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

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for Nov. 1st

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Ben Nelson, Gloria Feldt, A. Kenneth Ciongoli, Max Kellerman, Bruce Lubin

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”:  Hey, that‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Make sure you stick around, THE SITUATION with Tucker Carlson.  It starts right now.  Tucker, a lot going on tonight.  What‘s THE SITUATION?

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  So much.  Thank you, Joe. 

Thanks to you at home, too, for staying with THE SITUATION tonight. 

We appreciate it. 

Dramatic developments on the Senate floor this afternoon.  In an unusual move, Democratic leader Harry Reid closed down the chamber in the Senate for two hours, managed to the Senate Intelligence Committee to continue their investigation into prewar weapons claims made by the Bush administration. 

While Democrats declared victory, Republicans were absolutely enraged, red in the face by the tactic.  Bill Frist called it the most offensive thing he‘s seen since he‘s been majority leader of the U.S. Senate.  Wow. 

Meanwhile, the debate over conservative Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito continued today.  Republican Senator Mike Dewine of Ohio—he‘s a member of the Senate‘s bipartisan group known as the Gang of 14 -- met with Alito this morning, and he warned Democrats he would side with GOP if they tried to filibuster Alito‘s nomination. 

Here to discuss the Alito nomination, as well as the dust up today on the Senate floor, Ben Nelson, senator, Democrat from the state of Nebraska. 

Senator, thanks a lot for joining us. 

SEN. BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  I‘m sure you‘ve seen the Republican majority leader, Bill Frist‘s, comments about what happened today in the Senate.  Let me just read you one line. 

“The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership,” he said.  “They have no convictions.  They have no principles.  They have no ideas.  Never have I been slapped in the face with such an affront to leadership of this grand institution.”

He was just apoplectic.  Is it going to be hard to conduct business after this?

NELSON:  No, I don‘t think so.  I was on the floor right after those comments, and everything seemed to be quite peaceful after the dust-up. 

And I think the American people probably don‘t care much about all the inside baseball within the Senate chamber.  But they were working together, coming together with a compromise on how quickly to bring out the report on prewar intelligence, from the intelligence committee.

So these things happen from time to time, and I think people, their frustration level shows.  But after it‘s all over, it‘s business as usual. 

CARLSON:  Well, a procedural question, I can‘t resist asking.  Quickly, I read in every report of this, the indication of Rule 21, that all non-senators are booted out of the Senate chamber.  People are required to leave their cell phones outside, and the lights were dimmed.  Why were the lights dimmed?

NELSON:  I don‘t know about that part of the rule, but they were dimmed when I came down to the floor to find out what was going on.  I‘m not sure.  I think it probably was because the lights that are there are those that are there for the cameras, and when the cameras are turned off, I think automatically the lights are dimmed on the Senate floor.  But that‘s my expectation. 

CARLSON:  Do you think watching Harry Reid, whom I respect as a person

I think he‘s a smart guy and a decent person.  But watching his frustration over the past year or so with Iraq makes me wonder if his vote for the war doesn‘t add to that frustration. 

Do you think the Democrats who voted for the war, voted to authorize the president to go to war, should somehow apologize for their vote, now that they‘re against the war?

NELSON:  Well, I don‘t know who‘s against the war, necessarily, but I think everybody is expecting to find out about the prewar intelligence that was relied on for the votes for the war. 

And I think there‘s a bit of a frustration on how long that has taken for that report to come out.  And I think we‘re all anxious to see it.

But I think whether you‘re frustrated about the report or not, I don‘t know that everybody is turning against the war, necessarily.  I do think that there are questions raised about what kind of information was there that was present for the vote. 


NELSON:  I think a lot remains to be seen, and I think hopefully we‘ll be able to sort that out. 

CARLSON:  I can‘t—just from my point of view, as a non-senator, I can‘t wait to see the report.  I think it‘s going to be interesting. 

One of the things you do in the Senate is lead the Gang of 14, so-called, a group that was formed not long ago to try to prevent filibusters, in cases where judges were coming up for confirmation.  Do you think you will be able to prevent a filibuster in this case, for Alito?

NELSON:  Well, I don‘t know.  I think it‘s a little bit early to be able to decide that, but I can tell you that I‘m not hearing any of my colleagues on the Democratic side using the word “filibuster,” and I think that‘s an important point here.  The word seems to be coming out of other people‘s mouths. 

My focus is on how we can—we can work together and get the kind of rigorous but fair process. 

You know, the Roberts nomination showed us that the process can work without—even in the context of extreme partisanship.  The Miers nomination showed us that partisanship doesn‘t always have to be present, and it‘s not always the minority who creates obstruction.

So I‘m anxious to see how this process unfolds, so that we can make up our minds on whether or not Judge Alito ought to serve on the United States Supreme Court. 

CARLSON:  It seems like so much of the problem Democrats have with Judge Alito, at least right off the bat, within hours of the announcement of his nomination, the complaints had to do with abortion, his position on it.  Do you think you could ever see a majority Democrat supporting someone, a judge, who was openly, avowedly anti-abortion?

NELSON:  I‘m not sure.  I can say at this point, though, as long as you‘ve got the political left saying that, in presidential elections, that they want to appoint somebody that‘s going to protect Roe v. Wade, the political right promising to put judges on that will overturn Roe v. Wade, this issue is going to be at the center of so much about our Supreme Court.

Not that it shouldn‘t be, but as long as it‘s about who‘s going to appoint the most conservative or the most liberal judges, this is going to continue to be the kind of issue that it is for us right now. 

CARLSON:  Do you carry a handicap nomination, Senator?  What do you think odds are he makes it onto the court?

NELSON:  Well, unless—unless he slips up, unless there‘s something

in his record, something in his decisions that would raise to the level of

rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances, I think he gets approved. 

But it‘s way too early in the process, and I always hate to make predictions.  I‘m not going to predict the Nebraska-Kansas football game next weekend, either. 

