Guests: Tamar Jacoby, Tom Tancredo, Atoosa Rubenstein, Drew Pinsky, Richard Walter, Ken Timmerman, David Corn
PAT BUCHANAN, GUEST HOST: As President Bush prepares to head for Europe to celebrate the 60th anniversary of D-Day, will the French give their Bush-bashing a rest?
Michael Moore‘s latest film levels serious accusations against President Bush and his father. But now the controversial filmmaker is facing questions himself over one of the film‘s most explosive charges.
Then, what would America do without Mexico cans? A new movie takes a humorous view of life in California after 12 million Latinos disappear.
ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
BUCHANAN: Good evening. I‘m Pat Buchanan. Joe Scarborough is in France preparing for the 60th anniversary of D-Day this weekend. He joins us live from Paris to talk about how the French are about to welcome President Bush.
Joe, how are you? Are you getting combat pay over there?
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Getting combat pay behind enemy lines.
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: You‘re not damaging our relations, are you?
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
I‘ll tell you what. It‘s been a fascinating few days over here so far, as we prepare for the president coming to town. And, you know, the Paris papers obviously are not extending the president a warm welcome. “Le Monde” has been called before (INAUDIBLE)
And it‘s been predictably hostile. In fact, it‘s run some negative editorials on the president, saying he‘s coming over here to attack John Kerry. And it also says that George Bush is the exact opposite of the values that we like in Americans.
But I‘ll tell you what surprised me, Pat, the past few days. It‘s obvious that Parisians, who are thought to be predictably nasty, do like Americans. I was here in the 1980s in the middle of the Reagan administration, and there was such open hostility towards Ronald Reagan and what was happening back then and towards Americans.
But since I‘ve been over here, whether you go to cafes, whether you go in stores on the street, I can tell you, there‘s been an extraordinary warmth and kindness towards me and other Americans over here. And I‘ve talked to other Americans who come here regularly, and they say that there is—that actually Parisians are kinder to them than they‘ve been in some time. So there‘s a real disconnect in how they feel towards George W. Bush and how they feel towards Americans in general. I‘ve been very surprised. But...
BUCHANAN: They‘re sort of going out of their way, are they, Joe, to say, look, we‘ve got problems with the president and the policy of the Americans, but we‘ve got no problems with the Americans, we like them, and they‘re sort of going out of their way to compensate?
SCARBOROUGH: Well, they certainly are.
And I don‘t know. Perhaps it‘s because the 60th anniversary is coming up. But you read newspapers, you read magazines, you go past magazine stands, they‘re talking about the 60th anniversary. They believe it‘s a very big thing. Also, you look at the news. I can‘t understand exactly what they‘re saying on TV, but the news shows are also talking about the 60th anniversary coming up with great anticipation.
There‘s not this snide detachment that a lot might expect from Parisians here. And, again, as you probably know, I have probably gone after the French more than anybody in the past year, but I can tell you there‘s a kindness.
Now, there‘s a feeling here that Jacques Chirac may be looking for an opportunity not to help George W. Bush so much, but to help Americans, because now he‘s dealing from a position of strength. And some here feel that the timing is right. Iraq has a new prime minister, has a president. I spoke with America‘s ambassador to France, Ambassador Leach, earlier today.
He‘s very positive. He says that he believes that Chirac is ready to play ball, certainly not going to provide troops to the United States.
BUCHANAN: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: But, at the same time, what we need from France is not hard power. We need soft power. And we need them to go to the United Nations and to NATO and express support. And...
BUCHANAN: OK, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: And they believe Chirac may do that.
BUCHANAN: OK, we‘re looking forward to those reports this weekend from Normandy. It ought to be terrific.
SCARBOROUGH: OK, Pat. Thanks a lot.
BUCHANAN: OK.
Here now to talk about France, friend or foe, are Ken Timmerman, author of “The French Betrayal of America,” and David Corn, author of the subtly titled “Lies of George W. Bush.”
Let me start with you, David, here. “Le Monde”‘s Washington correspondent began his story today by writing—quote—“George Bush is going to Europe to lie about John Kerry.” Why don‘t they really give it a rest, huh?
DAVID CORN, AUTHOR, “THE LIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH”: Well, maybe they just think he‘s going to be doing there what he‘s been doing here. If you read the front page of “The Washington Post” just yesterday, you had many academic experts saying that he was running the most negative and misleading campaign in modern times.
So, yes, that‘s obviously a little bit of hyperbole on the part of the French. But I think what Joe, his report shows actually, we have a possibility of detente here with the French. Maybe we can be as gracious towards them as they are being to Joe and others and to realize that there are differences between the governments, but all the French-bashing that‘s gone on here over the past year has been rather silly and irrelevant when you look at the fact that Russia, China, Mexico, Canada, a lot of other countries have opposed us on this war.
