Guest: Rachel Maddow, Tony Perkins, Nancy Keenan, Max Kellerman
JOHN G. ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: It is both an honor and very humbling to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST (voice-over): The president names his choice.
How will it affect Roe versus Wade?
Is Capitol Hill poised for a supreme fight? And could Rehnquist soon have the Senate Judiciary Committee working overtime?
Also, laws that might swing too far in the name of safety.
Plus, body art for the not-so-average body.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They‘re very naked, so you can easily tattoo them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Welcome to a special Supreme Court SITUATION, I am Tucker Carlson. We will break down every single angle of the nomination of John Roberts Jr., plus the other news of the day, and there was some, including new twist on sexual harassment in the work place, and Colin Farrell‘s foray into naughty amateur home videos, don‘t miss that.
But first, joining me tonight, NBC News chief legal correspondent, host of “THE ABRAMS REPORT,” the hardest-working man in show business, Dan Abrams. And from Air America Radio, our own chief justice, Rachel Maddow. Thank you both very much.
Well, our primary situation, of course, President Bush‘s nomination tonight of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Roberts has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit for a little more than two years. He served as principal deputy solicitor general during the first President Bush administration, and as a young lawyer, he clerked for William Rehnquist, then an associate Supreme Court justice. Quite a bio.
In the most general terms, John G. Roberts is considered a conservative choice by Bush, but here‘s some sound from two men earlier in the evening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen. He will strictly apply the constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench.
ROBERTS: Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court. That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy, and a deep regard for the court as an institution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: You know, if you watch Bush give press conferences, he gave one earlier today with the prime minister of Australia, you can forget just how clever he is, particularly politically. You can really underestimate him. I mean, famously he is underestimated. But this is an example of how he is underestimated.
This is a guy, John Roberts, who has been nominated today, who is going to be very, very difficult for Democrats to attack. Even now they seem to be giving up, and again, I think it‘s a measure of the cleverness of this administration, getting a guy who I think does represent the principles of the Bush administration, but is very hard to criticize.
DAN ABRAMS, NBC NEWS CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, look, all you hear the Democrats talk about is process. All you hear them saying is not, we have a problem with this guy, they are saying, well, wait, wait, wait, we‘ll see, we‘ll see, we‘ll see, but they are not going to see. They are not going to get the answers that they claim to want to get, and then they will complain about it.
CARLSON: Well, who is he? Who do you think this guy is?
ABRAMS: I think he‘s a mainstream conservative. I think he is exactly what President Bush promised. He promised when he ran in both 2000 and 2004 that you were going to see him appointing—he even said, justices like Scalia and Thomas. I don‘t think that Roberts is quite as conservative as they are, at least we don‘t have any proof that they are. And so I think that this is really as expected, and yet he doesn‘t have the sort of paper trail that some of the other possible nominees have.
CARLSON: I agree with that. I think it would be a better story if he were a fire-breather, but he doesn‘t seem one.
RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO: Well, it has been two hours since the announcement at this point, so the fact that the Democrats haven‘t come out with their dossier on him yet, I don‘t think...
MADDOW: . that there isn‘t going be one.
ABRAMS: As if they don‘t have it? They didn‘t research?
MADDOW: I think it makes sense politically for the Democrats not to be coming out to both barrels blazing tonight, the night that it is announced. I think that he is somebody who is—obviously deserves some respect in terms of his credentials, in terms of experience, where he is coming from, but there also isn‘t evidence that he is not going to be Scalia or Thomas, and if he is going to be a Scalia or a Thomas, he is going to face that.
CARLSON: Well, what is the—I mean is there anything looking at—because Dan is right. There is a great deal of research on this guy. There is a huge dossier. It has been months. We‘ve known this is coming.
ABRAMS: And he was a D.C. Court of Appeals judge, and so they went through this very process in 2003.
CARLSON: A little over two years ago. Is there anything that jumps right out at you and tells you who this guy is, what he believes?
MADDOW: I think the abortion stuff is going to be a big deal. I think the fact that he said we want to get rid of Roe v. Wade, the fact that there isn‘t support for right to abortion in the constitution, the fact that his wife is the executive vice president of Feminists for Life. I mean, that stuff is going to matter. This is—he‘s not going to be a Souter.
CARLSON: Already bringing his wife into it.
MADDOW: The fact is, that tells you something about his politics on choice, and it‘s going to matter.
CARLSON: Well, now begins the political fight to confirm Judge Roberts. You heard it here first, he was confirmed for the appellate court by a 14 to 3 vote just two years ago, that was before his job could hold power over issues like religious freedom and abortion. In their response to President Bush‘s choice tonight, Democratic leadership did not pack the expected fire out of the gate.
Here‘s New York Senator Chuck Schumer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: His views will affect a generation of Americans, and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views. The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Not exactly fighting words. Chuck Schumer went on to say, and I am quoting now: “There‘s no question Judge Roberts has outstanding real credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor.” Mark Pryor, senator from Arkansas, a Democrat, said he might get the 98 votes that Scalia got, breezed through the Senate. Larry Tribe said, I respect him, I admire him, I could go on. Leon Panetta likes him. Kendall Coffey likes him. I mean, they like him.
I just really believe that if there was good reason to be against this guy, we would be hearing it right now.
MADDOW: You will, trust me. I think there‘s a ton of reasons to vote against this guy.
CARLSON: Why wait?
MADDOW: I think the fact that the Democrats aren‘t coming out against it double barrel is a sign of respect for the process. And in fact, there is going to be.
CARLSON: Come on!
MADDOW: No, listen, I mean, if you wanted to hear—if it had been Priscilla Owen or if it had been Janice Rogers Brown, somebody patently unqualified without the temperament necessary, that‘s true. I think Judge Roberts does have the temperament, does have the qualifications. Nobody is going to say, you shouldn‘t be in this seat. But he is so hard right...
CARLSON: With all respect, please, if they had had it, they would be telling us right now, as strategic matter. Don‘t you think that would be the wise thing to do?
MADDOW: I‘m not going to tell you right now. Hillary Clinton not telling you right now is probably a political move.
