Guests: Tom Tancredo, Juan Hernandez, Andrew Kohut
RITA COSBY, HOST, “THE SITUATION”: That does it for me on “LIVE AND DIRECT” tonight, let‘s go to Tucker with THE SITUATION—Tucker.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Thank you, Rita.
Thanks to you at home for tuning in. Good to have you with us as always.
Tonight, a third lacrosse player is charged in the Duke rape case, but this one fought back and blasted the D.A. live on television. Does he have evidence that proves he‘s innocent?
Also ahead, why the rest of the world hates us. We talk to one man who says it‘s not our politics, it‘s our values they despise.
And deadly gators on attack in Florida. Three women killed in less than a week. We‘ll get to that in just a minute.
But first, can the National Guard stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico? That‘s what President Bush proposed earlier this evening. Here he is announcing his plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads and providing training.
Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities.
That duty will be done by the Border Patrol.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Will it work? For answers, let‘s turn now to one of the most outspoken critics of the president‘s immigration policies, at least until today. He‘s Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. He joins us from Washington tonight.
Congressman, thanks for coming on.
REP. TOM TANCREDO ®, COLORADO: It‘s a pleasure, Tucker, as always.
CARLSON: Up to—up to 6,000 National Guardsmen who can‘t make arrests.
TANCREDO: Right.
CARLSON: It‘s not clear if they‘ll even be armed. Is this going to work?
TANCREDO: Well, it depends on whether or not they provide the technology. I mean, it doesn‘t matter if it‘s 6,000, 10,000, 4,000. It‘s the technology that goes with them.
I was on the northern border about three years ago. We had 100 Marines, three UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, two radar stations. And I guarantee you for the two weeks that they were up there for the exercise nothing came through there that they didn‘t see.
They interdicted no one, by the way. All they did was provide the ears and eyes for the Border Patrol who then would get a helicopter, fly to the spot where the people were coming across and say, “Hey, you know, welcome to America. Spread them!”
So, it was great. And it can work. Now, whether or not this will, because what you‘ve got here, Tucker, is a whole bunch of unanswered questions.
CARLSON: Right.
TANCREDO: For instance, what are the governors going to do? You cannot federalize the National Guard and not give the governors control. So, each one of the governors of the states that are involved here...
CARLSON: Has to provide these National Guardsmen.
TANCREDO: Exactly. They‘ll have control over what goes on.
CARLSON: Right.
TANCREDO: Some of these governors are sort of on our side. Some are opposed to having the Guard. Some are totally supportive. So, there‘s a lot of questions that are unanswered.
CARLSON: Well, so bottom line for us, to the extent that you can. I know the president just gave the speech. But I think a lot of people who oppose illegal immigration look to you to sort of measure whether something is real or not. Is this real?
TANCREDO: The proof—the proof will be in the pudding. And that‘s why we cannot do what he suggested afterwards. You know, he went through this long explanation of what the Guard was going to do, and we‘re all going great.
And he talked about a card that would be required, a tamper proof card for people who were legal aliens. Great. Everybody‘s saying that‘s terrific.
And then, of course, he has to get to that next part, where he goes, “But in order to have border security, you must have a guest worker program.”
CARLSON: Right. That‘s almost a verbatim quote.
TANCREDO: And let me tell you, Tucker, those things do not go together.
CARLSON: Back up just one step. The tamper proof I.D. card the president suggested for all legal aliens, for all migrants, immigrants to this country, what‘s going to prevent the federal government from requiring the rest of us in pretty short order to have such a card?
TANCREDO: Well, it‘s possible. But you know, I must admit to you that I am not one of those who thinks that a national I.D. is such a horrible idea. The fact is, of course, most of us carry Social Security numbers.
And you know what? I don‘t know what there is that the government doesn‘t know about me right now. But I‘m not too afraid about what they may find out. The reality is we need some...
CARLSON: You‘ve got a clean conscience. The same cannot be said for some of the rest of us.
TANCREDO: Well, that‘s true. Tucker, you might be in a different situation. You might be more concerned about that.
CARLSON: No, I don‘t know the government knowing where I am at all.
But is this amnesty?
TANCREDO: But Tucker, I think they know where you are.
CARLSON: I know they do, and it bothers the hell out of me. But you mentioned the next step in the president‘s plan, which is to essentially allow people who are here illegally to stay here. And as he put it, get to the back of the line and apply for citizenship. That is a form of amnesty, you say?
TANCREDO: Yes, most certainly amnesty. And let me tell you, when he talks about this go to the back of the line. Really, listen carefully to what‘s going to happen here if this plan were to pass. He says, this will not give them immediate amnesty, and they will—they will have to go to the back of the line.
But Tucker, there‘s two different lines. There‘s the line waiting outside the country. You know, and some of them have been waiting for years.
CARLSON: Right.
TANCREDO: Then, there‘s this new line we‘re going to create of all of the people here illegally, working, enjoying all the benefits of American society. Yes. They‘ll be waiting in line for citizenship, but it isn‘t quite the same line, is it, as the guy that‘s been waiting.
CARLSON: No, the guy who‘s waiting in Burkina Faso at the U.S. embassy.
TANCREDO: Exactly. So it‘s not the same and you shouldn‘t portray it as being—he‘s making people think, oh, everybody has to leave the country, go out and get in some line. No, that‘s not true. He‘s saying that if you‘re here, and you‘re here illegally, but you‘ve been here long enough.
