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

'Tucker' for June 28

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests: Ibrahim Hooper, Marcus Mabry, Bill Press, Roger Stone

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Welcome to the show, coming to you from the Bethel Inn in Bethel, Maine. 

Given President Bush‘s immigration bill a pulse, Congress has done that.  Now, the Senate appears to have killed that bill, perhaps once and for all this morning.  Immigration is one issue about which Mr. Bush has always cared passionately, and his hopes for reform have been dashed on the bipartisan shoals of Capitol Hill. 

So what is the political fallout when the president fails to get his own agenda through Congress and his party fractures in the process?  And what does this mean that absolutely nothing can be done about the immigration crisis in this country? 

The Bush administration also finds itself at battle with Congress over it‘s wiretapping program.  Yesterday, Congress served subpoenas to the White House and the vice president‘s office for documents related to the terrorist surveillance program.  Today, the White House said, sorry, no, we will not cooperate with these subpoenas. 

Will this fight become the one that dooms the administration, or is it just more partisan harassment from the Democratically-controlled Congress? 

In any case, the president has more critics than allies which may be why he has gotten no credit for his speech at the dedication—re-dedication of the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. yesterday.  Like him or not, listen to an excerpt of that speech and judge it on its substance.  Here it is.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Men and women of conscience have a duty to speak out and condemn these—this murderous movement before it finds its path to power.  We must help millions of Muslims as they rescue a proud and historic religion from murderers and beheaders who seek to soil the name of Islam.  And in this effort, modern Muslim leaders have the most powerful and influential voice. 


CARLSON:  The president is right.  Were moderate Muslim leaders to lead the war on terror, the civilized world would be much farther along than it is in that effort now.  So, why haven‘t they lead that fight?

Joining me now is the spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ibrahim Hooper. 

Mr. Hooper, thanks for joining us.


CARLSON:  The president, I thought, made a really good point reminding us of all the instances in which the United States has laid down huge amounts of money, and in some cases lives, to help different Muslim populations around the world: in China, Bosnia, Kosovo, even Iran after the earthquake, Pakistan.  And yet, we are still despised in the Islamic world.  That strikes me as unfair. 

HOOPER:  Well, I think it‘s based on our major policy blunders, particularly a failure to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the completely unjustified invasion of Iraq.  I mean, those are the main causes for hostility towards the United States right now, but a lot of it may just be a result of being the only superpower left in the world and you‘re kind of the one that people are going to look to to have some kind of balanced policy and if it‘s not there, they‘re going to be upset. 

CARLSON:  Yes, that‘s the conventional explanation.  Unfortunately it‘s false, because it can‘t explain this: the Pugh Center, which does polling around the world, asked Muslim populations around the world, how do you feel about Osama bin Laden?  And in the Islamic world, huge and disturbing percentages of the population had confidence in him. 

In Palestine, 57 percent of people asked said, we trust Osama bin Laden.  In Pakistan, 38 percent ... 

HOOPER:  Well again, I think that ...

CARLSON:  Indonesia, 41 percent.

HOOPER:  I don‘t think that‘s a reflection of support for the view point of Osama bin Laden, I think that‘s more a rejection of American interventionism, and you know, just saying that we don‘t like the way that things are right now and we‘re going to go with anything that is a rejection of that. 

As I say, I don‘t think it‘s a reflection of support for that viewpoint at all because when you poll people, do you support these specific extremist views?  They say no. 

CARLSON:  But wait, the question was, do you support Osama bin Laden?  I mean, I think your answer is a little bit too glib and it ignores the headline here, which is there is a problem in the Islamic world with support for violence, and support for terror ... 

HOOPER:  No, but I—what I‘m saying is ...

CARLSON:  ...and support for terror leaders like Osama bin Laden.

HOOPER:  If you break down what he actually believes and what al Qaeda

the al Qaeda philosophy is you know, the permission to kill other Muslims, permission to kill civilians, all of these kinds of things.  When you ask Muslims about that, they say no way, we don‘t—we don‘t abide by that, that‘s not part of Islam. 

CARLSON:  Look, if you went and asked a cross section of Americans, do you support Adolph Hitler, and 40 percent said yes ...

HOOPER:  No, but ...

CARLSON: wouldn‘t say, well that‘s because they‘re dissatisfied with the policies of the United States government.  You would say there‘s something wrong with these people.

HOOPER:  Then how do you—how do you ...

CARLSON:  Anybody who would support a mass murderer has something wrong with them ...

HOOPER:  How do you ...

CARLSON:  ...and my question is, why do Islamic groups such as yours spend so much time criticizing American foreign policy and so little time chastising your own people—fellow Muslims, for having views that are sick? 

HOOPER:  Well, I guess you should have read our news release of

yesterday that congratulated President Bush for announcing that he‘ll name

an envoy to the organization of the Islamic Conference.  So, we—when the

when congratulation is in order, we do that, when criticism is in order, we criticize.  So, we try and base it on whatever is put in front of us. 

