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

'Tucker' for Oct. 20

Read the transcript to the Friday show

Guests: Karen Finney, Charmaine Yoest, Mary Ross Agosta, Alex Bennett, Pat Campbell, Peter Fenn

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Welcome to the show.  I‘m Tucker Carlson.

We‘ve got a lot to get to today, including a Catholic priest‘s confession about his sick relationship with Mark Foley.  And an increasingly popular course being taught on college campuses.  How to blame America for everything.  We‘ll show you how students‘ minds are being polluted with anti-American rhetoric from day one. 

But we begin with the Republican Party pulling out the terror card just about two weeks ahead of the midterm elections. The war on terror has been a central theme in the Republican effort to hold on to control of Congress, of course, but many say the new Republican campaign commercial goes too far in exploiting the fear that another September 11th is just around the corner. 

Take a look and judge for yourself. 

My next guest says that ad proves the Republicans are “desperate”.  Karen Finney is the communications director for the Democratic National Committee.  She joins us today from Washington. 

Karen, thanks for coming. 


CARLSON:  I think there are a number of attacks that this White House as leveled against its enemies that are unfair, but this ad seems to get right to the heart of what this election is about, what every post-9/11 election is about, and that‘s about terrorism and who does a better job protecting us. 

I don‘t know what‘s wrong with this ad. 

FINNEY:  Well, I think it doesn‘t actually present the facts.  I mean, the facts are, as we‘ve seen from 16 intelligence agencies, the president‘s policies in Iraq are actually creating more terrorists, not making us any safer. 

It doesn‘t get into the fact that the truth is that, after 9/11, here we are and Osama bin Laden is still on the run.  And yet, why is it that George Bush moved our Special Ops forces out of Afghanistan to go fight the war in Iraq when they had him on the run?

Why is it that on Republican watch we still have gaps in our security right here at home?  We have seen the 9/11 Commission give this administration, you know, failing grades.  We have seen, you know, North Korea testing nuclear weapons.  So...

CARLSON:  OK.  Wait, wait, wait.  Hold on.


FINNEY:  But Tucker, how do they think that that‘s a record to run on? 


FINNEY:  I mean, the one thing they‘re right about with this ad is that there is a lot at stake.  And I would submit to you is, there‘s so much at stake you can‘t—people can‘t afford to vote for Republicans. 

CARLSON:  OK.  I mean, I understand that‘s your position, but, look, let‘s just back up here.

On the question of Iraq, separate issue, and the question of North Korea, separate issue, I tend to actually kind of agree with you, as I‘m sure you know.  But the bottom line is that we haven‘t been hit in this country since 9/11.  There‘s a reason for that.

I‘m not exactly sure what that reason is, but like most open-minded people, I‘m willing to give the people in charge some credit for it.  And the people in charge are the Republicans.  What‘s wrong with them saying that—saying that? 

FINNEY:  But you know what, Tucker?  The bottom line is there‘s more that we can be doing to keep us safe right here at home that we aren‘t doing. 

These are the kinds of things that Democrats have been pushing for, that Republicans have blocked for years.  That‘s the point.  And that‘s not something they want to talk about.  I think this ad also shows...

CARLSON:  All right.  I want to put—I want to put...

FINNEY:  Wait.

CARLSON:  Karen, I want to put your ad on the air.


CARLSON:  I want to put the Democratic response, something of a response to this spot on the air.

Here‘s yours.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  There‘s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, “Wanted Dead or Alive”.

I repeat what I said.  I truly am not that concerned about him.

Bin Laden...

Bin Laden...

Bin Laden...

Bin Laden...

Osama bin Laden...

Bin Laden...

Bin Laden...

Bin Laden...

Bin Laden... 


CARLSON:  I‘m not really sure I understand that ad exactly.  Is the point that the Bush administration is ignoring bin Laden or they‘re obsessed with bin Laden?  Or both? 

FINNEY:  Well, the point is that at first we heard a lot about bin Laden, and then the president says he‘s not so concerned about Osama bin Laden, which I found very disconcerting.  And then all of a sudden, as the campaign nears and they‘re cranking up that fear meter, he talks about—he mentions bin Laden‘s 17 times in one speech. 

CARLSON:  Well, aren‘t you pleased?  Aren‘t you pleased by that?  You just said you were concerned that he wasn‘t concerned.  Now that he is concerned, aren‘t you happy? 

FINNEY:  They‘re cranking up—but they‘re doing that to crank up the field.  Look, they‘ve got nothing else to run on.

CARLSON:  Well, wait a second.  Wait a second.  Wait, wait, wait. 

You‘re arguing that we have something to fear.

FINNEY:  No, no, no.  Tucker, this is the—this is the—this is...

CARLSON:  Shouldn‘t you be glad?

FINNEY:  ... this is the tactic that we see from these guys time and time again.  They won the last election by the skin of their teeth and the only thing they have left—they have screwed up our economy, they‘re making a mess in Iraq, they‘re making a mess with the war on terror, they‘re making a mess with our budget deficits.  So the only thing they have left is to try to scare people to the polls.

My goodness.  I mean, even people like...

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know.  Wait a second, Karen.  But there is something to be scared—I mean, I kind of get what you‘re saying.  On the other hand,, you haven‘t answered the basic bottom-line question, you know, why haven‘t we been attacked? 

And second, do Democrats really understand that there is something to be afraid of?  That may be the difference between the parties.

FINNEY:  Of course.  Nobody wants to be—none—we‘re all—none of us wants to be attacked.  I mean, I think we all want to make sure that we‘re doing everything to keep America safe.


FINNEY:  And that is part of our point.  There are a lot of things that we could be doing right now to keep America safe that we are not doing.  And the truth is, Republicans have blocked Democrats‘ efforts to make sure that we are closing the gaps in our security right here at home...