And just recently, the Polish prime minister accused the president of misleading him and the world when it came to the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
BUCHANAN: Let me ask you, Ken, why not—look, we are the superpower here. We had disagreements over Iraq. I mean, they did have a point, as you look at Iraq now. Why not, as a superpower, let‘s be the ones to reach out? We‘ve never gone to war with the French. They‘ve been allies on and off for 200 years. We‘ve got a lot of great relations there. And they are tough to deal with. But why shouldn‘t the president reach out?
KEN TIMMERMAN, “FRENCH BETRAYAL OF AMERICA”: Well, the president is reaching out, Pat.
But let me just go back a little bit. They didn‘t have a point when they went against us last year. They betrayed us and they lied to us, and President Chirac personally lied to President Bush. This is one of the things I reveal in my book. He went out of his way to lie to the president personally. His foreign minister lied to Colin Powell at the United Nations. They had dinner together on January 19, 2003, the day before...
BUCHANAN: All right, they double-crossed us.
TIMMERMAN: They double-crossed us, OK.
BUCHANAN: Let‘s say they double-crossed us.
Look, 20 years after the Chinese communists slaughtered 33,000 Americans in Korea and tortured our prisoners, because it was in our interests, Nixon goes to China, shakes hands with these monsters. If you can deal with those—the French haven‘t done anything like that. Why not patch it up now?
TIMMERMAN: Oh, I think there‘s every effort being made by the Bush White House, by the president personally, to do so. He‘s going to have dinner with President Chirac on June 5.
He‘s actually going to let Mr. Chirac speak first at the American cemetery in Normandy when they‘re there on June 6 in the morning. This is unprecedented, by the way. I was there 30 years ago for the D-Day celebrations with my first tour in France.
BUCHANAN: All right.
David, let me ask you this. Look, the French have a real problem. They‘ve got five million Muslims in Paris. The Jewish population is 600,000. It is a real inhibiting factor in French foreign policy. De Gaulle has tilted—he titled France right after the ‘67 war towards the Arabs. Isn‘t it inevitable there‘s going to be friction because we‘ve got basic fundamental disagreements about Iraq and about the Middle East?
TIMMERMAN: Well, France is following the will of its people I think in terms of not joining up in the war, in part because of the demographics that you mentioned.
BUCHANAN: What about Ken‘s point that they lied to us?
CORN: Well, listen, I wasn‘t at that meeting.
I‘m shocked, shocked, to think that one country might lie to another country. I still wonder why we worry more about the French lies to the American president than we do about the American president‘s lies, or Colin Powell‘s false assertions, which he now has fessed up to, about the reasons for the war. And I still think America‘s standing in the world in terms of how it deals with France and any other nation is going to be tainted and poisoned continuously until we acknowledge those issues.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right, go ahead.
TIMMERMAN: If I may, there‘s a very serious point here.
And the French argue about this multipolar world.
BUCHANAN: Right.
TIMMERMAN: That is the serious issue, the principle that they were standing on when they were opposing us at the United Nations.
What they‘re saying really is that France...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: They don‘t want a Krauthammer unipolar world.
(CROSSTALK)
TIMMERMAN: Well, it‘s not just that. No, it‘s worse than that.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: What is wrong with the French and Europeans saying, look, we would like to be an equal pillar or we want—we‘ve got our own role in the world?
(CROSSTALK)
TIMMERMAN: They are in NATO already.
What the French are saying is very different from that. They are saying, we are the heart of resistance. And this is, by the way, also from “Le Monde” today. We are the heart of resistance against the United States at the United Nations. It‘s not that they disagree with us.
(CROSSTALK)
TIMMERMAN: Excuse me.
It‘s that they are leading a coalition against America.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Against America where, where, on what issues?
TIMMERMAN: At the United Nations on Iraq.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Well, look, they disagree. A lot of Americans disagreed with the president on Iraq.
(CROSSTALK)
TIMMERMAN: Disagreement is one thing. Leading a coalition against us is something different.
CORN: But wait a second. They didn‘t do that during the Clinton years because they weren‘t in the same type of conflict on policy.
(CROSSTALK)
TIMMERMAN: No, we just caved in on everything during the Clinton years.
CORN: They look at who‘s in charge of American foreign policy at this point in time, and for whatever reason, they feel a need to set up a counterpoint. And if they want to the center of it, they‘re looking at the neocons running the foreign policy and saying this is dangerous and maybe against our interests and we want it organized.
BUCHANAN: All right, let me pick up on this point.
