that's going to hurt him. 

GASPARINO:  That's right.

CARLSON:  But the Democrats see this as their key.  I mean, they've got nothing going for them now. 


GASPARINO:  Do you think that he has to keep his mouth shut?  Because I think, at some point, he's got to, like, clear the air here, don't you think?

CRAMER:  Well, no.  I think he'll get in big trouble if he tries to clear the air.  He's just got to keep his mouth shut.




CARLSON:  ... because you have a prosecutor who's put a “New York Times” reporter in jail and threatened another with jail.  He's got to prove that he's doing this for a reason.  And if Karl Rove obstructs justice in any way, lies in any way and gets caught...


GASPARINO:  The question that I have is, who is Judith Miller's source?  Was it Karl Rove?  I don't think it was. 

CARLSON:  Well, I think it's widely believed in Washington—I don't know if this is true—but that the source originally of all of this was a reporter, simply because it's a very small town.  You can't overstate how small Washington is, and that somebody knew who lives next door to the Wilsons. 


CRAMER:  Why did Rove trust these guys?  Why did Rove trust Cooper? 


GASPARINO:  Why does anybody trust reporters? 


CRAMER:  ... (INAUDIBLE) I know Rove likes to talk to my old colleague, Larry Kudlow.  But these guys aren't—they're not...


CARLSON:  Well, I don't know.  Judith Miller went to jail rather than betray her source.  I don't know many other people in many other professions who go to jail before ratting someone out. 

CRAMER:  How about Norm Pearlstine?  That was a pretty good move.  He got Rove in trouble. 


CRAMER:  ... we thought it was a betrayal of the ethic.  But the journalists all hate Rove, because they're all lefty.  And so this was like a really great...


GASPARINO:  I don't think journalists hate Rove.  I think they actually—I mean, he was a good source.  Why would you hate a good source? 

CRAMER:  Because he's a Republican.  Or maybe I'm looking (INAUDIBLE)

CARLSON:  Next situation, Forparents.gov is a White House-designed web site intended to help parents and teenagers, quote, “make smart choices about their health and future.” 

Well, three doctors and child psychologists reviewed the site.  They say it contains misinformation about such things as oral sex, single-parent households, sexual orientation and condoms.  House Democrat Henry Waxman had solicited the study and pounced on the results, saying the site is another Bush administration distortion of scientific information in favor of conservative ideology. 

Blah, blah, blah.  Rant, rant, rant.  It doesn't a lot to get Henry Waxman exercised.  I read the site.  I thought it was mostly boring.  Here's my question. 

CRAMER:  Oh, wait a second.


CRAMER:  Do you have any kids? 

CARLSON:  I've got four kids. 


CARLSON:  And here's my question.  Why is the White House telling me how to raise my kids?  Why do they have a site like this in the first place?

CRAMER:  There's a oral sex part?  Oral sex has taken the place of spin the bottle for 11- and 12-years-olds?  I've got a 14-year-old.  What is she doing? 



GASPARINO:  I don't know.  I don't want to know. 

CARLSON:  I don't either. 

CRAMER:  Did you get to the piercing section?  There isn't a single part on the body that doesn't have a kid piercing.  And then it gives you the costs.

GASPARINO:  Does your kids have any piercings? 

CRAMER:  Oh, man. 


CARLSON:  I missed the piercing section. 

CRAMER:  Oh my god, don't go there.  They have things you wouldn't believe. 


GASPARINO:  Don't you have a problem every time a liberal Democrat on one of these—he talks about one of the issues and says there's bias in one of these.  Obviously, they're emphasizing abstinence.  And they don't like that.

CARLSON:  Yes, there is bias there.  That's why the government ought to get out of the business of giving parents advice in the first place.  The part of the site that I saw there is advice on when your kids ought to start dating.  Since when was it the White House's business when my kids start dating?  It's not.


CRAMER:  ... in the cutting face, and the thing about the body sculpture?  This stuff's unbelievable.

CARLSON:  Are you sure you weren't on a page...


CRAMER:  I'm telling you, I went to this—I threw down on this site.  I learned more—I mean, this thing was so eye-opening, I've got to tell you.  I'm keeping this from everybody.  No one is ever going to go to this site.  I'm blocking it out.  I'm getting a spam AOL blocker. 


CARLSON:  That's the best ad I've seen for that stuff.

CRAMER:  This thing was unbelievable.

CARLSON:  You just increased traffic to it by ten fold.

CRAMER:  The naval-piercing stuff.  It was like, “Here's the pros of naval piercing.”  No.


CARLSON:  If you think that's titillating, watch this. 

CRAMER:  ... pros of naval piercing?


CARLSON:  Next situation, what do you remember about the original “Dukes of Hazzard” television show?  Probably the good old boys having car chases and their hot cousin Daisy cramming almost all of her rear end into teeny cutoff shorts. 

The point is, it was pretty dignified.  Today, Ben Jones, who played Cooter the mechanic in the original series, attacked the upcoming “Dukes” movie starring Jessica Simpson and Johnny Knoxville urging fans to stay away from the picture because it's, quote, “a sleazy insult of the original masterwork,” which ran from '79 to '85.

As Jones put it, quote, “It's like taking 'I Love Lucy' and making her a crack head.”  No, you know what's it not.  It's updating a classic.  Look, the southland has changed...


GASPARINO:  Wait a second.


GASPARINO:  We're not talking about King Lear here. 


GASPARINO:  This guy thinks he's Olivier.


CARLSON:  These guys were bootleggers.  There's no more bootlegging.  The modern equivalent is, you know, Oxycontin running or crystal meth running.  I mean, they're bringing it up-to-date. 

