Guest: Ken Lindner, Vincent Morris, Stephen Hayes, Kellyanne Conway, Tom Julin, Pat LaLama, Catherine Crier
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Tonight‘s top headline: The P.C. police surround Larry Summers. Will he be fired at Harvard? We‘ll see.
Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, where no passport is required and only common sense is allowed.
Harvard prez Larry Summers finds himself in the sight of feminists.
They say he should be fired for suggesting that women can‘t do math.
And then, prosecutors couldn‘t find a reason to arrest Rush Limbaugh. So, why won‘t they give him his own medical records back? It‘s the doctor of democracy vs. the judiciary, and your privacy is on the line.
And then Paris Hilton could face jail time for stealing a copy of her own porn DVD. We‘re going to ask an experts on celebrities why they behave so badly.
ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, welcome to the show.
The National Organization of Women calls in the P.C. police and demands the head of Harvard prez Larry Summers. It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
Now, the ultra-leftist group the National Organization for Women today called for the firing of Harvard President Larry Summers. Last week, Summers committed the unpardonable sin of suggesting that men may be more naturally suited to excel in the fields of science and engineering than women. A few years back, a pop song asked, where have all of the John Waynes gone? Well, it looks like they got neutered by NOW.
For years, feminists have been beating Americans over the head with the message that there are few to no differences between men or women. From birth, American males have been taught that anything a man can do, a woman can do as well or better. Any suggestion otherwise is said to be bigoted, closed-minded and chauvinistic.
Quoting a great American general who was ordered to surrender to Nazi troops during the Battle of the Bulge, I say, nuts. Men and women possess radically different skills, both professionally and personally. You know what? I have seen it professionally as a lawyer, as a small businessman, as a newspaper publisher, as a congressman, and, yes, as a TV journalist.
And I have also seen it as a husband, father, and son. You know, in child-rearing, the fact is that most mothers are far more nurturing than fathers. They provide children with unconditional love. Fathers, on the other hand, seem to focus more on outcomes and results and are the defining role models in both their sons and daughters.
Now, if you don‘t believe me, you can ask any child or adult psychologist whose thinking has not been contaminated by the P.C. police and their schools of thought. You know, after the social revolution launched by the 1960s, Americans are starting to recognize real differences between men and women. Maybe that‘s why there has been a backlash against liberals like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.
Voters instead are electing meat-eating, real men like Ronald Reagan, who fought feminist groups like NOW every day of his political life, and George W. Bush, who is so clearly a real man that he infuriates his quiche-eating opponents everywhere.
You know, as a father of two boys and a girl, I believe all three deserve the same opportunities for success in America. But I know that they bring different talents to their family, to their schools and to their country. And most Americans know that intuitively. The fact that Larry Summers is on the hot seat tonight for speaking with a little common sense shows just how radical feminist groups have become and how little more than parodies of their former selves, and they‘re the losers in tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
In calling for his resignation, NOW President Kim Gandy said—quote
· “Summers‘ suggestion that women are inferior to men in their ability to excel at math and science is more than an example of personal sexism. It is a clue to why women have not been more fully accepted and integrated into the tenured faculty at Harvard since he‘s been president.”
Does Larry Summers look down on women or are feminists missing the boat?
With me now to talk about it are Mike Barnicle of “The Boston Herald” and former Texas Judge Catherine Crier.
Catherine, we will start with you. Do you believe Lawrence Summers is sexist and should be fired by Harvard?
CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV: Well, I think they should call for an apology for the most extraordinarily stupid statement coming from a president of a university I‘ve heard in a very long time.
And, unfortunately, forget the feminist agenda. You know I was an elected Republican in Texas. I have been married. I‘m engaged now. I love guys. But, in fact, my little sister was the chief architect for all of the fire departments in New York City. I obviously have got many careers and most of them are considered relatively aggressive and intellectual in nature.
So I‘m talking from empirical evidence. I know far too many women who have been enormously qualified. And the thing is, Joe, what I think the problem is, is that now more women are getting professional and graduate degrees than men and they‘re just separate to hold on to the last chauvinistic bastion. And that is science and engineering.
SCARBOROUGH: Mike Barnicle, I am speechless.
SCARBOROUGH: Coming from Catherine Crier, that is shocking. She has been infected by the P.C. police.
SCARBOROUGH: Seriously, seriously, Mike Barnicle.
MIKE BARNICLE, NBC ANALYST: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: I mean, men and women can think differently. They can have different talents. They can have different skills. I have long said that women are more driven and task-oriented in certain office settings than men. That‘s not sexist. That‘s just reality. What do you think? Should Summers be fired?
