IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for July 6

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests: Brad Blakeman, Elizabeth Haile, Ronald Kessler, Rachel Maddow, Max Kellerman

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks to you at home for tuning in.  It‘s good to have you with us. 

Tonight, character allegations against McCain.  McCain, of course, widely seen as a front runner for the Republican nomination in 2008, but now some on the right claim he doesn‘t have the temperament to be president.  Is John McCain‘s temper out of control?

Plus, is Sony pushing white power?  Some people say this advertisement for PlayStation Portable is racist, but the issue may not be so black and white.  We‘ll tell you more. 

And the latest on the Coked up criminals who tried to sell the secret formula to Pepsi.  That‘s coming up. 

But first there are claims tonight by a Japanese newspaper that the long-range missile North Korea launched on July Fourth was aimed at waters off Hawaii.  Hawaii, our Hawaii.  The 50th state. 

The White House disputes that claim, but here is what we know for certain.  North Korea is a rogue state.  It‘s run by a Stalinist lunatic who has murdered thousands, possibly millions of his own citizens.  He hates us, and he wishes us harm. 

He runs a country that is, by our own president‘s description, evil.  So with all of that in mind, why have we given over $1 billion in aid to Kim Jong-Il and company since 1995?  Good question. 

Joining me tonight from Washington to answer it, Brad Blakeman.  He‘s a former deputy assistant to President Bush.

Brad, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON:  Why in the world would we want to be giving over $1 billion in aid to a country the president himself has described as evil?

BLAKEMAN:  Well, we have a long history of giving aid as part of the carrot and the stick approach to try and get concessions and try and get leaders and countries to do things that we seek them to do. 

In this case, it hasn‘t worked as well as we would have liked, and you know what?  We stopped it in 2005, and we‘re not going to give that type of aid any more, as long as this rogue regime keeps up these assaults on decency. 

CARLSON:  We‘re not giving food aid any more to North Korea?  Is that what you‘re saying?

BLAKEMAN:  Yes, that‘s right.  As a matter of fact...

CARLSON:  No food aid any more to North Korea.  Good.

BLAKEMAN:  As a matter of fact, Tucker, the U.N. kicked—the U.N.  out and America stopped after 2005 when we couldn‘t justify, and they couldn‘t justify where the food was going.  We knew that it was being siphoned off. 

And look, they counterfeit our money.  They‘re dealing in drugs and they‘re dealing in food, food that should be going to the people.

CARLSON:  So in 2005 we cut that off.  That is, let‘s see, by my

admittedly not very sophisticated math calculation, that‘s four years after

the president got up in front of the nation and told us they were evil.  We

anybody who paid attention knew how bad these guys were.  It still doesn‘t answer the question why, for all those years, post-evil, were we propping up the government with food aid?

BLAKEMAN:  Because we don‘t want to punish the North Korean people. 

The people themselves are good and decent people.

CARLSON:  They are?  How do we know that?

BLAKEMAN:  They have always been—they have always been a victim.  Because they‘re victims.  These people are tortured.  They‘re in concentration camps.  They‘re starved.  Come on.  If they had a choice—if they had a choice.

CARLSON:  I‘m not attacking the people.  I‘m just stopping you in your tracks when you throw out glib generalizations like they‘re good and decent people.  I don‘t know.  I don‘t know anything about them, and neither do you.  But here‘s what we do know.

BLAKEMAN:  Because generally, people are good and decent people.

CARLSON:  OK.  Here‘s what we do know.

BLAKEMAN:  And it‘s the leadership of that country we have problems with. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.  And we all should know the leadership of that country is in complete control of everything that happens in that country. 

BLAKEMAN:  Unfortunately, you‘re right. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  So why, knowing that, would we prop up the government?  Because as you just said, the root of the people‘s problems, those people we care so much about, the good decent people of North Korea.  The root of their problem is the government, so by propping up the government we‘re hurting the people.  Now why would we want to go and do that?

BLAKEMAN:  We‘re not—we‘re not propping up the government.  In the early ‘90s, because of the floods that devastated North Korea, almost three million people died.

CARLSON:  Right.

BLAKEMAN:  And we—what we‘re trying to do is use diplomacy and not use food as a weapon.  At that time we were trying to get concessions out of the government by giving them basic needs.  This is food.  This isn‘t weaponry.  But the problem is we couldn‘t then justify in 2005 where the food was actually going.  Look at the Oil-for-Food scandal in Iraq.

CARLSON:  What a remarkably unsophisticated strategy, perpetuated by remarkably unsophisticated group of foreign policy people in the White House. 

Here‘s what bothers me.  It‘s the liberal rhetoric that comes out of this White House on virtually every subject, particularly on foreign policy.  “We‘re not going to use food as a weapon,” as if we have an obligation to feed the people of North Korea, of all places? 

BLAKEMAN:  We don‘t have an obligation to feed the entire population, but we have an obligation, as part of the six-party talks, and as part of a good citizen, to try and lead these people to the proper path.  In some instances...

CARLSON:  By feeding their army?

BLAKEMAN:  We‘ve got to use the carrot and the stick.  It is distasteful, but unfortunately, it‘s one of the things that we must do in order for people to come around. 

CARLSON:  OK.  You may be—OK, but see on the one hand, you‘re Woodrow Wilson.  We have an obligation to spread democracy around the world.

On the other hand, you‘re Henry Kissinger.  We have to deal with the creeps when we have to deal with the creeps (ph).