GASPARINO:  This guy thinks that show was a classic.  That's insane. 

That was kind of a crappy TV show. 


CARLSON:  For the genre, it was great. 


CRAMER:  August 5th this movie comes out.  I predict a total bomb, one more reason that Time Warner's just going to be flat lining...


GASPARINO:  You don't like Jessica Simpson, huh? 

CRAMER:  Nothing but a—she's got nothing but a t-shirt on in this? 

No.  She has tons of clothes on.


CRAMER:  Look, this is another bomb...

CARLSON:  So are you saying the stock price would go higher if she had fewer clothes on? 

CRAMER:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  I like that.  I like distilling financial wisdom to its essence.


CRAMER:  I went to the web site.  They've got a two-minute trailer.


CRAMER:  What happened to Willie Nelson.  Is he still fighting the tax man?  Is that why you have to be in that movie? 

CARLSON:  Jim Cramer's going to bring us more on web sites he enjoys. 

But first...

CARLSON:  What are you...


CARLSON:  When we come back, more on the breaking news involving Chief Justice William Rehnquist.  Also coming up, Arnold Schwarzenegger is apparently on the payroll of a muscle magazine.  Interest groups are outraged at the conflict of interest.  Wait, are the voters confusing with the other Arnold Schwarzenegger, the 98-pound policy wonk?  Probably.  We'll find out from one of them. 

Plus, I wouldn't send my daughter to the bus stop dressed like this, and neither should you.  But the question is, should the government be allowed to prevent us from doing it if we really want to?  “Op-ed, Op-ed” ensues.  Stay tuned.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for “Op-ed, Op-ed.” 

We spent a long but fruitful day combing through the op-ed pages of almost every daily newspaper in America.  We found the three most scintillating.  We're going to respond to them in 20-second bites.  You all ready? 

First up, “Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,” a very prescient op-ed on the medical records of Supreme Court nominees.  They think they ought to be released.  Quote, “The public has a right to information about a justice's medical condition, especially when it may affect judgment.  Supreme Court justices should conform to the norms and practices of the other two branches of government in this area.”

You know, the Supreme Court is completely different.  I mean, it's utterly different. 


CRAMER:  Unless you know of a better...


CARLSON:  No, I totally agree with that.

CRAMER:  Jeez.

CARLSON:  Look, there's nothing—you know, it's impossible to tell how good someone is going to be in a position simply by his medical records.  Dick Cheney, by some measures, a pretty sick man but a very effective vice president.  Moreover, you know, if Supreme Court justices get sick and move on, you know, that's the course of life.  I'm sorry.  Even they get sick.  Not a big deal. 

CRAMER:  Once they're on, you're stuck with them.  Let's forget about them. 

GASPARINO:  You don't want to see their medical records?  You don't want to know?

CRAMER:  I don't want to see medical records...


CRAMER:  what are you interested in there? 

CARLSON:  Nothing. 

CRAMER:  Thank you.  I rest my case. 

GASPARINO:  I don't know how I beat that.  I mean, listen, I mean, I'd like to know if George Bush really was a coke-head. 


GASPARINO:  I mean, that's a legitimate thing.  He has his finger on the red button, so to speak. 

CRAMER:  Do we still have a red button, by the way? 

GASPARINO:  I think.

CRAMER:  I don't even know anymore. 

CARLSON:  I think we definitely do.  But look, these people are not, you know, flying planes, driving school buses.  They're render decisions. 

GASPARINO:  Right.  And they die, and you get another one.

CARLSON:  That's exactly right.


CRAMER:  I'd like to know about Rehnquist's haberdasher, and that man that gave him that hat. 

CARLSON:  Rehnquist apparently has smoked a single cigarette a day everyday for many years. 

GASPARINO:  Is that true? 


CARLSON:  It is.  I think that's true.  He's 80-years-old.

All right.  Next up, “Minneapolis Star Tribune” writes a scathing, and not very smart, I will say, editorial on the Rove-Plame affair addressing the conduct of the White House press corps. 

Quote, “Blood was in the water when the White House press corps, cowed and mute since 9/11, suddenly awoke and swarmed in for the kill.”  The piece goes on to say—the op-ed goes on to say, “The journalists are terrified of the White House and the Christian Right.”


CARLSON:  Here's a sound bite.


SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY:  Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation. 

DAVID GREGORY, NBC NEWS REPORTER:  Scott, I mean, this is ridiculous. 

TERRY MORAN, ABC NEWS REPORTER:  Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MCCLELLAN:  I've responded to the questions.


CARLSON:  So the idea that the White House press corps is terrified of the White House and the Christian Right?  They have never met anyone in the Christian Right.  They hate the Christian Right.  They don't like the White House.  They're not terrified of anybody except the people who employ them. 

These are angry liberals who are upset about Iraq, maybe fairly, maybe not.  And they're blaming the press corps as if the press corps should have known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when no one else knew.  It's ridiculous. 

CRAMER:  Yes, you know, I wish the—the outrage seems very misplaced. 


CRAMER:  Very misplaced.  I've got to tell you, this is one of those stories that, look, I have to keep Googling it to understand, like, why it was bad, why what Rove did was bad. 

Let me say why I say that, OK?  Because I know Rove may have—look, everything comes down to Bush saying that one thing.  He goes, “Look, whoever we find this, we'll put against the firing squad.”  Shouldn't have said it.  Shouldn't have said it.  Take it back.  Pardon him.  Put him on the Supreme Court.

GASPARINO:  Wait a minute.  If he did what they said he's done, which is, you know, purposefully give up information—then that's bad. 

CRAMER:  What has the CIA ever come with?


GASPARINO:  I don't think that's what he did.  I think he was just helping out. 