CARLSON:  All right.

FINNEY:  ... not to mention doing a better job—how about—here‘s one for you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Karen, I‘m sorry—wait—wait—no.  I know the feeling.  If I stop, I let down my guard, you‘re going to flatten me like the rhetorical bulldozer that you are.  And I mean that in a good way.

FINNEY:  That‘s good for you.

CARLSON:  But thank you.  I appreciate you coming on. 

FINNEY:  Thanks for having me.

CARLSON:  You‘re certainly an able spokesman for your point of view.

Thanks, Karen.

FINNEY:  Thanks.

CARLSON:  Well, Democratic victory might have less to do with one television ad, one way or the other, and more to do with Republican political infighting.  And there‘s a lot of it.

That party is splitting along the seams.  Libertarians bickering with evangelicals, blaming neocons.  Back and forth a circular firing squad.

Well, in a series of recent statements, former House majority leader Dick Armey has attacked his own party for pandering to religious conservatives on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

Has the White House spent too much time focused on evangelicals?

Here with her take on that, Charmaine .  She‘s vice president for communications at the Family Research Council.  She joins us from Washington.

Charmaine, thanks for coming on.

CHARMAINE YOEST, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL:  Hey, Tucker.  Good to be with you. 

CARLSON:  It is an interesting—it is an interesting question, actually, that—that former Congressman Armey raises.

Here you have one veto in six years the president exercises.  One.  And it‘s not on behalf of fiscal conservatives, it‘s not to stop the out-of-control spending by the Republican Congress.  It‘s to veto a bill about stem cell.  It‘s—essentially, it‘s a bill for—it‘s a veto exercised for Christian conservatives. 

I‘m not against it, but he has a point, doesn‘t he? 

YOEST:  Well, Tucker, I think that this is really kind of an interesting political strategy, though.  It‘s really pretty mystifying to those of us looking on.  We have not even voted yet, and yet Dick Armey is coming out and starting to cast blame. 

I mean, if the—if the Republican Party does manage to pull this election out, I think in large part it will be because values voters have stuck with the Republican Party. 


YOEST:  So, I think it‘s a really—it‘s a very, very odd strategy. 

CARLSON:  Well, that is actually—I think that‘s actually a totally valid and correct point. 

YOEST:  Yes.

CARLSON:  If Republicans—I mean, that‘s the only reason Bush was reelected, was because of evangelicals. 

But let‘s get to one specific issue, and that‘s the question of stem cells. 


CARLSON:  It really—it‘s an issue on which, you know, the president, you know, has invested a lot of political capital.  And he‘s been pushed to do that by Christian conservatives. 

YOEST:  Well...

CARLSON:  Voters, however, ordinary voters, actually aren‘t on your side.  Abortion, you know, a lot of people understand why that‘s wrong.  Stem cells, the overwhelming majority of the public wants the government to fund research using stem cells.  And it‘s hurt Republicans.

YOEST:  You know, Tucker, this goes to a really important point, though.  You say that they‘ve invested a lot of political capital, and yet what we see is a lot of rhetoric, not a whole lot of action.

We do see that one veto, for which we‘re grateful.  But we are wanting to see, you know, more talk, more action on the actual issues. 

CARLSON:  Right.

YOEST:  We see—saw some action this summer, which was—which was good.  But, you know, then we turn around and we see Condi Rice swearing in a homosexual couple to a high- level political post and turning—and talking about a mother-in-law. 

You know, values voters out there are saying, you know, that‘s not the kind of thing—you know, how is that different from Nancy Pelosi?  So...

CARLSON:  Oh, but who—wait.  Well, I‘ll tell you—hold on.


CARLSON:  I will tell you how it‘s different.  I‘ll tell you how it‘s different.

Nancy Pelosi hates you.  The people around Nancy Pelosi hate you.  They have contempt for you.  And if they take over the Congress, they‘re going to completely ignore you. 

YOEST:  Well, you know what?  Yes, but Tucker, you know what?

CARLSON:  I mean, they‘re very different than Republicans.  They are, trust me. 

YOEST:  If you go—Tucker, if you go on our Web site, you will see that we have a chart that shows the difference between what the Republicans will look like, what the Democrats will look like. 

You know, it‘s  puzzling to us that now somehow Dick Armey is saying that we are telling values voters not to turn out.  I have just come from Boston where we had a major event where we talked about “get out and vote.”  Tony Perkins, our president, has been crossing the country telling people, “Get out and vote.”

We‘re a 501c3, so we don‘t tell how people how to vote, but we‘ve been saying, “It‘s your duty to go out and vote.”

CARLSON:  Right.

YOEST:  And so—so it‘s really kind of odd to us to think that somehow we are trying to suppress the vote when we‘ve been really invested in telling people it‘s—you‘re know, it‘s their duty to get out and vote.

CARLSON:  Do you think people care about the gay stuff as much as they care about abortion?  It seems like on the one hand you have an issue of life and death, and on the other hand you have an issue of, you know, I don‘t know, people‘s sexual choices.  I mean, they are not really kind of in the same league, are they?  Or are they?

YOEST:  Well, you know, that‘s what‘s kind of troubling, is that the homosexual activists keep pushing out there this whole idea of making people‘s sexual choices an issue in the public square.  What we want to focus on is the fact that you need to be defending marriage.  And that‘s—and that‘s...

CARLSON:  Right.

YOEST:  And Republicans do seem really kind of squeamish about talking about that.  And—but, yes, so they—Republican values voters care about a lot of things.

That‘s the other thing that‘s kind of weird about Dick Armey‘s statement.  Value voters care about the economic issues, too.  So it‘s a kind of—to further this false division between social and economic conservatives is crazy, I think.