And by the way, who‘s going to prove that they—how are they going to prove that they were here five years ago?
CARLSON: Yes. That‘s actually a great question and one of the many reasons I‘m glad that the voters of Colorado put you there to ask those questions.
TANCREDO: I‘m going to ask them. Because I guarantee you—I guarantee you, the printing presses are going to be working overnight to show utility bills and everything else.
CARLSON: Right.
TANCREDO: To see, “I‘ve been here—How long do you need to be here?
Here‘s the date.”
CARLSON: Good point. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, thank you very much.
TANCREDO: It‘s a pleasure, Tucker, as always.
CARLSON: So, what‘s the reaction of the president‘s plan south of the border? The White House reportedly assured Vicente Fox that the National Guard‘s present is only temporary. But my next guest says sending troops to the American border won‘t solve the problem at all.
Juan Hernandez is a former advisor to the Mexican president. He‘s also the author of the book, “The New American Pioneers: Why Are We Afraid of Mexican Immigrants”. Juan Hernandez joins us tonight from Fort Worth, Texas.
Mr. Hernandez, thanks for coming on.
JUAN HERNANDEZ, AUTHOR, “THE NEW AMERICAN PIONEERS”: Great to be on your show again, Tucker.
CARLSON: Thank you. So apparently, the president of the Mexico, Vicente Fox says the United States ought not to militarize its border. It‘s our border. We can do whatever we want with our border, including militarize it. Can we not?
HERNANDEZ: Of course, the United States can do whatever it wants to do within its borders. But as you may know, the president of Mexico gave a ring to President Bush this morning. And they spoke, as some sources say, 30 minutes. And the conversation was very friendly.
And George Bush did tell Vicente Fox, “I‘m not militarizing. These are going to be people from the National Guard. They‘ll mostly be doing administrative type of work.”
CARLSON: Right. Well, you know as well as I do...
HERNANDEZ: Right.
CARLSON: ... that the government of Mexico has a real interest in illegal aliens coming into the United States. The second largest, you know this well—the second largest foreign source of income for Mexico is money remitted by Mexicans in this country, mostly illegal, to Mexico, by $20 billion next year, 2005.
So, basically, it‘s an economic incentive for Mexico to encourage illegal immigration. And that‘s what President Vicente Fox was doing in this conversation with President Bush, right?
HERNANDEZ: Well, I had the great honor of coordinating the first meeting between Vicente Fox and George W. Bush. I‘m from Texas, and I had met George W. Bush as governor on some education programs and then invited Vicente Fox to speak at my university. And it just happened—I wish I‘d known they‘d both become presidents. I‘d be wealthier today than I am.
But I was able to coordinate a meeting between the two. And first thing that came out of both of their mouths were, what can we do to bring opportunities, for example, to little areas in Mexico where people must leave because they can‘t feed their families, but at the same time be a great source of opportunity for businessmen and businesswomen in the United States?
So, both presidents have been interested in having a better relationship between the two countries.
CARLSON: Yes.
HERNANDEZ: And by the way, I think that‘s the best way to really work on immigration reform and to work on security.
CARLSON: It may be. Let‘s—let‘s take each one of those points in turn. The first, that how can we help Mexico? Why can‘t the government of Mexico help Mexico? I mean, all of these millions of illegal aliens coming here because there are no, as you pointed out, opportunities for them in Mexico. Why aren‘t they staging protests against the government of Mexico for them doing such a bad job running the country?
HERNANDEZ: Well, wait a minute. We live in the northern hemisphere. We‘ve signed a trade agreement between the three countries. I think that we can work together. As a matter of fact if we want to compete with other blocks around the world, I think that we must work together.
But let me mention just something...
CARLSON: But what is Mexico doing...
HERNANDEZ: Now, Mr. Tancredo got me going there. I want to say something. Mr. Tancredo—I mean, I just cannot believe. I thought that he‘d be very excited about Bush‘s proposal. He has the five points Bush has. Of course, you can nitpick and those who agree with No. 4 and do not agree with No. 1. But there‘s really pretty much in tat proposal for everyone to find what he or she wants.
CARLSON: Well, that may be the problem.
HERNANDEZ: Exactly. We need a complete reform of the immigration reform. And I think that if we take Bush‘s proposal and analyze it carefully, I think we can find good stuff in there.
CARLSON: How about this, then? Let‘s get to a verbatim quote. This the president‘s description of the illegal aliens. Quote, “Many used forged documents to get jobs. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our community.”
The president isn‘t saying, at least in this paragraph, “Boy, illegal immigration, a boon for the United States.” He‘s saying, you know, it takes money away from our economy, and it puts our people in peril through crime. How do you respond to that?
HERNANDEZ: I respond that it is very complex. And of course, you can have studies that can prove just about anything. On the one hand, you have the Social Security administration just last week saying that around five million people, undocumented people, are paying into the Social Security billions of dollars.
On the other hand, I‘m sure that there are little towns and places maybe close to the border where there are hospitals that are needing some federal money.
CARLSON: Some hospitals. How about the city of Los Angeles?
HERNANDEZ: ... Hispanics and need to give them better English classes. We need some funds for that.
CARLSON: The second largest city in the United States, Los Angeles, totally overwhelmed, its public school system and its public hospitals, because of illegal immigration, as you know.
Let me just get you to concede one point here, though. The government of Mexico has a financial interest in illegal immigration to the United States, because the second largest source of foreign income is from those illegal aliens. So I mean, Mexico has an interest in breaking our laws.