CARLSON:  I‘d say Nebraska.  Ben Nelson...

NELSON:  I think Nebraska is going to win. 

CARLSON:  Senator from that state, really one of the great Democrats in the USA.  Thanks a lot for joining us tonight. 

NELSON:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  So will the Alito nomination turn on the question of abortion?  Critics seem to be banking on it.  Planned Parenthood issued a statement saying, quote, “It is outrageous that President Bush would replace moderate conservative like Justice O‘Connor with a conservative hardliner.  There is no room on the court for someone with a judicial philosophy that places at risk the rights, freedoms and liberties that Americans hold dear.” 

Joining me now, Gloria Feldt.  She‘s the former president of Planned Parenthood and also the author of “The War on Choice.”

Gloria Feldt, thanks for joining me. 

GLORIA FELDT, AUTHOR, “THE WAR ON CHOICE”:  Glad to be here, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  So I know you‘re not running Planned Parenthood any more, but I‘m a little confused by the statement there is no room on the court for someone who disagrees with Planned Parenthood.  It‘s just not allowed.  You disagree with Planned Parenthood, you can‘t be on the Supreme Court. 

Kind of a—speaking of hard line. 

FELDT:  Well, you know, the thing is, when you‘re looking at this appointment of Judge Alito - I almost can‘t say it without saying “Scalito.”  He‘s sort of like Scalito nice, I think.

He—President Bush was really at a crossroads.  He could have chosen to go to the left a little bit.  He could have chosen to go to the right.  He could have chosen to go straight down the middle and appoint someone more like Sandra Day O‘Connor, who has been the pivotal vote for so many years.  So many of these 5-4 decisions have hinged on her really taking that strong centrist position that reflects the position of most Americans.

CARLSON:  Well, it reflects your position.

FELDT:  Unfortunately, President Bush chose to go as far to the right as he possibly could, and you have to ask—he was wrong on so many things.  He has been wrong on the war.  He has been wrong on...

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Wait, wait.  Just hold on.  Sorry...

FELDT:  He has been wrong on so many things, how can we trust that he could be right in appointing Judge Alito?

CARLSON:  That‘s not—that‘s not a very smart attitude.  I mean, because he screwed up the war, and I agree he did, doesn‘t mean he‘s wrong on everything.  You‘re mature enough to...

FELDT:  We agree on something. 

CARLSON:  No, no, but come on.  That‘s not a reasoned argument. 

But let me just ask you my question once more.  It‘s a big country.  A lot of people disagree with you.  A lot of people think abortion is horrifying and a crime and ought to be a crime in statute.  And they have a right to that opinion.  And they‘re not all crack pots and cranks.  They‘re decent people, most of them.  Why shouldn‘t they have representation on the Supreme Court?  Why is it outrageous that someone disagrees with you?

FELDT:  They already have representation on the Supreme Court.  At least four of those votes already represent that point of view. 

CARLSON:  That‘s not true. 

FELDT:  But that‘s not—that‘s not—I think that‘s not the issue here.  The issue here is that there have been—there have been expansions of our civil rights and civil liberties over the years.  It appears that Judge Alito is—is someone who would like to take us back to an interpretation of the Constitution that was prevalent 200 years ago.  We have expanded...


FELDT:  ... the right to our reproductive privacy.  We have expanded civil rights, in many different ways.  He opposed family and medical leave. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Wait, hold on.  Gloria, Gloria, I‘m sorry. 

FELDT:  There are so many issues.  There are so many issues that are related...

CARLSON:  The overstatement bell is going off here. 

FELDT:  No, no.  There are... 

CARLSON:  Well, let me stick—OK.  Rather than debate whether he wants to bring us back, you know, to the Plymouth Colony, let‘s debate a fact here. 

You said a second ago, I said, you know, “Why shouldn‘t pro-lifers have representation on the court?

You said, “They already do.  They have four.”  Let‘s get real specific

here.  There are nine members of the Supreme Court, eight now, because

Sandra Day O‘Connor is leaving, OK?  So five of them are liberal, reliably

liberal and on your side on the question of abortion: Breyer, Kennedy,

Souter, Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens,

On the other side, you have two reliable conservatives that we know of, Scalia and Thomas.  Roberts, the jury is not in yet on that.  Right?  So for now, I‘ll give you Roberts. 

FELDT:  We can quibble about how you can.  But actually... 

CARLSON:  No, actually, we can‘t.  We can‘t quibble, because these are public decisions that we know how people voted.  And so you have five people who support Roe v. Wade in all of its manifestations, even if this guy were the most anti-abortion person in the world, Roe v. Wade would still be safe if he‘s confirmed.  Please admit that.

FELDT:  Actually, Tucker—actually, Tucker, it seems to me that every decision that has been dealing with reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 has pretty much been a step backward. 

Even though the fundamentals of Roe in the sense of a right to privacy in the Constitution have been reaffirmed several times, the fact of the matter is that just about every decision, whether it was Webster or Casey, and by the way, in Casey, it was Alito who voted in the court of appeals. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

FELDT:  To—you know, he was the dissenting vote there. 

CARLSON:  As you know...

FELDT:  And he was overruled. 

CARLSON:  Right.  I just want—I just want to cut through the rhetoric a little bit, though, and bring our viewers a fact that is often lost in these discussions, about the Supreme Court and abortion, and that is, and I just want you to concede this point, because I think it‘s an important one.

There are five members to the Supreme Court, five justices, associate justices on that court who support Roe v. Wade, who I believe support the Casey decision, which went your way, as you‘ll remember, back in the early 1990‘s.  There are five of them.  So no matter what this guy believes, Roe v. Wade is safe. 

FELDT:  No, Tucker, he will be taking the place of Sandra Day O‘Connor who has been the pivotal fifth vote, so what will happen immediately is that the court will flip to 5-4, most likely...

CARLSON:  That‘s just not true. 

FELDT:  Not supporting Roe. 