CARLSON:  Right.

Charmaine Yoest, thanks very much.  I appreciate it.

YOEST:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Well, the priest accused of molesting former congressman Mark Foley says it wasn‘t abuse at all.  In fact, he says Foley “seemed to like it.”  What‘s going to happen to this guy?  Will he get what he deserves?  We‘ll tell you.

Plus, a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean we‘d see a whole lot more of this guy.  And what role would he play in a Hillary White House?

We‘ll discuss that very real and very frightening possibility when we come back.




FOLEY WHEN HE WAS A TEEN:  And then once, maybe, I touched him or so, you know.  But I didn‘t—it‘s not something you call, I mean, rape or penetration or anything like that.  You know?  It was just fondling.


CARLSON:  It was just fondling.  That‘s how Father Anthony Mercieca describes one of several encounters he had with the young Mark Foley.  Encounters that included massaging Foley in the nude and skinny-dipping together at a lake. 

So, why is this clearly unremorseful man still a Catholic priest? 

When will his church get serious about pedophiles in their midst? 

Here to take on those questions, Mary Ross Agosta.  She‘s director of communications for the Archdiocese of Miami.  She joins us today from Miami. 

Thank you very much, Ms. Agosta, for joining us.


You‘re certainly welcome.

CARLSON:  What do you make of this?  What are you going to do about it? 

AGOSTA:  Well, first of all, we just officially got his name this morning.  Even though the father had been doing interviews, the Palm Beach State Attorney‘s Office and Mr. Foley‘s attorneys only revealed the name to us officially this morning. 

So, what we have done, because the father is a priest of the Archdiocese of Miami, even though he is living abroad, his faculties have been removed, which means he can no longer function as a priest.  He cannot perform mass publicly, he cannot administer any of the sacraments, and he cannot dress as a priest. 

CARLSON:  Is he going to jail? 

AGOSTA:  That‘s for the legal authorities to decide.  We do have church law, we don‘t have church jail.

CARLSON:  Of course, but have you—I assume you have referred this, right, to the district attorney in Miami? 

AGOSTA:  No.  Actually, Mr. Foley‘s attorney reported to the state attorney in Palm Beach, which is the area that the allegations where this took place. 

CARLSON:  But is this man still on...

AGOSTA:  And it was the state of...

CARLSON:  Excuse me.  Is he still on the church payroll?

AGOSTA:  He is a retired priest of the archdiocese.  He is on his pension. 

CARLSON:  OK.  So, he‘s still—he‘s still taking money from people who—you know, when you put your dollars in the collection plate on Sunday, part of that money is going to this guy? 

AGOSTA:  He is actually receiving his retirement benefits for the years that he worked for the Archdiocese of Miami. 

CARLSON:  So how exactly is he being punished for touching little boys? 

AGOSTA:  Well, first of all, again, the legal aspects of this, whether or not criminal charges, are not our responsibility.  They are the responsibility of the state attorney. 


CARLSON:  Well, hold on.  I wouldn‘t say—I wouldn‘t say they‘re not your responsibility.  I would say they‘re very much your responsibility to make certain that justice is done, both temporal justice...

AGOSTA:  Absolutely.  And we are doing justice, and we are doing justice according to church law.


AGOSTA:  And church law permits us to take away his faculties.  He cannot—he cannot perform as a priest.  He cannot act as a priest, he cannot dress like a priest.  Then he will...

CARLSON:  But I thought you said he was already retired. 

AGOSTA:  He is retired.  But retired priests can still celebrate mass. 

Retired priests can still administer the sacraments of the Catholic Church. 

CARLSON:  So that‘s it?  The only thing you‘re doing is he can‘t work? 

AGOSTA:  No.  Are you going to let me finish my question—my answer... 

CARLSON:  Yes, I‘m sorry. 

AGOSTA:  ... for your question?

CARLSON:  Yes, ma‘am.

AGOSTA:  OK.  That‘s all right.

We also, according to the policies of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, and the policy of the Archdiocese of Miami, we will do an internal investigation.  We have an archdiocese review board which consists of laity.

We have doctors, attorneys, psychologists and a clergyman on that board.  They will offer an invitation to Mark Foley to come and talk to them and have him tell of his experiences. 

We will make every effort to interview father, whether or not father comes here or we go there.  And we will interview father.

We‘ll ask for any other witnesses.  We have publicly asked for any other victims to come forward, to contact the Archdiocese in Miami, or the state attorney. 

CARLSON:  I‘m sorry, I‘m going to have to stop you there.  Other witnesses?  He admitted—he admitted on television—we just played the clip—he admitted that he fondled a little boy. 

AGOSTA:  Right.  Right. 

CARLSON:  OK.  So...

AGOSTA:  Absolutely.  But wouldn‘t you—if you wanted to do a full investigation, would you ask for other witnesses to come forward as well? 

CARLSON:  Maybe I would.

AGOSTA:  That would consist of a thorough investigation. 

CARLSON:  I guess what I would do is get—I would get right to the point, and you haven‘t.

What‘s this guy going to be punished with?  Like, once you have determined what he has already admitted is true, what are you going to do to him...

AGOSTA:  Right.

CARLSON:  ... other than not let him administer rights?  It‘s like, are you going to do anything to him or not? 

AGOSTA:  Well, what is it that the church can do to him other than... 


CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  You could kick him out of his church-funded housing, for one thing.  I don‘t know.  You could say, “I‘m sorry, you molested little boys, you don‘t get to live off the offerings of our parishioners anymore.  Sorry, pal.”  You know, “Take it up with the Social Security Administration.” 

AGOSTA:  Well, I think the fact that he has a retired pension—you know, he cannot be denied that.  He worked for it and he has to have it.  You cannot deny him, and I don‘t think any laws in the United States would let anybody do that. 