CARLSON:  So you don‘t think that there is a widespread attitude problem, not just in the Middle East, but in Indonesia, in Nigeria, in countries where there are no Arabs, but a lot of Muslims, there is not an attitude problem, an acceptance of violence to achieve political ends that you don‘t see in other parts of the world.  You don‘t recognize that?

HOOPER:  No, there—there‘s a widespread rejection of American foreign policy, but there is not a widespread acceptance of killing of civilians or other forms of religious extremism, which time after time polls show Muslims don‘t accept, whether it‘s in the United States or worldwide. 

And how do you explain polls that when—there are polls taken of the general American public, asking is it OK that civilians are killed to achieve a military objective?  A sizable portion says, yes, that‘s OK.  You‘re always going to get that kind of results. 

CARLSON:  OK, when—let me put it this way.  It makes me uncomfortable and frankly nervous that you don‘t recognize the elephant in this room.  When you ask Nigerians, how do you feel about Osama bin Laden, and 52 percent of Nigerians, again, not—not Arabs, not tied in any way to our Iraq policy, our Palestine policy, 52 percent say we support Osama bin Laden.  Bells go off, lights flash, that‘s a problem. 

HOOPER:  No, what I‘m saying—what I‘m saying is that any level of support for the extremist philosophy of al Qaeda is disturbing, but I don‘t think that‘s what we‘re talking about here.  When they ask questions like that, people are saying, I reject the foreign policy as it applies to the Muslim world. 

But, again, when you ask them specifically, do they support this or that extremist view?  They say, no, we don‘t. 

CARLSON:  OK, it‘s a pretty round-about way of expressing dissatisfaction with American foreign policy in my view. 

Ibrahim Hooper, thanks so much for joining us. 

HOOPER:  Thanks for having me. 

CARLSON:  Hispanic voters are fleeing the Republican party and jumping aboard the Hillary express.  What is behind the mass exodus?  And why, of all the Democratic candidates, is Hillary getting the biggest boost from Hispanic voters? 

Plus, forget “The Apprentice,” how about the Donald, the diplomat?  At least one person thinks that‘s a good idea.  Trump in the Middle East, that‘s next. 

You‘re watching MSNBC, the place for politics. 


CARLSON:  President Bush plans to appoint a special envoy to the Islamic world and he‘s now urging moderate Muslims to denounce the radical elements among them.  But they still hate us.  Why is that?  More in a minute.


CARLSON:  Where are the moderate Muslims in the war on terror?  President Bush says it‘s time for the moderates to step up and take the lead against the radicals in their midst.  The question is: why haven‘t they so far?  Joining us now, Bill Press, nationally syndicated Radio Talk Show Host and Marcus Mabry, “Newsweek” magazine‘s Chief of Correspondence.  Welcome to you both. 



CARLSON:  Marcus, I wonder, this speech that the president gave yesterday, struck me as an important speech, I agreed with every bit of it.  Totally sank beneath the waves on a day when there was a lot of bad news for the Bush administration.  Is this something that the administration, that you know of, has been thinking about, working on, trying to get moderate Muslims working against terror?  Or is this just something that cropped up yesterday? 

MABRY:  Oh, it‘s not new, Tucker, of course, the administration—this has been one of their priorities from the beginning, since 9/11.  The president, as you pointed out in his speech yesterday, went out of his way, right after 9/11, to point out to Americans in our moments of rage and horror that followed that tragedy, that this was not a Muslim violent crime.  This was not a crime committed by Islam, this is a crime committed by terrorists and extremists.  And he has always tried—the administration has always tried to draw that very stark line in the stand between Muslims and extremists, and terrorists.  The problem is, and I think part of it is the administration‘s own fault.  The problem is moderate Muslims have not believed that the administration is really in favor of their cause.  They look at the administration‘s foreign policy and what is achieved in the Middle East, and the fact that you have extremists come to power during Democratic elections.  For instance, Hamas‘s rise of power ...

CARLSON:  There‘s no question.  And more elections will almost inevitably mean more extremists in the Middle East.  Bill, though, the rhetoric in the United States, particularly from the left, always focuses on America‘s culpability.  They hate us because our foreign policy is bad.  They hate us because Bush is an idiot.  There‘s very little time, at least in public, spent thinking through what exactly about their religious belief leads them to supports violence?  Why is that?

PRESS:  First of all, Tucker, I‘ve got to agree with Marcus.  I think the president personally has really done some significant things, tried to do some things in reaching out to the Muslim community from the very beginning.  I remember that first visit he made to the Islamic center right after 9/11, where he gave another remarkable speech indicating that this was not an American versus, Muslim.  I do think, however, that you have to accept that, from a policy point of view, you cannot just bomb one or invade one Muslim country after another or take sides basically—totally pro Israel and against the Palestinian territories in the Middle East.  Not to mention Guantanamo Bay, without some of those policies ending up having some negative consequences for this country and I think that is what we‘re seeing.  Plus we are seeing, as you‘ve pointed out, disturbing, I think absence of strong voices from the Muslim community against the kind of violence that these people who misinterpret, misread and abuse their faith to justify violence in the name of faith which is wrong. 