BARNICLE: Well, I have always believed, Joe, that women have better innate judgment than men, but not in this case.
And, for instance, let‘s start off—we just heard what Judge Crier said. I have great respect for the judge. Not a single thing that has been attributed to Larry Summers could have been entered, Judge Crier, in any court you ever presided over in Texas. It‘s all hearsay. We don‘t know what he said. We have the gist, perhaps, of what he said, according to a few historical women who walked out on the speech that he gave.
CRIER: OK, so you‘re going to argue as to what he actually said, rather than dealing with the concept?
BARNICLE: Judge, here is the concept. Here is the concept.
Let‘s say that President Summers said, which, according to all the newspaper reports, he probably did insinuate, that women—there are fewer numbers of women in science and engineering disciplines in this country. And he didn‘t know why. Perhaps it was gender-based. He didn‘t know why. What is he? Where did he say it? He said it as president of Harvard University.
Now, correct me if I‘m wrong—and I‘m probably wrong about this—but my understanding always was that universities were laboratories where ideas ought to be explored, where they ought to be thought about, where you say that is right or that is wrong after thinking about it. But what we have here is a P.C. drive-by shooting by a group of women.
And now NOW, the National Organization of Women, Judge, who, for my money, lost any credibility they ever had when they refused to stand up on behalf of Paula Jones because she had bad hair and bad teeth when she charged Bill Clinton with assaulting her. They are a joke.
SCARBOROUGH: They also refused to stand up for Condoleezza Rice. They also refuse to stand up for people that don‘t fit their ideological leftist agenda.
CRIER: Joe, I like what Mike is saying, because if in fact what he was saying, this is a problem, I would like to figure out why, there are many possibilities including gender, that‘s a legitimate intellectual inquiry.
But that‘s not the information that came across the board. And, as I said, I wouldn‘t call for his resignation. I would call for him to wear a dunce cap around campus.
BARNICLE: No, but, Judge, we don‘t know that. That‘s the point. We don‘t know what he said. What we do know is that a handful, a handful of hysterical women walked out before he had even finished speaking.
CRIER: But both you came on and introduced this segment and commented by saying men and women are different. There are some areas where women...
SCARBOROUGH: You don‘t think they are?
CRIER: Of course they are. And I love—viva la difference, my dear.
But when it comes to the muscles between the ears, I don‘t think there‘s that kind of difference.
SCARBOROUGH: You think men and women share the same skills mentally?
CRIER: I think that it‘s an individual. You see very bright individuals. You see not-so-bright individuals. Honey, I know far too many women in the aerospace industry and neurosurgical arenas and all sorts of...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, sure, Judge.
CRIER: So, you can‘t tell me that they are not enormously qualified.
SCARBOROUGH: You can‘t generalize, though.
CRIER: I don‘t think you can generalize.
SCARBOROUGH: I said it earlier this week. I have got a 17-year-old son. We had to decide whether he was going to take the old SAT or the new SAT. And every single SAT service we went to said, if it‘s a male, take the old SAT, because it‘s more analytical and males always score better every year, as a rule, on analytical portions. If you have a girl, have her take the new SAT, because there‘s an essay in there and there‘s less math and science analysis.
SCARBOROUGH: I don‘t think they were being sexist.
CRIER: Yes, my little sister, who built the first new firehouse in the city, who managed about a $350 million budget and did all of this designing as an architect would probably think both of you are pretty ludicrous.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, she would also probably think also then that all these SAT groups are ludicrous and that the “Princeton Review” facts and figures that come down every year are ludicrous.
And, you know, the bottom line is, this is not really about men and women so much as it is about the title of a book that came out 10, 15 years ago called “The Closing of the American Mind.”
SCARBOROUGH: We have this conference. It‘s set up to talk about why women are falling behind in the fields of engineering and science. Summers stands up before the group, reportedly says it could be one of three reasons. It could be because there‘s discrimination. It could be because a lot of women are taking the mommy track and not willing to spend 60 to 80 hours a week.
And the third thing he says, or it could be—and Summers said, I‘m saying this to provoke conversation—simply because men are better in this area. Let‘s discuss it. What is wrong with that?
CRIER: You win me over now, because, if that‘s what he said, I‘m a pragmatist, I would applaud that. As long as what he said was not, they are not qualified, there is such a gender difference that they will not succeed.
BARNICLE: No, he didn‘t say that.
CRIER: Then I don‘t have—unfortunately, guys, the debate ends. I don‘t have a problem with that.
SCARBOROUGH: Mike Barnicle.