ABRAMS: The bottom line is, though, that even if there are subtleties in what he has ruled in the past, what he said in the past, I don‘t think they are going to have the proof. I mean, you can say he wrote this as an advocate, when he was a solicitor general. He is going to be able to say, I was an advocate. And he said it before. He said it in the first confirmation proceeding.
He said—when Orrin Hatch questioned him about it, he said, I was an advocate at the time. He is not going to answer the question that people want—that some people want answered, which is, OK, if you weren‘t an advocate, what is your personal view on it? Not going to answer the question. So I don‘t think we are going to learn a whole lot more about him.
And if the position you are taking, which I think is an intellectually honest one, which is that they have got it on him, that they are going to come out guns blazing about his views, they are just not doing it now, I will be surprised if that happens, but—because I don‘t think that they do have it.
CARLSON: Well, the problem with that theory is that it undercuts itself. In other words, Democrats coming out now, Senator Mark Pryor, who is a moderate, but, you know, not right wing Democrat in the Senate, coming out and saying, I think he is going to get confirmed, or will likely be confirmed—if Democrats who are coordinating their strategy are to come out a week from now or even tomorrow and say, oh, he‘s a monster, back alley abortions and all that, people are just—Republicans are just going to turn and say, well, you liked him yesterday.
MADDOW: Well, you liked him the first two hours after it was announced. I think that you guys are putting way too much weight on what has happened in 120 minutes. I think that this is going to be a long process. I do think that he‘s not somebody who you‘re going to dismiss out of hand, out of the gate, like a Janice Rogers Brown, but I do think.
ABRAMS: But that‘s the only way.
MADDOW: . serious objections to him will be made.
ABRAMS: But that‘s the only way someone is not going to make it. The only person who is not going to make it through this Senate, with 55 Republicans in the Senate, is someone who is out of bounds, is someone whose views are so out of the mainstream, and you have got to have the proof.
MADDOW: I think the fact that the right wing groups, the far right interest groups on this issue, were OK with Alberto Gonzales, a guy who I, who admittedly very much on the left, I call Alberto Gonzales the torture guy. I mean, that‘s the way we talk about him on Air America Radio.
CARLSON: They were absolutely not all right with him.
MADDOW: Absolutely not all right with Alberto Gonzales. Alberto Gonzales, too liberal. This guy, OK. It tells you this guy is not a stealth nominee. This guy is a hard right nominee and objections will be made.
ABRAMS: Paper trail, paper trail.
CARLSON: And there is nothing.
ABRAMS: Gonzales had the paper trail.
CARLSON: And there is nothing.
ABRAMS: They don‘t have a paper trail.
CARLSON: Exactly. There is nothing they can do about it. Well, tonight‘s nomination of John Roberts, unlikely to be President Bush‘s last Supreme Court nomination. Just last week, 80-year-old Chief Justice William Rehnquist checked into a hospital, sparking speculation he would follow Sandra Day O‘Connor into retirement. Justice Rehnquist squelched the rumors himself, but the fact remains, he is in poor health. So if and when that justice retires, how would the confirmation of John Roberts affect the president‘s next choice?
There are a lot of—by the end of this president‘s term, second term, the vast majority, I think seven out of nine, or at least six out of nine of the justices will be 70 or over. So I don‘t—I mean, people need to face up to the reality of this and that—the likelihood that this is going to be repeated again. I bet Bush will get three nominees.
ABRAMS: But this is much more important. I mean, Rehnquist, you‘re trading a conservative for a conservative, even if it‘s for a conservative for a harder core conservative. And the votes are basically the same. Here you are trading someone who is kind of middle of the road for a question mark. If you are trading the middle of the road for conservative, you know, there I think you are going to have the bigger fight because I don‘t think it‘s going to matter that much.
Let‘s say Roberts passes, Rehnquist steps down. You get a Luttig, you get one these—you get Edith Jones, you get a more conservative nominee. You are not changing the make-up on the court. I don‘t think it really matters.
MADDOW: The thing that I think is interesting is that the kind of common wisdom politically, when we all thought that Rehnquist‘s departure was imminent, it is going to happen at some point, it just didn‘t happen last week, was that for the O‘Connor seat, he would basically maybe pick somebody more in the line of O‘Connor, somebody who is a more moderate conservative, and for Rehnquist he would go with somebody who was really hard right.
What he has done with picking John Roberts has proved that common wisdom wrong, because John Roberts is not a consensus candidate.
CARLSON: Well, we‘ll see. I bet you—he is going to get 70 votes, I bet you.
MADDOW: You think 70 votes?
ABRAMS: I bet he is going to get 90-plus.
CARLSON: You think he is getting 90-plus?
MADDOW: I do not agree.
CARLSON: OK. State your case.
MADDOW: That said, I am not in the Senate.
CARLSON: Yes, you‘re not, too bad, too.
Coming up, John Roberts is President Bush‘s man for the Supreme Court, but is he conservative enough? We‘ll get some grand old perspective from the president of the Family Research Council next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: These senators share my goal of a dignified confirmation process that is conducted with fairness and civility. The appointments of the two most recent justices to the Supreme Court proved that this confirmation can be done in a timely manner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Perhaps some wishful thinking for the president about the confirmation process there. It‘s still likely to be a slog. At the center of the debate, will almost certainly be our next guest. Joining me now from Washington, Tony Perkins, he‘s the president of the Family Research Council.
Mr. Perkins, thanks a lot.
TONY PERKINS, PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Good evening, Tucker.
CARLSON: Now conservatives appear to believe that Judge Roberts is one of them. They seem convinced of that. On what evidence?
PERKINS: Well, I think the—I don‘t (INAUDIBLE) the president—or the nominee is one of us, I think the president has made a nomination that he promised the American people in his re-election. He promised that he would nominate justices along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas.
While he only has a short period of time on the bench, his opinions, as well as his previous work would indicate that he understands the role of the court, and that is to interpret law and not to legislate. So we feel pretty comfortable that the president has made the right choice.
CARLSON: Well, you say his previous work. I mean, he spent years working for the solicitor general, arguing the government‘s case before the Supreme Court on a number of different issues. And then before that, he was at Hogan & Hartson in Washington, working for clients. But do you have examples of his judicial philosophy? How do you know what he thinks?