CARLSON:  Wait.  But can I just make a point that is almost never remarked upon, and that is—this is off-topic, but Joseph Wilson's report when he got back from Africa said—it's not been released by (INAUDIBLE) day he read it—the report said that Iraq had looked into buying uranium from Niger, OK, exactly what Bush suggested in the State of the Union speech, so how exactly...

GASPARINO:  Who cares about all these facts?  We've got this wonderful controversy going on.


CARLSON:  At the very core, this story is hallow. 

GASPARINO:  I agree. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Next up, “Tampa Tribune.”  Speaking of hollow and weird, an editorial today about the Hillsborough County school board's new dress code, which apparently bans all sorts of things you probably didn't even know happened in the first place. 

Quote, “Apparently it needs to be put in writing that elementary school girls can no longer wear tube tops to school without another shirt to provide modest cover, nor can middle-school students continue to roll out of bed and trudge to the bus shop in bunny slippers.”

GASPARINO:  What's a bunny slipper? 

CRAMER:  I say, “Amen.”  You see what kids wear—I mean, I take my kids to school.  I have to pull everyone's shirt down right before they get out, plum her pants in the back.  This stuff is outrageous.

CARLSON:  Have your kids ever gone to school in bunny slippers? 

CRAMER:  No, but I don't like a lot of what I see. 

GASPARINO:  What are bunny slippers?


CARLSON:  Bunny slippers, you know, the little fuzzy bunny slippers.


GASPARINO:  They just rolled out of bed?


CARLSON:  Don't you think if a kid shows up at school in bunny slippers, like, the parents must be dead? 

GASPARINO:  Or stupid.

CRAMER:  I think that Catholic school outfits were always very right. 

I think that we should have that nationwide. 

CARLSON:  Now, now.

CRAMER:  I'm a little bit reactionary on that.

CARLSON:  You're reactionary or...


CRAMER:  I don't like the (INAUDIBLE) not like the clothes.


CARLSON:  But don't you think—look, this is a problem here. 

GASPARINO:  It's a pretty good rule, I think, don't you think? 

CARLSON:  It may be, but it's also evidence of cowardice on the part of the school board.  They ought to subjectively assess each child.  And if the kid looks unacceptable, say they look unacceptable. 

But they don't have the courage to do that, so they have to write every little law down.

GASPARINO:  Well, they can throw them out of school, right?

CARLSON:  But they can't...

GASPARINO:  Say, no, you're gone.


CARLSON:  So they have to get all Tom Riddick (ph) about it and say, “Well, you're not allowed to wear, you know, tube tops and bunny slippers,” rather than just saying, “We'll decide whether you're appropriately dressed.” 

CRAMER:  What would the New Testament say about that?

CARLSON:  I don't think the Talmud has anything to do with the New Testament.



CRAMER:  What I don't get is it says you can't wear those things that come up to here. 

GASPARINO:  What does Leviticus say about tattoos or piercings?

CRAMER:  Oh, my goodness.  Check that genitalia section!

CARLSON:  I don't think the Talmud addresses bunny slippers.


CARLSON:  All right.

Still ahead, Arnold Schwarzenegger gives new meaning to the phrase “supplemental income.”  But should the muscle-bound Governator be forced to terminate his relationship with fitness magazines?  My next guest says, “Oh, yes.”  We'll debate it when THE SITUATION rolls on.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Arnold Schwarzenegger is getting some big-muscled criticism for taking an estimated $8 million to be a consultant to a body-building magazine.  He accepted the job two days before being sworn in as the governor of California. 

It seems nutritional supplement companies advertise heavily in those magazines.  Last year, the governor vetoed legislation that would have imposed government regulations on the supplement industry.  Is there a conflict of interest here?  My next guest says there is. 

Larry Noble is executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.  Mr. Noble, thanks a lot for joining us. 


CARLSON:  Here is the obvious question.  You know, of course this is unseemly.  But so is electing Arnold Schwarzenegger governor of your state.  So can you really claim to be surprised that, when you do that, he does something like this? 

NOBLE:  I think you can be surprised.  This really goes over the edge. 

Wherever you want to put the edge, this goes over it. 

He has contracted with a magazine, as you said, that gets a lot of money from the dietary supplemental advertising.  He vetoed legislation dealing with dietary supplements.  That is your classic conflict of interest. 

He's also helped the dietary supplement industry set up a lobbying group.  They're basically getting rid of the middleman.  They're going right to the governor. 

CARLSON:  But I think it's—I mean, I think it's fair to say—and we looked at statements the now-governor had made in the past before he was governor—that Arnold Schwarzenegger supports and has long supported dietary supplements.  That's what he believes.  So why is there any surprise that he's taking positions consistent with his long-held beliefs? 

NOBLE:  It's one thing to believe something.  It's one thing to have a policy position.  It's another thing to get paid directly by the industry to veto a bill.  It's...


CARLSON:  Well, wait, wait, wait, wait.  Nobody—hold on, you're alleging criminal conduct.  That's bribery.  And that's not been proved.  He writes columns for these magazines. 

NOBLE:  He writes columns for these magazines, but he's also under contract to support the industry and to support the magazines.  And it is very hard to believe that the public at least doesn't see a conflict here, where you are getting money from the industry and then you go ahead and veto a bill that will affect that industry. 

CARLSON:  But wait a second.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is a very, very rich man, married to a rich woman, both of whom have prospects of becoming richer after he leaves politics.  He doesn't need the money.  He's insulated from things like this.  He doesn't need to veto the bill for $8 million cash.  He's already got $8 million in cash. 

NOBLE:  Why do it? 

CARLSON:  Because he believes it. 