SCARBOROUGH: What is the problem with this picture, where we have an academic conference and a president of a university stands up, tries to talk about a solution to a problem pertaining to women, and these same women—you say a few hysterical women run out of the conference waving their arms at any cameraman that will look at them, or camerawoman, and they try to get this guy fired?
BARNICLE: You know, Joe, you know what the reason is. And I think Judge Crier knows what the reason is.
And a lot of it has to do—it‘s rooted in elitism. The National Organization of Women, which began with the greatest of intentions, the best of intentions, did admirable work for a number of years, has lost its way, like a lot of leftist groups in this country. And they pay more attention to the women who walked out of this conference thinking that Larry Summers said something that I don‘t think he said than they would care about some waitress at Dunkin‘ Donuts getting her ass pinched—pardon the French—at 6:00 in the morning working a second or a third job, when she might not want to work, but she to work to pay a tuition for a child.
BARNICLE: They care less about the waitress than they do about these women.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Mike, and we don‘t want to bring your personal life story into this segment, so we better go to a break.
BARNICLE: I didn‘t pinch anyone.
SCARBOROUGH: Mike, stay with us. We are going to be talking to you a little bit later on in the show.
And, Catherine, I want to talk to you about our next story coming up, because Rush Limbaugh is firing back at the Florida Supreme Court. Is he going to win? Our legal panel will weigh in.
And later, Paris Hilton in big trouble again. And it‘s on video again. We are going to take you inside that story with a Hollywood agent who deals with pampered stars every day.
SCARBOROUGH: Rush Limbaugh‘s privacy fight continues. We will get the very latest on the case when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns, so don‘t go away.
SCARBOROUGH: Rush Limbaugh may have put his painkillers behind him, but his legal battles continue. At issue, whether prosecutors were in violation when they seized Rush‘s medical records in the fall of 2003.
At stake, the privacy rights of all Americans. Now, yesterday, Limbaugh‘s attorneys asked the Florida Supreme Court to return his medical records to his doctors, where they belong.
And with me now to talk about it is former Texas prosecutor Catherine Crier, host of Court TV‘s “Catherine Crier Live,” and from “Celebrity Justice,” Pat LaLama, and Tom Julin, an attorney from Miami who has been following the case closely.
Pat LaLama, let me begin with you. Why don‘t you give us the very latest on the Rush Limbaugh case.
PAT LALAMA, “CELEBRITY JUSTICE”: Well, the idea here being from Roy Black is that this simply isn‘t fair, doesn‘t matter what the appeals court says. Privacy is privacy. They‘re going all the way to the top. If they open up books now, medical books, so to speak, with him, where does it end?
And I might add a little political insight here. I think it is all about politics in the end and we will figure that out.
SCARBOROUGH: What‘s the latest now? He has lost. Obviously, they have lost in the lower courts. They‘re now taking it to the Florida Supreme Court. Do they believe they have a chance of succeeding there?
LALAMA: Are you still asking me?
LALAMA: I‘m sorry. I wasn‘t sure if you were still with me.
I do believe that Roy Blacks feels very, very strongly that he has a chance to win this case. They willy-nilly open up the records. They don‘t ask for prior permission. They just decide they‘re going to do this because they‘re going to go after the law? Listen, I‘m the biggest law and order person on the face of the Earth. But compared to some of the stories that I hear out here with Hollywood celebrities and the kinds of things they do in the search for their drugs, this just seems other me blatantly unfair.
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine Crier, let me bring you in here.
Obviously, Rush Limbaugh has been through this battle for now almost two years. They went in. They seized his medical records, despite the fact that Florida law says specifically you can‘t seize someone‘s medical records unless you get consent from them, or, if there‘s a subpoena, then you have to notify them first. They gave Rush Limbaugh no notice.
How dangerous is it for prosecutors to just ignore laws like this and seize medical records? And what does that mean to the privacy rights, the privacy medical rights of all Americans?
I think Rush was a tremendous hypocrite on the drug war, so I do not agree with him on lot of things. But, on the other hand, as an ex-prosecutor, I was absolutely outraged at the conduct on the part of the government in Florida. It is completely inappropriate to go after his medical records without following the necessary steps.
I think it‘s outrageous that the lower court has upheld this. And, certainly, when they went public with these records, it exacerbated the charges. And I think that the Supreme Court of Florida would be wise to overturn this.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, you obviously have identified yourself, as I believe you said, you ran as a Republican judge. We understand that sometimes politics and decisions from the bench unfortunately sort of go together. I‘m not suggesting that ever happened with you.
But did you know judges that would let their own political feelings get in the way of being fair in applying statutes while you were working out in Texas? And do you think that may be what is going on here in Palm Beach County?