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know.  If it was my son, I would be delighted to deny him. 

AGOSTA:  However—however, let me—let me—let me tell you that then there is an investigative review board that will do whatever they can and ask for any other witnesses that may come forward, because it would prove to be a thorough investigation. 


AGOSTA:  And that is what we‘re doing.  And according to the state attorney, that is not what they‘re doing. 

They‘re saying there is a statute of limitation and they cannot do anything.  And I can‘t really speak for them.  I‘m just telling you what‘s been conveyed to us.


AGOSTA:  But I can tell you that church law does not—is not bound

by statute of limitation.  So... 


CARLSON:  OK.  I would hope not.  Let me just—one quick question. 

We‘re almost out of time, but very quickly, were you struck—I was struck, let me just say that, by the kind of blase nature of his comments.  “Yes, I fondled him.”

AGOSTA:  Absolutely.

CARLSON:  It suggested...

AGOSTA:  Absolutely.

CARLSON:  ... a man who lives in an environment in which fondling little boys is not out of the ordinary.  “Yes—well, I fondled him.”  I did not rape him, I fondled him.

I mean, what sort of world does this guy live in that he can say something like that? 

AGOSTA:  You know, that‘s a good question.  And I cannot answer that.  But certainly his comments, what he reveals is inexcusable, morally incomprehensible.


AGOSTA:  Absolutely horrible.  I don‘t—I don‘t disagree with you. 

CARLSON:  Right.

AGOSTA:  And, you know, the only—only good that could possibly come out of this is to say, if anyone else has been a victim of father‘s, to please take this opportunity to come forward. 

CARLSON:  OK.  And I hope...

AGOSTA:  I couldn‘t imagine what it‘s like—I can‘t imagine what it‘s like to have been a victim of sexual abuse and deal with that for 20 and 30 and 40 years.  What we‘ve seen in the church, and have someone have the courage to come forward now. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Well, I hope something good does come out of this. 

Thanks a lot for joining us.  I appreciate it.

AGOSTA:  You‘re welcome.  Bye.

CARLSON:  One thing you can be certain to learn in college these days, that the U.S. is to blame for the problems of the world.  Not just some of the problems, all of the problems.  A shocking new study exposes the deep anti-American propaganda heard every day on our campuses. 

And hide the children.  Nancy Grace is armed and dangerous once again. 

And our campaign to disarm her continues on “Beat the Press”.

That‘s all when we return in just a moment.


CARLSON:  Time now for “Beat the Press”.

First up, Nancy Grace. 

Earlier this week, we warned you about her penchant for arming herself with weapons on the air.  Well, it didn‘t help.  In fact, it may only have incited her. 



NANCY GRACE, HOST, “NANCY GRACE”:  I guess in addition to packing a PB&J, you can take one of these to school now. 

What I am worried about is how these keep getting into our public schools.  You can get into school with one of these. 

This is a facsimile (ph) -- a 3 inch blade—a serrated blade. 

What we have got right now isn‘t working as long as one of these comes in a school. 

Did you know somebody managed to bring one of these into a public school today?


GRACE:  And reek havoc?


CARLSON:  She is just—she is just this close to just spinning off into full-blown cuckoo land and hurting somebody. 

Well, we just add that to our growing list, our growing file of Nancy Grace and her on-air weapons.  For those of you who haven‘t been following this saga on this program, here‘s what we‘ve got so far.



GRACE:  This is a filet knife.  It‘s a nasty little piece of work. 

The perpetrators hand—and I‘ve seen this in several cases myself—goes down the sheath of the knife.  And the perp‘s actually gets cut on the murder weapon. 

The reason this .12-gauge shotgun will be imported into evidence is because to work it, Mary Winkler had to go through so much to kill her husband.  See is about my height, 5‘2”—to pull back, load, aim and pull, that takes quite a bit of effort. 


CARLSON:  I‘ve got to—I‘ve got to be honest with you.  I used to dislike Nancy Grace.  I am starting to kind of like her. 

She is so over the top.  No one has ever been that over the top on television.  CARLSON:

Nancy Grace and her weapons—she‘s got to be disarmed, though, before she hurts herself or someone else.  So, if you‘re watching out there, authorities, I don‘t care if you‘re a district attorney, I don‘t care if you‘re CNN executives, if you are a member of the United Nations, please, disarm Nancy Grace. 

And finally, our clip of the week, courtesy of Rosie O‘Donnell, who lost control of herself completely right in the middle of a discussion about mammograms. 

Watch this. 


ROSIE O‘DONNELL, CO-HOST, “THE VIEW”:  It doesn‘t really hurt, ladies, honestly.  If you right now—look, look.  This is how much it hurts.  That‘s just what—then it‘s over.  OK?

That‘s it.  I just had a mammogram.


CARLSON:  I‘m not even going to comment on that, other than to point out the obvious, that is just wrong. 

Still to come, it looks like Republicans are turning to unlikely allies as they head into the midterm elections.  Are they playing fair? 

And the idea has been thrown out there, but how realistic is a Clinton-Clinton ticket in 2008?  The story when we come back. 


CARLSON:  Still to come, did you know the U.S. is to blame for all the chaos and all the evil in the world? You would know that if you were in college.  We‘ll explain.  Plus, a man in a gorilla suit snatches a kid from a store, its amazing surveillance video that has to be seen to be believed and we‘ve got it.  All that in just a minute, but right now, here‘s a look at your headlines. 