HERNANDEZ: The premise is wrong. Mexico and the United States both have a great interest in working together for the better of both nations. We need to start thinking, as Robert Pastor (ph) has written, an economist in D.C., that we need to work thinking of the future. Ten, 15 years, 20 years from now max, we will have to work together to be able to compete with the rest of the world. Why not start planning for it now?
CARLSON: Yes, I wish Mexico would give a little bit, even as it takes. I wish the governor of Mexico would acknowledge that we have our laws, and we have an interest in preserving and enforcing them. And that it‘s not immoral for us to do so.
HERNANDEZ: Well, these are—these are individuals coming across the border looking for the great American dream. This is not Mexico pushing them. Of course, I understand, many of them leave because they‘re not...
CARLSON: What do you mean? They‘re printing up pamphlets pushing people across the border!
HERNANDEZ: ... better jobs down there. On the other hand, the United States gives a poll. We have the jobs. We want them here. And now, we must create a program that is fair, first of all, for the United States in my opinion. But especially fair for the whole hemisphere and fair for the undocumented.
CARLSON: All right. Well, I‘d say, first, second, and third, fair for the United States. But that‘s just me.
Juan Hernandez, thanks a lot for coming on.
HERNANDEZ: Thank you for inviting me again, Tucker.
CARLSON: Thanks.
Still ahead tonight, a high school teacher apologizes after asking his kids to write an essay about who would they kill and how they would do it. Should the teacher be allowed to keep his job?
Also, another Duke lacrosse player indicted on rape and kidnapping charges today. With no DNA evidence linking any of the accused players to the alleged crime, why is this case, this travesty still going forward?
Plus, Colorado encourages its citizens to snitch on people for telling off-color jokes. We‘ll tell you about the proposed hate speech hotline. Another assault on the First Amendment, when THE SITUATION returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Still to come, yet another miscarriage of justice in the Duke rape case. Plus, is our federal government spying on the media to loot (ph) out leakers? It looks that way. We‘ll tell you more. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID EVANS, INDICTED FOR RAPE: I am innocent. Reade Seligmann is innocent. Collin Finnerty is innocent. Every player of the Duke lacrosse team is innocent. You have all been told some fantastic lies. And I look forward to watching them unravel in the weeks to come as they already have in weeks past. And the truth will come out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was the extraordinary scene earlier today when the captain of the Duke lacrosse team publicly stood up to the district attorney who‘s charged him with rape. Twenty-three-year-old David Evans graduated on Sunday, and today, a day later, he stood outside the Durham County jail, not only proclaiming innocence but insisting he has the evidence to prove his innocent. Where‘s the evidence and why is this case still in progress?
To answer those questions, we welcome former prosecutor, Susan Filan.
She joins us tonight from Stanford, Connecticut.
Susan, thanks.
SUSAN FILAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, Tucker.
CARLSON: Evans made—first of all, anybody, I think, who watches his entire statement had to be blown away by this kid‘s self control, by his poise. He didn‘t read it. He right off his head made this statement. And I thought it was compelling, not proof, of course, but still a compelling statement.
But he makes these points. He said, “Look, I cooperated from the very beginning. I turned over my e-mails to the prosecutor. I gave a DNA sample. I gave a statement with no counsel present. And then, I attempted to take a polygraph test. I offered that up. I tried to talk to the prosecutor, and he wouldn‘t see me. He wouldn‘t hear any evidence that was contrary to his belief that I did it.” That‘s outrageous.
FILAN: As prosecutors, we‘re used to hearing protestations of innocence. We‘re used to people cooperating without counsel. We‘re used to people giving statements. We‘re also used to evidence.
And what I find disturbing in this case is, I‘ve heard his protestations of innocence. They were very powerful. I have not heard what the compelling evidence is against him. I‘ve heard DNA, inconclusive. I‘ve heard that it‘s on the outside of a fake fingernail in a garbage can where there was other genetic material deposited by other people who lived in the house, he being one of them.
I‘ve also heard that the accuser said a 90 percent match, but the guy had a moustache and this guy doesn‘t have a moustache.
CARLSON: Not only—it‘s...
FILAN: What‘s troubling to me is, you know, we‘re real used to hearing people say, “I didn‘t do it. I didn‘t do it.” But we‘re also used to hearing somebody saying, “Yes, you did.”
CARLSON: That‘s right.
FILAN: And this accuser now has credibility problems. There‘s proof problems. My concern...
CARLSON: Hold on. Let me just point out to our viewers who may not know this. These are not just things you heard. We have a copy of the transcript of her interview, the accuser‘s interview with investigators, with cops.
This women Crystal goes in and talks to the police. And she—we know from the transcript, which has been verified as real, that she didn‘t say she was 100 percent certain that this man, David Evans, did it.
This case seems crazy to me and a ripe example of where the Justice Department from Washington ought to step in and set things right.
FILAN: Well, the thing is, the prosecutor is bound by certainly rules of professional conduct. He‘s got certain ethical constraints on him where he can‘t speak, he can‘t comment on the evidence to the media. He did in the beginning. Maybe he realizes he probably shouldn‘t have. And he isn‘t anymore.
The problem is, now we‘re just now hearing from the defense, and if you just hear from the defense and you read out the spin. And some of it‘s spin and some of it‘s great. But some of it is uncontroverted fact coming from their camp.