Look, the Russians don‘t agree with us in a lot of areas. We get along with them. Why this continual hostility, you know, this grating relationship, the insults, what do they call them, cheese-eating, surrender monkeys, all this abusive rhetoric?
(CROSSTALK)
TIMMERMAN: We are not using those terms.
(CROSSTALK)
CORN: Freedom fries. Freedom fries.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Freedom fries and freedom poodles.
I mean, isn‘t this petty, when you consider, look, you‘re going to have abrasions in this relationship, but it‘s an old friendly relationship? And repair it. We‘re the big power.
TIMMERMAN: Look, Pat, we are repairing it.
It is a question of whether the French do want to play ball with us or not. The president has extended his hands. I say he‘s going to the Elysee Palace. He‘s offering to allow the French to come into this coalition, both politically and militarily, if they want. They said that they don‘t want to be in. So it‘s really up to French to say if they want to come.
BUCHANAN: Let me get a prediction from both of you.
I think this is going to be a good session at Normandy. I think the French are going to go out of their way to patch it up. I think the president is. Do you agree, David, or disagree.
CORN: No, I think on the surface, there is. I‘m not sure the fundamental differences in terms of what to do in Iraq, there‘s going to be any progress.
BUCHANAN: It‘s going to be a good week for the president and for Jacques Chirac.
TIMMERMAN: A good week for the president, but no change on Iraq.
BUCHANAN: No change on Iraq.
CORN: We agree.
BUCHANAN: OK. We have agreement here. That‘s not good.
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: OK. I guess that‘s about it.
Thank you, Ken Timmerman and David Corn.
And, remember, Joe Scarborough is going to be on the beaches of Normandy this weekend for the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Don‘t miss his special coverage, Friday, Saturday and Sunday night, 10:00 p.m. Eastern.
Coming up next, President Bush has spent the last 2 ½ years hunting Osama bin Laden. Now controversial filmmaker Michael Moore claims the president helped bin Laden‘s family flee America after 9/11. Any evidence to support that? We‘ll find out.
Then, why do teens think casual sex is no big deal? We‘ll talk to the experts a little later on.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Michael Moore‘s latest pseudo-documentary won the top prize at Cannes, but is it chock-full of lies about the president?
We‘ll be talking about that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: This just in, Michael Moore‘s controversial new movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” is coming to a theater near you. But is his movie a propaganda fraud based on a big lie about President Bush?
In the film, Moore claims the Bush family helped the bin Laden family slip out of the United States in the hours immediately after 9/11.
Here‘s what Moore told Pacifica Radio last October.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER/AUTHOR: Now, here‘s Bush trying to deal with everybody on September 11, 12, 13. I mean, you remember, everybody remembers, the total state of chaos and people, just everyone, all of us discombobulated by the whole thing.
And he had the time to be thinking, what can I do to help the bin Ladens right now, you know? And all these elaborate plans were made, because they were spread out throughout the country, to be able to pick them up, get them to Boston and then get them to Paris.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BUCHANAN: But is that true? I spoke with Richard Walter, a film professor at UCLA, and Alan Murray, host of CNBC‘s “Capital Report,” who challenges and contradicts Moore‘s claims in “The Wall Street Journal” today. I asked them if there was any evidence the Bush family helped the bin Ladens in the hours after 9/11.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALAN MURRAY, HOST, “CAPITAL REPORT”: The answer to that question is no.
You know, what Michael Moore said—I haven‘t seen this movie, but what he said in that radio clip and he has said elsewhere—he said it in his book—is that they were spirited out of the country on September 12, 13, when airspace was closed, without being interrogated. That‘s just not true.
The 9/11 Commission, which is—carries no water for George Bush. In fact, they‘ve been very critical of George Bush. They found that there were six flights, but none of them left before September 13. None of them left until airspace was reopened. The FBI was allowed to check all of the passengers, interview any that they wanted to. They did interview 30 of them, and only let them go after doing that.
The FBI was delighted to have all these people in one place, where they could check them over and screen them and let them go, something they can‘t do for people who fly commercial airlines.
BUCHANAN: Is it not true that Richard Clarke, who was the terrorism expert, the top terrorism man in the White House at the time, has told “The Hill” newspaper that he made the decision that the Saudis could go, and there was nothing controversial about that decision?
MURRAY: He has been a little fuzzy. In his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission, he was a little fuzzy about who made the decision. He subsequently, as you said, told “The Hill” newspaper he made the decision.
But the one thing he‘s never been fuzzy on—and, again, this is a man who carries no water for George W. Bush. He‘s been very critical of the president. But he said he never had any worries about those charter flights, because he knew they had been checked by the—you know what else he said, Pat, that was very interesting? He said—in his public testimony, he said the FBI knew what the bin Laden family was up to.