PERKINS: Well, based upon the arguments that he has made, some of the things that he has written, he has argued 39 times before the United States Supreme Court, so clearly this man is very well qualified. You look at his academic background, you look at his experience, and he is by far a top pick for the president.
And it‘s very important that you note in his opinions, and also in his positions that he has taken, he understands the role of the court. And I think that is what is at the heart of this matter, not that we are going to see a quote-unquote “conservative activist” on the court. That‘s not what we are looking for. We are looking for someone who understands the boundaries of the court and respects the role of the legislature as the body that creates public policy.
CARLSON: But certainly you want specific outcomes. I mean, you are horrified, I imagine, by Roe versus Wade, and you think it‘s a bad law, and I assume immoral too, I think you are right. Clearly you would want a Supreme Court justice who agrees with you on that. How do you know this guy does? What gives you reason to think he does?
PERKINS: Well, I want a Supreme Court justice who will, when a state passes a law, like we did in my home state of Louisiana, when I served there in the legislature, that says partial birth abortion is against the law in our state, or other restrictions abortion, that when it‘s challenged in court and ultimately makes its way to the Supreme Court, that you have a justice there that looks at the facts of the case and realizes that under the Constitution, the state has the right to make those decisions.
That‘s how I see these issues being resolved, not by an activist court legislating in our direction, creating public policy, but by recognizing the proper role of the legislature to do that.
CARLSON: Now, in popular view, groups like yours, conservative, particularly conservative evangelical groups, have a lot of influence at the White House. Tell me about your communication with the White House in the run-up to this announcement today. How do you make your views known to them? Who do you talk to? Do you make demands? Do you say we are going to withhold support if you nominate someone who isn‘t opposed to Roe v. Wade? How do you do it?
PERKINS: Well, there‘s no demands made on this White House. This president made promises and he has been a president that has kept those promises. He was elected on large part on two issues that really motivated people to go to the polls for him and work in this past election. One was on marriage, 11 states had marriage on the ballots in their states. And the other issue was the Supreme Court.
The president made it very clear during that election the type of justice he would nominate if he had the opportunity, and he has done that. Our communication with the White House, I am not going to go into all the details of it, but it‘s very cordial. We obviously are interested in the direction they take and give them the feedback. But there are no threats made to this White House. They choose their course, and they have chosen wisely.
CARLSON: Well, I mean, the fact is that seven out of the nine current justices were appointed by Republicans, but only three out of the nine sitting justices are conservative, consistently. So you‘ve got to sort of wonder about the ability of a Republican president to appoint a justice who is conservative over time, because the track record is really bad.
PERKINS: You are absolutely right, Tucker. There‘s no question about it. And so it does not give us comfort alone in just knowing that we have a Republican picking judicial nominees. But we have a president here, and if you look at his track record on appellate court nominees, there‘s consistency there.
He picks well-qualified candidates. He picks young candidates. And he often selects minority candidates. And so there is a pattern that has emerged in this nomination, while Mr. Roberts is not a minority, it‘s certainly consistent with all of the other attributes that the president looks for in these nominees. And chief among them are that these nominees are not those who see the court‘s role as to legislate and create public policy.
CARLSON: All right. Tony Perkins, Family Research Council. We appreciate it. Thanks for staying up.
PERKINS: OK, Tucker, thank you.
CARLSON: Coming up, reaction of President Bush‘s Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts from an abortion activist, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, joins us after the break.
But before we head to the commercial, here‘s how Justice Anthony Kennedy handled the question of abortion during his confirmation hearings way back in 1987.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM 1987)
ANTHONY KENNEDY, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: It would be highly improper for a judge to allow his or her own personal or religious views to enter into a decision respecting the constitutional matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: We do not expect any issues that go to the qualifications, the honesty, the integrity, and the fairness, the fairness of a Supreme Court justice to be off-limits.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Fairness. That was part of the Democratic response from Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. With tonight‘s announcement of his nomination to the Supreme Court, John Roberts is suddenly one of the best-known men in Washington, but not nearly as much is known about his stand on abortion.
In 1990, Roberts co-wrote a brief that suggested overturning Roe v. Wade. However, at his confirmation hearing two years ago, Roberts said he would uphold it Roe versus Wade since it is the law of the land. So how does he really feel about the subject? Joining me now, NARAL President Nancy Keenan.
Thanks a lot for joining me, Nancy Keenan.
NANCY KEENAN, PRESIDENT, NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA: A pleasure.
CARLSON: You all issued a statement today calling Roberts‘ selection, quote, “an unsuitable choice,” on the basis of what did you say that?
KEENAN: Well, absolutely. I think you have to take a look at what he has written in the past and that he had indicated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. And when 65 percent of the American public said they want to know where the nominee stands, and they want that nominee to uphold Roe, then the American public are very clear, that this is one gentleman that might not do that.
CARLSON: But that was not at all what happened, actually. He was working on behalf of the federal government arguing its case. He was in the Solicitor General‘s Office in a Republican administration. If I worked for the Transportation Department and our policy is to wear your seat belt, it doesn‘t mean I am for seat belt use, I work for an administration whose policy is, if you see the distinction.
KEENAN: Well, but he was a lawyer for this administration, and he wrote those briefs. I mean, I wouldn‘t go to work for George Bush if I wasn‘t in concert with their beliefs.
CARLSON: that‘s because you are the president of NARAL, you‘re an abortion lobbyist. But for many people abortion is but one of many issues, and they can agree to disagree. Bush is—the president himself is surrounded by pro-choice people, almost every woman in his orbit, almost all his female cabinet secretaries, pro-choice, but he is not, if you see what I mean.
KEENAN: Tucker, look, we have Operation Rescue tonight endorsing him. We have Jay Sekulow endorsing tonight. That tells the American people that this is not moderate nominee.
CARLSON: Ooh, McCarthyism, McCarthyism.
KEENAN: This is.
CARLSON: In other words, bad people like him, is that what you are saying?