CARLSON:  And we‘re also, Marcus, so ludicrously P.C.  So self-destructively P.C. that we don‘t say what is obviously true, which is this is a religious war, from their point of view.  They‘re acting out of their religious believes, their warped religious beliefs.  It‘s not, obviously, traditional Islam, it‘s something sick and perverted.  But why can‘t we just say that? 

MABRY:  You know, I think do say it, Tucker.  I think the administration says it, I think the left says it, I think everybody says it.  But the problem is we ...

CARLSON:  I don‘t hear anybody saying it.

MABRY:  ... say this is a perversion of Islam.  But you know, unless moderate Muslims come out to say it, it doesn‘t matter what kind of non-Muslims say. 

Part of the problem, I think we really saw with Ibrahim Hoper, part of

the problem is, they feel cannot, the moderates, cannot come out forcefully

against the extremists and the terrorists.  Because obviously, and the poll

the latest one from Pugh shows it, the terrorists and the extremists do have some support for their “political” views amongst the faithful. 

That‘s a problem.  The moderates can‘t condemn them without being seen, in some ways, as aligning themselves with a loathed American administration.  It is ridiculous catch 22. 

PRESS:  Hey, Tucker, you know the thing I don‘t ...

CARLSON:  It also—but don‘t you think we‘re trained never to criticize another man‘s religion?  That‘s kind of the American creed, no matter how weird what you believe is, I‘m not supposed to say anything about it?

MABRY:  Yes, that‘s our creed but ...

CARLSON:  And does that hamper our ability ...

PRESS:  Yes, that is true but I think we can criticize people who misinterpret, misread, misrepresent their own faith and we should, those people who base terrorism on the demands of the Koran. 

Tucker, I just want to point out

CARLSON:  Boy, I don‘t ...

PRESS:  In that poll we have been talking about, the thing that disturbed me, is you know, favorable to the United States.  Turkey, nine percent, Pakistan 15 percent.  These are our allies.  We have gone out of our way to help these countries and that small percentage of the population has a good feeling about the United States.  That‘s trouble. 

CARLSON:  And yet American—and yet we blame ourselves.  It‘s always we have done something wrong, we have supported Israel too much.  That‘s why they hate us.  So maybe it‘s their problem.  You know, maybe they‘re the ones with with the warped world view, not us. 

PRESS:  It‘s certainly not totally our problem, but part of it is, the problem of our policy. 

MABRY:  These are the most democratic ...


CARLSON:  I, I ...

MABRY:  Look at Turkey.  A Democratic modernist regime and for them to hate us is in explicable.  And so we do look for some reasons to explain it. 

CARLSON:  Alright.  Hispanics voted big for Bush in 2004.  But don‘t count on a repeat in ‘08.  The reason?  One not so little word, immigration.

Plus, remember the Griswald‘s family vacation?  Wacky doesn‘t even begin to describe how the Romneys go road tripping.  You are not going to believe what they strapped on to the roof of their car when they took off on vacation.  You are MSNBC.


CARLSON:  The president‘s immigration bill appears to be dead in the Senate and he can thank members of his own party for that.  Conservative Republicans helped kill that bill today.  Supporters were shy 14 votes of the 60 they needed to keep that legislation alive.  President Bush, apparently disappointed, had this to say. 


GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT:  I‘m sorry the Senate was unable to reach agreement on the bill this morning.  Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress‘ failure to act on it is a disappointment.  American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to immigration laws.  A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn‘t find some common ground, it didn‘t work. 


CARLSON:  Well, the bill is dead for the moment but it could still loom large in the ‘08 presidential election.  At least 40 percent of Hispanics voted for President Bush, last time, in 2004.  That is more than double the amount who voted for Bob Dole in 1996. 

It now appears that the country‘s largest and fastest growing minority group is headed back to the Democratic party.  Fifty-eight percent of Hispanics say they are Democrats or leaning that way.  Twenty-two percent are Independent, just 20 percent are now Republicans. 

And guess which Democrat this benefits the most?  Hillary Clinton, by a whopping 40 percent margin over Barack Obama.  So why are so many Hispanics voters for Hillary? 

With me again, Bill Press, Nationally Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host and Chief of Correspondence for “Newsweek” magazine, Marcus Mabry.  Welcome to you both.

Bill, the irony here, President Bush failed in his repeated and I felt, heartfelt and pretty aggressive attempts to get this amnesty bill through.  Pro illegal immigration pill.  By any measure, a bill that you would think Hispanic immigrants would like.  He put everything behind it, he failed, and yet his party is still being blamed by Hispanic voters for being anti-Hispanic?  How does that work?

PRESS:  Tucker, you know, I have seen this movie before.  When I was Democratic Chairman of California, we Democrats did not win the Hispanic vote.  The Republican party gave it to us when Pete Wilson supported an anti-immigration bill.  And you‘re right, President Bush doesn‘t deserve the blame for this.  It wasn‘t President Bush, I think he was on the right side of this issue.  But clearly, the members of his party, particularly Tancredo, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Jon Kyl and some of the others, came out as being very anti-immigrant.  Which means, it‘s the Republican Party that‘s going to pay the price, already is.

CARLSON:  So if you‘re against illegal immigration Hispanic voters don‘t like you. 