Pick on, that‘s the point.  As soon as you frame foreign policy in moral terms, as this administration has done, you cut off—you are not allowed to deal with evil people once you determine that they‘re evil.  You see what I‘m saying?

BLAKEMAN:  Foreign policy is not black and white.  It‘s numerous shades of gray.  And what we can...

CARLSON:  Now we‘re learning. 

BLAKEMAN:  No, we‘re not learning.  That‘s been our policy.  But—but we have to try every arsenal that we have, including humanitarian aid, to try and get people to come around and do the right thing. 

CARLSON:  Let me just ask you one very quick question.  You said we stopped giving food aid to North Korea, because it turns out actually the people who run it are bad, and they stole the food, and they gave it to the army.

I want you to name one person in this administration who couldn‘t have predicted that would have happened.  Was there anybody who believed when we gave food aid, millions of dollars in food aid to North Korea, that the starving peasants were going to get it?  Who believed that?  How stupid.

BLAKEMAN:  Of course we knew that a certain amount would not reach its intended target.  We saw that for the Oil-for-Food scandal in Iraq.  But the problem is that we can‘t act unilaterally.  We‘re acting as a family of nations.  We‘re part of the six-party talks.  We are trying to act in concert with others to do the right thing. 

CARLSON:  Well, I think we should be like Israel.  We should be—we should be loyal to our friends and those who are loyal to us, and we should despise and undercut our enemies at every turn, I think.  Just me.  Maybe that‘s why I‘m a talk show host, not in charge of anything. 

Brad Blakeman, thanks for coming on. 

BLAKEMAN:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  Tonight‘s “Under the Radar” segment comes to us from Indianapolis, Indiana.  That‘s the first state in the nation where residents can get lifetime hand gun permits under a new law that went into effect this month.  What‘s wrong with that? 

Nothing as far as I can tell, because the standards haven‘t been changed.  My next guest represents an organization that calls the new law ludicrous. 


Elizabeth Haile is a stock lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  She joins us tonight from Washington. 

Elizabeth Haile, thanks for coming on.


Thanks for having me.

CARLSON:  I don‘t understand, of all the people who commit gun crimes in Indiana, it seems to me you‘d be the least worried about the ones who went to the trouble of applying for a permit.  They got fingerprinted and had a background check done.  Why are you concerned about liberalizing the laws that pertains to them?

HAILE:  Well, what we‘re concerned about is shifting the burden from individuals who want a permit to carry a gun in public to law enforcement. 

What this law does in Indiana, it‘s the first state in the country and the only state to have a law like this, and say that now law enforcement have to spend their time and their resources to continually track all of those permit holders in the state, instead of the permit holders coming to them every four year to reapply for their permits. 

CARLSON:  Interesting, Elizabeth.  Let me—since you all are opposing this, you obviously know a lot about it.  In the last year how many of those permit holders were convicted of a violent crime using a gun?

HAILE:  Well, it‘s a mistake to think that only good guys have gun permits.

CARLSON:  No, I understand.  It was a simple answer, though.  Did you have an answer?

HAILE:  I don‘t have information on Indiana.  But I do have information on...

CARLSON:  Wait a second.  Wait a second.  Are you telling me—this is kind of blowing my mind here, Elizabeth.  You are contesting this law.  You‘re saying it‘s bad public policy, it‘s dangerous, but you don‘t know how many of these policy holders have actually been convicted of violent crimes?  Wouldn‘t that be central to the argument?

HAILE:  There‘s no reason to think that Indiana is different from other states that have liberal laws granting permits. 

CARLSON:  No, Indiana is the only state with a law like this.  There‘s only one.

HAILE:  Right.  But there are many other states that have liberalized their laws in granting permits freely to people to carry guns in public.  In Florida, for instance, one state that has a law like that, over 500 licensees committed crimes after they got their permits. 

CARLSON:  Elizabeth, you‘re not telling the whole truth here.  Indiana is not liberalizing the law.  The standards to get the permit are not changing.  They are making it extend through the lifetime of the person who gets it.  You don‘t have to renew it.  But they‘re not changing the standards. 

Moreover, there are two states, as I understand it, that don‘t have any laws at all about concealed carry.  One of them is Vermont.  What‘s the violent crime rate in Vermont?  Negligible.  Negligible.

HAILE:  Well, actually, that‘s not true. 

CARLSON:  It is true.

HAILE:  There are many states—there are many states that have shown that, if you give out more permits to people to carry that crime rates have actually increased or crime rates have not gone down as much as in other states. 

In Texas, for instance, the study was done there, which has very liberal laws on granting permits, and it found that 66 percent—that people who had licenses in Texas to carry, it was 66 times more likely for them to—their arrest rate was 66 percent higher than the general adult population. 

CARLSON:  I‘m a little disappointed—I‘m a little disappointed here, and with all due respect, at the shoddiness of the arguments here. 

Again, you know as well as I, Indiana is not liberalizing the requirements for these permits.  It‘s merely saying you don‘t have to renew them every four years. 

You are opposing this.  If you haven‘t even done basic research on how many of these licensees have committed crimes.  I don‘t think any have in the last year.  And I think that‘s not only significant; it‘s central to the argument. 

The point is, these are law abiding people, maybe the most law abiding in the entire state.  Why are you spending your precious time and resources going after illegal guns and bad guys who commit crimes with those guns?