CRIER: I think it‘s not so much the celebrity, because certainly Rush is seen as more from the right. And if you‘re talking about law and order, you would make that jibe with his consistent policies.
No, I think it‘s much more that they are supporting the prosecutor‘s right to make a case that would probably require at least an examination of these medical records. However, the doctor-patient relationship is very much like attorney-client. It‘s sacrosanct in this country. There are very little times you can breach that confidentiality. And they have gone about it in a very wrong fashion here. And I think they really ought to not only be reversed, but possibly reprimanded for the conduct which included making those records public to some extent.
SCARBOROUGH: Tom Julin, let me bring you in here. You know what? I agree completely with Catherine Crier. You read this statute, there‘s no ambiguity. I want to read it to you right now.
It says, “Patient records are confidential and can‘t be disclosed without consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to subsection D, in any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and”—and this is the important part—“and by proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.”
Guess what? The statute says you have to give Rush Limbaugh notice. The prosecutor didn‘t give Rush Limbaugh notice. They broke the law. This should be overturned, shouldn‘t it?
TOM JULIN, FLORIDA ATTORNEY: Joe and Catherine, you‘re both way off base.
What the prosecutors did here was perfectly consistent with the law.
This was not a subpoena that was issued. This was a search warrant.
JULIN: Now, this does statute not deal with search warrants. And that‘s why you have the Florida 4th District Court of Appeal say what the prosecutors did here was perfectly right. They went to a judge. They had an affidavit to apply for a search warrant. They showed that judge the evidence that they had that justified the issuance of the search warrant.
The search warrant was issued and it was served in full accordance with the law.
SCARBOROUGH: But, Tom, they still have not filed any charges against Rush Limbaugh. They seized these records. I still believe, like Roy Black believes, they ignored the Florida statute that was applicable here. And, again, they still haven‘t charged him. Why won‘t they give him his medical records back?
JULIN: Well, they‘re not required to give them back. Those records are going to be used in the prosecution that is ultimately filed. Roy Black...
SCARBOROUGH: Ultimately filed? How long do you hang this over a man‘s head? It‘s been going on now since 2003. When are they going to file their charges?
JULIN: Well, as soon as Roy Black stops delaying. I mean, that‘s what—he has made this into a political contest.
SCARBOROUGH: That is such garbage.
CRIER: That is absolutely outrageous.
SCARBOROUGH: This has nothing to do—are you telling me that a defense attorney can stop charges from being filed?
CRIER: Absolutely outrageous.
SCARBOROUGH: That‘s one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard in my life.
JULIN: Well, that‘s exactly what he has done.
SCARBOROUGH: When has that ever happened?
JULIN: It happened right here.
SCARBOROUGH: Roy Black can‘t stop the prosecutor from doing this.
JULIN: Well, the prosecutors are waiting for the appellate process to run its course. That is a proper thing for prosecutors to do.
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine Crier.
JULIN: He‘s now got a last-gasp effort to get it to the Florida Supreme Court.
CRIER: Joe, you got to let me in.
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine, I‘ve got to let you in here.
CRIER: You have got to let me in here.
SCARBOROUGH: I‘ve never heard anything like this before, that a defense attorney can just keep filing appeals and stop a prosecution?
CRIER: Absolutely. No, no, no, no, no.
SCARBOROUGH: What is going on here?
CRIER: No, the only thing that is going on is the appeal—first of all, a search warrant was not what the statute mandated. You can‘t say because I used a warrant, it‘s not applicable. They said the only thing you can do is go by subpoena with notification and possibly hearing.
All he has done is appeal that decision. That does not stop the DA from filing misdemeanor or felony charges whatsoever. It only holds those documents in abeyance. So, if they want to go forward and prosecute, there‘s nothing about the appellate process that inhibits them.
JULIN: Well, it holds those documents in abeyance. And it‘s those documents that they are going to need to launch the prosecution. So I think the prosecutors are doing exactly the right thing in this case.
CRIER: They have got the housekeeper on tape. They went back and surreptitiously taped this guy. They have got eyewitness testimony. They do not need the medical records to go forward with a grand jury or a preliminary hearing or an indictment in this case.
This is simply a decision as to whether or not they‘re returned to Rush Limbaugh, sealed for trial, or available for the prosecution to open them up. That does not...
CRIER: ... the indictment.
SCARBOROUGH: I need a prediction from both of you right now.
Tom, how much longer do you think the Palm Beach prosecutors are going to keep hanging this over Rush Limbaugh‘s head? When do you think they‘re going to file something against him or, finally admit, you know what, we don‘t have a case; we were just doing this to humiliate you in public, Rush?