SCOTT COHN, CNBC ANCHOR:  Hi I‘m Scott Cohn with your CNBC market wrap.  The Dow down more than nine points today, but still just barely above 12,000.  The S&P up more than 1-1/2 points, the NASDAQ up 1-1/3.  Caterpillar is a big problem for the Dow, Cat shares fell more than 14 percent on the day after earnings fell short of analyst expectation.  The company also is cutting its outlook through 2008 due in part to the housing slowdown. 

Meantime, shares of Google jumped nearly 8 percent on the day after yesterday‘s quarterly report showed earnings more than doubled in the past year.  Oil down again today, falling more than $1 in New York trading to $56.90 a barrel.  Traders are skeptical of OPEC‘s commitment to production cuts.  And YouTube removes nearly 30,000 videos amid copyright concerns from several Japanese entertainment companies.  Now, back to Tucker.

CARLSON:  Well its time now for three on three, where we welcome two of the sharpest people we know to discuss three of today‘s most interesting stories.  Joining us from Orlando, Florida, Pat Campbell, host of the Pat Campbell Show on 540 WFLA.  And from New York City, Alex Bennett, he is host of the Alex Bennett Program on Sirius Satellite Radio.  Welcome to you both.

Well as we mentioned just a moment ago, Republicans are appealing to the fear of another major terror attack in an international campaign ad.  The spot which reminds us that past threats from Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders begins airing this Sunday on national cable television.  It concludes with the message “these are the stakes, vote November 7th”.  Alex, you have to concede, it‘s kind of hard to argue with, whether you‘re on Bush‘s side or not, those are the stakes.

ALEX BENNETT, “THE ALEX BENNETT PROGRAM,” SIRIUS RADIO:  Yeah, I‘ll argue with the ad, I‘ll argue with the fact that it‘s not original either.  That term “these are the stakes” was used by Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater in that famous ad with the dandelion and they had a bomb.  This pretty much is the same kind of thing. 

I think the problem here is, the American public is tired of this administration constantly going back to the well and bringing out the same bucket of water.  I mean this is the boy who cried wolf.  This time I don‘t think it works.  I think it‘s horrible.  I think that inference of an atomic explosion is heinous.  And I just think that it‘s a tired old way to try and win and I think it‘s going to hurt the Republicans more than it‘s going to help them. 

CARLSON:  Pat, is there a kind of emotional blackmail involved in using 9/11 again and again as campaign tool?

PAT CAMPBELL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Well, let‘s face it, scaring people as an advertising tactic actually works.  The LBJ daisy ad that you‘re talking about, a little bit before my time, but I remember studying that actually in high school and college. 

It was an ad that actually only ran once but it created such a buzz, such a stir, that it really changed the face of political advertising.  Scaring people works.  That‘s what the Republicans are banking on here.  I took a lot of heat on my program this morning because I said, will this ad work in November.  I said or will it be recognized for what it is, fear mongering.  Boy, a lot of people really took issue with my choice of terms there.  Fear-mongering really, you‘re scaring people.

It could backfire, though because if you watch this commercial, one of the things they bring up is the quote from al Zawahiri about getting suitcase nukes into the United States.  Now, stop and think about that for a minute, how could he do that? Well maybe through our porous borders.  And then you realize, well wait, the Republicans are the ones that have dropped the ball on the border issue. 

CARLSON:  A very good point.

BENNETT:  Well you know I think there is also the problem here, and Pat is quite right.  If they make too big an issue about the terror thing, we have to look at them and say, well what exactly have you done? I mean you haven‘t caught Osama bin Laden.  I think Pat always brings that up.  And so what you‘re doing is you‘re raising all of those questions of, well, what have you done?  I mean, obviously --  

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  Don‘t you think it‘s fair to say, and not to repeat myself endlessly, though maybe that is the temptation when you‘re on an hour every day.  But I mean, look, as you know, we haven‘t had a terror attack and I think they deserve some credit for that.

But I also think they are genuinely afraid of another terror attack.  I think Dick Cheney, whatever his faults, goes to bed every night thinking about the possibility of another 9/11, they recognize there is this threat from Islamic radicals.  Does the Democratic Party recognize that?  They don‘t seem like they do.

BENNETT:  Well I think they do.  I think that they don‘t have any real power to solve the problem or to stop it, but I don‘t think they would use scare tactics to stay in office at this point.  I think this is a last-ditch effort to force off the inevitable, which is going to be happening in a couple of weeks when the Democrats come storming into Washington. 

CAMPBELL:  There are two tactics that seem to resonate with the voters

the war on terror and the other one is illegal immigration.  You‘re right, they‘re going back to the well, but it has worked for them before, they‘re banking on the fact that it‘s going to work for them. 

BENNETT:  But Pat, it‘s like the boy who cried wolf, you know.  It‘s just like, OK, we‘re tired of this, we‘ve heard this too many times.  You can fool us a couple of times, but by now we‘re getting a little tired of this. 

CARLSON:  Really, I don‘t know.  I think the evidence is that people can be fooled again and again and again.  Why I do know this, because I was here for the Bill Clinton presidency.  And speaking of the Bill Clinton presidency, could he return to the White House?  That was the subject of a piece in the “Washington Post” today.  It asked the question, is it constitutional for Bill Clinton to run as the vice- presidential candidate with his own wife Hillary at the top of the ticket?

Two Clinton‘s, this time explicitly, for the price of two.  Pretty interesting theory.  I wonder, leaving aside the constitutional questions, I‘m not sure any of us is a lawyer, any one would want to admit it right now.  But Pat, is this a good thing for Hillary Clinton or a bad thing you think?

CAMPBELL:  Well a couple of things here.  First of all, the 12th amendment would appear to permit it, but the 22nd amendment would appear to prohibit it.  Look, the reality is, Bill Clinton is second fiddle to nobody.  He is an alpha male and he‘s either going to be in charge or he is not.  I don‘t see him playing the Al Gore role for anybody. 

