August
5, 2005
MSNBC
The
Situation with Tucker Carlson Transcript
Guest:
Jerry Falwell, Rachel Maddow,
Rick Santorum, Max Kellerman TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: We‘ve got more on the NCAA
banning of Indian mascots tonight, why women who flirt at work won‘t be
getting a promotion any time soon. And I‘ll go one-on-one with
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who is going to join us live. Joining me now tonight via satellite, the Reverend Jerry Falwell. And joining me from just three feet away,
the great Rachel Maddow. Thank
you both very much. RACHEL MADDOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi,
Tucker. Thanks. First situation, Tony Blair toughens up Britain‘s stance
on terrorism. Today, he proposed strict anti-terror policies that would
allow the expulsion of foreigners who preach hatred, the closing of extremist
mosques and the barring of entry to England of Muslim radicals. Here is Mr. Blair himself. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We are today
signaling a new approach to deportation orders. Let no one be in any
doubt the rules of the game are changing. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: The rules have changed. And good for
him for saying so. You don‘t have the right to be in a country, any country
that you‘re not from. I don‘t have the right to go to You agree, Mr. Falwell? JERRY FALWELL, CHANCELLOR, But, in this particular situation, considering what
they‘ve been through, a double dose of what we have, maybe not as many
casualties, but certainly a wakeup call, and they‘re doing the responsible
thing. They‘re saying, if you‘re here to hurt us, you don‘t like us,
you don‘t—you don‘t pay taxes here, you are welcome to leave. MADDOW: I think that the British response, in terms
of policing and apprehending people after this, has been laudable. We
all know there‘s been a lot of pressure for something like this, an action
that was taken today by Blair. But if we know one thing about al Qaeda, it‘s that it‘s a
stateless group. And I‘m not sure that expelling people and sending
people all over the world actually protects countries anymore. I mean,
one of the July 7 bombers in CARLSON: I think... FALWELL: I think, if we had expelled those 19 on
9/11 one day ahead of 9/11, it would have made a big difference. MADDOW: How would we have known to do that? FALWELL: That‘s what I‘m saying. If we do
know, we should expel them. (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: But if we didn‘t—but if they weren‘t
preaching—these guys—the guys on 9/11 weren‘t known as preaching
extremists. They weren‘t people who had themselves known... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: But, look, the point is that we—that the
British police and the British press, for that matter, and us, for that
matter, have pinpointed a couple mosques in London that are essentially
acting as recruiting organs for al Qaeda. And so, the West, civilized society at some point, has to
make the decision. Are we going to put up with this in the name of an
abstract principle or are we going to protect ourselves and our way of
life? And I think Blair has chosen the latter. MADDOW: They‘ve made the de—I mean, they‘ve made the
decision of what they‘re going to do. My question is,
is it actually going to keep CARLSON: Better than nothing in this case. Next up, a situation of political correctness runs
completely amok. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, known as
the NAA—NCAA—has announced new restrictions on what school mascots can
be. From now on, the NCAA will not allow schools with names derived
from Native American traditions to host championship events. Players, coaches and cheerleaders will not be allowed to
wear gear featuring names like chiefs, Indians or braves to NCAA championship
events. Already, And of course it is. When people cheer for a team,
right, they‘re not mocking the name of the team. They‘re supporting
it. They‘re endorsing it. They‘re imagining themselves to be part
of it, right? And some of these, if I can just add, are not even Indian
specific. The Hawaii Warriors can no longer use their name. FALWELL: Tucker... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: The William and Mary Tribe... FALWELL: The NCAA must have a lot of time on their
hands to think of dumb... (LAUGHTER) FALWELL: ... rules like
this. CARLSON: I think they do. FALWELL: Yes. MADDOW: I think—I know that these kinds of stories
get you all tied up in knots. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Yes, they do. MADDOW: You want your Redskins T-shirt. You
want to eat at Sambo‘s. You want all those things. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: Actually, Red—the Redskins, actually, are
the one team that I think you can make an argument that it‘s offensive.
(CROSSTALK) CARLSON: But how can you say that the tribe is
offensive or the warriors? MADDOW: It‘s offensive to make somebody a mascot
based on their race. And if you did so a long time ago and you‘ve
always had that mascot name and everybody loves it and it‘s a term of
endearment, it‘s still not OK make somebody a mascot in terms of their
race. And a publicly accountable organization, like the NCAA, is, at
some point, when times change, going to come along and tell you you‘re an
embarrassment. I just don‘t think it‘s that weird. CARLSON: But what if—what if the—what if the people
in question say it‘s OK? What if the Seminoles, the actual—I mean, this
is a bunch of people who aren‘t Indians speaking for the Indians. So,
how about let - let‘s let the Indians speak. If the Seminoles
themselves say, great, we‘re all for being the mascot for MADDOW: There was a—there was a school, I think, in
Illinois—and I might be wrong in there—somewhere in the Midwest, that said,
in response to this, we‘re going to be the fighting whities,
because we want to point out that we think it‘s offensive that our local
school has an Indian name. We‘re going to be the fighting whities. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: ... Indian
school. And maybe white people thought that was hilarious. CARLSON: I‘d be totally for it. MADDOW: But that doesn‘t make—right. But it
doesn‘t necessarily make it right. CARLSON: I wouldn‘t be offended at all. I‘d be happy to cheer... FALWELL: I like that. I like that. CARLSON: ... the fighting whities. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Fighting whities.