If you don‘t hear anything from the prosecution about what the evidence is. And then you hear promises like the DNA Is going to exonerate the innocent. And there‘s no DNA, and there‘s still an indictment, you have to start to wonder, oh, my gosh, do we have a train here that‘s jumped the tracks?
CARLSON: It seems like it has jumped the tracks. Here‘s what we know, though. We know that at this point, that this man, David Evans, was identified as, quote, as you put it, 90 percent certainty. I think that...
FILAN: She said I‘m 90 percent sure it‘s him except he had a moustache.
CARLSON: Exactly. That‘s exactly right. By a woman, this woman Crystal who has, as we know from her parents, been hospitalized in her recent past with mental illness.
Now I‘m not saying that people who have mental illness and go to the hospital for it, you know, can‘t tell the truth. Of course they can.
FILAN: Right.
CARLSON: But it does make you kind of wonder, gee whiz, if she says -
you know, if her family admits that she‘s been hospitalized for mental illness and her testimony, or her 90 percent certainty is the one thing we‘re relying on to destroy these guy‘s lives? I mean, this seems negligent to me.
FILAN: You know what, Tucker? Weed that out. Forget that. It may be fun to say that. But forget it. Let‘s say she‘s perfectly, perfectly healthy, never had a day of mental illness in her life.
But for her to say, “I‘m 90 percent sure it‘s him except he had a moustache” and the guy never had a moustache, in and of itself is troubling. The prosecutor has to now this. He‘s got to have something in his back pocket that we don‘t know about, and we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
CARLSON: See, Susan—that‘s what we said going into Iraq. They must know something we don‘t know. It doesn‘t seem like there are weapons of mass destruction, but they must know something we don‘t know. Actually, it turns out a lot of the time the government doesn‘t know anything you don‘t know.
FILAN: Don‘t get me started on Iraq, Tucker.
CARLSON: No, it‘s just—I didn‘t mean to bring that in. But I‘m just saying, I have the same sort of gut instinct that you do. They must know a lot of things that we‘re not privy to. But you know, maybe they don‘t. Maybe this guy Nifong is just completely out of control, and maybe the Justice Department needs to head down to Durham, North Carolina, and undue this, as you put it—this train wreck in progress. My editorial.
Susan Filan, thanks for coming on.
FILAN: Thanks, Tucker. It‘s always a pleasure.
CARLSON: I appreciate it.
Still ahead, a new twist in the NSA wire tapping controversy. Could the federal government be tracking the phone numbers used by the press to root out confidential sources? Looks like they could be.
Plus, Florida wildlife officials are in panic mode tonight after three people are killed by alligators in less than a week. Is there any way to stop these attacks? Find out when THE SITUATION returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. It‘s no wonder the press was up in arms about the government spying on American citizens. ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross said he and colleague Richard Esposito have been warned that the feds are tracking their phone calls. And the same may be true for reporters at the “New York Times”, as well as the “Washington Post” and maybe other papers.
It‘s possible all this can be part of the CIA leak investigation.
Here to talk about it, Air America radio host Rachel Maddow.
Rachel, welcome.
RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST: Hey, Tucker. Nice to see you.
CARLSON: Nice to see you. Thank you.
Brian Ross, who‘s actually, I think, a very serious guy, a good reporter, made this allegation, brought up the possibility. FBI did not deny it. Seems likely true. Goes without saying that most Americans will not care. Also goes without saying I‘m very offended by this.
I think the deeper lesson, though, is these leak investigations are themselves off track. I mean, the liberals have kind of been in a lot of ways behind this leak investigation. Yes, get to the bottom of the leak.
But in the end, leaks are good for the public. They tell us more about how our government works. And I think an investigation of this kind is a challenge to the First Amendment.
MADDOW: I think a leak by government to smear a political opponent is a different type of leak than a leak about something the government is doing that‘s illegal. I think I differentiate between them. I don‘t have any—I don‘t feel that I‘m doing anything hypocritical by being in favor of the Valerie Plame leak investigation and a little bit offended that they‘re going through reporters‘ -- reporters‘ phone records in order to get to the bottom of the NSA spying leak.
CARLSON: So, leaks are good when you agree with the leak?
MADDOW: No, leaks are good when they‘re about the government doing something illegal we wouldn‘t find out about without the leak. Leaks are bad when they‘re by the government for the purposes of smearing people.
CARLSON: Well, you can say in the Valerie Plame case, and I believe this to be true, that Joe Wilson totally unqualified to investigate anything, much less whether Niger had the makings of—had the nuclear material, and second, that he was sent there by his wife, and this is exactly the kind of nepotism that we frown upon, the civil service is created to prevent. And I want to know that.
MADDOW: He was the head of the Africa office in the National Security Council. He‘s the guy that has—you know, whether or not it was OK for Joe Wilson to go there, what happened was the government decided to leak something about his wife in order to shut him up. I‘m really happy with that being investigated.
What‘s amazing to me about this ABC story tonight...
CARLSON: Are you really? You‘re really happy with—because this is what it means to investigate it. When you say I‘m happy for this being investigated, it means the government tracking the phone calls of reporters. Are happy with that?
CARLSON: No. No, it means the government subpoenaed the phone calls of the reporters. It doesn‘t mean the government collecting the phone calls of every American in the country, every single phone call we‘ve made since 2001, putting it in a giant database and using it to track down their political enemies.