HAILE:  Of course, we are going after illegal guns, and that‘s one of the central tenets of the Brady campaign work this year.  But the fact is, is that this law in Indiana, we only share the concerns of law enforcement in Indiana, which has said that this law will just make it easier for people who should not have access to guns to be able to slip under the radar. 

There is no reason for this gun to have been passed, except to shift the burden from the gun owners themselves to law enforcement. 

CARLSON:  I honestly think that‘s a reactionary position.  Even though you‘re a gun control group, there are some liberalizing of gun laws that aren‘t a bad idea.  And I think what you should—I think you truly should reconsider your position on this, and I hope that you will. 

But I‘m glad you came on tonight.  Elizabeth Haile, thanks for joining us. 

HAILE:  Thanks for having me

CARLSON:  Still to come tonight, John McCain‘s anger management.  Some Republicans say the GOP frontrunner is out of control.  Will his temper keep him out of the White House?  Probably not, but we‘ll debate it.

And is “South Park” cruising to an Emmy Award?  The cartoon that mocked Tom Cruise can clean up at the TV awards ceremony.  Will Cruise fight back?  Will Scientology fight back?  That‘s all coming up.

But before we go to break, we want to tell you about some exciting changes on our show.  They start Monday, July 10.  At that point, we‘ll be on at 4 and 6 p.m. Eastern.  So set your TiVos, hide the children, and tune in.  We‘ll be right back. 


CARLSON:  Still to come, Western Union is blocking money transfers for Arabs, citing terror concerns.  We‘ll tell you why it‘s not such a bad decision.

Plus, more controversy surrounding the hit TV show “South Park”.  Stay tuned.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Is John McCain too angry to be president?  That‘s the charge from one Washington correspondent, who says the war hero and possible 2008 candidate may be unfit for the White House. 

We have the chief Washington correspondent for  He‘s also the author of the article entitled, “McCain‘s Out of Control Temper.  Does He Have the Temperament to Be President?”

Mr. Kessler joins us from Washington tonight.  Welcome.


CARLSON:   It‘s an interesting piece.  We got a call earlier tonight from McCain‘s Senate office suggesting that we not do this story, annoyed about it. 

But I have to say, having read it, I‘m not exactly sure why.  I don‘t think your piece, even if every antidote in it is verifiably true, and I don‘t know if that‘s the case, but even if they‘re all true, I think it makes him look like a kind of interesting guy who swears a lot.  Why does this make him crazy?

KESSLER:  I mean, if you want a movie character, an action character, maybe that‘s fine, but if you want somebody in the White House who will have a stable personality, and especially given the fact that once you get in the White House there‘s this tremendous stress, and very typically presidents become arrogant and out of control.  You want somebody with a very stable character. 

If we ignore these clues to character, as we did with Richard Nixon, with some other presidents, then we get a Watergate.  This is not somebody, in the opinion of his Senate colleagues, who‘ve dealt with him, that you‘d necessarily want on the nuclear trigger. 

CARLSON:  I mean, look, he doesn‘t get along with the people he works in the Senate.  He does get along with the people who work for him, though.  He‘s got the same staff for, I think, since he‘s been in the United States Senate, virtually 20 years.  You know, he‘s got a very loyal staff, and he‘s loyal back to them.

And going through these specifically, you have a former senator, Senator Smith from New Hampshire, saying McCain used the “F” word.  So what?  I mean, good for him. 

KESSLER:  Yes, the whole quote is he said he‘s never seen anybody get so out of control as this person. 

CARLSON:  Right.

KESSLER:  And typically, for example, McCain will ask for support from a particular senator for his presidential race, and the senator will say, “I‘m already committed to Bush, unfortunately.”  And McCain will start saying, “F you,” and just tearing into him and then not talking to this person again, forever.  I mean, it‘s unbelievable. 

CARLSON:  No doubt he‘s a hot head.  And you make the point, and I think this is a completely fair point, that McCain is covered in a very different way than other members of the Senate.  The press loves McCain, and they treat him, you know, with a certain reverence, and they don‘t attack him in the way they attack, say, Trent Lott. 

But isn‘t—I mean, isn‘t—that‘s not bad in itself.  Just because the press likes you doesn‘t mean you‘re a bad person, A.  B, don‘t we want senators or politicians, more broadly, who say what they think, who are amusing from time to time, who tell off color jokes.  I want that. 

KESSLER:  Well, first of all, regardless of whether it‘s good or bad.  It‘s something the voters should know about.  And it certainly is not up to the press to decide whether they should or should not tell the voters about this. 

And as far as NSA secrets, but it‘s not fine to tell what this person is really like.  And when you have a situation where his Senate colleagues almost universally despise him, you know, will not even support—did not support him for president, and there are only four senators who supported him.

And there‘s this whole club, and this whole secrecy about this character trait.  That‘s certainly something, you know, the voters should know about. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I just—in my very extensive experience with John McCain he‘s less a pompous blowhard than a lot of the guys who are in the United States Senate.

KESSLER:  Yes, he‘s very good at dealing with the press.  You know, he seems to be open, he admits some failings.  He has nice parties.  He criticizes various agencies like the FBI and the CIA, and the press loves that. 

But the question again is, you know, when you hire someone, and we are hiring a president.

CARLSON:  Right.

KESSLER:  When you hire an electrician or a plumber or you choose a best friend, do you choose someone who has such an explosive temper, who seems so out of control?