CARLSON:  Come on. 

FELDT:  The thing is...

CARLSON:  All right. 

FELDT:  You must remember that the abortion issue is not really about abortion and its fundamentals.  It is about whether women will be respected as moral decision-makers.

CARLSON:  Well, that‘s...

FELDT:  And will have the human right to make their own child bearing decisions. 

CARLSON:  That‘s your bumper sticker, not necessarily true, but we invited you on to deliver it to us, and you did.  Gloria Feldt, thanks very much for coming on.  I appreciate it. 

FELDT:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Still to come on THE SITUATION, some critics are calling the latest Supreme Court pick machine gun Sammy, huh?  We‘ll tell you why they‘re just shooting blanks. 

Plus, a royal pain.  Prince Charles and Camilla are taking their show on the road.  And “The Outsider”—that‘s Max Kellerman to those of you tuning in for the first time—has something to say about it.  We‘ll tell you what it is when we come back.


CARLSON:  Still ahead, at least one interest group is outraged by the nickname some have attached to our latest Supreme Court nominee.  Is their anger justified or simply ludicrous.  Debate ensues as THE SITUATION rolls on.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

So what‘s in a name?  Well, if you‘re a Supreme Court nominee, quite a bit.  The war of words over Samuel Alito is heating up, over all things, the nickname Scalito.  Some say it‘s only meant to suggest that Alito views mirror those of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Others are calling it an ethnic slur. 

Dr. Kenneth Ciongoli is the chairman of the National Italian American Foundation.  He joins us now.

Dr. Ciongoli, thanks a lot for coming on. 


FOUNDATION:  Good evening, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  I want to read...

CIONGOLI:  I can‘t see you but I... 

CARLSON:  You look—I must say, you‘re a handsome guy.  I didn‘t realize that. 

CIONGOLI:  I was about to say, I can‘t see you, but I know I like your tie. 

CARLSON:  Thank you.  I like yours. 

I want to read this for viewers who may not have seen it, your statement.  Here‘s—this is from the National Italian American Foundation. 

“We‘re distressed by the attempts of some senators and the media (CNN,

CBS) to marginalize Judge Samuel Alito‘s outstanding record by frequent

reference to his Italian heritage and by the use of the nickname,

‘Scalito‘.  No one mentioned that Justice Breyer was Jewish or suggested that he was out of step—or in step ideologically with the other Jewish Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  It would have been outrageous to do so.  We still don‘t know Justice Roberts‘ ethnicity.”

“We are justly proud of Justice Alito‘s Italian heritage and his sterling academic and judicial records as well as his impeccable integrity.  However, he should be considered as an individual, in honor of the memory of the just departed Rosa Parks.  The Senate champions of civil rights should insist that Judge Alito be considered only on his extraordinary merits.”

You seem to be implying in this statement that the Senate is a hot bed of anti-Italian sentiment.  Is that true?

CIONGOLI:  Well, look, let me set this up.  Anyone can oppose anyone based upon an objective review of their record.  However, it is unacceptable to marginalize and to demonize someone by defining them within the narrow universe of their ethnic group, of their religion, or tying them so closely to someone that there‘s no room for—for individual expression. 

That‘s exactly what‘s happened.  I mean, I have heard people on the television say, both of these guys, Scalia and Alito, are so similar.  They‘re both Italian.  They‘re both Catholic.  They‘re both conservatives.  They have identical judicial philosophies.  They‘re so similar, we only need one name to identify them.  We‘ll contract it and call it Scalito.  And even more—go ahead. 

CARLSON:  Wait.  I mean, first, isn‘t it kind of hard to argue this guy is the victim of discrimination? I mean, he has been appellate judge 15 years, nominated to the Supreme Court.  How is he discriminated against?

CIONGOLI:  Look, what‘s happened here, the next point is Chris Matthews what he pointed out yesterday, and that is that his political foes have attempted to say that because he‘s Italian American, he will be soft on organized crime, and he called it disgusting, and it is. 

Now, look, you can oppose Justice—I‘m sorry, you can oppose Judge Alito. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

CIONGOLI:  Based upon his views, but you cannot marginalize him.  It strips away his accomplishments. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

CIONGOLI:  His individual accomplishments.  That‘s the only thing he should be judged on. 

CARLSON:  And it is—and of course, it‘s a political tactic by his enemies on the left, who want to suggest his politics are exactly those of Justice Scalia‘s.  But you‘ve got to admit—I mean, let‘s be honest, the similarities there.  The similarities are there.  I mean, they are both Italian.  They are both Catholic.  They‘re both the product of Catholic schools, and their names do sound alike. 

CIONGOLI:  Yes, but you know, we are way beyond Noah‘s ark.  I mean, you can‘t couple anything anymore.  Imagine if Larry Thompson had become the nominee, and they tried to say that, because he was African-American, he would vote exactly the same way as Clarence Thomas, or two women would vote the same way on women‘s issues.  Or Justice Breyer would vote exactly the same way as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  There would be a firestorm. 

And just to make the point—let me make this point here.  I have e-mail from someone who supports us, who identified himself as Jewish from Los Angeles.

CARLSON:  Right.

CIONGOLI:  He said—he said, “As a Jew, I would be livid if during the confirmation hearings they identified Breyer as Breyerberg.”  I mean, doesn‘t that say it all? 

Now, we‘re not—I don‘t know a single Italian American that‘s for censorship.  Anybody can say “Scalito” as often as they want.  They can get a skywriter and says it.

But the point is obvious.  This is to your audience.  Whoever uses that term has an agenda, and everything else they say is suspect. 

CARLSON:  I just don‘t—I guess I sort of see what you mean.  I just don‘t see it.  I don‘t—I never hear anything say anything bad about Italians.  I don‘t think that—I mean, I think the...

CIONGOLI:  You never hear—that‘s great. 

CARLSON:  No.  I live in New Jersey, too.  You think I would. 