CARLSON: Yes, but that—that‘s to get al Qaeda. This—Brian Ross...
MADDOW: Or not.
CARLSON: Or not. Or not. But that‘s separate. OK, whatever. I‘m not even arguing that. But this is completely separate.
Brian Ross is saying, look, they‘re tracking my phone calls because they want to know where this information came from. That‘s what it means to investigate a leak, is to go after reporters, as they‘re going after Brian Ross or Richard Esposito at ABC News.
MADDOW: Right. Listen, investigating a leak is one thing. The scandal here, Tucker, I think you‘re missing it, the scandal is that this is what the NSA wire tapping scandal is all about.
Every data analysis, data mining traffic social network analysis person I‘ve talked to about this says there‘s no way that collecting every phone call in the country is going to help you anticipate and stop terrorists. It‘s not going to work. What it‘s going to work for is going after political opponents. That‘s what it‘s for.
CARLSON: OK. But these are entirely two different things. And I guess I am more likely to support it if I think it‘s going to prevent another terror attack.
MADDOW: It is not.
CARLSON: Maybe it is. Maybe it isn‘t. But that‘s a justification, which is a real justification. The justification for going after these guys‘ phone records we need to find out who leaked Valerie Plame‘s name. That‘s creepy.
MADDOW: It‘s creepy for them to be using the NSA spying scandal to go after reporters. A year ago, we would have thought that today‘s revelations were absolutely Orwell kook paranoid nightmare. The FBI has confirmed this tonight. They‘re using the NSA spying scandal to go after reporters.
CARLSON: I don‘t think this has anything to do with the NSA spying scandal, so to speak. But I will say you can‘t be too paranoid about the government and its power when it comes to national I.D. cards, when it comes to phone records, when it comes to a lot of things that the left supports, including speech codes, in my view. You can‘t—I‘m serious. You can‘t be too paranoid.
MADDOW: Up until your smear on the left, I was totally with you.
CARLSON: No, but they don‘t support—now we‘re out of time, sadly.
But I‘ve got many more things to say to you, Rachel.
MADDOW: Give me a call later, Tucker.
CARLSON: Good. You‘ll be here tomorrow. Thank you, Rachel.
MADDOW: Thank you.
CARLSON: Still to come, America stands for freedom and liberty. So why do so many people around the world hate us so much? And should we even care that they hate us? We‘ll ask Andrew Kohut. He‘s the author of “America Against the World”, when we come back.
Plus candidates or comedians? We‘ll tally up our top five late night political moments when THE SITUATION returns, and return it will.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Texas considers raising the speed limit to 80 miles per hour. Thank God. Plus, telling a joke about the pope, rednecks or gays could get you in trouble with the government. We‘ll tell you about you a proposed speech hate speech hotline in Colorado, next. But first, here‘s what‘s going on in the world tonight.
(NEWSBREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
We Americans pride ourselves, correctly, on our sunny attitudes and our individualism. In the United States, the individual comes before the group most of the time. And yet, this philosophy has also fueled anti-Americanism around the globe. So says my next guest, who‘s conducted the largest survey ever undertaken of world opinion. More than 91,000 respondents in 50 nations.
Andrew Kohut is the president of the Pew Research Center and author of “America Against the World: How We are Different and Why We are Disliked.” And it‘s a book that examines and attempts to explain the recent rise in anti-American sentiment. Andrew Kohut joins us tonight from Washington.
Mr. Kohut, thanks for coming on.
ANDREW KOHUT, AUTHOR, “AMERICA AGAINST THE WORLD”: I‘m happy to be with you.
CARLSON: Are we certain there has been a recent rise in anti-Americanism? Haven‘t people disliked us for a long time?
KOHUT: Not to the extent that since the case of the war in Iraq in particular. And really in this decade, in all parts of the world, people are more negative toward the United States, writ large, and also even more negative toward the American people.
You know, there have been past bouts of anti-Americanism. If you remember, back in the 1980s, President Reagan‘s policies, his tough policies with the Russians. We were not very popular in Europe. But still there wasn‘t the kind of depth of anti-Americanism and response to the government that we have now. And it didn‘t involve the American people.
And there are lots of reasons for this. It‘s mostly policies. Mostly the charge is unilateralism, and the war in Iraq took our image way down in much of the world.
But there are other things. There‘s the power of the United States, the unchecked, unrivaled power of the United States.
CARLSON: Right.
KOHUT: And there‘s globalization, which pushes America all around the world. And people love our products, but on the other hand there‘s a little bit of backlash as to how much America exists in cultures from south Asia to northern Europe.
CARLSON: One fact that doesn‘t get a lot of attention in your book, and I wonder if it‘s not more significant than you suggest, is Islam. A lot of the people who hate us say they hate us because of their religion. Shouldn‘t we take what they say seriously?
KOHUT: Well, if you look in depth at what those people are saying, they‘re not saying they dislike us on the basis of our values. Mostly, they are saying they dislike us on the basis of our policies, how we—how we come down in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the war in Iraq. And they see the war on terrorism as the powerful United States picking on countries that—Arab countries that they think are unfriendly.
Now, obviously, the extremists hate us for our values. But ordinary Muslim people don‘t.
CARLSON: But don‘t—I mean, aren‘t the extremists the ones we care about? I mean, in the end, if you know, the average person in Turkey or Lichtenstein for matter, disapproves of our, you know, policy toward Israel, I guess that‘s bad. But they‘re not likely to blow anything up in this country. Shouldn‘t we be more concerned with people who are going to act out their hatred?