JULIN: I think they are going to file that case as soon as the Florida Supreme Court says that we agree with the lower court, so they refuse to review it. And I think that‘s the ultimate outcome of all of these appeals. They‘re going to send it back to the trial court and you‘re going to see charges filed.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Catherine Crier, I need a quick prediction from you. How long does a judge put up with this garbage?
CRIER: If they had a legitimate right to those documents, they can get them with that subpoena in a hearing. I think the Florida Supreme Court overturns the lower court and gives the documents back.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Catherine Crier, Pat LaLama, Tom Julin, thanks so much for being with us. We greatly appreciate it.
Now, coming up in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, desperate housewives behaving badly. Why do pampered Hollywood stars and overpaid athletes continue to get in trouble for real? We‘re going to take you inside in just a little bit.
So, don‘t go away.
SCARBOROUGH: There are mixed reviews of the president‘s inaugural address yesterday. And you may be surprised who liked it and who didn‘t. We are going to tell you about that in about 60 seconds.
But, first, let‘s get you up to the minute on the latest news.
ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
SCARBOROUGH: While “The New York Times” was upbeat on President Bush‘s inaugural address, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan actually panned it, while William Safire agreed with me that it was historic.
With me now to talk about the political and cultural wars breaking out in Washington and across America, as well as the speech, are Stephen Hayes of “The Weekly Standard,” Vince Morris of “The New York Post,” pollster Kellyanne Conway. And “The Boston Herald”‘s Mike Barnicle is back with us.
Mike, let‘s start with you. Talk about the speech. What was your impression, overreaching or historic?
BARNICLE: Well, Joe, because I‘m fairly limited in my scope, as well as my thinking, I thought it was pretty good.
I had always believed, up until reading a lot of editorials and hearing a lot of stuff today in reaction to the speech, I had always believed that this country did symbolize freedom, that this country did stand against tyranny, that this country would try to export the best about us, freedom, fights for liberty, food for the poor around the world, standing against aggression around the world.
Now, I realize the reach is tremendous, if you really want to decipher the president‘s speech. But I thought the goals that he outlined and articulated was admirable. It was not a State of the Union speech. It was not a campaign speech . Inaugural addresses have been rare animals in American political history. If you look at the past inaugural addresses, a lot of them were not filled with a lot of substance at all. This one was filled with something I think that a lot of Americans can identify with when they think about it. It‘s called a dream.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Vince, I understand you were a little disappointed. And I agree with Mike Barnicle. I think America is supposed to stand for freedom.
And as far as overreaching or radical, it sounds an awful lot like John Kennedy‘s 1961 address or FDR‘s 1945 address. Or, actually, there were parts from Abraham Lincoln‘s second address in 1865. What is so radical about saying America stands for freedom?
VINCENT MORRIS, “THE NEW YORK POST”: There is nothing wrong. And I had no problem with his principles. My concern is that we‘re already pretty overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one ever talks about Afghanistan anymore and the search for Osama bin Laden.
And I think what Bush was trying to do was sort of set the rest of the world on notice that we‘re ready to invade another country, if need be. And I just don‘t know if it‘s a good idea at this point to try and extend our troops into one more country.
SCARBOROUGH: Kellyanne Conway, last night, I had Pat Buchanan on the show. And Pat Buchanan said this speech, if you follow it, will keep America at a constant state of war for the next generation. That‘s frightening to a lot of conservatives. Should we be scared?
KELLYANNE CONWAY, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: No, that‘s not what the president was saying.
I think what was great about yesterday‘s speech is, it really probably marked the end, the official end of campaign 2004. And if you look at the poll numbers, most Americans agree, Joe. You had upwards of three-quarters of Americans saying they paid attention attorney; 66 percent said they felt better about the country, more positive after listening to the speech, and even hearing the news accounts, which is remarkable.
And most people, a plurality, said that they thought the speech was excellent or good. I thought what was great is that more people that voted for George W. Bush actually welcomed his inaugural speech. So they must have heard the message that this man put tyrannical dictators around the globe on notice that this is not going to be window dressing in his second term. He means business. And I think he will lay out some specifics in his State of the Union to back it up.
Look, this is the first time in 45 years, so in several generations, that we have heard such a tough-minded, global-reaching speech by a president. I welcome it. And, frankly, it puts an end to realpolitik, which is very significant. Past presidents, including this man‘s own father, including Ronald Reagan, really went for the country‘s national interests over some type of binding ideological philosophy around the globe.
And he is making very clear that what you saw in George W. Bush in his first term is what you are going to get in his second term.