KEENAN: This is a nominee whose very intent is to overturn Roe. And I think that the American public, like I said, who don‘t want Roe overturned, have said that to this president, it isn‘t enough for a wink and a nod, we expect the Senate to ask the questions, we expect the nominee to answer the question, and we expect them to uphold our freedom as women and our privacy.
CARLSON: But don‘t you think you ought to wait for that? I mean, I, of course, hope and pray that you are absolutely right in your characterization of Judge Roberts. However, I am merely suggesting to you, Nancy Keenan, that you wait to find out if it‘s really true. Don‘t you see the absurdity in saying, because Jay Sekulow, a conservative lawyer, likes Judge Roberts, that he must be pro-life? I mean, that‘s not evidence.
KEENAN: Well, I think—this is a nominee who actually wrote defending Operation Rescue, who are folks that intimidate women, who actually are blocking clinic entrances, and have advocated for violence. I mean, let‘s get this straight. This is not main street America.
CARLSON: I hope you are not.
KEENAN: when Operation Rescue is endorsing him.
CARLSON: OK. I mean, I—again, I hope you see what a sort of low attack that is, holding someone accountable for endorsements he didn‘t solicit. But let me just get you to concede one thing. I know that it helps in fundraising pitches to suggest that Roe v. Wade is one vote away from being overturned, but just you and me here talking, you can admit that‘s not true, actually.
KEENAN: Hey, Tucker, let‘s—you know, I come from Montana.
KEENAN: And out there, when there‘s a gun to your head, you don‘t ask the caliber, so this business inside the Beltway of five votes or three votes is ludicrous.
CARLSON: No, it‘s not.
KEENAN: This is the issue. The issue is that this president has nominated a person who has written about overturning Roe v. Wade, who does not value women‘s freedom and/or our right to privacy.
CARLSON: OK. Hold on, hold on, just slow down the rhetoric for a sec. Actually, numbers do matter in this one narrow way. You have to have a majority on the Supreme Court to endorse or defeat an idea. In this case, Roe versus Wade. There are only three justices on the court right now who voted on the pro-life side of Planned Parenthood versus Casey in 2002, essentially a referendum on Roe v. Wade, as you know.
His addition, if he is, in fact, against Roe v. Wade, would make four. There are still five others who voted the other way on Planned Parenthood verse Casey, or would be expected to. So, in fact, even if he is like a pro-life radical, and I hope he is, Roe v. Wade is going to remain and you know that.
KEENAN: Tucker, not necessarily so. When Justice O‘Connor stepped down, she was the swing in many of these decisions. She was the one that put reason above ideology, and I—what we are seeing here is a president that could have united this country, that could have brought us together on a consensus nominee, and instead, put forward one that was really not about upholding privacy and freedom.
CARLSON: OK. Again, that‘s merely rhetoric. As you know, Justice White, who retired, was the other vote, was the fourth vote in Planned Parenthood versus Casey, and in fact there are only consistently pro-life judges on the court now. He would be the fourth.
Let me ask you this, though, doesn‘t the president, just philosophically, have a right to put forward a justice who reflects his views? Bush ran as an anti-abortion candidate. He was elected by the majority of Americans. Doesn‘t he have a right to put this guy forward?
KEENAN: He has a right to put them forward, and the Senate has the right to evaluate and ask the question. And this is it, this is where 65 percent of the American public are saying, we do not want Roe v. Wade overturned. We do not want someone sitting on the court that that is their intent. And this Senate hearing is going to actually bear that out. And I think he is a very extreme nominee. And it‘s going to bear it out.
CARLSON: OK. All right. Yes, no, I know. Well, if they really feel that way, I wonder why they voted for President Bush? But that‘s a whole ‘nother topic.
KEENAN: It sure is.
CARLSON: and a whole ‘nother show. Ms. Keenan, thanks for joining us, we appreciate it.
KEENAN: A pleasure. Thank you.
CARLSON: Still ahead, if the 2008 presidential race turns into McCain versus Hillary, and it may, McCain already has a leg up, so to speak. We will tell you why after the break.
Plus, having sex with a Playboy playmate, surely a unique situation, but did actor Colin Farrell really have to hit the old record button on the video camera? Another romp caught on tape. The details in THE SITUATION rolls on.
CARLSON: Welcome back to a special edition of THE SITUATION. Sitting in for the vacationing Gorilla Monsoon, I am Tucker Carlson.
CARLSON: Still a lot more to get to, so let‘s reopen the discussion with Dan Abrams and Rachel Maddow.
The striking thing about those last two interviews, in my view, is how each side believes what it believes, sort of without regard of any evidence. So, the right is convinced that he is one of them, Roberts is one of them, the left convinced, he is an extremist. But neither one has any evidence. I think, actually, they are probably both right. They are not stupid. They‘ve got great instincts. You can sort of smell a kindred spirit.
ABRAMS: Yes. Yes. You know, you look at where he has worked and you look at what he has done, and, you know, you get a good sense.
The problem that you have in attacking in this environment is, you need the paper trail.
ABRAMS: You need the proof.
Look, the fact that he worked for Ken Starr in the Bush administration, the fact that he wrote the briefs that he did tells you something, but he can always say—and it‘s not an illegitimate claim to make, which is, I was an advocate. And when it comes to his actual opinions, he has only been on the court for two years. That‘s the beauty of this nomination.
And we were talking about this before. That‘s why it‘s such a smart decision, is because he has only been an appeals court judge for two years, and, as a result, he doesn‘t have the sort of paper trail that some of these others have, and, as a result, it makes him tough to attack.
MADDOW: Well, I think that was—it was clear that they were going to try to pick somebody who didn‘t have a paper trail. That‘s the easiest way to get through the nomination process now.
But there is—I—I do feel like we are being a little bit—we‘re kind of glossing over the issue of that brief that he did write on abortion, where he talked about there being no support for a right to an abortion in the Constitution. The fact is, that was filed as an amicus brief. I‘m sorry. I‘m sorry. That wasn‘t filed as an amicus brief. But that was brought up in a case where Roe v. Wade was not the issue. It was kind of gratuitously brought up.
He also has filed brief an amicus brief in favor of Operation Rescue and other clinic blockaders in a case where you don‘t need to file an amicus brief. He has gratuitously been bringing up the Roe v. Wade issue...