KOHUT: Actually, sure, of course, we should be more concerned with the people who really hate us. But the fact that we want people to trust us, we want people to cooperate with us. We don‘t want to only have to power people into joining us in the kinds of things that we want to do.
So our overall image is important to all—with respect to all people or with regard to public opinion generally.
CARLSON: Right.
KOHUT: Plus, an important thing is that public opinion is—the importance of public opinion is on the rise. Elections in France and Germany were strong on the basis of anti-Americanism in 2002.
CARLSON: Tell me, the case that Donald Rumsfeld has made implicitly anyway, and I think it‘s not a stupid case, actually, is that 50 years from now, Western Europe, because it is in decline in its influence, won‘t matter nearly as much as, say, India and China will matter. Right? So in the end, we care, at least in the long-term, we care about the public opinion of those countries over the public person of Western Europe.
KOHUT: Well, I don‘t know about that. But certainly, India we‘re very popular, but in much of Asia we‘re not. In South Korea, one of our most important allies, we‘re not particularly popular. The Chinese at best have a mixed view of us. So maybe his analysis is correct.
But what I‘m trying to—the point I‘m trying to make is anti-Americanism is pretty much a world-wide phenomena, with some exceptions. And India, by the way, is a good exception. The Indians have a much more positive view of us, because we have great trade relations with them. We have a common foe in the Islamic extremists.
CARLSON: Yes. We ought to let more of them in. I like them.
Andrew Kohut, interesting. Really interesting book. Thanks for coming on.
KOHUT: Happy to be with you.
CARLSON: We turn now to the man who is primarily responsible for the world turning against the United States. He is “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: Only now does America see, allied with Israel. See Tucker, a lot of the world hates Jews, and apparently, anti-Semitism is a good enough reason to hate America.
CARLSON: That is actually literally true. If you read—if you read Osama bin Laden‘s own statements about why he ordered 9/11, Israel and America‘s support of Israel has a lot to do with it. You‘re absolutely right. Anti-Semitism is huge.
Well, have you ever had your feelings hurt and wished there was a complete stranger you could call to talk about it? Well, if you live in Boulder, Colorado, your lucky day could be just around the corner. The Boulder city council has proposed a hate hotline where citizens can report incidents of people being treated insensitively based on race, gender ethnicity or sexuality.
It‘s not clear what the city would do with that information. One supporter says the hotline is a way to help reduce discrimination in Boulder. I‘m not sure exactly how that works, Max. A little tattletale hotline for insecure adults is the most appalling thing I‘ve heard this year. I applaud you for even attempting to defend it.
This—actually, for all the talk of Orwellian developments in the public sector, this is Orwellian.
KELLERMAN: Well, it‘s interesting. As technology advances, it turns out that Big Brother exists. But it‘s not the state. It‘s your neighbor. You know, there‘s too many of us to keep track of.
CARLSON: But it always has been. It always has been your neighbor.
KELLERMAN: That‘s right. You always make the argument, Tucker, community standards. I mean, this is the United States of America. If you don‘t like it where you are, are taxes too high. You don‘t like social policy; you don‘t like something about the municipality, leave. Leave. If you live in Boulder Colorado and you don‘t like the tattletale hotline, you can move.
CARLSON: This is—this is an argument that people made in the south in the 1850‘s, if you don‘t like it, move north. I mean, there should be some constitutional protections that cover all of us, and one of them is the first one, freedom of speech. I have a right to offend you. I have a right to hurt your feelings. I have a right to say pretty much whatever I want about you, as long as it‘s true or I perceive it to be.
KELLERMAN: And that‘s true, but if me and enough of my neighbors in a given area decide, you know what? Yes, you can say whatever you want, but when you do, we‘re going to hold you accountable for it.
Now I know the counter is, what are you talking about? The tattletales themselves aren‘t accountable because it‘s anonymous. And there‘s an argument to be made there. But still, all it is is information. Person X said Y.
CARLSON: I‘m totally for that. I‘m for neighbors getting together and being, you know, the little fascists that they are if they want to. That‘s totally fine.
It‘s when you get government involved, right, government which has guns, and is supported by all of our tax dollars. That‘s where it gets wrong.
MADDOW: Here comes your Second Amendment argument, Tucker.
CARLSON: More on that tomorrow night. More on that whole question. We‘re actually, I hope, going to have somebody on from Boulder who will defend this and explain exactly what it means.
Well, how fast is too fast on America‘s highways? That‘s what some people wondering now that the Texas Department of Transportation has wisely proposed raising the speed limit to 80 on some of its interstates. Safety experts warn that an increase of traffic fatalities in cars traveling at high speeds, traffic fatalities would be inevitable and it‘s saying people burn more gas, as if it‘s their business.
But the head of DOT says drivers are already averaging nearly 80 on the affected areas anyway. So the state wants to approval safety by requiring everyone else to travel at that speed.
I say the higher speed limit the better for everyone. Max, on the other hand, is driving about 45 in the right lane with your hazards on. So you‘re probably against this.
Look, signs in New Jersey say, slow down, save gas. Well, if you‘re paying for my gas, you can tell me what speed to drive. If you‘re not, hush.
Well, I mean, look, the whole fossils fuel argument. You know, as there‘s a conversion economy towards alternative fuels. That‘s a totally different argument.