This was maybe, I don‘t know, a slow news day, some wishful thinking on behalf of the press.  But you know it would be really interesting if we were to repeal the 22nd amendment and allow even the current president maybe to run again. 

BENNETT:  Oh, God, no. 

CAMPBELL:  Against Bill Clinton and see who would win that.  I‘d love to see the outcome of that race. 

CARLSON:  It‘s interesting though because that amendment prohibits a president from being elected a third time, elected president.  I don‘t know if that would prohibit Bill Clinton from running for vice president.  But I mean look, no matter what the guy does Alex, whether he runs as vice president, he‘s not going to do that of course.  He is going to play a significant, maybe huge role in his wife‘s campaign and in, God forbid, her presidential administration. 

BENNETT:  I was about to say, I mean it‘s very obvious that he does not need to run for vice president, he‘s probably going to be vice president anyway, if she becomes president.  I like Bill and I think that Bill Clinton has a way with people and a way with handling the ship of state that gave us a certain calm waters at the time.  I think that he would be a lovely candidate all over again, but it‘s not going to happen and I ... 

CARLSON:  You don‘t think he wears poorly? I mean Clinton is one of those guys who you remember more fondly when you aren‘t around him.  There was no war, there was nothing really bad going on in the late 1990‘s, Bill Clinton wasn‘t so bad.  And then you hear him and you remember that he is just one—just endless self justification.  Like the guy never stops talking about himself, he never stops talking about how great he was, about how bad the other guys were—

CAMPBELL:  Bill Clinton is the kind of guy you‘d want to go out and have a drink with, but I certainly wouldn‘t want to leave him at home alone with my wife or my daughter. 

BENNETT:  I think the alpha male is the best way to describe Bill Clinton.  But, I don‘t know, you know we Democrats, we love Bill.  I mean Bill—he gave a speech the other day and I just sat there and listened to it and went, gee, if every Democrat were like this, we could win any office in the country. 

CARLSON:  He just seems so insecure to me. 

BENNETT:  Really?

CARLSON:  He does.  He seems so endlessly needy and so insecure.  I mean why else, the need, the desperate need that he has to tell you—to beat you over the head with the idea that his was the greatest presidential administration in world history.  Why does he need to keep telling you that? Because he‘s insecure, because he knows actually ...

BENNETT:  Also, you have the Bush people beating at him, saying he‘s at fault for everything, you know.  And I think he‘s gotten a little tired of that, and I think he‘s been reacting to that as of late. 

CARLSON:  Well here‘s something to react to.  A shocking report, and it is shocking really from the Institute for Jewish and Community Research.  It reveals the alarming degree to which college students are being taught that the U.S. is the root of the world‘s evil, all of it.  Almost one-third of university faculties cite the U.S. as one of the world‘s most dangerous nations. 

More than half say they blame American policies for the growth of Islamic militancy.  The report states that quote, “Group think creates a dangerous (INAUDIBLE) for teaching and scholarship.”  It does seem like the least diverse place in the world is on college campuses where everybody thinks the same, they all hate this country.  

BENNETT:  I don‘t know if they hate this country, I think what happens on college campuses is, is there‘s a lot of thinking going on.  And sometimes the thinking goes outside the box.  I mean I didn‘t see anything in these things they came up with that I necessarily disagree with.  I think if you go outside the United States, look back in from the perspective of other countries, we are considered one of the world‘s most dangerous nations. 

We have a nuclear arsenal that‘s gigantic.  We march into countries like Iraq, there is that perception in the world.  And as for militancy among Islamics, I mean Osama bin Laden should pay us a royalty for everybody he recruits.  We are the recruiting poster. 

CARLSON:  But look, anybody who can say with a straight face that the United States is one of the world‘s most dangerous nations, has it likely ever been outside of this country and has very little perspective on what the rest of the world is like.  (INAUDIBLE) really dangerous and people don‘t even pretend to have good motives around the rest of the world, they don‘t.

BENNETT:  I‘m one of them.  But I think the big dog should always realize how dangerous he is, I mean, you know, that‘s why the big dog is usually the cuddly one.  

CARLSON:  Pat, maybe you have seen this.  I don‘t know, I wasn‘t in college that long ago, it‘s fresh in my mind.  The United States, just the endless self loathing, the masochism of your average university professor, most of who are just profound losers and the U.S. is paying for everything.  I don‘t know.

CAMPBELL:  Obviously, you know some of my college professors.  Look, I learned this the hard way.  I went to college back in the 80‘s and at that time, the school was basically occupied by a bunch of left over flower children from the 60‘s.

CARLSON:  Yeah, I was there.

CAMPBELL:  The real eye opener for me was my first sociology class.  I come from a very large family, I‘m the oldest of 13.  And I learned from my sociology professor that my parents were selfish and irresponsible because they had so many kids.  And I‘m thinking to myself, my mom and dad are two of the most unselfish people I‘ve ever known, they‘ve sacrificed everything for me and my brothers and sisters, yet this is the kind of garbage they were shoving down our throat. They were trying to brainwash you, indoctrinate you.

CARLSON:  Of course.

CAMPBELL:  If you did speak out, and I learned this the hard way, you actually were punished.  You were ostracized, you paid a toll for it. 

CARLSON:  Well, Alex, just answer this one question—if the U.S. is so evil and that is the consensus on college campuses.  Why are these people, almost every single one of them, all of these college professors, they‘re all on the federal nipple, they‘re all taking federal money one way or the other.  Why don‘t they say, look, we‘re not going to take any more tax dollars because this country is so evil. 