NOBLE:  Well, but why take the $8 million?  One of the things he ran on was that he would be separate and apart from other politicians.  Because he didn't need the money, he wasn't going to be owned by special interests.  And here, what does he do, is he signs a contract with a classic special interest. 

CARLSON:  Well, but, special interest is a pejorative term.  I mean, these are his friends.  I mean, anybody—you're a special interest.  I'm a special interest.  Everybody's a special interest. 

NOBLE:  Right...

CARLSON:  So a politician supporting people he agrees with, what's wrong with that? 

NOBLE:  Absolutely.  And in fact, he's the one who has said that those who support him are not special interests.  Those who support his opponents are special interests.  So he has tried to divide the world into the special interests and himself and his supporters. 

CARLSON:  Well, so are you. 

And here's the real problem I have with your argument.  You're not attacking his policies.  If you disagree with something Arnold Schwarzenegger has done, if you think his policies are bad for the state of California, make the case.  But you're just implying that they're bad and not explaining why they're bad. 

NOBLE:  No, I'm actually not saying whether his policies are bad or not.  I'm saying that the people of California are owed a governor who makes decisions based the merits and is not being paid by a company who will benefit from the decisions. 

CARLSON:  But why should we care why he makes the decision as long as he reaches the best outcome?  We should care about whether his policies are good for the state of California.  And if he, you know, reaches them through dreams, or a psychic tells him to do this, that or the other thing, if it helps California, who cares? 

NOBLE:  Well, Tucker, if you believe that, then you don't believe in any ethics rules.  Then it doesn't really matter if we do have bribery laws, and people can just take money to pass legislation.  I wonder what the public would feel if George Bush decides right now to take a job of Halliburton while he was president and get paid by Halliburton.  I think there would be some outrage. 

CARLSON:  Well, I don't know.  I mean, if Halliburton—if it could be proved or determined that Halliburton did the best possible job for the best possible price, it's hard to see the harm in it.  Weigh that against other things Arnold Schwarzenegger has been accused of doing.  You know, he hasn't groped anyone in this case.  Is this really the worst thing he's done? 

NOBLE:  I think this actually ranks up there with among the worst things he's done for the voters of California, for the people of California.  Because really, what it calls into question is his judgment. 

How do we know why he's making these decisions?  There is such a thing

as appearance of a conflict of interest.  The people are owed decision-

making that's based on the merits.  They don't want to have decisions made

by people who are being paid by an industry. 

CARLSON:  OK, well, again, I don't really care about Arnold Schwarzenegger's state of mind or how he arrived at these decisions, only the decisions themselves. 

But isn't all of this moot because Arnold Schwarzenegger is a politician, which means his job is determined by the voters, which means, if they don't like it, they'll toss him out?  It's a self-correcting system, is it not? 

NOBLE:  Well, I don't think it's just a self-correcting system.  It's why we have ethics laws.  It's why we have bribery laws.  I'm not saying he was bribed.  But it's why we have all of these laws. 

We have laws because people are subject to influences, because the public demands a certain amount of respect, in terms of what they're getting, in terms of their government.  What you're basically arguing against are any type of ethics laws. 

CARLSON:  No, I'm not.  I'm just merely asking you to address the real issue, which is, is it a good idea to veto this bill or not?  But we're out of time, Mr. Noble.

Larry Noble, thanks a lot for joining us.  I appreciate it.

NOBLE:  My pleasure. 

CARLSON:  Well, what are the odds that Hillary Clinton will be our next president?  7-2 to be exact.  Is the number right on or is Vegas gambling on the wrong candidate?  Find out next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back to THE SITUATION.  Filling in for the injured Benny Hill, I'm Tucker Carlson. 

Lots and lots more to get to in this second half hour.  Let's unveil our stack of stories and start the proceedings.  Joining me once again, “Mad Money's” Jim Cramer and Charley Gasparino of “Newsweek” magazine. 

I hate to be cynical.  This is cynical, but I believe it.  If you elect Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of the most important state in the United States, and he starts entering into flaky arrangements with muscle magazines, can you really say you're surprised?  Voter beware. 

GASPARINO:  Although he's had this arrangement for a long time. 

CARLSON:  Yes, he has.

GASPARINO:  And you know, one thing that you have to remember, the Weider magazines—Joe Weider ran all these muscle and fitness magazines.  They've loved Arnold forever.  And they've had relations way back—I think with around Schwarzenegger into the '70s. 

The one thing, though—that guy made a great point.  There is a political element to these magazines, because that whole body-building culture does, you know, center around supplements, steroids.  And there is a political element, where these companies actually go to Congress and lobby for it.

And by the way, when you look at the pages of those magazines, there are op-eds that are essentially advertisements for supplements.

CARLSON:  Were you shocked by this, Jim?

CRAMER:  No, he looks darn good, doesn't he?  I mean, I always feel like, “Maybe I should have taken those.”


CRAMER:  I'm not trying to break any records in baseball, so why shouldn't I be able to take them and kind of be a little more buff than I am?

CARLSON:  You, too, could be governor of California. 

CRAMER:  I would like that.  Why don't they give him a break?  He could be making $8 million a picture.  You know that?

GASPARINO:  Why does he need the money? 


GASPARINO:  It's stupid. 

CARLSON:  Well, maybe that's why he has a lot of money, because...


GASPARINO:  He's not exactly donating it, right? 

CRAMER:  I think he's done a good job.


CARLSON:  Actually, he is.  He's donating $1.6 million of the proceeds over the life of the contract to a couple charities.  So he is giving some of it away. 

GASPARINO:  What, one-eighth of it?

CARLSON:  Yes, well, yes, you're right.

GASPARINO:  Generous guy.