I don‘t think it should be taken seriously. You‘re going to burn more gas if you go faster. However, people are already going 80. Speed limit‘s what, 65?
CARLSON: Yes.
KELLERMAN: If you raise the speed limit to 80, they‘ll go 95, 100.
CARLSON: Yes.
KELLERMAN: And the thing that‘s significant about this is the mortality rate shoots up. The survival rate plummets every 10 miles an hour you go up. So AT 55 miles an hour, you know, you‘re 80 percent likely to walk away. Sixty-five, it‘s, you know, 50 percent. And 75 you‘re down to 20 or whatever it is. The point is, there‘s a real steep curve there. And if you have people going 95 miles per hour going lots more people die.
CARLSON: But the upside, you drive faster, you get there faster.
Right?
KELLERMAN: Yes.
CARLSON: And that means people getting home to see their children before they go to bed. And people getting home to have dinner with their families. People getting home to do the things that they live to do.
People getting home to live their lives. Getting to church on time, getting to kids‘ soccer practice, petting to birthday parties.. People get in the car because they have to get somewhere. We should respect that.
KELLERMAN: Yes. And that to live to do. And in many instances they‘ll die trying to indictment one in a million, one in a billion, OK, fine. You can start making an argument, quantity, quality. But the estimates, when they came out with the national speed limit were that it was saving thousands of lives a year.
CARLSON: I‘m sure it is. I‘m sure it is. But these are adults who can decide whether or not they want to protect their own lives. I mean, they‘re adults. That‘s an adult decision.
KELLERMAN: But it‘s not if you‘re on a highway where everybody else is going at least 80 miles an hour. You can‘t make the decision. You‘re better not getting on the highway.
CARLSON: Yes, well, we could certainly outlaw cars, and that would be a blow for safety. And I‘m sure that a lot of safety advocates, whoever the hell they are, would be for it. But I‘m not.
KELLERMAN: Me neither.
CARLSON: Good. I knew you‘d come around. Max Kellerman.
KELLERMAN: Tucker.
CARLSON: Coming up tonight, why does this man look confused? Maybe because he showed up for a job interview and mistakenly ended up the subject of an on-air interview on television. It‘s happened to us before. We‘ll give you the hilarious details when we come right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER: Coming up, noted funny man Al Gore brings his comic stylings to “SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE”. Plus, we‘ll reveal the hottest women on the planet.
CARLSON: I‘ll tell you who I voted for personally when we come back in just 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the New Mexicornian economy is strong, and El Presidente Schwarzenegger is doing a great job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was former vice president Al Gore having a little fun with Washington‘s ongoing border war, but his appearance on “Saturday Night Live” has sparked more than just a few laughs. There is now growing speculation that Gore may be thinking of tossing his hat into the presidential race again in 2008. And wouldn‘t that be fun?
It wouldn‘t be the first time a White House hopeful has traded jokes for votes, though. In tonight‘s “Top Five,” other examples of why politics sometimes make for jovial bedfellows.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CARLSON (voice-over): They‘re often the butt of every political punster in show biz. The presidential wannabes quickly learn the first law of survival. If you can‘t lick them, at least try to join them.
DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST, CBS‘S “LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN”: Why don‘t you get a focus group on that and call me.
CARLSON: Then, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton earned his representation as a swinger when he and his sax made a guest appearance on “The Arsenio Hall Show” in 1992. It wouldn‘t be the last time he was horny.
Texas billionaire Ross Perot‘s chartered course to the White House in 1992 and ‘96 took a slight detour to “The Tonight Show”. As a third party candidate, Ross might have bombed, but he fared much better as Jay‘s second banana.
ROSS PEROT, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I‘m coaching him. He‘ll get better.
GORE: Well, I‘m not going to go on the Letterman show. That show is so lame.
CARLSON: So is Al Gore‘s attempt to trade jabs with Dave during the vice president‘s bid for a political promotion in 2000.
GORE: Mistakes were made.
CARLSON: In the end, poor Al didn‘t even get to keep his day job.
GORE: That is so embarrassing.
CARLSON: Then White House hopeful George W. Bush also gave a political satire a shot in 2000.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Hi, everybody.
CARLSON: With his own top 10 list of things to do once Clinton vacated the premises.
BUSH: Give Oval Office one heck of a scrubbing.
CARLSON: In 1968, Richard Nixon proved he could give as good as he got. He appeared on the popular comedy show “Laugh In” and uttered that immortal catch phrase.
RICHARD NIXON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Sock it to me?
CARLSON: Five years later, Nixon socked us with an even funnier political catch phrase.
NIXON: I‘m not a crook.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CARLSON: Still ahead on THE SITUATION, who‘s the hottest woman on the planet? One magazine thinks it knows. See if you agree when we unveil the history making winner in just a moment.
Before the break, though, it‘s time for tonight‘s installment of “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.”
The good is Hillary Clinton‘s forced apology to her daughter Chelsea. Hillary irked her only child last week by telling an audience young people today think, quote, “Work is a four letter word.”
The 26-year-old called her mom to say she and her friends do, in fact, work hard. And the New York senator immediately flip-flopped on the issue and apologized.
The bad is the judgment of the Missouri high school teacher who issued his students a creative writing project. They were asked to describe who they would kill and how they would do it. Michael Maxwell teaches industrial technology. It‘s not clear what that has to do with creative writing. He‘s apologized for the assignment, and the school says Maxwell will keep his job. What a weirdo.