MADDOW: ... over and over.
CARLSON: Well, first of all, I mean, two points.
CARLSON: One, that was the policy of the administration, for—for whom he worked.
CARLSON: Right? Anti-abortion.
And, second, in fact, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. And truth is a defense in the end.
MADDOW: But, in a case that wasn‘t about Roe v. Wade, for him to come up with that argument and raise it on an issue where he said, I want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, in case that Roe v. Wade wasn‘t being considered.
CARLSON: OK. But, again, it‘s not I.
CARLSON: It‘s we. It‘s the administration he is working for.
MADDOW: And he is arguing that. And that is a paper trail. And that is not going to go away.
MADDOW: And he does have this awkward Operation Rescue connection. I mean, they are endorsing him. And he did file an amicus brief on their behalf.
ABRAMS: But on a—on a technical constitutional issue. I mean, it wasn‘t basically saying, I like Operation Rescue. I think what they do is fantastic. It was saying, in the context of this particular lawsuit, their position is right.
MADDOW: But that has still got to hang around his head.
CARLSON: I wish he had said the first.
MADDOW: The week that Eric Rudolph is sentenced, it‘s got to hang around your head.
CARLSON: Oh, come on. That‘s ridiculous.
MADDOW: Come on. It‘s not...
CARLSON: Eric Rudolph. Come on.
MADDOW: Listen, you can‘t say—you can‘t say he has been proven to not be an extremist when he‘s got these associations.
CARLSON: I know, but...
MADDOW: This is the start of the process. All this stuff is going to weigh very heavily.
ABRAMS: That‘s the interesting point, is, one of your guests before said—said that—that he has to prove that he is not an extremist, which is sort of the point you made.
MADDOW: Right, because of his endorsements and stuff.
ABRAMS: But I am not—I am not so sure.
I mean, the bottom line is, when the president appoints someone, it seems to me that, if he is not going to make it, advise the and consent role has to be...
CARLSON: All right.
ABRAMS: ... that the Senate is going to have find something on him to say, here‘s the reason we cannot endorse or consent.
ABRAMS: ... for this particular...
MADDOW: But you can‘t ask the Democrats to hold fire...
MADDOW: ... without proving anything...
CARLSON: More to the point, we are going to hear in the coming weeks, my prediction, Judge Roberts, the candidate of Eric Rudolph. And you heard it here first.
CARLSON: The slogan of the year.
Believe it or not, the SCOTUS is not the only thing on Washington‘s mind these days. As always in politics, money talks, and the GOP coming in loud and clear. The Republican National Committee raised $59.4 million through the first half of the year. That‘s a record in a nonpresidential election year. Democrats raised less than half that amount, about $28 million.
Amazing statistics, considering how unpopular the president is, in the 40s in approval ratings.
MADDOW: That‘s right.
CARLSON: This war dragging on, raising all this money. Especially, you would think, it‘s easier for the party on the outs to raise the money, with the specter of, you know, the scary Republicans.
The point, not just that Republicans are good at raising money, though they are, Howard Dean. Howard Dean is really hurting his party. It‘s true. Howard Dean—if you talk to Democratic fund-raisers, Howard Dean is...
MADDOW: Did Terry McAuliffe really hurt his party?
CARLSON: No. Terry—Terry...
MADDOW: They‘re pretty much consistent.
CARLSON: They‘re not.
MADDOW: They are.
CARLSON: They‘re not. Not on foreign policy, they‘re not.
CARLSON: Not at all.
MADDOW: No, but in terms of the amount of money raised.
CARLSON: Howard Dean‘s attacks on Israel, his attacks on the war in Iraq have hurt him in fund-raising.
CARLSON: This is—talk to people who raise money for the Democratic Party.
MADDOW: But wait. Terry McAuliffe and Howard Dean are raising money at roughly the same pace. So, what is the evidence that Howard Dean is hurting his party?
MADDOW: ... we‘re talking about fund-raising.
CARLSON: Because the Democratic Party—I am telling you. Ask around. The Democratic Party, I believe—and I think there‘s no other way to see it—should be doing a lot better than it is, and would be doing a lot better than it is, if you didn‘t have key fund-raisers saying, I am not going to participate...
ABRAMS: Is it possible that people are giving money to MoveOn and other organizations like that, instead of the party?
CARLSON: Well, that‘s a smart point. Probably, that‘s true.
MADDOW: The Republican...
ABRAMS: I mean, I don‘t know. I mean, but I wonder...
CARLSON: Well, I believe that is probably true.
MADDOW: The Republican Party raises money like teenagers raise pimples. I mean, they‘re raising huge amounts.
CARLSON: Yes. They‘re good.
MADDOW: Nearly double what the Democrats are raising. They are a money machine. And they represent corporate interests and the interests of people with money...
CARLSON: Well, it‘s—also, eliminating soft money has really hurt the Democrats.
MADDOW: Well, and the Republicans are much better at it than the Democrats.
CARLSON: Yes, at hard money, they are.
MADDOW: At raising—at raising money, they are awash in cash.
CARLSON: Well, the situation at the DMV could be getting a lot worse, if that is possible. Imagine lines stretching out the door, fees tripling, all because of the Real I.D. Act. That‘s a federal law passed just last month that would turn your driver‘s license into a national I.D. card, whether you like it or not. And most people don‘t care.
All polling on a national I.D. card shows that me and like some survivalists in Idaho are upset about it. Nobody else cares.
CARLSON: Because if you sell it to them as some sort of national security question or anti-immigration measure, they‘re totally for it. It gives me the creeps. I think there‘s something wrong with it.
ABRAMS: That‘s it, just the creeps? I mean...
CARLSON: I think it‘s terrifying.
ABRAMS: What about it?
CARLSON: The national I.D. card?
CARLSON: Because it‘s—it‘s upsetting to think the government could know where you are, keep track of you with any level of efficiency.
ABRAMS: It doesn‘t have—it doesn‘t have a monitoring device on it.
It‘s not like you‘re wearing an ankle tether.
CARLSON: Yes, but the idea that you could be asked to provide proof of citizenship or your papers.