CIONGOLI:  Not much to say about it.

CARLSON:  I just don‘t see anti-Italian sentiment as a major problem in this country.  Maybe I‘ve got my head in the sand.  Maybe it‘s everywhere and I just don‘t see it. 

And I also think this—that this nickname, again, is a part of political attack, not an ethnic one. 

CIONGOLI:  The point is that it‘s been tied together in a way that no other group would be tied together, and that is the problem. 

I really have no problem with anybody saying, and I‘m not for censorship, but every time they say it, I recognize it as a slur.  Now, me, since we‘ve come out with this position, we‘ve been accused of being partisan.  We‘re not.  We are for Italian American excellence.  We‘re nonpartisan.  We celebrate Nancy Pelosi, Napolitano.

CARLSON:  You celebrate Nancy Pelosi? 

CIONGOLI:  Absolutely. 

CARLSON:  No, you don‘t.  Come on.  You don‘t mean it when you do, do you?

CIONGOLI:  We—she was a member of our board until a couple of years ago. 

CARLSON:  That‘s a little shocking. 

CIONGOLI:  We celebrate her accomplishment as a minority leader, why is it shocking?  She has achieved excellence in America. 

CARLSON:  I think excellence is a little strong.  I was kind of on your side until you dropped that bomb. 

Just kidding.  All right.  Thanks a lot for joining us.  Dr. Ciongoli, thanks.  Thanks a lot for joining us.  I appreciate it. 

CIONGOLI:  All right.  Thanks for having me on.  Appreciate it. 

CARLSON:  Thanks. 

Still ahead, is Bush‘s chief advisor off the hook, or could Karl Rove still face charges?  Inside the leak investigation when THE SITUATION continues.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Democrats take over the Senate floor, another liberal group attacks the Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito.  Who better to discus these two topics, our old pal, Air America radio, Rachel Maddow? 


CARLSON:  First up, I have been getting e-mails all day, Brady campaign, liberal groups, saying Samuel Alito supports the right of individuals to own machine guns, so I spent a good part of the afternoon reading the case from which this canard                 comes. 

MADDOW:  Ribar.  U.S. V. Ribar. 

CARLSON:  Raymond Ribar Jr., 1986, a guy busted for selling two automatic weapons at gun a show in Pennsylvania.  Alito wrote a nine-page dissent, which I have here—I won‘t bore you with it all.  I spent the whole afternoon reading it. 

And here‘s the bottom line: this dissent is all about the Commerce Clause. 

MADDOW:  Right. 

CARLSON:  That regulates interstate commerce.  And Alito‘s point is, look, this law, the original one, U.S. Code 22, bars commerce of a product, actually prohibited or at least not covered by the Commerce Clause.  The long point of this is, this is not a commentary on the second amendment.  He is not saying people have a right to do anything at all about guns, it‘s not about guns, it‘s about the Commerce Clause.  So it‘s a very, I think unfair, and dumb interpretation to say this is expression of his views about guns. 

MADDOW:  Well, what I think is interesting about it, it is about the Commerce Clause, and people hear the Commerce Clause, they kind of, “Oh, this is something about government I don‘t understand.” 

CARLSON:  It‘s sort of interesting when you get into it, actually. 

MADDOW:  It‘s true.  And the Commerce Clause is hugely important.  The Commerce Clause is basically says that Congress can do stuff.  I mea, it really says that. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

MADDOW:  It‘s not everything...

CARLSON:  When it pertains to interstate commerce. 

MADDOW:  When it pertains—you use interstate commerce, that idea of it, to say the federal government can regulate guns and explosives and even civil rights.

CARLSON:  Right.

MADDOW:  A bunch of civil rights cases in the ‘60s were because the people who were eating at those restaurants might have driven in from another state.  I mean, it‘s really...

CARLSON:  Exactly or they were in bus stations. 

MADDOW:  Right.  Or the food traveled across civil—state lines in order to get to that restaurant.  It really does impact what Congress can do. 

But the fact Alito ruled that, even in the case of fully automatic weapons, that the Congress didn‘t have an interest, didn‘t have the right to regulate those, even when you‘re talking about something like fully automatic weapons, and not lettuce, or not some totally benign thing, or toads like Judge Roberts‘ big commerce ruling.

CARLSON:  Right.

MADDOW:  That means, wow, he really, really is extreme on the issue of what Congress can‘t do. 

CARLSON:  No, actually it was—this whole dissent was a commentary on a decision the year before, U.S. v. Lopez, a Supreme Court decision that laid out a precedent having to do with the Commerce Clause. 

And he was saying, based on this precedent, this statute, U.S. Code 922, actually is unconstitutional, doesn‘t work, doesn‘t make sense.

So I think it was much more narrow than that.  Maybe we will find—this guy has handed down a lot of decisions.  Maybe we‘ll find out that he‘s a full-blown gun nut, in which case, I will like him a lot more, even than I do now, because I believe you do have a Second Amendment right to own a firearm.  But I just don‘t think it‘s in here. 

MADDOW:  It isn‘t a Second Amendment case.  That‘s definitely true.  I‘m all in favor of the Commerce Clause.  I think Congress can do stuff.  I think it‘s really important.

Real conservatives are very much against the Commerce Clause.  That‘s a problem.  But the fact that he didn‘t see guns as rising to the level of being OK for Congress to regulate in this way, I think it is weird. 

CARLSON:  No, no, he didn‘t see a political outcome as worthy of subverting the Constitution, which means he takes seriously what the framers were thinking about and what they did. 

MADDOW:  Well, the rest of the court—the rest of the court didn‘t see it as subverting the Constitution. 

CARLSON:  Maybe they weren‘t as principled.  That‘s kind of what I‘m suspecting. 

MADDOW:  Also really like Machine Gun Sammy.  I just like that name.

CARLSON:  It‘s so unfair.  It‘s so typical of the Brady Institute for Silliness, or whatever that place is.  They sent out this completely over the top press release that has no grounding in reality. 