PRESS:  No, if you come across as anti-immigrant, meaning anti-any opportunity to get on the path of citizenship or a guest worker program or anything that is pro immigrant.  Then you‘re considered anti-Latino, rightly or wrongly.

CARLSON:  Right.

PRESS:  And the Republican Party is going to pay the price. 

CARLSON:  Right.  So you are for upholding the law so you are a racist.  That‘s just a measure of how demented America has become, that is where we stand.

Why, Marcus, are Hispanic voters going for Hillary and not Barack Obama?  Why not Bill Richardson?  He speaks Spanish.

MABRY:  Well, you know.  Yes, he‘s actually running as the Hispanic presidential candidate.  He keeps saying I want to be viewed as the Hispanic candidate but he keeps how he‘s Hispanic.  It‘s amazing these numbers, the fact that, you know, Latino/Hispanic voters are not more attracted to Bill Richardson.  I think that‘s the really bad news here for anyone, I think it‘s really for Richardson.  You know, to go back to your question about, can you be, you know, anti-illegal immigration and still pro-immigrant?  You can.  But I think Bill‘s right, this is the wedge issue that the Democrats are going to be able to use in ‘08.  Whoever is the nominee, whether its Hillary and I think part of the support from the Hispanic voters comes from name recognition, quite simply.  And the fact that their states are largely Hispanic and Latino have not seen much of these Democratic candidates yet on their turf.  That number could go down.  She benefits from the name recognition and secondly, the party affiliation numbers that we have seen in the poll, right now, the Democrats have an overwhelming advantage on party affiliation.  In every poll—in the “Newsweek” poll we ask about it.  And we have never seen number this is high of Americans generally who want to call themselves a Democrat because they‘re so disillusioned with this Republican administration. 

PRESS:  Hey, Tucker, here‘s one point ...

CARLSON:  Let me just say, Bill.

PRESS:  Yes.

CARLSON:   You don‘t need to be a demographer to see the future here, looking at generations of Democratic control of the government because of these numbers.  I mean, I don‘t see any other way to read this.  This is going to be—we have majority Hispanic states, we‘re going to see a lot more in the next 30 years, and this kind of guaranteed control of the federal government, isn‘t it for Democrats? 

PRESS:  We have major majority/minority—if that‘s the correct phrase, majority/minority states.  We will soon be perhaps a majority/minority country.  This has really significant long-term implications and Tucker, what a lot of people don‘t understand, is this Hispanic vote is really a natural vote for the Republican party.  Look, I mean, they‘re Catholics, they‘re pro-family, they‘re anti-choice, they‘re pro small business.  I mean, it should be easy pickings for the Republicans.  They have given it away for a short-term political gain and a long-term political loss. 

MABRY:  I think its got to be alternately ...

CARLSON:  Because they‘re not for illegal immigration?  This is like a parallel universe.  Stand back man!  This is insane. 

PRESS:  No, you keep saying that.  You keep saying that, Tucker.  They want to control the border.  It‘s just they came out appearing to be so anti-immigrant because they opposed any guest worker program.  They want to break up the families, they don‘t want to put them on any path to citizenship.  They don‘t want to recognize how long these people have been here and what contribution they are making to the country. 

CARLSON:  That‘s sick.

PRESS:  You can be anti-immigrant.

CARLSON:  It‘s just—the whole thing is sick.  I‘m actually personally, just speaking for myself, I‘m vehemently pro-immigrant.  I think immigrants are wonderful, I‘m just opposed to illegal immigration.  It doesn‘t make me anti-Hispanic but that‘s where we stand in America 2007. 

We‘ll be right back. 

Al Gore says he‘s not running for president.  But what if he did run for president and what would it mean for the current Democratic front-runners if he chose to do that? 

Plus, Bill Richardson is running for president.  Why does he seem like he‘s more interested in the unofficial race for V.P.?  This is MSNBC, the place for politics. 



CARLSON:  Another day, another crisis for the Bush administration.  But this one could get serious.  The Senate Judiciary Committee is fed up with what Chairman Patrick Leahy calls Nixonian stonewalling by the Bush administration.  So the committee has issued subpoenas to the White House and the Office of the Vice President over the administration‘s warantless domestic wire tapping program. 

White House lawyer Fred Fielding—that is the same Fred Fielding who served as associate counsel to Richard Nixon during Watergate—quickly invoked executive privilege, setting up what could be a pretty ugly constitutional showdown.  Potentially, anyway.

Bill Press joins us.  He is a nationally syndicated radio show host.  As does Marcus Mabry of “Newsweek.”  He is the chief of correspondence there.  Marcus, how big a deal is this?  Is this just another day and another subpoena or is this a big one? 

MABRY:  Not, it‘s a big deal.  It‘s a big deal because this is an issue that, unlike many of the scandal, quote, unquote, issues that we‘ve talked about in the mainstream media over the last six and a half years, this is an issue that actually has resonated with the American public.  We‘re talking about domestic wire tapping.  Americans don‘t like that very much. 