BENNETT:  You have to realize that academia to begin with is always a process of asking questions, rather than giving answers.  The only people they want answers out of are the people they‘re giving a test to.  But, you know, they‘re always asking questions, it‘s just the nature of academia.  And I don‘t think it‘s that they hate this country, I think they want this country to be everything that they were taught in school it should be.  That‘s a warm, wonderful country that reaches out to other people. 

CAMPBELL:  Tucker, there are still some great schools out there, too.

CARLSON:  There are great schools.

CAMPBELL:  Rosedale College. 

CARLSON:  I would give an answer in the first three days of my administration if I were elected emperor.  I would defund every sociology department in this country. It‘s just my view.  Thank you, you guys, have a great weekend.

CAMPBELL:  Thanks Tucker.

BENNETT:  Tucker for emperor.

CARLSON:  Sometimes sorry isn‘t enough, especially when you‘re apologizing for testing a nuclear weapon.  Kim Jong Il asks for your forgiveness, will you give it to him.  Plus, what does the late rapper Tupac Shakur have in common with this year‘s midterm elections? We‘ll tell you why Congress is going gangster when we come right back.


CARLSON:  Sure there‘s a war going on, but Democrats still find time to introduce bills on everything from bullying to adult diapers.  We‘ll show you the laundry list of absurd legislation.  Plus, security cameras catch a man in a gorilla suit snatching a child from a store.  You don‘t want to miss that.  We‘re back in 60 seconds.


CARLSON:  And now it‘s time for examples of your tax dollars at work, or in these cases, at waste. 

Ever wonder what your congressional representative does for a living?  Here are just a few examples of actual bills introduced by Democrats in the House over the past two years.  There is the Tupac Shakur Records Release Act of 2006.  It would enshrine government records of murdered rapper Tupac Shakur in the national archives.  Hope that passes.  There is also a bill aimed at establishing a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence.  The menu education and labeling act would regulate what certain restaurants must print on their menus.

And then there is a proposed program to provide incontinence undergarments—free.  Seniors can thank the powerful adult diaper lobby for that one.  Here to defend the Tupac Records Release Act passionately, Democratic strategists and our old pal Peter Fenn, joining us from Washington.  Peter, how long have you been behind the Tupac Shakur Records Release Act.  Is this in the Democratic platform now? 

PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  Ever since I was in diapers. 

CARLSON:  What the hell is that, Peter?

FENN:  Listen, I guess she must like his records.  I don‘t know.  I tell you though, I hope my son gets up there and gets a chance to listen to them. 

CARLSON:  She being Cynthia McKinney. 

FENN:  Cynthia McKinney—as Richard Nixon said once, Tucker, you won‘t have Cynthia McKinney to kick around anymore, she‘s gone. 

CARLSON:  I know.  It is sad. 

FENN:  She did one thing, you know what she did? She put forth legislation to remain a certain building at ninth and Pennsylvania Avenue, now the J. Edgar Hoover building as the frank Church Building, my old boss.  I didn‘t like that one.

CARLSON:  She‘s so funny. 

FENN:  It didn‘t go too far, that didn‘t go too far.

CARLSON:  No it didn‘t, the FBI building will remain the Hoover Building here in Washington.  But, she may be gone, blessedly beaten in the primary this year, but Charlie Rangel one of my all-time favorite guests and a great guy, his politics are not mine, however.  He has sponsored a couple of bills.  Here‘s one, the crack cocaine equitable sentencing act that would lower the penalties for crack cocaine.  Is this something that the rest of the country is going to get behind Peter?

FENN:  Well my guess is probably not, but I will let Charlie Rangel defend himself, he‘s pretty good at that kind of thing.  He‘s a very articulate fellow and I‘m sure he has a reason for that. 

CARLSON:  How about the ex offenders voting rights act.  That would allow convicted felons to vote as soon as they get out of prison, presuming they‘ll be quite informed after years in the joint.  Charlie Rangel wants to make sure they vote and vote democrat. 

FENN:  Well he‘s just thinking about Duke Cunningham and making sure that Cunningham has the chance to vote, I think Tucker.  Listen, if you‘re talking about wasteful government spending though Tucker, I didn‘t see on the list the $20 million for the Iraq victory party that seems to have been put in their by the Republicans.  We‘re having a little trouble spending that one.

CARLSON:  Pretty hard to defend that.  That‘s right, that is money however that has been earmarked but not spent. What about the Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act, I believe that‘s by Mr. McDermott of Washington State? Or that may be from Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.  Are we going to get that, a department of peace and nonviolence?

FENN:  Well actually we have an institute of peace right now which actually does some pretty good work.  I think that there is probably plenty of government waste in the Pentagon they can use to start that one right up.  That will work.

CARLSON:  What about the anti bullying campaign act sponsored by Jerry Nadler of New York?

FENN:  Listen Tucker, you know what it was like wearing that darn bow tie around. 

CARLSON:  Let‘s be honest, OK, the Democrats are going to take over the House of Representatives most likely in two weeks, and then it‘s going to be just a full-blown freak show on Capitol Hill.  They haven‘t run anything in quite a while.

FENN:  No, no.  You got this all wrong. 

CARLSON:  America has forgotten what they‘re like, Jerry Adler and Charlie Rangel, they‘re just going to scare the hell out of America, aren‘t they?

FENN:  No they aren‘t.  Actually, to get serious here for a minute, you know, one of the things that I hope a new Democratic congress does is take a real good look at these earmarks, and these crazy bills—the $230 million bridges to no where for Mr. Stevens in Alaska. 

And you know, when this administration came in, this Republican congress came in six years ago, there was about $20 billion in earmarks.  Now that‘s $20 billion too much.  But they have gone up to over $50 billion.  And most of this stuff you don‘t even have to list. 

CARLSON:  It‘s disgusting, I agree. 