MADDOW:  You can‘t mock the Brady Campaign. 

CARLSON:  Yes, you can.  And that‘s why I don‘t like him.  Because you can‘t mock it, because of Mr. Brady, unfortunately, has been hijacked by his wife.  And he can‘t say anything bad because he was so bravely injured, because he‘s such a good guy.  And it makes me upset. 

Anyway, Democrats take over the Senate. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  The Republicans are outraged.  The Senate, you know, they just have all these rituals that demand politeness, that things like this are just not done.  But for once in a lifetime, I‘m kind of—I want to see the report. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  ... on the intelligence that led up to the Iraq war, and maybe this was an outrageous thing to do, but I actually—I hope they do an investigation, and I want to know.  I always want more information. 

MADDOW:  Well, the thing that‘s interesting about the Senate is that, as opposed to the House, there‘s a lot of rules in the Senate that let the minority have some power. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

MADDOW:  Even individual senators bring the whole proceedings to a halt.  That‘s the way the Senate is set up.  You don‘t want to see them do this every day, but if there is an issue on which you want to see Democrat or anybody bring business as usual to a screeching halt, it‘s—we never got an explanation for what happened in the lead-up to the war.  I mean, this is the issue on which to raise a huge stink. 

CARLSON:  And the timing, of course, was completely political, but I almost feel like, OK, at least they finally did it. 

Step two, with a midterm coming almost exactly a year from this week, step two is coming up with a “what do we do next” position.  If you‘re a Democrat running for office in 2006, you have to have a kind of logical explanation for what we ought to do now that we are in Iraq.  It‘s not going to be enough a year from now to say, “Ooh, it was a bad idea.”  Everybody agrees with that.  What do we do now?

MADDOW:  I think that Democrats are going to start to articulate a more strong anti-war position.  I hope they do, and I think they‘ll have to.  The country is certainly very much against the war at this point. 

CARLSON:  To be against it and to articulate what you should do next are two different things. 

MADDOW:  Well, I think setting a timeline or calling for immediate withdrawal is going to be a good start.  And that‘s what I‘m hoping the Democratic Party does. 

But the fact that they are not looking until a year after the election into what happened in terms of the White House lying to the American people, whether the White House deliberately lied about the intelligence, that the Democrats had to bring the Senate to halt in order to get the Republicans to even look into that shows that the mid term elections are going to be all about the war. 

CARLSON:  The investigation has actually been going on for quite some time, but let the mid-terms be about the war.  The war matters.  I‘m not in favor of the Democrats controlling anything, from my city council on us.  However, if the war is important, then they should run on it.  Everyone ought to run on the war. 

MADDOW:  Think so?

CARLSON:  See what happens.  Rachel Maddow, thank you. 

MADDOW:  Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Coming up on THE SITUATION, more and more college men are taking Home Ec these days.  Do they really want to know how to cook or clean, or are they just trying to meet women?  We‘ll debate that with “Outsider” Max Kellerman next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  The 19th century American writer and philosopher Elbur Hubbard (ph), a favorite of us here on THE SITUATION, once said, “if you can‘t answer a man‘s arguments, all is not lost.  You can still call him vile names.”  We are not going to sink to that level tonight, but joining me now, the man we like to call the Outsider, ESPN radio and HBO boxing host, Max Kellerman, live from Las Vegas tonight. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  Any quotes from L. Ron Hubbard? 

CARLSON:  That‘s coming next. 


CARLSON:  We‘re scouring the many volumes of his writings for that perfect quote. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, yesterday, you had me attack organized religion, and now today I am supposed to defend the royals.  All right, let‘s hear it, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Let‘s see if you can. 

The latest British invasion.  Prince Charles and his second wife, Camilla, the duchess of Cornwall, are in New York City tonight—the prince‘s first trip to the former colonies in more than 10 years.  The royals head to Washington tomorrow, and they are not traveling light.  Camilla reportedly brought along 50 dresses, and a huge team of beauticians and stylists. 

I can make a lot of cheap cracks about the royal family and the polluted gene pools and things like that, how they are not quite what they used to be, but I am not going to do that.  I am going to stick to policy here, Max, because I am that serious of a person. 


CARLSON:  Prince Charles is coming here not simply as a tourist, not simply as, you know, the heir to the British throne, but also as a kind of emissary, an ambassador for Islam.  It‘s been reported that Prince Charles believes the president is too mean to the Islamic nations and Islam as a religion, and he has come here on its behalf to lecture the president and our country about being mean to Muslims. 

Here‘s my quick point: Cat Stevens, who at least recorded some pretty good albums in the ‘70s.... 

KELLERMAN:  And is Muslim, yes. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  Was turned away from this country, because he was considered too radical on the subject of Islam.  And we are letting Prince Charles in?  I think we ought to expel him on Cat Stevens grounds. 

KELLERMAN:  Yeah, well, first of all, who is Prince Charles to make comments about any other head of state? 

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

KELLERMAN:  He is not the head of state.  He is a figurehead.  Yes, shut up, Prince Charles, yes, yes, yes. 

However, I remember, I think it was about 1980, when he gave himself a raise, to, in American dollars, I think it was about three quarters of a million dollars a year.  He needs to do something to earn that money, Tucker.  What is he supposed to do, just sit on the shelf?  He has to do something.  So agitating, you know, in this country, for greater sensitivity to Muslims, whatever, it‘s better than him just sitting there and doing nothing.  He is getting paid money. 

CARLSON:  Yes, but, look, what is the use of a federal government, of the executive branch of the United States government, if you can‘t use it to keep from this nation annoying foreigners? 

KELLERMAN:  That‘s the whole point. 

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly the whole point.  No, I don‘t mean dangerous people, I don‘t mean terrorists.  I mean foreigners who are mouthy, loud and insulting.  (INAUDIBLE) use the power of our government to keep them out. 