CARLSON:  Here‘s what I don‘t understand, though.  The right has always had it out for McCain.  Now I am on the right.  I bet I‘m further right than you are.  I‘m further right than almost anybody I know.  But I like John McCain, and conservatives don‘t.  They distrust him. 

And yet on the merits of it, McCain is certainly no more liberal than President Bush, who gets the ultimate pass from conservatives.  They buy almost anything he says.  But they have identical foreign policies, for instance.  They are identical on social issues.  So people hate McCain for being liberal, but he‘s not more liberal than Bush.  I don‘t get it. 

KESSLER:  Well, you know, Bush has his own issues, unfortunately, and I think a lot of that has to do with the press in the other direction.

CARLSON:  Right.

KESSLER:  The press, you know, comes up with these caricatures of him as a concern or a threat to the human race when he simply topples someone who killed 300,000 people.  And is in fact, making it safer.  That‘s why we‘ve not been attacked in five years. 

But this is not a conservative/liberal issue.  This is simply an issue of character, of stability.  And I think the first thing you want when you choose a president is somebody who‘s going to be stable, and that is the issue that I brought out.  And it‘s someone that the mainstream media does not touch. focuses on the factual material and is not afraid to tell the truth, and that‘s what this is.

CARLSON:  I must say in the year I spent with the guy, enough time to spend with McCain, I think I would notice these things, but I did not think he was unstable at all.  I did think he was very amusing. 

KESSLER:  He was fine with the press, and he may be fine with many of his employees, but see—but when it comes to other people he deals with, people he wants something from, other senators, it‘s a horror show. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Ron Kessler.  Well, thanks for joining us. 

KESSLER:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  Still to come, Muslim activists are outraged—they‘re always outraged.  But this time by the decision by the money wiring service, Western Union.  We‘ll tell you why they‘re upset in just a minute. 

Plus, two long-time rivals join forces to bring down the Coke caper.  Find out how the plot to sell Coca-Cola‘s recipe to Pepsi fizzles, when THE SITUATION comes back. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Some Muslim groups are complaining that Western Union, the money transferring agency, is discriminating against people with Islamic sounding names. 

Like the airlines Western Union uses a version of the government‘s terrorism watch list and it denies services to people it believes might be connected to terrorist cells.  Is this a necessary evil to keep America safe?  Or is it financial profiling?  Or is it both?

Here to tell us, Air America radio host, Rachel Maddow. 

Rachel, welcome.  Of course it‘s both. 

They haven‘t caught anybody yet doing this.  On the other hand Western Union was used by Mohammad Atta twice.  You can see why they would be paranoid.  It is evil.  It‘s a necessary evil.

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  But what‘s the Mohammed Atta story really about, though, Tucker?  The idea that Mohammed Atta used Western Union twice before he hijacked that plane.  Would stopping him from using Western Union, from sending money to his relatives, that would have stopped him from hijacking the plane?  No.

CARLSON:  Stopping the flow of money to Mohammed Atta and the 18 other hijackers would, of course. 

MADDOW:  Right.  But in this case what‘s happened—he was sending money out. 

CARLSON:  Right.

MADDOW:  That‘s what we know he was doing.  So would that have stopped him?  No, it wouldn‘t have. 

CARLSON:  But the point is, we know for a fact that terrorists have used Western Union.  They used money wiring.

MADDOW:  Sure.  Terrorists have also used public pay phones and bathrooms.  The question is what you‘re actually getting from stopping them from using these things? 

They would have us believe that they have this international, high tech, spy monitoring system looking at all the international financial transactions, and following those money transfers that track the terrorists and do all these things.

CARLSON:  Right.

MADDOW:  Sounds like they have this incredible strategy.  But it turns out the way it actually works is that nobody named Mohammed can use Western Union now. 

CARLSON:  Well, no, I mean, that‘s not true.  I mean, there are probably 100 million people in this world called Mohammed, and a lot of them use Western Union. 

And in fact, this is not the government.  This is Western Union itself.

MADDOW:  Using the treasury‘s guidelines that say anybody who has a name similar to one of these 700 people named Mohammed can‘t use Western Union. 

CARLSON:  No, it‘s can use.  It‘s about one percent of transactions are screened, are looked at, and sometimes there is a delay of hours.  Occasionally, the transaction is blocked.  But the point is, they‘re paying attention, which is, I think, important because there are a lot of bad guys who are, in fact, Muslims who, in fact, Muslims, who in fact, have Muslim names like Mohammed, who are, in fact, trying to kill us. 

MADDOW:  OK.  If you want to say the fact that there are bad guys means that we should do a whole lot of irrational things that doesn‘t stop bad guys from doing bad things, then that‘s kind of—you‘re getting into a situation where can you justify anything.

CARLSON:  Well, I agree with that.  But then why doesn‘t the left ever give us any examples of things we ought to be doing that pertain to specifically radical Muslims.  There‘s this kind of pretending that the terror threat comes from I don‘t know who.  No, it comes from Muslims, and don‘t you think we ought to be focusing our efforts on looking at radical Muslims? 

MADDOW:  You know, I have an idea.


MADDOW:  We could try to catch Osama bin Laden.  We can keep that CIA office open that was looking for him.

CARLSON:  On this show yesterday, I was complaining about that.  It‘s unbelievable, it‘s unbelievable, it‘s outrageous, but don‘t you think the left refuses to call the terror threat what it is?  It‘s a religious terror threat from the religious extremists. 