And so I think this is important.  It‘s also important because this is Congress‘s function.  It is a check and balance against the executive branch and that is what Congress is doing.  I think, if we look at why is it happening now, you know, the latest polls show that some 60 percent of Democrats give this Democratically led Congress a negative approval rating. 

People are tired of the Congress not doing more of what they elected to do back in November. 

CARLSON:  Bill, this does remind me, as so many things do, of 1997, you know, 10 years ago when the roles were, of course, completely reversed.  And you could see the Republicans overplaying their hand as the 1990‘s went on.  I could see the Democrats doing that now.  Senator Schumer compared President Bush to Richard Nixon yesterday.  This is like the last days of Nixon he said.  I mean, it‘s not like the last days of Nixon. 

The fact is, we haven‘t had another terror attack since 9/11.  Bush has that going for him.  I don‘t know.  Do the Democrats risk seeming overzealous?   

PRESS:  Not at all, Tucker.  I think the Democrats are far from overplaying their hand.  I think they‘re just starting to play their hand.  I think Marcus is right.  The Democrats really want to see some action.  This is an important issue.  The White House thinks it can operate above the law.  Nobody would have had a problem with this program if they had just gone to the FISA court.  They didn‘t.  Now they‘ve got some explaining to do. 

And you know what I think is going to happen?  I think this will end up in the Supreme Court and the Roberts court will back up the White House.  So I don‘t think they have to worry, but it‘s an embarrassment for them. 

CARLSON:  We‘ll be so deep in the Hillary Clinton administration by then, it won‘t matter.  Though, actually, Marcus, it could be—I say that with deep shame as an American.  But it could be—light at the end of the tunnel—the Obama administration.  Barack Obama—or his campaign telling the Associated Press today that he has received money from 138,000 new donors, which is really a remarkable number. 

Just to put this into some context, Howard Dean—remember the second quarter of 2003, we were saying Howard Dean is doing this amazing job fund raising.  He had 59,000 and 70,000 over the first six months of the year.  His was considered a ground swell, a prairie fire. 

A hundred and thirty eight thousand, Marcus; he is going to report a lot of money at the end of this quarter.  Isn‘t he?

MABRY:  He is going to report a lot of money.  But so is Clinton.  So is Romney, as always, on the other side.  The problem—my only problem with getting—especially Obama getting too excited over these numbers, is, you know, you said the word, you said the phrase, Tucker, Howard Dean.  Remember, this is a race that‘s twice as good as Dean‘s, however, remember what we all were saying about Dean and how the Net was going to change elections. 

Remember what happened to Howard Dean.  I don‘t think this is really anything to be ecstatic about on the Obama side.  I think maybe what this points out is that their raw numbers, their absolute totals, will be less than some of their opponents, including Clinton.  And they want to—

CARLSON:  Well, that‘s a sophisticated guess.  In other words they‘re leaking the good news now to create the perception that his has been a successful fund raising quarter, when in fact it won‘t be as impressive. 

MABRY:  Right, then it‘s a brush fire happening.  He‘s an exciting candidates and he‘s got people on board. 

CARLSON:  A hundred and thirty eight thousand tells you something. 

That‘s a lot of people. 

MABRY:  I hear you.  I just think we can overblow it.  We‘ve overblown it in the past. 

FENN:  Tucker I got to say, I think 138,000 is astounding for someone who has been out there trying to raise money as a candidate.  Here is what is significant about it.  These are small donors.  These are people who are motivated, who can and will give again and again and again.  Let me tell you something else, when you have a base like that, you also appeal to and can attract the bigger donors, because they see how well you‘ve done among the grassroots Democrats.  I think it‘s very good news for Barack Obama. 

MABRY:  And I think that‘s the goal, to really attract the bigger fish

with this.  This is chum

CARLSON:  Here‘s what I‘m confused by.  You‘ve got Hillary Clinton and

Barack Obama and Bill Richardson and you‘ve got a pretty impressive and

well known group of people running for the nomination on the Democratic

side.  Why does Al Gore‘s name keep floating around.  Suffolk University

did a poll recently that asked if Al Gore were in the New Hampshire

primary, would you vote for him?  He got 32 percent of the vote.  His entry

theoretical entry into the race immediately cut half of Obama‘s support, a quarter of Hillary‘s support. 

I mean, is there a group of people out there, Marcus, that you‘re aware of, who really genuinely want Al Gore to run for president again? 

MABRY:  There is a group of people.  It‘s some of the hardcore Democratic true believers in the Democratic party.  It‘s not surprising to me, just because they still smart over the fact that they feel Al Gore, by the popular vote count, did win the election of 2000.  That‘s objectively true.  And they feel angry at that still. 

They see all of this, the last six and a half years, the president‘s abysmal approval ratings today, even amongst his own party—they see all of this as the outcome of that fraudulent result.  And so they still support gore. 

They also look at the ridiculous weather we‘re seeing—you see it on your local news.  You see it on “The Today Show” every morning, the wild weather around the world, perhaps brought on by climate change.  This is Al Gore‘s issue.  They think, for that reason, Al Gore is not just the man of yesterday but also the man of today.  I think very few general voters believe that. 