SCARBOROUGH: Stephen Hayes, “New York Times”—and I think this is historic, that they actually said something that was not negative.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, “New York Times” called the address historic, saying this: “Bush‘s speech was infused with a deliberate sense of timelessness and it often seemed as though his words were directed much to history as it was to the crowd of invited Republicans who huddled on the snow-covered lawn beneath the west front of the Capitol.”
I will be honest with you, just being blunt, as I always am. I don‘t think the president is the greatest speechmaker in the world. He delivered it in sort of a one-note, flat monotone. But reading the text, I thought it was a remarkable speech, an historic speech.
STEPHEN HAYES, “THE WEEKLY STANDARD”: It‘s an extraordinary speech.
And I think—I guess I disagree a little bit with Kellyanne in that I don‘t think that the president necessarily called an end to realpolitik. What he said was, these are not mutually exclusive visions. On the one hand, we‘re going to promote democracy around the world, we‘re going to promote human freedom, we‘re going to do the things that, frankly, he has been doing for much of his first term.
But we‘re also going to do it because it‘s in our self interest. And he sort of married these two concepts. He said, look, human freedom, our way of life, American freedom, democracy here, can‘t survive unless we export this freedom, can‘t survive unless we take freedom to parts of the world that don‘t have it. And we are going to stand with the people.
I thought it was fascinating when he actually spoke to the people who are living in these oppressive regimes, saying we‘re going to be your friends. We are going to be the ones who help you come out from under these oppressive dictators.
SCARBOROUGH: Mike Barnicle, I thought—and, again, I talked about how a guy from your backyard gave a speech that sounded a lot like this in January of 1961. I was talk this morning to Dee Dee Myers before we went on “The Today Show.” And she said, you know, what is so interesting about this speech and the reviews of it is this. Had it been delivered by a Democrat, everybody would have been praising it.
I mean, there would just have been gushing. But the Republicans, if they had heard a Democrat say it, would talk about overreaching and the United States being the 911 of the world. There‘s a lot of hypocrisy going on here, isn‘t there?
BARNICLE: Well, yes, boy, there is a big surprise, huh, hypocrisy in Washington, Joe?
SCARBOROUGH: Big surprise, yes.
BARNICLE: You know, part of the thing here, I really believe, is cultural, that, in our politics for a long, long time, because of the force of television and advertising and the reliance on consultants that so many politicians have, there have been very few politicians who have climbed the national ladder to the pinnacles that the president obviously has reached that have beliefs.
Now, this president has beliefs that he has acted upon. We may disagree with those beliefs, but he has them. And those beliefs were again articulated yesterday in the State of the Union address. Now, to look at that address and its meaning and its content and its scope, yes, it is big. It encompasses a wide, wide tapestry, a worldwide tapestry. That will come with a cost.
And that‘s when the rubber will meet the road in the next four years, the cost of the speech, the cost of the intent, the cost of exporting freedom to places where freedom might not be greeted welcomely with open arms by tyrannical leaders. We paid a price here. Right here where I‘m sitting this week, Captain Christopher Sullivan, 29 years of age, two small children, United States Army, dead in Baghdad, an explosive device, 29 years of age.
That‘s just part of the cost that we pay in this country. The president addressed what we want to do. Whether the country and the rest of the politicians go along with the cost, whether we can pay that bill, that, I don‘t know.
SCARBOROUGH: Vince, let me go to you, because there‘s a story behind the story yesterday regarding William Rehnquist, a guy known from 1971 as the lone dissenter, has seen actually history come to him. He lost 8-1 on just about every vote, and he has been in the majority now for the past 10, 15 years, easily. You say him yesterday, wrote about it.
Tell me about that and also what you think may happen in the warfare on the Hill regarding federal judges.
MORRIS: It‘s going to be a hell of a fight.
SCARBOROUGH: It‘s going to get ugly, isn‘t it?
MORRIS: It is going to get very nasty.
Rehnquist of course, as the chief justice, is very powerful in deciding which cases the court takes. He often can sway his colleagues. I was very fortunate in that I was able to observe him last week when he made a visit to the Capitol to check out the platform and while his aides and his assistants determined whether he would actually be able to do the swearing-in. And I wrote about that as well.
He looks very bad. He is showing the signs of this very advanced thyroid cancer that he is battling. He is showing the signs of the intense chemotherapy. He doesn‘t have long to live. It‘s a simple fact. And Washington has to face that. There will be not just one vacancy on the Supreme Court, but there will be a question of who the president appoints to be the chief justice. And that will be a huge battle, one that we haven‘t—we didn‘t see anything like that in the first term.
MORRIS: There were some arguments about John Ashcroft when he was nominated to be the attorney general. A Supreme Court justice is a much bigger fight and the Democrats are going to get out and be mobilized.