KELLERMAN:  I mean, undesirables. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.

KELLERMAN:  I think we are talking about the same thing.  Yes. 

Undesirables, and Prince Charles is an undesirable.

CARLSON:  I‘m glad I‘ve won you over, Max.


CARLSON:  And now, the latest news from the nation‘s campuses.  Home ec, it‘s not just for girls anymore.  Seems more and more men are majoring in what is being called human sciences—taking classes in nutrition, fitness, property management and budgeting.  Not just cooking and cleaning.  Last year at the University of Georgia College of Family and Consumer Sciences, nearly one-third of the 1,700 students were men. 

I am not going to call them pansies, Max.  That would be the easy way out. 

KELLERMAN:  I think that was footage of the extension school, Tucker. 


I am not going to cast dispersions on their manhood.  That would be the easy way out.  I am going to tell the truth, because I have been there.  They guys are lazy and they‘re drunk, and they‘re taking these courses for the same reason I had a minor in women‘s studies—it‘s easy.  You just show up, be quiet, apologize for being a man, and you get a B minus. 

And I am just saying that at a time when the average private college in this country costs $21,000 a year in tuition, and a lot more to actually run per student, that‘s a waste of money and time and America‘s promise. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, except you are forgetting one very important thing. 

These classes are predominantly what, male or female? 

CARLSON:  Well, female. 

KELLERMAN:  OK.  So not only is it an easy class, where you show up, you apologize for being a man, you get a B minus, but you are meeting women.  You know, this is a good deal, Tucker.  Look at it from the point of view of the kids who are actually taking the class. 

CARLSON:  If you can‘t meet loose women in 2005, you better just hang it up, buddy.  If you are in college, if you can‘t get a date, are you kidding? 


CARLSON:  ... you don‘t need to take a home ec course. 

KELLERMAN:  It‘s easy, there are women, and maybe easy women.  The point is also that it‘s empowering for men, Tucker.  Because rather than rely on women to take care of all these domestic issues in your life, men are learning how to do it.  It‘s empowering for men.  I say, good for them. 

CARLSON:  Anytime anyone is empowered, I am wholeheartedly against it. 

KELLERMAN:  I mean, really, if you got to take a home ec class, you got to take a good, long, hard look at yourself in the mirror if you are a man. 

CARLSON:  I know you do. 

Max Kellerman live from Vegas, good luck at blackjack, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Stay tuned.  There is still plenty more ahead on THE



CARLSON (voice-over):  Close encounters of the political kind.  A shocking expose of what‘s inside Washington‘s secret X files. 

TOMMY LEE JONES, ACTOR:  How are you doing, pal? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Hey, hey, hey. 

CARLSON:  Then, the bizarre case of a 74-year-old cocaine dealer.  His story and the judge‘s ruling may surprise you. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I could have cried there. 

CARLSON:  Plus, why cattle roundups are best left to the pros.  Wait until you see how this backyard cow wrestle ends.

And, the daring daytime heist that launched a state-wide witch hunt, but can investigators solve this spell-binding case?  It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION.



CARLSON:  All right.  Here‘s a tip.  Anyone who says he hasn‘t leafed through a copy of “The Weekly World News” while standing in line at the grocery store is lying.  How could you resist a newspaper that unapologetically screams headlines like “Saddam and Osama Caught in Torrid Love Affair,” and “I Was Bigfoot‘s Love Slave.” 

The paper‘s editors have assembled the very best of those headlines in a highly entertaining new book called “Bat Boy Lives!” 

Bruce Lubin is the book‘s publisher.  He joins me now live in the studio.  Bruce, thanks a lot. 


CARLSON:  I got to be honest, it‘s one of the best books I have ever seen in my life.  Any page you turn to has something incredible. 

LUBIN:  And it‘s all true. 

CARLSON:  From “The Weekly World News.”  “Prissy Porker From TV‘s “Green Acres” Exposed: Arnold the Pig Was Gay.”  “Did Mad Scientists Clone Richard Simmons?”  “Man Grows World‘s Longest Nose Hair.”  “Karl Marx Was One of the Marx Brothers.”  “Oprah to Replace Lincoln on $5 Bill.”

I mean, I can just go on and on, but I just want to put up on the screen top 3 of my favorites.  “Beer Cans Found on the Moon.” 

LUBIN:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  Brilliant. 

LUBIN:  Yes.

CARLSON:  “Three-Breasted Intern for Clinton.”  Bill Clinton hires three-breasted gal, joins Clinton as his new intern. 

And the perennial favorite, “I Was Bigfoot‘s Love Slave.” 

These are just brilliant.  Who thinks these up?

LUBIN:  Well, I‘ll tell you, it‘s our team of journalists.  I mean, we really cover...


CARLSON:  Who uncovers the truth about these stories, Bruce? 

LUBIN:  Well, the truth is that we adhere to the same strict standards that the mainstream media does, Tucker, but we are braver.  I mean, maybe you blame the liberal media or Rupert Murdoch, you know, I don‘t know what you guys do.  But for us, we go where you won‘t.  I mean, we were the ones who broke the Dick Cheney cellulite scandal, his cellulite nightmare that he is having.  We are the ones who—I don‘t know that you know that Bush is planning to sell Hawaii. 

CARLSON:  I had no idea. 

LUBIN:  Yeah, no, it‘s true.  I mean, actually, and...

CARLSON:  And your sources can reveal that now? 

LUBIN:  Yeah, listen, this goes to our reporting.  I mean, we had a reporter traveling with him, one of these fourth-graders at a stop said that in 1803, a large part of the U.S. was actually purchased from France, in something called the Louisiana Purchase, which, of course, Bush had never heard of, nor had we, but we dug down and we found that it was true.  And he thought, I will sell Massachusetts, because it‘s very blue up there.  But Cheney said, no, people will know.  No one even knows Hawaii is a state, and he figures that‘s a way to get rid of that pesky deficit.  So...