CARLSON:  You know, Bill, when I get in bed at night, I say a prayer that Al Gore will join the race, not just because it will be great for us as a news show, but also something perverse in me wants to give Democrats what they‘re asking for.  If Al Gore ran again—and we‘ve talked about this before—you would be so upset, Bill Press.  You know you don‘t really want him to run for president.  Do you? 

PRESS:  Look, Tucker, on the issues, whether it‘s the war, whether it‘s global warming, if it‘s health care, Al Gore is the best on any—than any of the candidates who are actually running.  That‘s why there is this groundswell of support for Al Gore.  I think it‘s true, though, there is no way Al Gore is going to get into this unless Hillary Clinton stumbles.  I don‘t think that‘s likely to happen. 

For the time being, Gore is like Fred Thompson on the other side.  He‘s got the advantage of not being a candidate.  So he can be loose as a goose.  He can say anything.  He doesn‘t have to calculate any of his moves and he is certainly benefiting from it. 

CARLSON:  I want to bring up a story—this is kind of small, but I think it gets to the heart of something important.  “The Boston Globe” has been doing all week a pretty in-depth series on Mitt Romney, his whole life, really even from his ancestors to the present day.  And in one of these installments the other day, they recounted a vacation that the Romney family took some years ago by car. 

And on this vacation, Mitt Romney admits that he took his dog, the family dog named Shamus—I believe an Irish Setter—and put him in a box on the roof of the car.  Now I ask you, Marcus, and I‘ll admit that I‘m coming from a dog centric point of view.  But I‘m feeling that maybe Mitt Romney lost my vote here.  Do you need to be a PETA member to be disturbed by the fact that this guy put a dog on the roof of his car.  Does that bother you? 

MABRY:  I‘m like you, Tucker.  I cannot claim objectivity on this issue, because I have a dog.  I‘m not a PETA member, but it certainly makes it less likely that I will vote for Romney.  Look, people who are going to vote for him aren‘t going to care about this.  As you say, it‘s a small issue.  I‘m not quite sure what it would show about Mitt Romney, as far as what he would be as a leader, other than he‘s a little weird about what he does to his pets. 

CARLSON:  That matters to me.  Think about it.  You have a dog, right?  And you think to yourself, I‘m going to put him on the roof of my car in a box.  That‘s a very, very strange, I think, frankly, kind of heartless decision to make.  What does that say about the guy?  Then the piece goes on to say the dog relieved himself because he never let him out down the back of the car.  I don‘t know.  I hope someone from the Romney campaign comes on this show to explain why the hell he did that. 

FENN:  Hey Tucker, there is more to this story too.  First of all, he was driving his family.  His kids are in the car.  I mean, think about what the kids thought about having the dog on the roof of the car.  And this was a drive, as I recall, from Boston to Ontario, which is like five hours or more that that dog was on top of the car.  I mean, this was cruelty to animals. 

I think it does speaks—it‘s not going to decide the election.  But I think it speaks to bad judgment on the part of Mitt Romney.  Let me tell you, I learned a long time ago, you don‘t cross the PETA people or you lose your life, basically. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I mean, every time I think I‘m starting to like Mitt

Romney—he seems like a decent guy, an impressive guy, smart and all that

something like this comes out.  First he claims to be a life long hunter.  Now he put his dog in a box on the roof of his car.  I don‘t know, he may have lost my vote.  Hopefully they‘ll come on this show to explain what that really was all about. 

Bill Press, Marcus Mabry, thank you very much. 

PRESS:  All right, Tucker, see you. 

CARLSON:  See you.  Donald Trump has mastered the art of brokering in the boardroom, so how about something a little bigger like Mideast peace. 

And what do you get when a wild horse catches a case of jungle fever.  MSNBC‘s animal correspondent Willie Geist has the tape.  We‘ll be right back. 


CARLSON:  It seems like just yesterday that Tony Blair, the brand-new Middle East envoy, was walking the halls of Number Ten Downing Street.  Actually, it was just yesterday.  But the former British prime minister has already moved on and he has assumed the role of peacemaker.  He has the blessing of a powerful global quartet that includes the U.S., Russia, the U.N. and the European Union.

But is a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and a Bush confidant, the best choice to bring peace to Palestine?  A better choice might be a no-nonsense negotiator, who just wants to get a deal done, someone who has no sentiment, someone from beyond the club of political power brokers, someone like Donald Trump.  Real estate kingpin, self-promoter extraordinaire, deal maker in chief, yes, Donald Trump, the one man who thinks so.  Here‘s legendary Republican strategist and long time friend of Donald Trump Roger Stone, who joins us now.  Roger, thanks for coming on. 


CARLSON:  Donald Trump?  I guess his show is no longer on NBC, but does he need to be Middle East envoy now? 

STONE:  Here‘s the point I‘m trying to make, which is it‘s our private sector that has our greatest minds, a Donald trump, a Jack Welch, a Warren Buffet.  These are the greatest negotiators—some of the greatest minds in our society.  Frankly, they‘re a hell of a lot smarter and better negotiators than the striped pant set, which don‘t seem to be getting us peace in the Middle East. 