They had very good information on what the bin Laden family was up to. It sounded to me like they had been wiretapped.
BUCHANAN: Richard Walter, how do you defend Michael Moore on this?
RICHARD WALTER, UCLA FILM PROFESSOR: I‘m not going to defend Michael Moore.
I said to you, Pat, on Alan‘s show, on “Capital Report,” just a few weeks ago that I think with Moore is a bloated, overfed, underloved narcissist with a real clinical disorder. You guys should be jumping up and down for joy that he‘s on the scene, because you can talk about these trivial issues.
The real fraud,the real propaganda fraud, the real lie is weapons of mass destruction, ties between Hussein and al Qaeda. I‘m actually somebody who supported the president when they went in on the basis of those lies.
(CROSSTALK)
WALTER: And this is all just a distraction from this disaster. I‘ve always said it‘s a mistake to vilify the president. George Bush was very nearly elected president and he should be given credit where due.
BUCHANAN: Professor Walter, you called it a distraction and a trivial issue.
But Michael Moore is charging the president of the United States with this complicity in a criminal obstruction of justice to assist people who may have been or were suspects in the greatest mass murder in history, assisting them because of family connections to get out of the country. Now, this is a lie almost on the level of those who alleged that Lyndon Johnson had a hand in the killing of John F. Kennedy.
I don‘t understand why this is acceptable to a professor of film, when it‘s been put in a film which has won the highest award in the world.
WALTER: The lie that Lyndon Johnson told that should have been focused on is that we were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. Everybody knows that he made that up. McNamara himself agrees that that‘s the case.
The lie here, again, is that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Why not address the issue that he
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: He‘s lying about the president of the United States. This is a criminal offense he‘s charging the president with, an impeachable offense.
WALTER: I‘ve told you again and I‘ll tell you before, I think Michael Moore is over the top. He is a flamboyant man who takes too much of the attention off the issues. His films are provocative and engaging, but they are dishonest.
None of us has seen this movie. I liked his other movies as entertainment, but I thought they were both dishonest. I‘m not going to defend that statement that he just made. I agree with you. I think it‘s ridiculous and it‘s a distraction. It‘s a distraction from the war.
BUCHANAN: Alan Murray, this seems to me—with due respect, this is more than a distraction. I opposed the war. I think it‘s valid to go into the questioning of the timing of the decision, who was for the war before 9/11, who was after it?
But this is really a horrendous charge that Moore is making.
MURRAY: I think it‘s a pretty serious charge. And it has a lot of currency. It gets passed around on the Internet.
You hear people say it as a matter of fact in common conversation. Look, I just believe—let‘s have a great debate here on the war in Iraq and the premises on which it was done, but let‘s not let that be based on myths and things that simply aren‘t true. Sure, weapons of mass destruction, why weren‘t they there? We can debate that, but, yes, not that the president was in the tank with the bin Laden family.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right, Mr. Walter, let me ask you this. If what we are—I‘m alleging is true and if what Alan has written and documented, I think, extremely well in “The Wall Street Journal” that this is an utter falsehood and it is a malicious lie about the president, which suggests criminal complicity in covering up or letting suspects go in 9/11, would that justify taking back this award at Cannes and would it justify denying Michael Moore an Academy Award?
WALTER: I don‘t care about the award at Cannes.
BUCHANAN: I know you don‘t.
WALTER: And I don‘t care about the Academy Award. I know you‘d rather talk about that than the real serious issues here, where we have—even you and I agree we shouldn‘t be there.
This is a hoax. And instead, you want to talk about a bronze statuette and an award given by a country that loathes us?
BUCHANAN: Well, with due respect, Mr. Walter, you are not a professional in foreign policy. You are very knowledgeable on film and on what justifies a great film and a good film, what‘s the difference between a docudrama and a documentary.
You know all these things better than any of us. I happen to agree with you about the wisdom of the war. But tell me about this movie. Should it have gotten that kind of an award and should it get an Academy Award?
WALTER: I think a lot of pictures that have gotten Academy Awards shouldn‘t have gotten them because they‘re lousy. Whether this movie should have gotten an Academy Award or not I think is just monumentally unimportant, if it‘s possible for something to be monumentally unimportant.
MURRAY: But isn‘t the question here whether documentary films should be held to some standard of truth? I mean, that‘s all I‘m interested in. I‘m interested in making sure we stick to the facts.
Shouldn‘t a documentary film that‘s going to be exalted at film festivals have to stick to some standard of truth?
WALTER: Anybody who believes what they see on the screen is the gospel, is truth, is seriously misguided.
There are just two kinds of movies, and it‘s not fiction and documentary. It‘s good movies and bad movies. And everything‘s got to be taken with a grain of salt.