MADDOW:  Tucker, I understand that in trying to track terror networks and trying to track these people, there‘s going to be some privacy questions raised.  There‘s going to be trade-offs that have to be made.  And when those tradeoffs are made, actually trade me something.  Privacy rights and fairness matters. 

CARLSON:  I agree.  Trust me, I agree with that.

MADDOW:  If we have to give those things away, do it for something that actually gets you something.  Literally prohibiting men named Mohammed and Ahmed from using Western Union, what that does is it drives them into the whole separate Middle Eastern system which we don‘t monitor at all.  It gives us nothing in terms of security.  And we trade away our rights and fairness in return and get a lot of anger for that.  It‘s a bad deal. 

CARLSON:  Well, we don‘t have a right to use Western Union.  Western Union is—I mean, that‘s not a right. 

MADDOW:  No, but racial profiling does violate rights. 

CARLSON:  It can.  In this case it doesn‘t violate any rights, but it may be dumb.  And that actually is a serious argument.  Is it effective?  Is it ineffective? 

I just—I would just like to see the left or maybe America in general, the right too, take terror more seriously and name our adversary.  Just call it what it is. 

MADDOW:  Adversaries, and actually start talking about doing stuff that really makes a difference towards making us safer as opposed to chasing bogeymen all the time and using it to do all this anti-privacy, anti-civil rights stuff they‘ve wanted to get away with forever. 

CARLSON:  Yes, like build a wall on our southern and northern borders.  That‘s exactly right.  Rachel, I know I‘ve won you over on that.  Rachel Maddow. 

MADDOW:  Every night I die a little bit. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I know you do.  A little bit.  Every night I become stronger as I absorb you, Rachel.  Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW:  You‘re terrifying. 

CARLSON:  And you are terrific.  We‘re really happy to have you here. 

Thank you. 

Still to come, Sony‘s new ad for PlayStation Portable picks up a big controversy.  Is the black and white billboard racist? 

Plus yesterday you met a man who burned the American flag on the Fourth of July to express his profound love for this country.  Tonight a man who risked his life for America fires back.  Stay tuned for that.


CARLSON:  Up next, the Emmy‘s take aim at Tom Cruise.  Does South Park‘s nomination mean people are no longer afraid of Scientology?  That would be a change.  Plus, a “SURVIVOR” winner shoots a puppy with an arrow.  Horrifying details in a moment.  But first, here‘s what‘s going on in the world tonight.


CARLSON:  We turn now to a man whose master of the devil‘s advocate position would make Satan himself proud.  He is “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host, the great Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, “THE OUTSIDER”: I try to make him proud every day, Tucker.  

CARLSON:  That is a little bit over the top.  I bet you and Satan have nothing in common.  You‘re a genuinely good guy, Max.   

KELLERMAN:  Plus, I exist. 

CARLSON:  I can‘t—I can‘t debate religion with you again. 

There is instead tonight racial controversy.  It seems, to me, unwarranted racial controversy stirring over a new ad for the Sony Play Station.  The NAACP among other groups are calling racism over this advertisement, that   shows a white woman grabbing a   black woman by the face, with the text, “Play Station Portable White is coming.”  The ad is mean to show that play station is now available in white as well as black. 

So far, the billboards appear only in Europe.   Sony says it‘s merely

advertising a new color, but the company‘s UKoffice says it will   not run

the ad.   I don‘t even get this ad, Max.  I don‘t   understand what it‘s

supposed to be saying, I don‘t understand the argument that it‘s racist.  I don‘t get any of it. Maybe can you help? 

KELLERMAN:  Shame on the NAACP for   falling for this.  Just like,

shame on everyone who fell for “The Passion of the Christ,” or for “The Da

Vinci Code,”—you make a   controversial ad or movie or write book, and of

course, every group that jumps on it makes it   more popular.   Here is the

argument why it‘s racist:  first of all, Tucker, much of your audience is thinking, why is it not racist?   Maybe that‘s the better question to begin with. 

CARLSON:  Why is it not?  Because, not every depiction of a white

person and   black person is racist.  I don‘t understand what is peculiarly

racist about it.   Maybe one person is being mean   to the other, but it‘s

not   clear because of skin color.  I don‘t know. I don‘t get the ad at

all.  It doesn‘t make me want to buy the product, I‘ll tell you that.  

KELLERMAN:  In this case it says, “white is coming.”  Now, white

people are not actually white.  We are pink or tan, or yellow, I don‘t know

what color we are. It‘s really an inscrutable color. Black people are not

really  black, they are brown, so a  campaign that is saying “white is 

coming,” showing a white person,  who we only identify as white  because of

cultural context , taking a black person by the   face, who we only

identify as black  because of cultural context,   and dominating that

person, which  happens to reflect or echo historically  what has happened, is going to  be seen by people as racist because it‘s not even literal white and black, it‘s a metaphor   based on our history, which has been very bad towards black people.    

CARLSON:  I get that.  The whole thing seems so dumb.   Let me just concede a small part of   your argument.  I do think that you are right  when you say people are falling  for this ad, I think it was  clearly designed to provoke the argument we are having now, to provoke an argument, is it racists? Does it have something to do with slavery or domination or whatever, and thereby get free publicity for the Sony product in question?  So, I do think it was designed to be talked about as a racist ad.   