Donald trump is perhaps the greatest deal maker of the century.  To say that his deals aren‘t complex means you don‘t understand real estate, international real estate and the market that he makes money in.  The man is a genius.  He‘s also tough enough and he‘s been out front on a number of foreign policy issues. 

Now, he doesn‘t speak diplomat speak.  He tells it like it is.  But this is a guy who predicted 9/11 in his book, “The America We Deserve,” years before it happened.  So yes, Donald Trump, that‘s what we need. 

CARLSON:  You‘ve written a piece about this, which I thought was kind of compelling.  And you wrote this, quote, Trump can fly his own black and red 727 with his name in six-foot letters on the side.  So when he does, believe me, that will cause more commotion at the Damascus Airport than the arrival of Air Force One.  So you think he would be taken seriously? 

STONE:  First of all, I can tell you, businesses around the world want to do partnerships with Donald Trump.  He‘s taken seriously around the world and he‘s a giant of American society.  And he‘s seen that way internationally.  But he‘s also a Wharton graduate, a man who has come back from the brink of financial success through his negotiating skills, compiled one of the greatest fortunes in the country, a man who is synonymous with American business. 

How can he do any worse than Condoleezza Rice?  How can he do any worse than we‘re doing today?  We‘re nowhere near peace.  Yes, it‘s complicated.  Do you think real estate isn‘t complicated, between regulations and the environment and unions and egregious New York taxes?  Trump still makes millions.  Do you think that is simple?  No. 

We need a new approach.  We need somebody with the brass and the negotiating skills.  That‘s Donald Trump or a Jack Welch or a Warren Buffett.  These men are giants compared to the pygmies at the State Department. 

CARLSON:  Got, maybe I‘ve had too much sun today, but I think you‘re winning me over here.  With Trump though, His M.O. appears to be that no matter what happens to his own personal fortunes—he was on the verge of bankruptcy, according to the “New York Times” at one point—it‘s always a victory.  He sells everything as great.  I‘m a billionaire.  Could we trust Donald Trump to tell the truth about the progress of the peace negotiations?  Would everything be great all the time? 

STONE:  First of all, there is a lot of inaccuracies in that “New York Times” piece that you refer to and Trump never came close to personal bankruptcy.  His companies took bankruptcy protection, which is a legitimate financial technique in today‘s economic world. 

Secondarily, however, since we‘re on the point here, no, I think that Trump is a patriot.  I think that he doesn‘t—on television is not necessarily, other than on his TV show, is not necessarily Trump you would see in the boardroom or sitting across the table from the Chinese or the Israelis.  He‘s a staunch friend of Israel.  He would be trusted by the American Jewish community. 

I think it‘s time to try something new in the Middle East.  Donald Trump has got the stature to do this.  You wouldn‘t have to pay him, because he wouldn‘t take a dollar.  He can fly his own plane and he‘s got greater credibility today—I hate to say this—around the globe than the president of the United States. 

CARLSON:  Well, you know him very well.  You‘ve worked with Donald Trump—I don‘t know if it‘s a secret or not—but for many years.  You know him intimately.  Would he do it?

STONE:  If the president of the United States asked him to take a mission abroad on behalf of his country, of course he would do it.  I have no doubt that he would do it.  He‘s a patriot.  If you look at a number of issues here, Tucker, he predicted the financial collapse of the Japanese.  He predicted that the Russian system would go back to totalitarianism after the Wall fell. 

He predicted that Raul Castro would be just as tough as his brother and that nothing would change in Cuba.  Now, he doesn‘t say it in the fancy words of the “New York Times” or the “Wall Street Journal.”  That‘s why most Americans can understand what he is saying.  He‘s really been prescient on a number of these international issues.  And he‘s a businessman from New York. 

I mean, he‘s a real estate tycoon from New York, who is known to every television viewer in the Philippines or in China or in the former Soviet Union.  He‘s up to the job. 

CARLSON:  You know what, at very least, he ought to do some developing in Gaza.  That is really one of the world‘s greatest wastes of beach front property as far as I‘m concerned. 

STONE:  He‘s waiting for the market to come down.  And at the right time, he will make his move. 

CARLSON:  Roger Stone, you know what, I think you‘ve almost got me. 

I‘m almost on team Trump. 

STONE:  How could you do worse than the crowd that‘s in there now? 

CARLSON:  That‘s a good point.  That‘s a good pint.  It‘s hard to argue with that.  Thanks.

Well, who knew Paris Hilton had an hour‘s worth of things to say.  We trust you didn‘t watch her interview last night.  But luckily Willie Geist did.  He has made it his life‘s work to keep track of Paris Hilton so you don‘t have to.  He joins us next with a comprehensive report.  You are, of course, watching MSNBC.


CARLSON:  And now, for the news that really matters, we turn to the Walter Cronkite of a new age, Willie Geist. 

WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT:  Tucker, there is no greater supporter of the Trump vision than me, as you know.  I‘m not totally sold on the idea that he is the answer in the Middle East.  I‘m sorry. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know, I kind of am.  I‘m deeply skeptical of Mr.

Trump, as you know.  But I don‘t know.  Nothing else has worked. 