CARLSON:  A report released in the Senate this week shows that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay weren't as gentle as they might have been with a detainee suspected of being the 20th hijacker on 9/11.  Mohamed al-Qahtani was reportedly led by a dog leash, forced to stand naked in front of a woman, made to wear a bra and thong underwear on his head.  At one point, a female interrogator ran her fingers through his hair, massaged his neck and back, and told him, “Resistance is futile.”


GASPARINO:  That was the tryout for this show. 

CRAMER:  I remember—how many times did that happen to you in college?  Every one of those at one time or another happened to me at college.


CARLSON:  No, no, but exactly.  This is like—I've heard worse in fraternity initiations.  My question is, what kind of culture considers it torture to have a woman touch you, right?  I mean...


GASPARINO:  She did a little more than that, come on.  Now the question is...


CRAMER:  Lynndie England, or no thank you, pal!

GASPARINO:  Does any of this stuff work?  That's the real question. 

You know, the one guy after she smeared, what he thought was blood on her—I'm not even going to go there—but anyway, he started banging his head on the ground. 


GASPARINO:  I mean, he didn't exactly give up any information. 

CARLSON:  This is a very, very uptight person...


CRAMER:  Where's Richards from “24”?  We want, like, you know, we want truth.  We want jabbing.  And we want guys sitting with their feet in water and doing the paddle stuff.  I mean, that's how Jack gets people to talk? 

CARLSON:  Well, especially since this was not some random guy picked up off the street.  This was someone we believe to be the 20th hijacker on 9/11. 


GASPARINO:  It's hard to feel sorry for him, I agree.  But you know, let's face it.  This isn't worth it.  We're talking about, you know, how we're detaining the people. 

CARLSON:  But isn't it so perfectly America?  Instead of bamboo shoots...


GASPARINO:  Making the guys wear bras?

CARLSON:  Exactly.

CRAMER:  Does anyone else sick of the Geneva Convention?  I'm sick of that thing.

CARLSON:  Are you?


CRAMER:  Yes.  I mean, that was for a different time.

GASPARINO:  You're for the jumper cables, right?

CRAMER:  Oh, yes.  Thank you for knowing my game plan. 

CARLSON:  If you're for harsh treatment for suspected terrorists, this next story will appeal to you, Jim Cramer. 

The lifetime prison sentence of an American Muslim leader convicted of calling for jihad against the United States, it happened today.  Ali al-Timimi was defiant and unapologetic to the end of his trial. 

The trial revolved around several statements he made to his followers, including one from September 2001 in which he urged fellow Islamists to support the Taliban and fight America abroad.

And ye another two years later where he characterized the crash of the Space Shuttle Columbia as a good omen for all Muslims in their apocalyptic battle with the West. 

GASPARINO:  Nice guy, huh?

CARLSON:  No, he's not a nice guy.  I have to say, this story did—I am a civil libertarian, and this story made me uncomfortable, because the guy in the end didn't actually do anything.  But my uncomfort was outweighed by glee at seeing someone who was an avowed enemy of the United States get life.

However, here's the kicker:  He's an American, born here, raised here.  You can't say he's some alien (INAUDIBLE) from away.  This guy is a product of American culture.  It's very creepy. 

GASPARINO:  Well, Bernie Ebbers got life, too.  I mean, there is a kind of...


CRAMER:  A lot of people get life these days. 


CARLSON:  Do you think it's too harsh though, life for not being—I mean, not found to have committed acts of violence? 

GASPARINO:  I think Bernie Ebbers, I think that was a little harsh.  I don't think this is too harsh.


GASPARINO:  You know, we're at war right now.  This guy was essentially saying, “Let's carry out some more bombings.”

CRAMER:  December 12, 1941, I turn to you and say, “You know something?  The emperor is really a cool guy.  We've got to go over there.  We've got to fight the Japs—we've got to fight the Americans, because Pearl Harbor was the greatest day ever.” 

This was September 16th of 2001.  Many of our friends we still didn't know whether alive or dead, and these guys are partying like it's 1999.  And they're trying to put together a jihad against a—come on!

CARLSON:  No, that's right.


GASPARINO:  And they weren't even partying.  They were training. 

CRAMER:  Yes, that's great.

GASPARINO:  They were training. 

CRAMER:  Oh, because it was only painful.  Oh, yes, OK, well, we should wait for live ammo.

CARLSON:  I agree with that.

GASPARINO:  Well, what if they used live ammo against each other?


CARLSON:  There's just one word for our next situation, “odd.”  Or to be precise, “odds.”  If you believe online betting sites, the odds-on favorite to win the White House in 2008, Hillary Clinton.  The junior senator from New York is listed as a 7-2 favorite. 

They're not betting on John Kerry to fare any better than he did in the last race.  He's a very long shot at 40-1.  He's in absolutely Mike Dukakis territory.  I mean, literally, Dennis Kucinich has a better shot, according to the oddsmakers, than John Kerry.

But Hillary Clinton, keep in mind—everyone always says—and I know numbers are your world—but that, you know, the Vegas guys really know what's up because they're literally impartial and their jobs depend on getting it right.  They were completely wrong about this last race. 

On the morning of Election Day 2004, Vegas oddsmakers were predicting 2-1 Kerry victory.  And that's not what happened.

GASPARINO:  But the reason why I think they might be right on this is because I taught to a lot of reporters that cover city hall and cover state government.  And they think she's really good.  They think she's disciplined, she's rigorous.  And they think that she basically can carry this off.  They're very impressed with her. 

CARLSON:  You think so?

CRAMER:  Another 50-state sweep for the Republicans—if it's McCain, my love, that would be just—it would be another tragedy for the Democrats.  I would actually Corzine to...