MADDOW: Or your eye could be scanned for that information.
ABRAMS: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Aren‘t you asked every—you know, you are asked to show your driver‘s license on a regular basis.
CARLSON: Yes. But it‘s inefficient.
ABRAMS: Oh, oh, right, right. Because it‘s...
CARLSON: And that‘s good.
ABRAMS: Right. Right. Because the system isn‘t very good right now.
CARLSON: Yes, exactly.
ABRAMS: And because there are different rules state to state.
CARLSON: Exactly. Right.
MADDOW: But what about the larger issue, though, if you‘re—saying selling it as a national security thing? I think that immigration law and identification issues aren‘t really as key to national security as we all assume they are. That argument is never really made either.
MADDOW: I mean, in Britain—listen, in Britain, having some sort of a crazy increase in immigration restrictions or any identification requirements wouldn‘t have stopped British citizens from blowing up the London subway.
CARLSON: You‘ve got to be kidding. Are you being serious? If you had prevented widespread immigration from Pakistan and Bangladesh in the 1960s, would you have bombings in Britain today? No.
MADDOW: Oh, come on. So, your—so, the solution is just not have Pakistani Britons? That‘s crazy.
CARLSON: No, no. I‘m saying—I‘m saying, this is a result, a long-term result of immigration policy. I‘m just telling you it‘s true.
MADDOW: Al Qaeda is stateless terrorist organization. They can be anywhere. I.D. doesn‘t help.
ABRAMS: But that argument—but that argument—that‘s just sort of the “Well, there‘s nothing we can do” argument.
MADDOW: No. It‘s harden your targets. It‘s harden your targets.
ABRAMS: Of course it is. No, no. It‘s when the ACLU gets into the business of law enforcement, which is what I love...
MADDOW: Come on.
ABRAMS: When they come on my show and they start talking to me about the fact that, well, this isn‘t efficient law enforcement. Then you ask them what you—well, we have got to target it better. Well, how do we do that?
Well, we‘ve got to figure out a way. You know, the bottom line is, it‘s to throw up our arms...
ABRAMS: Say, this isn‘t good. This isn‘t good. We shouldn‘t do this. We shouldn‘t do this. We shouldn‘t do this. And, as a result, we are basically saying, anything that goes to—and, look, let‘s be honest. The bottom line is...
MADDOW: That‘s a total mischaracterization of what I am saying.
ABRAMS: No, it‘s not.
CARLSON: All right.
ABRAMS: In a war on terror...
MADDOW: It‘s completely wrong.
ABRAMS: In a war on terror, we have to admit that we are restricting civil liberties. That‘s a reality.
CARLSON: Yes, but we don‘t have to like it.
CARLSON: No, we don‘t.
CARLSON: And I don‘t.
MADDOW: Spending more than...
CARLSON: All right.
MADDOW: ... $250 million in four years on train and subway safety is something you can do, other than hardening your I.D. requirements.
CARLSON: That‘s an entirely different question.
MADDOW: Exactly. But that‘s the kind of argument I am making, not what you just said.
CARLSON: Next situation, another celebrity sex tape, back to news that you can use. This time, it‘s Colin Farrell who got caught with his pants down. The actor is not too happy about his latest starring role. He‘s suing his Playboy playmate ex-girlfriend for allegedly trying to distribute and of course profit from a sex tape he says the two recorded with the agreement they would never make it public.
When will these actors learn, Dan Abrams?
ABRAMS: Well, you know, actually, the law is very good in California for the actors.
CARLSON: It is.
CARLSON: What is the sex tape law in California?
ABRAMS: Well, no, any—and I actually pulled it, but, basically, that you can‘t use another‘s name, etcetera, likeness, for the purpose of advertising or selling a product without the person‘s consent.
CARLSON: Well, good.
MADDOW: So, he has got a right to sue.
ABRAMS: And so that‘s the question. Yes.
MADDOW: But he has got to make the case that this will somehow irreparably harm his reputation...
ABRAMS: Yes. Yes. I mean...
MADDOW: ... as one of the sexiest men alive.
ABRAMS: That‘s the part about it that is like...
MADDOW: That‘s the tough part.
CARLSON: This is going to have a chilling effect on bedrooms across this country.
ABRAMS: Yes, but what is—what is with everyone and the tapes? I mean, honestly. I mean, you seem quite familiar with it when we talk...
CARLSON: I‘m not—not familiar—not familiar at all.
ABRAMS: No, I‘m just kidding.
ABRAMS: I‘m saying that, like, the idea that everyone is out there making these tapes.
MADDOW: It saves you the trouble of remembering.
ABRAMS: Yes. I guess.
MADDOW: You can always just flip back. Oh, that‘s what I was doing then.
CARLSON: If you have a short-term memory problem...
ABRAMS: I feel like such a prude.
CARLSON: ... sex tapes are for you.
ABRAMS: I feel like such a prude. And all these people are making these tapes and I‘m...
MADDOW: We don‘t believe your smokescreen no-tape thing, Abrams.
CARLSON: You know what? I was just thinking that...
ABRAMS: ... old fogy who is like, you know...
CARLSON: Doth protesteth too much, I would say.
CARLSON: All right.
Rachel Maddow, Dan Abrams, thank you both very much.
ABRAMS: All right.
MADDOW: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Still ahead, jungle gyms, teeter-totters, sandboxes, they‘re all staples of the average American playground, or were. Next, we‘ll tell you why safety concerns are about to ruin everything fun in the world for kids.
Plus, an overzealous tattoo artist has given new meaning to the term pigskin, Vince Lombardi now rolling over in his grave and right on to the “Cutting Room Floor.”
CARLSON: Ahead on THE SITUATION, are you disgusted by a boss who pays special attention to an employee he is having an affair with? If so, I have got a solution for you.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Time again to welcome the Outsider, a man from outside the world of cable news who has audacity to play devil‘s advocate to me on a series of stories. The brave, but foolish man in question reportedly was on President Bush‘s short list for national boxing analyst.
CARLSON: Only to be passed over for a clean-shaven nominee, ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Oh, I have...
CARLSON: Welcome, Max.