FENN:  This is wasteful and crazy and I tell my clients, look, you campaign on how much pork you have, you know, they‘re kick you right out of there, you‘ll be frying in a frying pan somewhere.

CARLSON:  I know, but see, the only good thing about Democrats‘ taking over the House is they can‘t possibly spend more money than the Republicans already have.  Dear friend, I appreciate—it makes me sad saying that, but it‘s true.  Thanks for joining us Peter.

FENN:  Thanks.

CARLSON:  Well the St. Louis Cardinals are celebrating a trip to the World Series, but the good times in the gateway to the West could be short-lived.  We‘ll tell you why when we come right back. 

Before we go to break though, it is tonight‘s installment of the good the bad and the ugly. We begin with an apology of sorts from North Korea‘s dictator.  It‘s a good thing that Kim Jong Il is now expressing regret for conducting his country‘s first ever nuclear test.

And he promises not to do it again.  But at the same time, more than 100,000 people gathered in Pyongyang‘s main square to celebrate the success of the test.  And a North Korean official vows his nation will “crush American imperialists with its self-defense power”. 

That‘s not a good thing.  Next, the bad.  The bad joke that rattled a few nerves.  Federal agents are assuring football fans across this country there is nothing to fear.  That threat of exploding dirty bombs at seven U.S. stadiums this Sunday is a hoax.  Investigators say it began as a writing duel between two internet users to see who could develop a more frightening story.  One of those clever writers turned himself into the authorities this morning.  It is not yet clear what his charges might be and whether his pal will face them, too. 

And finally, caught on tape, when practical jokes turn ugly.  From Washington State, every parent‘s scariest nightmare.  And a lesson about monkeying around with someone else‘s child.  That‘s not a real gorilla there, he only plays one in a store security monitor.  But Anthony and April Santiago were not amused then this ape brain snatched their five-year-old boy and bolted from the store.  The terrified parents caught up with the practical joker and called the cops.  He was questioned, then released.  We‘ll be right back.


CARLSON:  If it‘s Friday or Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday, it‘s Willie Geist, he joins us now from headquarters.  Willie?  

WILLIE GEIST:  Hello Tucker.  I want to go on the record and say I supported that bill for adult diapers.  I called my congressman every day and it finally happened.  So I want to thank him for that.

CARLSON:  That‘s democracy Willie. 

GEIST:  Tucker, we have a Wesley Snipes sighting.  This time every day we‘ve been trying to track him down.  They had a tough time finding that action star after he was indicted for tax fraud earlier this week.  But he has turned up in the Africa country of Namibia, where he is shooting a movie.  He‘s been there since August apparently.  U.S. authorities say Snipes fraudulently claimed $12 million in tax refunds and failed to file a tax return for six consecutive years.

Sure that all sounds bad, but here‘s the good news for old Wes.  In Namibia, no extradition treaty with the United States.  So, as long as he stays there for the rest of his life, he should be fine.  And can I just say one thing, you should not evade your taxes.  But I think Passenger 57, if you look at the greatest happiness principle, Passenger 57 a great movie, was worth at least $12 million of happiness in American society.   

CARLSON:  I totally agree.

GEIST:  So I think they should forgive his debt.

CARLSON:  I totally agree.  Now I have been expressly instructed by my producer not to refer to Wesley Snipes as quote, un-American folk hero. 


CARLSON:  So I‘m not going to do that. 

GEIST:  No you should not.

CARLSON:  But let me just say, I wish him well.

GEIST:  I wish him all the best in Namibia unfortunately, but that‘s the sad truth.  Now Tucker, as you know, our boss, Vice President of Programming Bill Wolfe who sits in for me from time to time, a huge St.  Louis Cardinals fan.  His greatest dream came true last night as the Cardinals won game seven at Shay Stadium, a three to one game.  A dramatic finish.  Yadier Molina, a light hitting catcher hit a two run home run on the top half of the ninth, then they struck out Carlos Beltran on three pitches with the bases loaded to win the game. 

That came despite perhaps one of the greatest most clutched defensive plays in baseball history.  Here it is right here, Andy Chavez the left fielder for the Mets.  Watch this catch.  Tie game in the sixth that should have been a home run.  He reaches over the wall, yanks it back and turns it into a double play.  Truly, given the circumstances, one of the best plays of all time.  But, here‘s my point about this.   

Sorry.  Look at this catch.  Amazing, look at that.  The point is, you feel good for Bill now they‘re going to the World Series.  Here is the problem.  Every time the Cardinals go to the World Series recently in 2004, they run into a team of destiny.  2004 they met the Red Sox who hadn‘t won in a thousand years, now they‘re playing the tigers who were the worst team in baseball history three years ago.  The Cardinals have no chance.  I‘m sorry Bill, but that‘s the sad truth. 

CARLSON:  You can tell ladies and gentlemen that Willie Geist was once a sports reporter. That was amazing. 

GEIST:  I like the game.  Any way, Tucker if you have ever spent any time at all in the southeast on a small Saturday afternoon speaking sports, you know football fans there are pretty intense.  Case in point, a couple of University of Alabama diehards just got married in the end zone at Legion Field in Birmingham.  James Walker and Frances Elizabeth Walker met on the internet five years ago and decided to tie the knot in that end zone because it was the last place James ever saw legendary Alabama coach (INAUDIBLE).  And let me say one thing Tucker. 

Congratulations to them.  But you know your wedding lacks a little bit of taste when the officiant for your wedding is an actual official, a referee, a football official, it shouldn‘t be that way. 

CARLSON:  Look at the mullet on that man, I couldn‘t get past his scar.  Willie Geist, have a good weekend.  We hope you do too, that‘s our show.  Thanks for watching, see you Monday.  Here‘s “HARDBALL WITH CHRIS.”   



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.