CARLSON:  Mrs. Clinton, not a chance? 



CARLSON:  It's funny.  Every Democrat I know, every single one, every liberal I know, thinks that Hillary Clinton's going to lose and she's going to drag the party down.  And I can't tell whether that's insecurity on the part of Democrats—because the party is in tough shape right now—or if it's some deep loathing for Hillary Clinton. 

I think just the opposite.  I don't think she's going to win.  I think a lot of people really despise her and that will keep her from winning.  However, I think she could come very close. 

And I think she could win.  She's tough enough.  She's moving to the right.  She's like Ms. Moderate now.  She's for the war in Iraq.

GASPARINO:  Yes, I think she's done a great job morphing into her husband.  I mean, she sounds like her husband a lot lately. 

CRAMER:  Very interesting point.  Very interesting point.  She does.  And everybody behind the scenes who has ever worked with her always says the same thing. 

GASPARINO:  She's smarter than...


CRAMER:  Smart, smart, smart.  I mean, I don't know if it matters.

CARLSON:  But you've got to wonder then, if Hillary Clinton is moving to the right, really, not really the center, but the right, what's the point of having a Hillary Clinton?

GASPARINO:  Or sounding like that.

CARLSON:  What's the point of having a Democratic nominee who is essentially parroting a watered-down version of moderate Republicans?

GASPARINO:  Well, I mean, Bill Clinton, I think, governed as a liberal in many respects, OK?  But he sounded centrist, but he governed as a liberal.  I mean, you remember the whole statement about affirmative action, mend it, don't end it? 

Well, he didn't end it or mend it.  He essentially kept the status quo.  So I think she will govern to the left. 

CARLSON:  But shouldn't the Democratic Party have a standard-bearer?  Shouldn't Democrats be able to look to somebody and say, “Yes that person represents my ideas.  That person speaks for me.”


CRAMER:  Oh, if you're a true believer... 

GASPARINO:  I think she speaks the same ideas.

CARLSON:  She supports the war in Iraq.  I mean, can you say “neocon”...


CRAMER:  I'm for Spitzer.  I'm telling you, Spitzer will be in better shape.  I know, I know...

GASPARINO:  Spitzer for president?

CARLSON:  Not Eliot Spitzer of New York? 

GASPARINO:  Yes, that's what he's talking...


CRAMER:  All I'm saying that, of the standard-bearers of the Democratic Party, I say that he's got the closest to actually having a wrap that's worth listening to. 

CARLSON:  Boy, that is terrifying. 


GASPARINO:  How about after he loses the Grasso case?

CRAMER:  The case would be...


CARLSON:  See, I think people...


CARLSON:  People say Hillary Clinton is scary.  “Scary Hillary.”  I think Eliot Spitzer is like 20 times scarier than Hillary Clinton. 

CRAMER:  Oh, come on, man!  Be a capitalist!

CARLSON:  No, I have fewer quibbles with her.  Oh, god, he's terrifying. 

CRAMER:  Terrifying to who?  To the bad guys.

CARLSON:  I don't know, he defines bad pretty broadly.  He'll probably be coming after...


GASPARINO:  More liberal than Tucker?


CARLSON:  All right.  Charley Gasparino, Jim Cramer, thank you very much. 

Coming up, terrorists firing over-the-shoulder missiles at U.S.  airplanes.  It sounds horrifying.  Is it a real threat though?  Our government seems to think so, and I'll tell you what they plan to do about it.

Plus, sure, Tom Cruise made a fool of himself on “Oprah” and has the entire American population laughing at him.  But where do the French get off telling him he's unwelcome in their country?  We'll have the despicable details, next. 


CARLSON:  It's that time, time to welcome back “The Outsider,” a man from outside the world of news who wagers his self-respect every night just to play devil's advocate to me, your humble croupier of opinion on a series of stories.


Joining us from Las Vegas, ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host, a man who goes to Vegas for the buffets and reads “Playboy” for the articles, Max Kellerman. 


Welcome, Max.

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO HOST:  How did you know?  By the way, I have to say, Tucker, Jim Cramer, “Mad Money”?  Best show!  Except for this show, best show on television. 

CARLSON:  It's a great show.  I don't even understand a word he says, but I love him in it anyway. 

KELLERMAN:  Me, too. 

CARLSON:  Well, buckle your seatbelt.

First up, mind-altering drugs could be as common as coffee within a couple of decades to boost performance at school and at work (INAUDIBLE) learn addiction and to erase memories of distressing events, this according to a new scientific report issued by the British think-tank Foresight.

The availability of such brain-boosting drugs would open up a broad range of social and ethical questions, including whether it ought to be permitted for people to use them to gain advantage over others. 

Let me just say at the beginning, Max, I'm for, in a lot of cases, better living through chemistry.  I think Nicorette is one of the great inventions of my lifetime.  I like coffee. 

However, this seems to me a promise that the drug we'll never be able to keep.  We've seen throughout histories, drugs promise to make younger, smarter, non-addictive, et cetera.  I mean, I could give you a million examples, tobacco, cocaine, right, Prozac?

All of these drugs originally were supposed to be perfect, and they all ended up having deep side effects.  The truth is, you get old, you die, nothing will ever stop that process. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, these pills don't promise to make you live forever.  They promise to enhance your brain.  And if you think about it, it's really fitting.  The more sophisticated a culture gets, the more specialization you have.

You know, we're not hunter-gatherers.  We don't have to worry about feeding ourselves all day.  So some of us, since there's a food surplus, we can become policemen, and teachers, and talk show hosts, and scientists.  And the fitting thing about it is, some people get to work on their brains so much that they come up with pills to enhance the rest of our brains. 