CARLSON:  It‘s not really part of the country anyway, as far as I am concerned. 

LUBIN:  No, no, it doesn‘t count. 

CARLSON:  You have covered foreign affairs as well.  I know you have a whole running sequence on the bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are gay, and in fact, are getting married. 

LUBIN:  No, they have been married, actually.  And we had a reporter there, and I will tell you, when they slow-danced to “Wind Beneath My Wings,” there was not a dry eye.  Really, it was something to see.

CARLSON:  But you won‘t see that on the “Times” wedding pages. 

LUBIN:  No, you won‘t.  You won‘t.  And there you go.  There you go. 

The mainstream media.

CARLSON:  I flip through the vows column every Sunday morning, and it‘s not there. 

LUBIN:  It isn‘t there.  It‘s just incredible, isn‘t it? 

CARLSON:  Now, the book is called “Bat Boy Lives!”  And that‘s after Bat Boy.  And anybody who has actually been in a supermarket, in, say, the past 20 years, will, I think, recognize Bat Boy. 

LUBIN:  Think so? 

CARLSON:  You had a story, I was amazed but yet not so amazed to see that Bat Boy and James Carville are in fact the same person. 

LUBIN:  Yeah.  I mean, if you look at the photos, you can really kind of tell that this has to be true.  They both have the same sort of pointed grin, the misshapen bald head, they have this crazed laugh.  Their arms sort of flail around when they are excited.  I mean, no one has ever really questioned whether James Carville is part of the human species.  And you know, this is not good news for Mary Matalin.  I mean, this is the DNA coursing through their kids.  

CARLSON:  What do the people who write these brilliant pieces make a year?  I mean, I hope they are all just multimillionaires, many times over. 

LUBIN:  Many times over.  Many times over.  No, they are paid well.  You know, it‘s a different approach.  If a woman calls your news desk and says, my toaster is talking to me, you would probably hang up, right? 


LUBIN:  If a woman calls our news desk and says, my toaster is talking to me, we say, put the toaster on.  There is a distinction.

CARLSON:  And you are not covering the Scooter Libby developments, apparently. 

LUBIN:  No, we are.  We are breaking the story that we believe Scooter Libby is actually a muppet.  You know, he has got the name Scooter Libby. 

CARLSON:  Yes, he does, he‘s halfway there. 


LUBIN:  Yeah, I mean, what do muppets really do?  They say things.  They don‘t really care whether they are true or not, they are sort of affable, and they just say what they want to say, and that essentially is sort of Scooter Libby. 

CARLSON:  Let me just ask you one final obvious question.  Has anything that you know of ever made it into this magazine or newspaper that is true? 

LUBIN:  Every single thing is true in this. 

CARLSON:  That‘s your story and you‘re sticking to it. 

LUBIN:  Yes, of course.  Absolutely.

CARLSON:  Where is Bat Boy? 

LUBIN:  Where is Bat Boy?  He was with the Marines last time we heard from him.  So I think he‘s just—he helped find Saddam, and I think he is on the trail of Osama right now. 

CARLSON:  Good for him.  May Bat Boy live long and prosper. 

LUBIN:  Amen.

CARLSON:  Bruce Lubin.  I hope this book does really—this book is going to be great.  I predict this book will be under every Christmas tree this year. 

LUBIN:  From your lips. 

CARLSON:  It‘s going to be under mine.  Thanks.

LUBIN:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  Coming up, apparently I offended some members of our witch demographic with my comments about black magic last night.  I get a lecture on witchcraft when we check THE SITUATION voicemail next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for our voicemail segment.  You leave messages, we play them. 

First up. 


CHRIS:  This is Chris from Saratoga.  I was sorely disappointed with the way you handled the interview of Cavario H.  His magazine promotes and glorifies the drug culture and all the violence that goes along with it.  And you didn‘t call for him to answer for the ultimately negative aspect of his magazine.  So I think you kind of wussed out on that one, and I was a little disappointed. 


CARLSON:  So was I, Chris.  I did wuss out on that.  His magazine does promote the drug culture and the violence that goes along with it, but I just liked Cavario H., and I—I was weak.  I liked the guy.  I couldn‘t be mean to him.  I probably should have been.  I regretted it later, but you know, who understands the human heart. 

Next up.


MIKE:  This is Mike in Tulsa, in regards to the whole CIA leak case. 

What the hell happened?  It just doesn‘t make sense.  Please explain.  Also, did you have Abba on last night, at the end of your little Halloween montage?  Abba, huh?  Good choice (ph).


CARLSON:  I bet we did have Abba on. 

But I don‘t get the CIA leak case.  Scooter Libby, this brilliant guy, apparently did something monumentally stupid.  I have no idea why he did it, why is a leak investigation resulting in no indictment for a leak.  I don‘t get that either.  Hopefully, we‘ll find out more, but if this is all there is, it wasn‘t worth the time and the money.  That‘s my view. 

Next up.


CARL:  Hi, Tucker.  My name is Carl.  I‘m calling from Auburn, New York.  I just want to say your comment about witchcraft being the most ridiculous religion proves that, like most Christians, you have an ignorantly pedestrian knowledge of religion in general outside of your own faith.  The fact is that most modern-day Wiccans who practice that, they worship a compassionate, kind Mother Earth Goddess and man‘s relationship to her.  They revere all of her creatures and they seek to harm no living thing. 


CARLSON:  So you worship a kind Mother Earth goddess and you‘re calling me the moron?  I don‘t want to insult you, because frankly I‘m a little bit afraid and kind of spooked out by the whole witch thing.  So let me just say, thanks for your comments. 

But let me know what you‘re thinking.  You can call 1-877-TCARLSON, that‘s 877-822-7576.  You can also send me your questions via our Web site.  E-mail, and I‘ll respond every day, anything you come up with, no matter how bizarre.  For our response, you just log on to

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, yes, that is a cow in a swimming pool.  How did it get there?  And more important, how did it get out?  As usual, we have all the answers.  We‘ve done the reporting on “The Cutting Room Floor.” 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  It is time once again for “The Cutting Room Floor.”  You know what that means.  Willie Geist has appeared.  Willie?