KELLERMAN:  Also, implicitly, if you prefer white, you think white is

better.  And, again, you are seeing a pink person, dominate physically a

brown person, but it‘s called white dominating black, and it‘s   because

you believe that there   is some kind of intrinsic value in being white.  

I mean, clearly there is a racist tone. 

CARLSON:  For the record, I would   rather have the black one.

KELLERMAN:  Yeah, me too, it doesn‘t get dirty as easily. 

CARLSON:  Well, that‘s a good point.  The creators of South Park proved today that it pays to make fun of Tom Cruise.   The animated Comedy Central series was nominated for an Emmy for its “Trapped in the Closet” episode that not so subtly implies that Tom Cruise is a homosexual, and also makes fun of   Scientology.  Scientologist Isaac Hayes, who played the voice of the popular Chef character allegedly, quit the show in protest over the   episode.  It was also alleged that Tom Cruise himself called to have the show pulled from Comedy Central. 

I think, Max, this Emmy nomination finally makes it OK for every

man, woman, and child on the planet to make fun of Scientology.  And that

really is a sea change in American public opinion.  For many years, ever

since I think about  1990 or 1991, “Time” magazine wrote a very famous

cover story about  scientology, calling it “the cult of greed,” and that

reporter   was harassed to no end by the so-called Church of  Scientology. 

People, frankly, in the   press have been terrified of   Scientology. 

Don‘t say a bad word about it, they‘ll kill your dog, is what reporters say to one another.  And I think this means now, no one is afraid any more.  

KELLERMAN:  Which is a good thing.   But, you know, really, we should not be   afraid to make fun of anything.

CARLSON:  I couldn‘t agree more.  

KELLERMAN:  That‘s South Park‘s point.   In terms of Scientology being more of a target than Christianity or Judaism, or Islam, look it hasn‘t stood the test of time.  It hasn‘t been around for thousands of years, so it‘s kind of a little unfair.  But basically, Tucker, good   people are good people, and they look for reasons to be god.  Bad people the same thing, they look for reasons to be bad.   In all the major religions you can   rationalize behavior any which way   you want, and it‘s probably the same, though don‘t know much about it, for Scientology.  I don‘t know why it‘s more ok to make fun of   Scientology than other religions.   

CARLSON:  Well, because I think it‘s slightly more ludicrous than   other religions   It was invented by a Science-Fiction writer.   Recently, too.   At least in other world religions we can look back through the haze of history and say, we‘re not exactly sure what happened, we think this is what happened, right?  And that adds a patina of authenticity to whatever religion it is we are talking about.  We are talking here about a guy who lived in my lifetime and died in my lifetime. L. Ron Hubbard, who wrote pulp novels, and made up  this kind of  crackpot belief system which now   calls itself a religion, and  has tax exemption, thanks to the IRS, outrageously so.  I don‘t know, yes, it‘s weirder than Judaism or Christianity.   

KELLERMAN:  But I would submit to you that it was always some crackpot

in their time who was labeled a crackpot, who invented or helped evolve

some religion, and simply because we are closure to it historically, that

person   looks more like a paranoid   schizophrenic or a delusional person,

but if you look   at the roots of any religion, from another point of -

from someone outside from that religion, especially from an atheist‘s point of view, it all looks pretty ridiculous.  

CARLSON:  Yes, that may be true.  But I can‘t interview anybody who knew Moses personally and said, oh, the guy‘s a nut-head.  You can interview people who knew L. Ron Hubbard who would say things like that so I guess that‘s the difference.  

KELLERMAN:  It is a lot of fun to make fun of Scientology, and I am glad, finally, people are not afraid to do it anymore. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  Check your mailbox anyway, though, Max. 

Max Kellerman.  Thanks Max.

Well, as you may have heard, we   are taking our show to new   hours next week, and in doing so, to a new and different TV audience, at least to some extent.  That change will also mean somewhat different program content than the one that you may be used to seeing at this   hour, simply because we are a late-night show.  So we decided to scan our  vast SITUATION video archives for a  look back at the guests this network   would not dare put on at 6:00pm eastern time.  Here now in an expanded version on our “Top Five,” we take you on a somewhat bizarre stroll down late-night memory lane.  


CARLSON (voice over):  Packing a year‘s worth of not-ready-for-primetime SITUATION moments into a “Top Five” countdown is no easy task.   So tonight, we double your viewing pleasure with a special Top Ten list of things we won‘t be doing in our new time slot.

#10 Symphonic Whistling:  Sure, we thought Chris Ullman, the symphonic

whistler was perfect for late night, but among discriminating viewers, it

was clear: this act really   blows. 

                #9 Elvis Impersonations:  Guest Bill Beany   understandably left

us all   shook up in the wee hours of the night, but now, sadly, Elvis has

left the building for good. 

BILL BEANY, ELVIS IMPERSONATOR:  Dial up on your computer, Tucker.  

KELLERMAN:  I am Max, but you can call me Tucker.  You can call me

Tucker, I am flattered  

BEANY: T can call you anything but Tucker.   .  

                CARLSON:  #8 Face Dancing:  Face dancing may be the   latest fad from

across the   pond, but when MSNBC bean counters caught wind of this

transatlantic hookup, they immediately pulled the plug on our satellite capabilities. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are having a stack attack here tonight.

CARLSON:  #7 Cup Stacking:  Here‘s another feat that was a hit with our   easy -to-amuse late-night fans,   many of them drunk.   But much to our surprise, MSNBC were not impressed. 