It's great, Tucker.  What's wrong with that?

CARLSON:  I'll tell you.  There's, of course, nothing wrong with enhancing your life.  However, it's, again, a false promise.  The fact is, you're sort of doomed to experience life as you find it.  That's the natural order. 

You have very unhappy events in life, you have joyful events in life.  And in the end, you kind of have to face them unaided over the long term, right? 

KELLERMAN:  Yes, but this is not Captain Kirk.  We're not saying, you know, “I want to hold on to my pain, because that's all I have.”  This is to enhance your memory. 

And think about the unintended consequences of technology.  Cell phones, for instance.  We all love our cell phones.  I don't know anyone's number anymore.  I don't know them because it's all in the cell phone.  You know what?  You take the pill, and I can remember people's numbers again?  Great.  It's jus a memory enhancer we're talking about. 

CARLSON:  But why would you want to crowd your brain with unnecessary things like that when your cell phone could do it? 

All right, next up.  The captain turned on the laser defense system.  Please fasten your seatbelts and put your tray tables in the upright and locked position. 

“USA Today” reports that the government is preparing to test missile defense systems on three airliners next month in an effort to beef up aviation security against terror threats.  Laser systems are designed to confuse heat-seeking missiles that have been used by terrorists in the past. 

Max, they say this is going to cost at least $6 billion, which means at least $12 billion, at least.  Probably a lot more.  And we're probably going to get it.

Here's quickly why we shouldn't.  The airlines are almost bankrupt, some of them are bankrupt.  These are going to push them over the line into bankruptcy in response to a threat that's not even clear that it exists. 

There has never been an example of this happening in the United States.  Commercial aircraft, big planes, are actually pretty hard to bring down out of the sky with shoulder-fire missiles.  This seems to me maybe a good thing in a perfect world, but it's not a perfect world.  It's a world of finite resources.  We ought to take this money and spend it on something that really can protect us, like securing the borders.

KELLERMAN:  The old Tucker Carlson argument.  “It's not that it's a bad idea, but there are more important things.” 

CARLSON:  Yes.  It's a world of choices, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes, maybe it's expensive.  Look, if a shoulder-fired missile brings down an airline, that'll wind out being more expensive.  So I say, why not? 

And there's something I really like about this, Tucker.  This is America.  Oh, you're going to threaten us with shoulder-fired missiles?  Do you know what we're going to get?  We're going to build lasers to shoot them down.  I love it.

CARLSON:  Well, actually, it would be effective if it were like SDI, like Star Wars.  We would just threaten to build this system and then not actually build it, thereby, you know, convincing the terrorists it's not worth firing SAMs at us. 

KELLERMAN:  The deterrent.  One last comment about the price, though, Tucker.  If you've seen “Team America:  World Police,” one of the best songs in a movie filled with good songs, “Freedom Isn't Free.”

Freedom isn't free, Tucker.  It costs things like you and me! 

CARLSON:  Yes, freedom is not free.  But one of the things that guarantees our freedom—and I'm being serious here—cheap airfare.  Cheap airfare in a huge country—I'm serious. 

In a huge country like this, it brings us together.  It allows people to see their loved ones, their family.  It allows business to take place.  Make airfare expensive, and not only is the economy hurt, but America itself is hurt.  Anything that threatens cheap airfare is bad. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes, but things that threaten human life are worse.  So build the lasers and knock out those shoulder-fired missiles. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

KELLERMAN:  If they never fire them because we have the lasers, even better. 

CARLSON:  Yet another story about terrorism tonight, audio terrorism.  A new Florida state law is about to hush up Florida's notorious boom cars, you know those chromed-out rides whose stereos pump so loud that the neighborhood dogs howl. 

I think you know what I mean, Max, because I think you drive one.  Under the new ordnance, if the car's music pumping is loud enough to be heard by a cop within 25 feet, the officer can slap a $70 summons on the driver of the vehicle. 

Look, I'm pretty close to a pure libertarian, Max.


CARLSON:  But the old axiom about, “Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.”  This is the tip of my nose.  You don't have the right to shout in my ear.  I don't have the right to shout in yours.  You don't have the right to assault me with music that is as loud as a 747 taking off.  I'm sorry, you don't. 

KELLERMAN:  Actually, we're both paid to do that every night, assault people's ears, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  That's a good point.  But you can change the channel. 

KELLERMAN:  I live on Eighth Street in New York City.  And even the motorcycles going by—forget the music—it's totally annoying. 

But yes, you almost are pure libertarian when it comes to cigarette smoke, right?  Because you like cigarettes.  But you don't like loud music, and so because your taste runs to cigarettes and not loud music, it's OK to smoke...


CARLSON:  That's completely untrue.  I have never defended forcing nonsmokers to sit with smokers.  I merely think that smokers ought to have the right to have their own areas, their own bars if they want. 

KELLERMAN:  And they do have—they have smoking bars.  They have like cigar bars. 

CARLSON:  Not in New York City.  Here's the difference:  I don't think you should compel people to do anything if you can help it, including listening to really loud music that hurts their ears.  You shouldn't force it on them. 

KELLERMAN:  Especially because no one needs hear music at that level.  Really what this is about is the disenfranchised feeling like they have a voice.  And so they pump the stereo so everyone else...

CARLSON:  Oh, my gosh, the disenfranchised?


KELLERMAN:  So in the end...

CARLSON:  Crappy music played too loud is a political statement?  Is that what you're saying? 

KELLERMAN:  It's a social statement. 


KELLERMAN:  And you know what?  Ultimately, I'm trying to agree with you here.  Therefore, you're right.  Even the libertarian position, that hits you in the nose. 