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: All right, Mr. Walter, you seem to be suggesting that you can call it a documentary and you can lie deliberately in it and libel and slander the president.
But let me ask you something. Harvey Weinstein‘s Miramax is going to promote this all over America. Now, would you suggest that they make some kind of statement about it before they send this thing out as something plausible or something true?
WALTER: No, I think that audiences need to be circumspect and responsible when they view whatever they view on the screen and make the most of it, make up their own minds, their own decisions about it.
By watching Moore‘s previous two films, “Bowling For Columbine” and “Roger and Me,” any reasonable person can see that the films are flawed, they‘re full of hoaxes, they‘re mean-spirited.
BUCHANAN: Did not Disney make a wise decision in dumping this thing a year ago, knowing the character it was dealing with in Michael Moore?
WALTER: Certainly not. Certainly not.
And what they did was show that there is a really good basis for the fears that people have, people like myself and many, many other people in this country, that there‘s too much concentration of the media in too few hands. And Disney promised when they took over Miramax that they wouldn‘t do this kind of thing. Supposing the film gets out there on Disney‘s label, so there‘s one more bad movie out there. So what?
The question arises, so what?
BUCHANAN: All right, Alan Murray, last word.
MURRAY: Well, look, I certainly don‘t want any form of censorship.
I am surprised to learn tonight that documentary films don‘t have to be held to any standard of truth.
BUCHANAN: OK. Richard Walter, thank you very much for joining us. Hope to do it again.
And, Alan Murray, I‘m sure we will be doing it again. Thanks for joining us.
OK, next up, we‘ll talk about a new movie that tries to show what America would look like if all Mexican immigrants disappeared.
Then, what teenage girls think is harmless fun could be hurting them badly. We‘ll tell you about that coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: “The New York Times” blames President Bush‘s lawyers for the deaths of illegal immigrants. The full story ahead.
But, first, let‘s get the latest headlines from the MSNBC News Desk.
(NEWS BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
BUCHANAN: This weekend, “The New York Times” ran a detailed cover story finding that, among teenagers today, casual sex is common, commitment almost unheard of, and romance is dead.
Joining me now, Dr. Drew Pinsky, author of “Cracked: Putting Broken Lives Back Together,” and Atoosa Rubenstein, editor in chief of “Seventeen” magazine.
Dr. Pinsky, let me start with you. That is—that article I read, a very long piece, in “The New York Times” about these 14-, 15-year-old girls basically acting like semi-pro tramps and providing sex for their acquaintances, and not even boyfriends, and this sort of pandemic behavior, it just—it seemed very degraded and very disgusting and very depressing. What‘s your take on it? How widespread is this? Is this overdramatized?
DR. DREW PINSKY, AUTHOR, “CRACKED”: It‘s not overdramatized.
But I will caution you that, once the press figures something out, it‘s likely to have been in course of change. In other words, young people have been doing this, Pat, for quite some time. The so-called hookup culture, a term coined by the Independent Women‘s Forum, has been with us for quite some time now, where most women of at least college age see only three options in their social life.
One is a hookup, which is a one-night physical encounter, always intoxicated; No. 2, to become joined at the hip, to get this rapidly developing relationship with someone they‘re not even clear they want to be with; and, No. 3, to be a friend with benefits. And I know they made a big deal out of that in “The New York Times” article, but this has now trickled down to high school age.
And the idea of dating and really courtship, the idea of trying somebody on for size, for assessing the whole—when I have talked to college age kids and high school educated kids, I ask them, please, there‘s no assessment process. How do you know whether this is someone you want to be intimate with in any way at all? You‘ve not taking any time. You don‘t even know who you are in a relationship yet. Why do you allow the cultural trends and the social norms that they perceive to sort of cave in upon you to this behavior?
BUCHANAN: OK, Atoosa Rubenstein, editor in chief of “Seventeen” magazine, I think it was—I‘m not sure who it was that wrote, if the book “Sixteen” had been written, say, in the 1960s, they would have to call it 12.
And it looks very much like this type of behavior of kids who are 14-, 15-year-old girls, it is impossible for me to believe they‘re not damaged down the road some way by this kind of, if you will, sluttish behavior. Do they recover from this, or does it bother them later in life?
ATOOSA RUBENSTEIN, EDITOR IN CHIEF, “SEVENTEEN”: Well, you‘re right that kids are definitely growing up faster. Does it damage them? Absolutely. This is not good for their self-esteem.
But one thing that‘s really important to talk about is not that suddenly girls are sluttier and that sort of thing. But this is really a ramification of a culture where homes are broken, parents are working. They‘re not as involved in their kids‘ lives anymore. And so we know what kind of crazy stuff can happen when there isn‘t a lot of adult supervision.