And the ugly is a rash of alligator attacks in Florida. Two more alligator related deaths were reported yesterday. That makes the total of three fatal attacks in just one week. One of the deaths came when a Tennessee woman was attacked while snorkeling in the Ocala National Forest.
Before this week, Florida had only confirmed 17 alligator attack deaths since 1948.
That‘s tonight‘s edition of “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly”. We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back, we saved the best for last. As always, that means Willie Geist and “The Cutting Room Floor.”
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: Hello, Tucker.
CARLSON: Willie.
GEIST: In about four minutes from now, the birthday of one Tucker Carlson.
CARLSON: True.
GEIST: Let me just say, 51 has never looked so good. Never looked so good.
CARLSON: Right. Botox, man. I‘ll be their spokesman.
GEIST: Tomorrow for your birthday, we have a special surprise. We mentioned the Tucker Carlson Trio.
CARLSON: Yes.
GEIST: Here‘s a little sneak preview of what they look like, getting down, jamming. They‘re going to do a full performance for us.
They have a good sound, the Tucker Carlson trio, I have to say.
CARLSON: I think that‘s their actual name. I like them.
GEIST: It is. Tucker Carlson Trio. We‘re going to ask them why they are named the Tucker Carlson Trio. We still haven‘t gotten to the bottom of that.
CARLSON: As our floor director, Mike Young, just pointed out, there are five of them.
GEIST: Well, OK. They‘re musicians, creative types.
CARLSON: Well, for the second consecutive year, Eva Longoria finds herself atop the subjective, meaningless list of the hottest woman in show business. Longoria is No. 1 on “Maxim” magazine‘s “Hot 100” list. The “Desperate Housewives” star was also given the distinction last year. It‘s the first time in the illustrious history of the award that the same woman has won back to back.
Jessica Alba was second, Lindsay Lohan was third, Angelina Jolie fourth.
GEIST: Tucker, I have the list in front of me, “Maxim” list. I have all 100 right here. I don‘t know if it‘s a misprint, an omission, an oversight. The Ditech lady.
CARLSON: Are you serious? She‘s not on?
GEIST: There she is. The Ditech lady.
CARLSON: Let me just say, I don‘t think she‘s at her best in that ad.
Yes, right there. There she is. There she is.
GEIST: That‘s Tucker‘s No. 1. Forget Eva Longoria and Jessica Alba.
The Ditech lady.
CARLSON: I like the Ditech lady.
GEIST: We were going to get her on the show. I‘m not sure what we‘re going to ask her, but we‘re going to get her on the show so you can just stare at her. I don‘t know. Just be creepy around her.
CARLSON: I don‘t know if she can live up to the hype in my heart.
GEIST: She‘s a good one. She‘ll be on the list next year.
CARLSON: I don‘t have a lot of experience in this area, but it seems to me there has to be a more effective way to burglarize a home than by sliding down the chimney. You‘re looking at the soot-covered proof that that method doesn‘t work.
Five-foot, two-inch Seraphin Sanchez (ph) got caught in a New York City chimney during an attempt to rip off an apartment building over the weekend. Someone heard Sanchez‘s cries and called cops, who dragged him out of the chimney and into jail.
GEIST: It‘s not my place. Who am I to—I don‘t know anything about burglary, either. But if you get to the point of slide down the chimney, I think you just move down on the next house and rip them off. Don‘t you think? It‘s so messy. And it never ends well.
They have this romantic thing that Santa and Mary Poppins have brought about.
CARLSON: Yes.
GEIST: Sliding down a chimney, but it‘s not effective. What‘s the most efficient way to rob a home?
CARLSON: Well, like Santa and Mary Poppins, too, it‘s not technically, you know, real. You can‘t really slide down.
GEIST: Which Seraphin (ph) just learned the hard way.
CARLSON: So, we can safely make light of this next hilarious live TV moment, thanks to the fact we have never made a mistake on this show ever.
GEIST: True.
CARLSON: Last week, Britain‘s BBC News invited a technology expert named Guy Kewney on to discuss the Beatles‘ legal battle with Apple Computer. Kewney was seat and waiting in the BBC reception lounge when a man named Guy Goma. Goma, the other guy, was there for a completely unrelated job interview.
Well, as fate would have it, the hurried producers grabbed the wrong Guy and put that man on air. Needless to say, Guy Goma was a little surprised his job interview turned out to be on air interview about Internet technology. Watch his face when he‘s introduced by the anchor as IT expert Guy Kewney, who he is not.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... and music online. Well, Guy Kewney is the editor of technology web site, News Wild (ph).
Good morning to you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good morning.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, were you surprised by this...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: He was pretty god. He actually did the interview.
GEIST: He was good. This sounds like something that—a joke from a “Candid Camera” thing. This is a real story. They grabbed the wrong guy and put him on the air. The BBC has apologized for it. And he was good.
CARLSON: He was better than some people (ph).
GEIST: Guy Kewney got the job.
The problem with this is, it uncovers a dirty little secret about TV.
CARLSON: Yes.
GEIST: That literally, anybody can walk off the street and do what you and I do.
CARLSON: As long as you don‘t—there he is. Look at that. As long as you don‘t freak out in a panic attack on air, you look like an expert.
GEIST: That‘s right. Guy Goma has got a job here.
CARLSON: Willie Geist, thank you.
GEIST: You bet.
CARLSON: That‘s it for us tonight. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow night.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Transcripts