                #6 William Hung:  Sure American singing   sensation William Hung hit

all the  right notes with insomniac TV   viewers, but apparently he is no

idol to people who watch when the sun is out.  

#5 Burlesque Strip Teases:  We thought this burlesque strip tease was an informative piece for women sincerely trying to lose weight.  But other‘s recognized it for what it was: gratuitous soft-core porn posing as a health show.

#4 Tony Kiss:  Now, here is an act that went over big on late-night TV.  Any earlier than that than that, we were told, could give small children nightmares.   The same was said about Richard Simmons.  

#3 Zen Screaming:  No, this woman isn‘t a TV critic, just an author with a unique way of   communicating.  Our bosses‘ final verdict?  Funny for late night, obnoxious any earlier than that.  

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN:  I was a dinosaur in a previous life.

CARLSON:  #2 Stupid Pet Tricks:  When it comes to featuring fantastic feats from furry friends, Ringling Brothers‘ has   nothing on this program.   But the network suits ordered us to leave the stupid pet tricks to David Letterman.  Sorry, Mikey, you‘re fired.

#1 Competitive Eating:  And, finally, we will never forget the exploits of competitive eating champion Sonia Thomas.  We found her deep-throat technique quite impressive.  

CARLSON:  That‘s legitimately eating.  That‘s not just scarfing.

CARLSON:  But ultimately, the powers that be said not for the dinner hour.  Fortunately two TV professionals dancing is a sure fire ratings hit any time of day. 


CARLSON (on camera):  Coming up on THE SITUATION, President Bush   celebrated a milestone birthday today.  We‘ll tell you why the White House Press Corps may have been better off just sending a card.   Coming right back. 


CARLSON:  In tonight‘s SITUATION “Crime Blotter,” we find three people who learned the hard way that you don‘t mess with Coca Cola‘s secrets.  Federal prosecutors in Atlanta charged the three, one of whom is a Coca Cola executive, of stealing secrets from Coca Cola and trying to sell them to PepsiCo.  In an impressive sign of sportsmanship, Pepsi immediately went to Coke when the number two soft-drink company received a letter offering that secret information.  A Pepsi spokesman said, quote, “Competition can sometimes be fierce, but it should also be fair and legal.”

What is it with survivor   winners? Richard Hatch is in jail for   tax evasion, and now the 2002 “SURVIVOR” Thailand champ is in big trouble too.  Brian Heidik was arrested yesterday after allegedly shooting a puppy with an arrow.  Yes, you heard that right.   Both his name and what he did.  He shot a puppy with an arrow.   Hi, dick.   He says thought the puppy was a coyote that had been harassing his pets.  His wife called the cops and said he was preparing to shoot another puppy.  Thankfully, both dogs lived.  He is clearly a sick puppy.

And a terrifying story tonight out of New York City, where a man

has been arrested for attacking a 64 year-old postal worker with a power

saw at a subway station.   Police say Tareyton Williams went after the

postal worker as he came to the subway turnstile.  Williams reportedly.  

screaming and waving two saws in the air before he attacked and robbed his

victim.  Williams has been charged with attempted murder. The victim is in

serious condition   tonight. 

                Well, on that high note, time now to review the best of   your

voicemails this week, all week you have been calling in, all week we have been recording you, not so secretly.  Let‘s see what we came up with.  

First up:  

Bill, from Middleburg, Pennsylvania:  Tucker, you are wrong, fundamentalists are fundamentalists, whether they are Muslim, maybe fundamentalists Christians don‘t kill people physically or make threats, but they are just as dangerous.  Look at the Air Force Academy scandal.  They really are scary. 

                CARLSON:  Let me just clue you in   here, Bill.   Nothing something as

dangerous   as being killed.  Being killed is the most   dangerous thing

that there is, OK?  Because when you are dead there are no   options after

that.   So, in fact, the extremists, the fundamentalists who kill you or threaten to do so are more dangerous than those who don‘t.  You have got less to fear from the   Methodists than you do from the Shiites.  Sorry, just the truth.  Next up: 

JOE: I am from Midland, Texas, my name is Joe, and I saw a part where this guy reorganized the burning of the flag.  I don‘t believe that because we have the right to burn the flag that we should do it, not when people are dying for that flag.  

CARLSON:  Exactly, nicely put, Joe.  Just because you can do something doesn‘t mean you ought to do it.  And if you do it, don‘t tell me you‘re doing it out of love.   That is, I beat you up because I love you.  It‘s not only a lie but its sick and perverse.   You burn the American flag; you are committing an act of   hatred against America.   Admit it.  If you are going to do it, just admit it.   Next up:

SEAN, LOS ANGELES:  I have been here from 1980, and I am proud to be in this country.  It‘s the greatest country in   the world.

CARLSON: Thank you, Sean.  For all the efforts we spend  

attacking illegal immigration as a phenomenon,   it‘s nice to be reminded

that   immigrants, legal ones, really are one of the  nicest things about

this   country, so thanks for calling in.  Your calls have been so good; we

are going to take them every day, beginning on Monday in our new 4:00 and 6:00pm eastern time slot.  The number, 1-877-TCARLSON, that‘s 877-822-7576. 