PINSKY: I absolutely,totally agree.
I see this ultimately as—I work in a psychiatric hospital every day, and I call this a bid for affect regulation. Kids do not have the continued connection with an intimate primary caretaker. They need to develop the neurobiological systems to be a competent self. They go into our culture incompetent, and the kinds of solutions they‘re given are these kinds of problems we‘re talking about.
BUCHANAN: All right, when you tack about a neurobiological system, where really are the parents or the churches? Do these kids learn anywhere from the time they‘re 5 years old until they‘re hooking up when they‘re 13 or 14 that this is, A, wrong, it‘s B, destructive, it‘s hurtful, and it‘s immoral, anything like that? Is there anything all along the way where they are told, you know, this is ruinous, wrong and stupid?
RUBENSTEIN: Well, along the lines of what Dr. Drew was saying, the fact that this is in the news now, it‘s sort of to those of us who work very closely with young people a little bit funny, because this is almost old news.
PINSKY: Yes.
RUBENSTEIN: What‘s happening now and what I‘m seeing, and I‘m sure you agree—and it sounds like you agree, Dr. Drew—is a return to modesty.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Yes, slowly, yes.
RUBENSTEIN: The church...
(CROSSTALK)
RUBENSTEIN: Spirituality is definitely becoming more and more a big part in kids‘ lives.
PINSKY: There‘s a slow trend.
RUBENSTEIN: And I would say it‘s almost a backlash against the whole Britney Spears oversexualized culture that we saw over the past five, six, seven years.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Go ahead. Go ahead.
BUCHANAN: Well, I want to ask you.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: What happens to these kids—I‘m sorry—when these kids, after they‘ve done this, 13, 14, 15 years old, when they‘re 24, 25, thinking of getting married? Anybody looked at—I mean, do they look back on this? Is it destructive, make it difficult to form solid relationships, good marriages and all the rest of it?
PINSKY: Yes.
Well, they‘re already starting with difficulties in their intimate encounters. The kids that primarily engage in these behaviors are high-risk youth already. And they just are unfortunately setting the social normatives right now. If you look at the data of what kids are actually doing, it‘s not as bad as it sort of seems right now.
In fact, as Mrs. Rubenstein is saying, things are getting better, in fact. And there really is a sense that these are destructive, yes, that kids have been trying this on for size and this in fact isn‘t working for them. And so there is a slow trend back towards something a little more healthy. In fact, when I go to college, I used to bring this up and the college age kids would sort of say, sit down, pops. Relax.
And now they‘re interested in sort of understanding what they can do to create a better system. They‘re not willing to call it dating yet, but they‘re going to create some sort of evaluative process. And you asked, are they aware that there are destructive elements to having done this when they were younger?
I‘ve never yet met a young woman who doesn‘t wish she had waited. I‘ve never met that young woman who says, oh, thank God I did that when I was 14. That woman does not exist.
BUCHANAN: Atoosa, is this behavior—I noticed it was middle class and upper middle class, and especially in the suburbs. Is this the result or partly a result of the two parents working, nobody‘s home all day, nobody‘s home after school?
RUBENSTEIN: I think it‘s a combination of factors, such as that one.
Believe it or not, abstinence-only education is terrific, because the number of virgins has gone up. So sexual intercourse, number of teens who have actually had sexual intercourse has gone down, which is terrific. But there has been an increase in other types of sexual activity. So it‘s not like the sexual urges are going away. It‘s just that it‘s not resulting in intercourse, per se, but rather, other acts.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: The baseball diamond has been reconfigured.
RUBENSTEIN: Yes.
BUCHANAN: Well, this is why I guess, you know, despite all these statistics, we see, between 1990 and the year 2000, teen pregnancy rates were down 28 percent and the teen abortion rate down 33 percent. I guess they‘re involved in other things, quite frankly. I guess that‘s it, isn‘t it?
RUBENSTEIN: And that is still just as damaging to the self-esteem, as you pointed out. So it‘s never been a more important time for parents to be establishing relationships with their kids, not just in times when they think something is wrong, but regularly, so that when something is wrong, their kids can feel comfortable opening up to them.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: There is actually a paradox with the self-esteem issue.
There‘s this paradox with the self-esteem issue, is that the young males with high self-esteem tends to be the very sexually active, while the young females with the low self-esteem are the ones that are the most sexually active.
BUCHANAN: I think it has ever been so. But that was a pretty sad group on the cover of that magazine.
OK, thanks for being here, Dr. Drew Pinsky and Atoosa Rubenstein.