KELLERMAN: I have a daunting task today, Tucker, but I‘m...
CARLSON: You really do.
KELLERMAN: I—I remain undaunted.
CARLSON: You know, I must say, I respect you more and more as the stories get more and more ludicrous and hard to defend. But let‘s see if you can do it.
First up, in 2002, New Jersey resident Douglas Idleman was diagnosed with liver failure. Too ill to work, he couldn‘t support his wife, Cynthia, and their two children. Douglas‘ parents stepped in to pay the family bills. When the Idlemans, not pictured here in wedded bliss, separated in 2003, Douglas moved in with his parents, who continued to pay Cynthia‘s bills, including $45,000 in credit card debt.
Now Cynthia has filed for divorce and is suing former in-laws for $20,000 per month in alimony. We should also say that her former husband had three liver transplants. These people actually live a mile-and-a-half from me, weirdly enough.
KELLERMAN: Careful what you say.
CARLSON: Though I—though I don‘t know him.
But the principle here seems to be that, if you have been giving me gifts, you are required by law to keep giving me gifts because I have become used to getting your gifts. I can‘t think of a greater disincentive to gift-giving than this. It‘s bad for society and really dumb.
KELLERMAN: It is really dumb, isn‘t it? I mean, it‘s just dumb.
But you know what? In New Jersey, it‘s statutory. A woman in a—after she gets married—she is married, now she‘s divorced. She‘s no longer with that guy. He must keep her living as she is accustomed. The law is ridiculous. And, if you look at the case law—and a friend of mine who is a divorce attorney who passed the bar in Jersey and looked this up for me—there‘s no explanation given for why you have to keep her living as she is accustomed.
CARLSON: Wait, wait. You have a friend who is a divorce attorney?
KELLERMAN: I do, indeed. And, actually, she is my wife‘s friend, which makes it a little scary.
KELLERMAN: But there is no rational explanation given. It‘s as though it‘s just so obvious. It‘s not obvious.
CARLSON: But wait a second. Does the law specify that, if you have three liver transplants and are unable to work, hospitalized, on your back, dependent on Social Security, that your parents have to kick in to keep your ex-wife in the manner she has become accustomed to?
KELLERMAN: Well, look, this is the defense. Here‘s my argument. The law is so irrational. There‘s no explanation given. Why shouldn‘t it extend to the parents-in-law?
KELLERMAN: I mean, why should the husband have to do it in the first place? Not only that, but now we are talking about kids.
And once kids enter the picture—and one of the kids is autistic, and they need all kinds of special treatment. It—you know, it—the courts will always come down on the side of the kids living as they are accustomed to living. And the grandparents gave them the gifts and made them accustomed to it.
CARLSON: Oh. Oh. Well, grandparents won‘t give gifts if laws like that stay on the books, in my view.
Well, it‘s getting less and less fun to be a kid in parts of South Florida. Since 1999, Broward County, Florida, schools paid out $561,000 to settle 189 claims for playground accidents. To keep those numbers lower, the district now has playgrounds without sandboxes, removed because animals could use them as bathrooms. Also, signs throughout the play area warn kids not to run and to use—quote—“age-appropriate equipment.”
That equipment, by the way, Max, not even called playground equipment anymore, known as platform climber composite structure. That‘s the new age name.
CARLSON: There are no merry-go-rounds. There are no teeter-totters. There‘s no swings, nothing fun, because a bunch of creepy trial lawyers have made it too expensive to have this stuff.
CARLSON: Playing is just too dangerous. Kids have to stay inside and read Maya Angelou novels or whatever. It‘s bad.
KELLERMAN: Our culture is far too litigious, obviously. Merry-go-rounds, by the way—were you ever really in to merry-go-rounds? They are just nauseating really.
As far as animals using the sandboxes, you know, to do their business, in New York City—I grew up in New York. I played in Washington Square Park. My mom, a lot of the time, wouldn‘t let me go in the sandboxes because Homo sapiens, the animal—man as animal, you—it was really—it‘s really disgusting.
KELLERMAN: And there—and what is wrong with the evolution of playground equipment? When I was a kid, I remember these huge structures, concrete, 25 feet high.
KELLERMAN: Kids were falling down and breaking their heads open.
CARLSON: Yes. And they were tougher. And that‘s part of the point, that, in fact, safety is not the ultimate goal in life. The ultimate goal in life is to read—lead a rich, fulfilling, interesting life. And too much safety imposed on kids makes them weak and fearful.
KELLERMAN: And we ask—we ask kids to do things they‘re not—that‘s not natural all the time.
For instance, anywhere you go in the world, I have noticed, 5-year-olds are let out for recess. Before they form themselves into groups and start doing activities, they run around flailing their arms and yelling.
KELLERMAN: Because it‘s unnatural for them to be sitting still in the first place.
CARLSON: Yes. That‘s good. That‘s why they need merry-go-rounds, to risk their lives and toughen up, not be wusses.
KELLERMAN: By the way, it‘s a seesaw, not a teeter-totter.
CARLSON: They‘re very, very, very dangerous.
Well, on Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled workers who lose promotions to colleagues who are sleeping with their bosses can sue their employers for sexual harassment. The court says all workers, male and female, may suffer if a relationship causes the boss to show favoritism. Previously, only the worker who had the affair or received unwanted sexual attention could prevail in California.
In other words, even if you are not sexually harassing someone individually, you can be sued for sexual harassment. This is an incentive for employers and the government to get involved in people‘s personal romantic relationships. This will require employers to start inquiring about who you are sleeping with. It will get government in the bedroom, something liberals are supposed to be against. Why are liberals behind this?
KELLERMAN: I am forced to go to an Adam Smith argument here, OK?
Take the local extension of what he said, because that‘s—why can you discriminate in the workplace? I could take a million dollars. I could give it out personally to whoever I want, right?
KELLERMAN: That‘s my right.
But if it‘s in exchange for services, I can‘t give it out however I want. I can‘t give choose just to give it to white people and not to black people, for instance, though I could just give it out to white people, instead of black people, if it was me personally.
CARLSON: That‘s right.