So give us a call.   Still ahead tonight on our   final show at 11:00 pm -

feeling sad about it already - the inexplicable, on-going phenomenon of  

David Hasselhoff‘s fame.   It continues, believe it or not.  The “Hoff” may

soon find himself at number one on the I-tunes music chart.  We‘ll tell you

how that is   possible when Willie Geist arrives,   right in a minute.               

                (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

                CARLSON:  Every night for more than a   year, at about 11:55

Willie Geist has joined us on “The Cutting Room Floor,” and tonight he‘s no different.

WILLIE GEIST, “SITUATION” PRODUCER:  I can finally get some sleep now, Tucker.  Earlier hours.  You know, we did the piece about things we can‘t do at 4 and 6.

CARLSON:  And there are many.

GEIST:  That holds true for my segment, too.  So, I just wanted to say - I don‘t like to say good-bye, but just thank you to some of our friends.   The Puerto Rican mayor who used taxpayer money to build a UFO landing strip, thank you.

Well, this is another mayor, right here.  This is Mayor Troy Anderson of Waldron, Arkansas, 72 year-old gentleman who was offering free water-hookups   in exchange for sex to his citizens.

I‘d like to invite another guy: a special thank-you to our old friend, William Winikoff.  He is the 76 year-old man who posed as a doctor in Florida and went around giving free breast exams.  And, as we stated, a couple women   fell for it.  Sure, I‘ll take a free breast exam.  He had the doctor bag and the stethoscope.  You can‘t make this stuff up.  

CARLSON:  What you need is the pictures of the ladies who feel for it. 

GEIST:  Exactly.

CARLSON:  Not to blame the victim, but.

GEIST: The guy who got a DUI on a lawn mower, I mean it goes on: 

The guy who told his wife that he killed a hitchhiker so she would leave him.  The list is so long, we could be here all night. 

CARLSON:  That guy was my all time favorite.

GEIST:  Goodbye, old friends. 

CARLSON:  President bush turned 60 today.  He looks pretty good for his age,   doesn‘t he?  The all-day celebration of the president‘s birthday included a half-hearted serenade from the White House Press Corps after a news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.   Listen.   


WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS (Singing): Happy birthday, happy birthday to you.   

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He just told me he is 30 years old.   Happy birthday.   .  


GEIST: Isn‘t there something a   little North Korean about the   press singing to its president?  Singing “Happy Birthday” to a president.

CARLSON:  There is a little bit.  But they got their revenge by, “Happy Birthday to you.” 

GEIST:  I was going to say, if that wasn‘t the obligatory office birthday party where it‘s the bosses birthday and you stand there, and you stand there, “Happy Birthday.”  

CARLSON:  No, you know what that was?  That was your 13 year-old sister.  

GEIST:  We had a birthday in our office today, but I have to say there was heartfelt singing led by this gentleman, Tucker Carlson. 

CARLSON:  Oh gosh, I‘m the first one - always the first one to sing. 

GEIST:  Always.

                CARLSON:  Speaking of voices, most of   us wake up each and every

day asking ourselves the question, why is   David Hasselhoff famous? Well,

here is one reason why:  a group of British Hasselhoff fans have started a website called  The idea is to get 75,000 people to   sign up at this site, and then to all go at once to I-tunes to buy Hasselhoff‘s 1980‘s single, “Looking for Freedom”.  That would send “The Hoff,” to number one on the I-tunes chart, and disrupt the celestial movements of the stars. 

GEIST:  Where he rightfully belongs. 

I want to read a quote from the website.  “Think of what he has given to the world, Night Rider, Baywatch, the reunification of East and West Germany, he has given a   lot, and it‘s time we gave something back.”  And isn‘t it time we gave something back to “The Hoff.”  He‘s done so much. 

Put him on top of the charts. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know who the hell “The Hoff” is.

GEIST:  You don‘t do who Hasselhoff is?

CARLSON:  No, I really - and I‘m not just saying that.

GEIST:  What rock have you been living under?

CARLSON:  All I know is that Keith Olbermann on his show has pictures of Hasselhoff crying at American Idol.  That‘s the only piece I know.  

GEIST:  He‘s a little bit of a crier.  He‘s the phenomenon where he‘s huge in Germany.  He‘s a joke here, but he‘s huge in Germany.  He is the star of Baywatch, Night Rider where he talked to his car and his car spoke back to him.   He is an American icon.   You really don‘t know who he is? 

CARLSON:  No, I really don‘t.   I thought he was supposed to be huge in Japan, not Germany.  I grew up in a land, far, far away, Willie.

GEIST: Iceland?  I want to point out one other thing that happened today.


GEIST:  There was a little fire over at Ozzy Osbourne‘s place over in England. 

CARLSON: Oh, ouch, yes.

GEIST:  I don‘t think that he was aware that it happened.  It‘s not him in the fire, certainly, but his place went up in flames, his big estate.   There was smoke damage.   I think everybody is OK, as it turns out, and I think that he is probably oblivious.   I just had a picture of him sitting   on the couch, still watching TV with the ashes of his home around him.   

CARLSON:  He is probably watching now.  He‘s shocked to learn his house burned down. 

GEIST:  This is breaking news for you, Ozzie, get out.

CARLSON:  Willie Geist.  See you Monday.  You‘ll be glad to know that Willie Geist will be on our program, much earlier, but he‘ll be there.

Thank you for watching for the   last year.  I know it‘s late, you‘ve stayed up all year, and we appreciate it.  We will see you at our new time, 4 and 6pm eastern, on Monday.  Have a great weekend.  



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.