CARLSON:  That may be.  You actually—I think you've won tonight, Max, because that's the most outlandish argument I've ever heard.  I think Vegas is getting to you.  But I hope you win anyway.  Good luck at blackjack. 

KELLERMAN:  I don't gamble. 

CARLSON:  Max Kellerman, live from Las Vegas.

Coming up, what in tarnation could cause a stampede of rednecks like this one?  Max Kellerman shaving off his beard?  Whatever it is, it's got them running straight for the “Cutting Room Floor,” next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Believe it or not, there's a lot we couldn't get in the show up to this point.  That's why we have the “Cutting Room Floor.”  Willie Geist has those stories. 

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Whew.  Tucker, we're still assessing the damage from Hurricane Cramer.  Good, we're going to have to call in FEMA on that one. 

CARLSON:  I love that guy. 

GEIST:  He's awesome. 

We at THE SITUATION are always looking for other situations.  “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” which comes out this weekend, given PG rating for, quote, “quirky situations.”  Do you have any idea what that means? 

CARLSON:  I don't know.  You want to keep the kids away from the quirk. 

GEIST:  We asked the people who decide such things what that means.  And they said, “Johnny Depp character is a little odd and unsettling.  And some of the characters have odd personalities.”  So it's the first time they used it, and probably the last. 

CARLSON:  A little too quirky for the kids must be. 

GEIST:  Yes, that's right.

CARLSON:  Well, it's Bastille Day in France.  That's the 216th anniversary of the French Revolution.  And the French are celebrating as they always do, by obsessing about Americans. 

Just one month after Tom Cruise proposed to Katie Holmes in Paris, officials there have officially banned him from the city.  Paris' City Hall vowed, quote, never to welcome the actor Tom Cruise, spokesman for Scientology, and self-declared militant for this organization. 

GEIST:  Wait, we can do that?  I didn't know that was an option.  We can just ban him?  Yes!  We're in luck. 

CARLSON:  Can I just say?  I have always defended the French on this show.  Conservative though I am, I like the French.  And this is just more evidence they're on to something. 

GEIST:  They're taking a hard line on the important issues of our day. 

CARLSON:  Yes, they are. 

GEIST:  History will smile upon them for this. 

CARLSON:  I think that's great. 

All right.  Next up, when the French aren't banning movie stars from their country, they're slugging wine and getting behind the wheels of those tiny cars they drive.  Winemakers in Southern France plan to hand out 400,000 bottles of wine at toll booths and along rural roads later this month.  They're pushing the roadies to raise awareness about the apparently crisis in the French wine industry. 

GEIST:  You know, I'm not for drinking and driving, but wine in cars aren't all bad.  I had an Uncle Bert who put, in the anti-freeze container, he put chardonnay.  And put wiring into his car, so when he was courting a young lady, he'd whip out a wine glass, pull the wiper fluid button, and have a glass of chardonnay. 

CARLSON:  That is so cool. 

GEIST:  It can be a positive.

CARLSON:  It's very hard to pull a cork while driving, though.  I can tell you.  I don't think they have to fear drunk driving...


GEIST:  That's why you put it in the anti-freeze.

CARLSON:  Well, this is hands-down the best story of the night.  Sorry, that was a weak pun, but anyway, more than 1,000 gymnasts got together in Indianapolis today to set the world record for handstands by a group.  Participants came from as far away as Texas and Oregon to be part of the world record, which will be registered in the Guinness Book of World Records. 

GEIST:  An important footnote to this story, Tucker.  There was no previous record, so they could have set the record with one handstand and saved the people from Oregon and Texas a trip. 

CARLSON:  You know, any handstand will do. 

GEIST:  I guess.

CARLSON:  Well, Pamplona, Spain, may have the running of the bulls, but Belmont County, Ohio, has the running of the rednecks. 

GEIST:  Oh, boy.

CARLSON:  Look at the flood of humanity, as these self-proclaimed red necks scramble to get general admission seats for the Jamboree in the Hills Music Festival.  Organizers expect 100,000 fans for the four-day event.  It features acts like Brooks and Dunn, Hank Williams, Jr., and Dierks Bentley. 

GEIST:  Dierks Bentley's good.  I would buy his album.  He's worth running for.  But would you rather be gored by a bull at Pamplona or spend a weekend with these folks?  It's a tough call.

CARLSON:  I'd prefer an American redneck over a Spanish bull any day. 

Call me a jingoist.

GEIST:  I might take a bull horn in the—I'd deal with that.


CARLSON:  Well, finally, South Africans have finally learned what the rest of us have known since the release of “Passenger 57”:  Wesley Snipes is undesirable.  The action film star, seen here kicking butt in “Blade,” received dreaded classification of, quote, “undesirable person” after traveling with a fake South African passport.  Snipes was stopped at the Johannesburg airport after immigration officials noticed a problem with his passport number. 

GEIST:  “Passenger 57,” huh?  I'll see your “Passenger 57” and raise you a “To Wong Foo,” where he cross-dressed with Patrick Swayze.  I win. 


CARLSON:  Can I just make the obvious point?  What is Wesley Snipes doing traveling on a fake passport?  I mean, that's kind of a big deal.

GEIST:  There was some reason, but we didn't have time for it. 

CARLSON:  Some reason.  I hope so, for Wesley Snipes' sake. 

GEIST:  I'll look it up.

CARLSON:  All right.  That's THE SITUATION. 

Thank you, Willie.

I'm Tucker Carlson.  Thanks for watching.  See you tomorrow night.



Content and programming copyright 2005 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2005 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 The Situation with Tucker Carlson each weeknight at 9 p.m. ET


Discussion comments