SCARBOROUGH: It‘s going to be bloody, isn‘t it, on Capitol Hill?
HAYES: Yes, I think it will be.
The president in his first term nominated a series of conservative judges, as he promised to do during the 2000 election campaign and as he promised to do during the 2004 election campaign. I think he is going to nominate conservative judges again.
I mean, the White House, if you talk to people in the White House, they strongly believe that this was one of the reasons that George W. Bush was reelected. They are not going to back away from this at all.
SCARBOROUGH: Kellyanne, is that one of the reasons why he got reelected?
CONWAY: Indeed. It‘s one of the reasons Tom Daschle lost, the Senate minority leader. He is seen as obstructionist on judges and elsewise.
And, look, the battle over judges is the new political Armageddon for both sides, because if you‘re the left, if you‘re the hard left and you lost majority status in the state legislatures, in the governorships, in the federal Congress, at the presidential level, your only recourse is the judicial system. And they want their own people in charge.
And, look, if the Democrats want to be seen as holding up confirmation of a chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, they‘re entering new dangerous territory, because most Americans may not know the difference between circuit court and...
CONWAY: But they‘re going to know.
SCARBOROUGH: They‘re not going to do that, Kellyanne, are they?
CONWAY: I don‘t think they are.
SCARBOROUGH: They‘re not going to do that after Tom Daschle?
CONWAY: I don‘t think that they can risk it. I think Harry Reid is smarting than that, frankly, to let this happen.
SCARBOROUGH: Let‘s get quick predictions. We‘re running out of time.
But, tell me, do you think they‘re going to hold up a Supreme Court justice or are they going to cave in?
MORRIS: Well, what is going to happen is, my prediction is that Bush is going to name Scalia as the chief justice.
SCARBOROUGH: And they will let him go through.
MORRIS: And they will let him go through. He‘s already—the fight will come when it‘s too fill Scalia‘s appointment.
SCARBOROUGH: Mike Barnicle, do they dare do what Tom Daschle did and delay these judges, especially if they‘re Supreme Court judges?
BARNICLE: Unfortunately, Joe, I happen to be one of those people who believe that, in the present day and age of our politics, conflict is more attractive to political people than consensus.
SCARBOROUGH: All right.
CONWAY: I think they‘re going to ruffle someone‘s feathers.
But watch Hillary Clinton‘s vote if Scalia is in fact nominated as chief justice. That will give you a window into her thinking for 2008. I don‘t think she can vote against Michael Chertoff for her third time, this time for Department of Homeland Security...
SCARBOROUGH: You know what? You‘re exactly right. Hillary Clinton will vote for these judges, because she is running in 2008 and she doesn‘t want to be seen as divisive.
Stephen Hayes, thanks for being with us. Vince Morris, Kellyanne Conway, Mike Barnicle, we appreciate it.
And, Steve, we are going to get in touch with you next week. I understand you‘re going to the Auschwitz, 60th anniversary of the liberation. We want to get in touch with you and get your report from over there.
HAYES: Happy to do it.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, thanks a lot.
Now, coming up next, something Stephen cares about deeply also, Paris Hilton‘s videotape troubles aren‘t over—just joking, Stephen—aren‘t over yet. We have got the very latest on the reality star‘s possible jail time coming up next.
SCARBOROUGH: Welcome back.
Now, I have got issues with Michael Moore. Few have had as much fun with guns as the controversial director. He made a ton of money attacking America‘s gun culture in the 2003 mockumentary “Bowling For Columbine.”
Now the Associated Press reports that one of his bodyguards was busted at JFK airport on—get this—an illegal gun charge. If this isn‘t exhibit one for limousine liberal hypocrisy, I don‘t know what is. Moore, who flies in fuel-sucking private jets owned by multinational corporations, is supposedly pro-environment and anti-corporation. And the filmmaker who hates the thought of you owning your own handgun struts from city to city with his own gun-toting bodyguards, while having the best of both worlds.
Yes, Michael Moore is anti-gun, unless we‘re talking about his bodyguard. And, if we are, then, in the words of John Lennon, happiness is a warm gun.
From a gun-toting bodyguard to celebrities behaving badly. Paris Hilton may face jail time. While at a convenience store, you‘re looking at the surveillance tape now, Paris saw a poster advertising her amateur porn movie “One Night in Paris.” She tore it down and left, swiping a copy of the DVD on her way out.
Add her antics to Britney‘s five-minute marriage and scores of other stars going through the revolving doors of rehab and we have to ask ourselves what drives celebrities into making consistently bad decisions.