Coming up, a new movie pokes fun at immigration in America, showing what would happen if all Mexican immigrants one day just disappeared. We‘ll talk about that next.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight‘s SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY challenge, according to a recent survey, what percentage of U.S. 12th graders say they‘ve had sex? Is it, A, 52 percent, B, 62 percent, or, C, 72 percent?
The answer after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: In tonight‘s SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY challenge, we asked, according to a recent survey, what percentage of U.S. 12th graders say they‘ve had sex? The answer is B, 62 percent.
Now back to Pat.
BUCHANAN: What would America do without immigrants from Mexico? A new movie by a Mexican director called “A Day Without a Mexican” paints a funny picture of life in California the day after 12 million Latinos disappear, including unwashed dishes and economic collapse. Meanwhile, today‘s “New York Times” blames the Bush administration for stalling while Mexicans die crossing our borders.
Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado is here. So is Tamar Jacoby, editor of “Reinventing the Melting Pot,” a book about recent immigrants.
Tamar, why don‘t I start with you here and ask you this. The Constitution of the United States obligates the government of the United States to protect the states from invasion. Now, we stop 1.5 million illegal aliens on the border each year. The numbers are, 800,000 get in and 500,000 remain. I guess that‘s the equivalent of something like 50 divisions of illegal aliens.
Is the government of the United States not failing this country and failing its constitutional duty by stopping this invasion?
TAMAR JACOBY, EDITOR, “REINVENTING THE MELTING POT”: I don‘t believe it‘s an invasion, Pat. These people are coming to do work that we need done in this country. That movie is right.
Without immigrants, we couldn‘t get the food out of the ground. Silicon Valley wouldn‘t be anything like what it is. Our restaurants and hotels in lots of cities would close down. That‘s not an invasion. These are people coming to do stuff that we need done in this country.
BUCHANAN: All right, how did we get food on the table before the invasion?
JACOBY: Life was different then.
First of all, Mexicans have been coming and doing that kind of work for about 100 years for the agribusinesses in the Southwest. Before 100 years ago, agriculture was very different in this country.
BUCHANAN: All right, Congressman Tancredo, let me show you a copy of the editorial here in “The New York Times.”
Let me read a bit for you. It says: “Mr. Bush early on identified the need for an ambitious immigration reform, but he has failed to exert himself on its behalf. In the meantime, the death toll in the desert keeps rising.”
There‘s no doubt about it. The president proposed what we all call an amnesty and he has run away from it.
REP. TOM TANCREDO ®, COLORADO: And I would, too.
(LAUGHTER)
TANCREDO: Yes, good idea.
BUCHANAN: Well, but he has run away from it. “The New York Times” has got a point.
How do you answer “The New York Times”‘ argument that, look, because we‘re not doing things that people are dying out there in the desert?
TANCREDO: Pat, I have not heard of a single person who has come through the port of entry and died of exposure or anything else.
If you come into this country legally—there is a process, there is a way that this can happen—it is not dangerous to your health to do that. If you choose to come into this country illegally, yes, you take some chances. And, frankly, doing things like putting out water stations and little booklets about how to cross the border and what to do when you run into somebody from the INS, that doesn‘t help.
That only encourages people to do it. And, in fact, more people will die in the desert because we don‘t in fact enforce the law.
BUCHANAN: All right.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Hold it, Tamar, just one quick question and I‘ll get back to you.
Tom, President Bush proposed what we believe is an amnesty. Following that, there‘s been a tremendous spike in a lot of poor Mexican folks coming in, saying, let‘s get inside there and get on the high track to citizenship. And so this is causing a number of these deaths and things. What exactly what you do to stop the 500,000 from coming in and staying
(CROSSTALK)
TANCREDO: Enforce the law. Enforce the law.
That means actually secure our borders. People go, oh, that‘s impossible. No, it is not impossible. That is an old canard. We can enforce, secure our borders if we choose to. We don‘t choose to for a variety of reasons. And, secondly, of course, enforce the law here in this country against people who are hiring people who come here illegally. Stop the demand and you‘ll stop the supply.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right, Tamar, let me just follow up on that. Look, you believe in high immigration. Fine. We have got a law that has fairly high immigration. Why not come down and work with people who want to stop the massive illegal immigration by securing the borders and punishing people who continually, repeatedly hire illegal aliens? What‘s wrong with that?
JACOBY: I‘m for enforcing the border. I want the border—I believe the borders have to be controlled. The borders have to be secure. There‘s no question about it.
And we need interior enforcement, just like Congressman Tancredo said. But the problem we have now is, we‘re trying to enforce an unrealistic law. It‘s like prohibition. We‘re trying to enforce prohibition. It‘s like a 25-mile-an-hour speed limit.