GEIST:  If his approach to the Rosie O‘Donnell situation is any indication of his diplomacy, it‘s probably not a good idea, “the Palestinians are fat, disgusting losers.”  That‘s how he would do it. 

CARLSON:  That might help. 

GEIST:  Well, Tucker, the only thing that could possibly be more fascinating than Donald Trump is a Zorse.  You heard me a Zorse.  It‘s half zebra, half horse.  This is a one-year-old female.  It‘s the product of a zebra father and a house mom.  Now, the veterinarian who cares for her in Germany says the zorse was a mistake.  But, of course, the zorse‘s parents have not told her that. 

Fascinating, Tucker, I‘ve never seen one of those.  I‘m not sure what kind of engineering is going on in Germany, but I‘m a little worried, frankly. 

CARLSON:  They‘re better at building Audis than they are animals. 

GEIST:  Yes, that‘s kind of scary.  All right, enough of the nonsense.  Paris Hilton, Tucker.  After watching her talk for an hour last night, now I know why her boyfriends usually lose interest in her after about a week and a half.  Despite my relentless pursuit of the booking, Paris gave her first post-jail interview to Larry King.  She revealed, among other things, that the grave medical condition that caused her initial release from jail after just three days was claustrophobia.  She says she has suffered from the disease for her entire life.  What an ordeal. 

Paris also said she studied the Bible every day behind bars, but apparently the claustrophobia prevented her from retaining the material. 


LARRY KING, CNN ANCHOR:  Are you a religious person? 

PARIS HILTON, “THE SIMPLE LIFE”:  I‘ve always been religious.  I went to Catholic school as a child and I‘ve always had a sense of spirituality.  But even more so now after being in jail. 

KING:  Did you read the Bible in jail? 

HILTON:  Yes. 

KING:  What‘s your favorite Bible passage? 

HILTON:  I don‘t have a favorite. 

KING:  Did you read it every day? 

HILTON:  In jail I read a lot. 

KING:  Going to go to mass? 

HILTON:  Yes. 


GEIST:  Wow, that‘s not good.  Apparently Paris thought it was an open book test as she looked over for her notes.  They failed her.  Now, you said you found god in prison.  You‘re going on Larry King, your one interview.  Memorize one line from the Bible, the first line you see, let there be light, whatever you see there.  Just memorize it and feed it to him.  She couldn‘t come up with it.  Terrible.

CARLSON:  Jesus wept, how is that? 

GEIST:  Anything.  Well, Paris says—she claims she‘s a changed woman after her 23 days in jail.  So Larry King teed it up for her to say something profound when he asked her about the one thing she would like to change about herself.  Here‘s what he got instead. 


HILTON:  Something, no—when I get nervous or shy, my voice gets really high.  I‘ve been doing that ever since I was a little girl and that‘s one thing I don‘t like that I do.  I like when I talk in my normal voice, but sometimes I go down.  And that‘s something I‘m trying to change about myself. 


GEIST:  She wants to change the way her voice sounds when she is nervous.  Not a lot of depth there, is there? 

CARLSON:  You know, I was kind of feeling—I‘m too soft.  I was feeling some sympathy for Paris Hilton, as I do for anybody that goes to prison.  I kind of want to send her back. 

GEIST:  You know, I cherry picked the two worst moments.  She was a little bit sympathetic throughout the interview.  But, I mean, just compared for the interview, for god‘s sake.  That‘s all you had to do.  She didn‘t do it. 

CARLSON:  Plus, it‘s Larry King, who is like the nicest guy in America. 

GEIST:  I know, I know.  Paris I‘m rooting for you, but you‘re making it very difficult for me.  So please, try harder next time. 

Well Tucker, this might be my favorite event of the year, it‘s the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Annual Fireworks Safety Demonstration.  It‘s the group‘s sobering reminder that if you play with fireworks, you probably won‘t walk away from the Fourth of July with all your appendages. 

In fact, as you‘re about to see, yes, you may very well have your head blown off.  That spoils a July 4th barbecue like you would not believe.  This guy‘s got some bottle rockets going up his shorts it would appear.  And now how many times have you seen this, a couple twins injecting rockets into each other.  How many times do we have to see that before we do something.  That guy had his hand was blown off.  Just terrible stuff, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  We are a nation of wussies, Willie.  I am proud to say that I woke up this morning and literally, the first thing I did—this is totally true—I shot five Roman Candles off my front porch.  You know why?  I‘m an American, it‘s summertime, my kids love it and fireworks are patriotic and cool.  And there is a whole anti-fireworks lobby that drives me crazy. 

GEIST:  Let me see both of your hands real quick.  I want to see if you‘ve got them there. 

CARLSON:  I got all ten fingers.  I‘ve been firing fireworks my whole life. 

GEIST:  Your head is still there too.  Maybe you‘re right.  I stand corrected.   

CARLSON:  How can you be against fireworks?  I don‘t understand that.  Well, you got me going, Willie.  Willie Geist at headquarters, thanks Willie.  For more Willie Geist, you can check out ZeitGeist at  That does it for us.  Thanks for watching.  up next, “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews.  We‘re back tomorrow.  See you then. 



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2007 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2007 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.