KELLERMAN: So, the question is, once it‘s in the workplace, what has changed? And the answer is, the logical extension of Adam Smith‘s theories, all the money in the world represents all the work that can be done in the world at any one given time. Anything that warps the relationship of work to money is a bad thing.
KELLERMAN: And, if more attractive women, for instance, are in line for promotion, even though they don‘t do the job as well...
KELLERMAN: ... that‘s warping the relationship...
CARLSON: Yes. You are right.
KELLERMAN: ... between money and work.
CARLSON: You‘re it—you are exactly right. And because it‘s inefficient, capitalism, if left unfettered, will solve that problem.
Your company will fail. My company will succeed, because I am not sleeping with my employees. Don‘t regulate business and everything will be fine.
KELLERMAN: Isn‘t this disgusting?
KELLERMAN: This is really disgusting.
CARLSON: And wrong.
KELLERMAN: This is scary.
CARLSON: Max Kellerman, defending the indefensible, but doing it with great flair and style, much appreciated.
KELLERMAN: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you, sir.
Coming up, best friends smelling a little ripe this summer? Your problem may be solved by this dog wash. It works for cars, and Fido may wind up with a cherry vanilla air freshener. In any case, he‘ll wind up on the “Cutting Room Floor”—next.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for the “Cutting Room Floor,” the leftovers of news we couldn‘t pack in.
Willie Geist has them—Willie.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: Hello, Tucker. We‘ve got to get right to it.
A quick update off the top, though. Remember the man who was caught in the tank of the women‘s room looking up at women?
CARLSON: Vivid—I remember him vividly.
GEIST: At an outhouse. He was—he was arrested for that. He explained in court today that he dropped his wedding ring in the toilet and that he was merely looking for it, which begs the question, why was he going to the bathroom in the women‘s room?
CARLSON: A great—a very good...
GEIST: But that‘s a story—a story for another day.
CARLSON: You would be a good prosecutor, Willie.
GEIST: We also—we want to start here tonight.
Friday night, you argued with Max that Britain was in fact superior—excuse me—that France was indeed superior to Britain as Jacques Chirac suggested. And this was part of your argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: They blew up the Rainbow Warrior. Twenty years ago on Sunday, they blew up the Greenpeace ship the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbor. It was a bold and good thing to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GEIST: Now, we got some e-mails suggesting that you endorse terrorism. I personally don‘t believe you do.
For the record, do you endorse terrorism?
CARLSON: No. I don‘t endorse terrorism. I do, however, endorse blowing up the Rainbow Warrior. It was one of the greatest—it was something all Frenchmen can be proud of.
CARLSON: It was a bold step.
GEIST: For the record.
CARLSON: For the record.
GEIST: Here‘s the rest of them.
CARLSON: Thank you, Willie.
CARLSON: Well, pigs certainly aren‘t the most aesthetically pleasing creatures in the animal kingdom, but an artist in China is trying to change that. Some of the pigs on a farm outside Beijing are getting tattoos from a Dutch artist who wants to show how much humans and pigs are alike, conceptual art, apparently. Collectors can purchase the inked-out oinkers or buy their skins after they die.
GEIST: Like the Cockroach Hall of Fame last night, more unnecessary humiliation of animals. On the way to the bacon factory, we‘re going to tattoo a sunset and a unicorn on your back.
CARLSON: I agree with that. I agree with that.
CARLSON: Make a lamp shade out of that.
GEIST: Let them live their miserable lives in peace.
CARLSON: I know. I‘m sort of on PETA‘s side in a lot of ways, especially in this one.
Well, anyone who has ever had trouble opening a jar of peanut butter can appreciate the very special talent of this octopus at the Denmark Museum. The 1-year-old octopus can open any jar, no matter how tight the lid, in a matter of seconds. Watch the technique as it wraps around the top and spins the lid, which then floats harmlessly to the surface.
GEIST: I have a question. How did they discover the talent of this octopus? Did someone drop a jar of salsa in and then he sent it back up with a side of corn chips or something?
CARLSON: You sort of—you sort of worth of wonder what other kind of talent they are testing with the octopus.
GEIST: It also—it also begs the question, aren‘t the contents of the jar compromised?
CARLSON: Yes, I think they are.
GEIST: If you put a jar of peanut butter and he opens it in salt water?
CARLSON: Right. The good news, it‘s open. The bad news is, it‘s in the octopus tank.
GEIST: That‘s right.
CARLSON: All right.
Keeping a dog in the bathtub, one of the most difficult tasks known to man. It becomes a lot easier when you don‘t give the animal a choice of getting out. The Wash-o-Matic, a new device that works like a washer/drier for dogs and cats. Just load your pet into the machine, close the door, wait about 20 seconds for the wash, rinse and dry cycles to finish.
GEIST: That‘s 20 minutes, actually.
And what are the—what is this poor dog thinking? Listen, we‘re going to shove you into this box, close the door, leave you in there for about a half-an-hour. You‘ve got to trust me on this one.
GEIST: This has to feel a lot like the final moments of a dog‘s life as you‘re being pushed into this box.
CARLSON: I know. I say, call PETA again.
GEIST: It‘s a little scary.
CARLSON: That‘s mean.
Well, most of us know that antifreeze, what it is, what it does for a car‘s engine in the wintertime. Did you realize how delicious it can be for you on a hot summer day? Well, apparently, it‘s a bit too delicious. And consumer groups are urging Congress to pass legislation to make the taste much less appealing.
The group say antifreeze‘s flavor is too sweet and causes children and pets to drink the toxic fluid.
GEIST: You know what? That‘s fine by me, Tucker. I prefer a dry, austere antifreeze anyway.
GEIST: So, this doesn‘t bug me. My wife and I shared a bottle of Prestone the other night.
GEIST: Mmm. Wonderful.
CARLSON: Sort of a—sort of a nutty taste.
CARLSON: With a hint of sunflower.
GEIST: Never precocious. Mmm.
CARLSON: Willie Geist, thank you.
GEIST: All right, Tucker.
CARLSON: Thanks for watching our special edition of THE SITUATION.
Join us again tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, our regular time, for more on the developing situations. Have a great night.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Content and programming copyright 2005 NBC. 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 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.