BUCHANAN: But, Tamar, Tamar, every country on Earth, virtually, does a better job at protecting themselves against illegal immigration than the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Even the Europeans, that have had a number of invasions from the Mediterranean, south of the Mediterranean, they are doing a far better job. You don‘t believe we could do a better job?
JACOBY: Yes, I do believe we could do a better job. But one of the first steps would be having limits and quotas that are more in line with our labor market needs. That would be
(CROSSTALK)
TANCREDO: Here‘s what she means.
JACOBY: And then we would be able to enforce that.
Prohibition didn‘t work because it was so unrealistic. Liquor laws and liquor licensing worked very well.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right, Tamar, let Tom answer.
JACOBY: You didn‘t let me interrupt him.
(CROSSTALK)
TANCREDO: Well, you know, you are posing this really ridiculous dilemma, where, if you want to in fact enforce the law, eliminate the law.
JACOBY: No, that‘s not true.
TANCREDO: Repeal the law. That‘s exactly what you said.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBY: I‘m saying more realistic law. I‘m saying like a 55- or 65-mile-an-hour speed limit.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Tamar, let him talk. Then go ahead.
TANCREDO: Yes.
If you treat this as prohibition, what did we do with prohibition? We repealed it. Is that what you‘re suggesting, that we repeal the laws?
JACOBY: No.
BUCHANAN: Do you want to repeal the laws.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBY: We regulate liquor. It‘s not a free-for-all with liquor. We have licensing and hours
(CROSSTALK)
TANCREDO: Oh, that‘s it. Oh, Tamar.
BUCHANAN: Tamar, let me ask you, either enforce the law or repeal the law. Doesn‘t that make sense?
JACOBY: I‘m sorry?
BUCHANAN: Enforce the law or just repeal the immigration laws.
JACOBY: No, no, a more realistic law, and then enforce it with everything we‘ve got.
BUCHANAN: All right.
In other words, look, we‘ve got one million legal immigrants a year. There are 500,000 illegal who stay here. How many—what are you going to say, raise it to 1.5 million? Suppose illegals keep coming then?
JACOBY: The point is, nobody would rather be unemployed here. People come to do work. It‘s better—if you‘re going to be unemployed, it‘s warmer in Mexico. It‘s cheaper. Nobody would rather be here.
BUCHANAN: Let me follow up on that. If they come to work, would you agree with me and Tom Tancredo and 60 percent of the voters of California that all social welfare benefits should be cut off to people who have broken the law and broken into the country?
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBY: Not emergency rooms and health care. But, no, they shouldn‘t get TANA (ph
) for things like that. I‘m with you there.
TANCREDO: How about free health care? How about free education?
BUCHANAN: Free education.
JACOBY: If people are here doing jobs that we need done and are being decent citizens, I believe they should have a right to...
(CROSSTALK)
TANCREDO: They‘re not citizens. Tamar, they‘re not citizens of the United States of America. That‘s one big change. That‘s one big difference.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Tamar, look, look, are you being fair to—let me ask you, Tamar. Are you being fair to the taxpayers, say, of California, who are very generous in their welfare benefits, education, health care, lawyers, prisons, jails, rent supplements, the whole bit, when all you‘ve got to do is break the law, break into California, and the Californians have got to pay for all that for every illegal alien?
JACOBY: First of all, I thought we were talking about a new world, where the limits were realistic in the law in something like the labor market.
BUCHANAN: Why is a million a year not realistic?
TANCREDO: A million and a half.
JACOBY: OK. People are coming. They‘re doing work. These are people doing work that we all need done. That makes them effectively part of our society, part of our social contract. They should get the minimum kind of benefits, not welfare benefits that are magnets, not all kinds of aid that isn‘t realistic, but basic minimum, yes.
BUCHANAN: OK, Tom, last word.
TANCREDO: Tamar, Tamar, this is it. If you come into this country illegally, without our permission, then you get no benefits. You should not get benefits.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBY: They don‘t get benefits now. You‘re right.
TANCREDO: Just a minute. There is a way. There is a process. It‘s called immigration. There is a way to come into this country quite legally.
Hundreds of thousands of other people in fact come not just through immigration, but through visa programs for workers. Why is it that it is so hard for you to understand that there is a legal process and that we should stop all illegal immigration into this country?
BUCHANAN: I think we‘ve got to stop the conversation here. Thank you, Congressman Tom Tancredo and Tamar Jacoby.
Stay with us, folks. There‘s much more SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Tomorrow night in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, author Stephen Hayes lays out his case for the link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. He‘ll present it. We‘ll debate it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Author Stephen Hayes says he has proof that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attacks. He‘ll tell us what that proof is tomorrow night in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
We‘ll see you then.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2004 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2004 FDCH e-Media, Inc. (f/k/a/ Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, 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 MSNBC and FDCH e-Media, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.