Now, Ken Lindner is an agent to many people that you see on TV. He‘s also the author of “Crunch Time: 8 Steps to Making the Right Decisions at the Right Times.”
And, Ken, thanks so much for being with us.
You know, this is a book that every star should read. You have been up close. You know how they think. You know how they operate. Can you explain to those of us who live in middle America why they behave so differently than the rest of us?
KEN LINDNER, AUTHOR, “CRUNCH TIME”: Well, first of all, Joe, I think that the press reinforces bad behavior oftentimes.
If they behave badly, if they do something out of the ordinary, if they‘re bizarre, they get front-page coverage. They get on all the entertainment shows. So, you know what? The media oftentimes does reinforce some of that.
But I also must tell you, as somebody who represents broadcasters and has written a book about making constructive decisions, the two things that I talk about in “Crunch Time” are, be a prepared decision-maker and don‘t let your emotions cloud your better judgment at crunch time or the moment of decision.
For example, I look at Paris Hilton very much like I look at Ron Artest, who got pelted with beer, got angry and ran up into the stands and starting fighting with the fans. In both cases, Paris Hilton and Ron Artest got angry, didn‘t think about the ramifications of their decisions, and made self-destructive decisions. In Ron Artest‘s case, he has been suspended for the year. He‘s been vilified. He‘s lost a lot of money. I don‘t know what is going to happen with Paris Hilton.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Ken, that‘s the problem.
And, you know, 30 years ago or 20 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago, an agent in your position would tell a star or tell a TV personality, you better stay out of trouble. If you do the things that Paris Hilton does, you get punished for it. Today, there may be agents saying, hey, do a home porn video, get it released and then feign shock and watch the ratings for your TV reality show skyrocket. Things are getting so muddied here.
LINDNER: Well, Joe, I totally agree with you. Look at what is happening every time somebody does something, whether it‘s the kiss or Britney Spears gets married overnight. She makes front-page news. So, she is being positively reinforced for that kind of behavior.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, in your book, again, you talk about making the right decisions at the right time.
Take a show like “Desperate Housewives.” There‘s some people that have been moderate stars, but now, all of a sudden, in just a couple of weeks, they achieve superstardom. If you‘re the agent for any of these “Desperate Housewives,” what is your advice to them on how to avoid the pitfalls of sudden stardom?
LINDNER: Well, first of all, I would say to them, figure out what it is you really want in the long-term framework of your life, and then make decisions that will help you get there.
If you can think about what it is in your heart of hearts you want to achieve—do you want to be on the show for a long time? Are there other things that you want, like specials? What is it that you want? And figure out how to take advantage of this moment or this stretch of stardom and make the very most of it and make constructive decisions along the way and choreograph the right steps to get there.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Ken, thanks so much.
Any final bit of advice for, let‘s say, somebody like Dan Rather, who gets into trouble and he is surrounded by enablers?
LINDNER: Well, I guess, in Dan Rather‘s case, I just think it‘s sad that he may be going out on a not-so-swell note.
But what I would say for others is, make sure that you make constructive decisions, such as check everything out and make sure that you don‘t let your own stardom and press sort of cloud your better judgment sometimes.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Ken Lindner. The book is called “Crunch Time: 8 Steps to Making the Right Decisions at the Right Times.”
Let‘s hope Paris Hilton is watching tonight. And, who knows, maybe she can read it while she is serving hard time.
Now, coming next, oh, baby, do we got a story for you. And it‘s a big one. Don‘t go away. I will be back to weigh in on the latest from the maternity ward when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, read my take on the world at my Web site, Joe.MSNBC.com. And while you‘re there, sign up for “The ScarCo Transmission.” It‘s not just a newsletter, baby. It‘s a way of life.
We‘ll be right back.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, this is a story that you truly need to see to believe.
A Brazilian woman gave birth to what doctors are simply calling a giant baby. Francisca Santos delivered the baby boy, who weighed in at—get this -- 16 pounds, seven ounces. Ouch, mom. Her doctors say the baby‘s size was due to a condition that the mother contracted during her pregnancy.
Now, in case you were wondering, the largest baby ever born tipped the scales at a whopping 22 pounds, eight ounces, all the way back in 1955. And, no, it wasn‘t Michael Moore.
That‘s all we have tonight in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
Next week, we find out if Mel Gibson‘s “The Passion” gets an Oscar nod. And we are going to be talking to actor Stephen Baldwin and ask him if Hollywood is still out of touch with middle America. I think we know the answer to that one, but we‘re going to have a lot more from SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY on Monday.
Again, sign up for our newsletter at Joe.MSNBC.com. You can also read my blog there and get the latest news from SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
We‘ll see you on Monday.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 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 MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.