WILLIE GEIST, THE SITUATION:  Tucker.  I think we should make it our business to send this to number one on the best-seller list.  This book is so good. 

CARLSON:  I‘m going to do anything I can to make that book.  I want that to beat every Mitch Album book on the list right now. 

GEIST:  It should.

CARLSON:  Yes, it should.

GEIST:  I didn‘t know about the wedding between Saddam and bin Laden.  If you listen to the mainstream media, you would think they hated each other. 


GEIST:  But I...

CARLSON:  I get all my news from the Internet and “The Weekly World News.” 

GEIST:  We under-reported on that.  That‘s our bad.  Go get‘em.

CARLSON:  Actress Renee Zellweger and her country singer Kenny Chesney former husband had their marriage annulled in September, just four months after their wedding.  We can only imagine the pain the couple was feeling.  Now, Chesney has put that pain into heart-breaking words.  He told “Life” magazine breaking up with Zellweger was like, quote, “having someone come into your house and take your big screen TV off the wall during the big game, and there is nothing you can do about it.” 

GEIST:  Wow.

CARLSON:  That‘s poignant. 

GEIST:  That really is.  At the risk of sounding disrespectful, having the big screen taken out of your room is much worse than losing Renee Zellweger. 

CARLSON:  Do you think so?

GEIST:  Much, much worse.  I‘m sorry, I know you‘re a big “Bridget Jones” guy. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not into the big game or Renee Zellweger, so that kind of leaves me cold on most...


CARLSON:  The whole metaphor falls down for me. 

Well, it‘s not every day you walk out in the backyard and see a cow taking a dip in your swimming pool.  It happened, though, in Palm City, Florida the other day.  Three cows got loose from their pen and made a break for the nearest residential neighborhood.  One of them, named Sparkle, worked up a sweat and decided to go for a swim.  In all, it took officials five hours to round up Sparkle and her friends. 

GEIST:  Five hours for three cows? 

CARLSON:  That‘s a lot. 


GEIST:  Now, if you take—I don‘t know if you can see—if you get a look at the folks who were trying to corral Sparkle and friends, I get the feeling that Sparkle is not the most hideous beast who‘s ever been in that pool.  You know what I‘m saying?

CARLSON:  I get the feeling that some beer has been consumed.  That‘s just my guess.  I mean, I am not passing judgment.

GEIST:  A little bit.  A little bit.

CARLSON:  That‘s all right.

Well, if you‘re out tending to the crops all day long, when the heck are you supposed to find time for romance?  A new dating Web site for farmers is helping to solve that dilemma. is a site where single farmers from across this country can make love connections.  An Ohio man started the site after hearing a divorced farmer say non-farmers simply don‘t understand the lifestyle. 

GEIST:  That‘s so true.  We should point out, actually, as they do on the Web site, you do not have to be a farmer; you simply have to have the good, old-fashioned, traditional values of America‘s heartland. 


GEIST:  And that sort of excludes me, and probably you. 

CARLSON:  I just don‘t think of farmers as ever being single. 

GEIST:  No, exactly, that‘s right. 

CARLSON:  Kind of hard to run a farm without an extended family, isn‘t it?

GEIST:  Who is ringing the dinner bell, and the kids, and the dogs...

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly right.  Who is milking the cow? 

GEIST:  What‘s happening to this country?

CARLSON:  Who is churning the butter? 

GEIST:  Exactly. 

CARLSON:  You know what I mean?

GEIST:  Do they still churn butter? 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  But who is making the quilts and stuff? 

GEIST:  No, I know.

CARLSON:  And needlepoint samplers.  I mean, my whole...

GEIST:  This is the state of affairs in our country. 


Well, it takes a special case to turn a crack dealer into a sympathetic character.  74-year-old George Lewis convinced an Oklahoma judge that he is just such a case.  Lewis was convicted on two counts of selling crack cocaine, but he avoided jail time by telling the judge he was doing it to pay for his wife‘s cancer medication.  Prosecutors wanted a 20-year sentence, but the judge let Lewis off the hook. 

I want to know the names of the prosecutors who tried to sentence this guy, 74-year-old man, to 20 years in prison. 

GEIST:  That‘s a little excessive, I will admit.  But isn‘t all drug dealing for some goal?  You know what I mean?  So as long as you explain why you did it, you get off?  I mean, you want to get the medicine for your wife, I want a Mercedes with TVs and a headrest.  You know what I‘m saying?  Why is yours more important than mine? 

CARLSON:  I do know what you‘re saying.  I‘m not sure you‘ve successfully established moral equivalence.  We‘re back to the whole big TV metaphor. 


CARLSON:  Well, a woman dressed as a witch played a mean Halloween trick on a bank in Washington state yesterday.  As you can see in this dramatic reenactment performed by THE SITUATION players, the woman walked into the Washington Mutual Bank and handed the teller a note demanding money and threatening that she had a weapon.  As the witch fled the bank with the cash, the security dye pack exploded, and the woman disappeared in a poof of smoke. 

GEIST:  OK.  I would like a word with our props department.  I know we‘re going through a little belt-tightening around here, but Vanessa, our fine actress, was wearing a traffic cone as a witch‘s hat.  That‘s just not going to get the job done.  I hate to see acting like that overshadowed by shoddy prop work.

CARLSON:  You know, in our defense, news networks typically don‘t have huge prop departments.

GEIST:  No, and hence, we get traffic cones on our witches.

CARLSON:  But I bet we have better reenactments than CNN; we can promise that. 

Willie Geist!

GEIST:  All right, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Thanks.

That‘s SITUATION for tonight.  Thanks for watching.  Up next, “COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN.”  See you back here tomorrow night.


Copy: 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.