We do could make that our team name here. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) FALWELL: I hope Bobby Bowden sues them. A few years ago, the NCAA, in another time they didn‘t
have much to do, decided that athletes, after scoring a touchdown who stopped
to kneel and pray in the end zone or point with one finger to heaven, in any
way giving tribute to God, that that would be disallowed. They made a
rule against it. And here at CARLSON: Well, good for you. FALWELL: And... CARLSON: And pardon my ignorance, Reverend Falwell. What‘s the name of your team? FALWELL: The CARLSON: Well, I imagine the pyromaniacs are going
to be on your case for the name of your team. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: Good luck. Well, this... MADDOW: Or the—or the gays. CARLSON: Yes. MADDOW: You never know. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: I‘m not going there. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: It did cross my mind, but then I thought,
I‘m going to pull back, show a little... MADDOW: I can go there. That‘s what I‘m here
for, Tucker. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Show a little self-restraint. All right, the SCOTUS situation may not be as black and
white as it first appeared. John Roberts nominated for a lifetime
appointment to the Supreme Court, once argued against such appointments for
federal judges. Earlier this week, we found out that Roberts once did
pro bono work helping gay activists win a landmark case before the Supreme
Court. That was in 1996, when the court struck down a Now supporters and opponents of the nominee are wondering
what it all means. Well, we don‘t know exactly what it means. We
do know this wasn‘t a case he was paid to take. This is something he
did for free, voluntarily. It‘s impossible believe—believe—to believe
he would have done it if it violated his conscience. So, he had to, in
some way, agree with it. It makes me think that the people who have commented on
this so far have no clue what they‘re talking about. MADDOW: Hmm. CARLSON: Conservatives, spurred on by the White
House, have said, he‘s great; he‘s one of us. They don‘t know that, right? And the left has gone
completely bananas. The head of the Human Rights Campaign wrote a
piece, the headline, “Anti-Gay Extremists Trying to Gain A Stranglehold on
Government,” implying this guy is an anti-gay extremist. Neither side
knows what it‘s doing. Jerry Falwell, I notice you
wrote a piece supporting Mr. Roberts. Are you rethinking that? FALWELL: Oh, not at all. You know, I—if I were an attorney, I‘d certainly fight for
the right of gays or anyone else to be employed or be housed wherever they
wished to be housed. I may not agree with the lifestyle. And I
don‘t. But that has nothing do with the civil rights of that member of
our—that part of our constituency. John Roberts would probably have been not a very good
lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm
to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any
and all Americans. CARLSON: But wait a second. I thought
conservatives are always arguing against special rights for gays. And
the idea is that... FALWELL: Well, housing and employment are not
special rights. I think—I think the right to live somewhere and to live
where you please or to work where you please, as long as you‘re not bothering
anybody else, is a basic right, not a—not a special right. MADDOW: I think—I‘m happy to agree with you on
this. I mean, I think that if you look at Romer
v. Evans, it‘s pretty hard to say that you‘re against the decision in Romer v. Evans that was originally arrived at. I
mean, Scalia and Thomas were definitely against it. But the fact is, this—this—this case was about... CARLSON: And Rehnquist. MADDOW: And Rehnquist. I think you‘re right
there—was—this case was about whether or not you can put an ad in the paper
that says, I want to rent this apartment, but no gays need apply, or, I want
to put up a for-hire sign that says, no lesbians will be hired for this
job. If you think that‘s an American value and that we ought to be
supporting that, then you‘re with the minority in Romer
v. Evans. If you‘re not, then you‘re on the side of John Roberts.
CARLSON: I‘m—of course, I‘m not even arguing that. MADDOW: Right. CARLSON: I‘m merely saying, this gives us a window
into Judge Roberts‘ thinking and it suggests that
he‘s not nearly as conservative as his critics and his supporters have
suggested. And I think that, if he winds up being a Tony Kennedy clone
on the Supreme Court, we shouldn‘t be surprised. I won‘t be. FALWELL: Well, Tony—Tucker, I‘m very
conservative. I think I‘m to the right of most
people you know, but... CARLSON: Not to the right of me, but yes. FALWELL: But civil—civil rights for all Americans,
black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et
cetera, is not a liberal or a conservative value. It‘s an American
value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on. CARLSON: All right. MADDOW: I hope—I hope that, when your colleagues on
the right get upset about this Roberts‘ revelation,
that you‘ll speak out about that, because it‘s nice to hear you say it.
FALWELL: They‘re not upset. They are—they—the
people I know on the right are very much for this guy. And while we
don‘t know a lot about him, he‘s—he‘s got to be, with his record, his
background—I met him when he worked for Mr. Reagan—he‘s got to be a healthy
addition to the court. CARLSON: All right. Next up, what do politics, cable television shows and
advertising have in common? Well, they make pretty strange
bedfellows. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SNOOP DOGG, MUSICIAN: Dodge truck lasts as long as
the (INAUDIBLE) double jizzle. Plus, I‘ve the hookup, nephew. Sure. LEE IACOCCA, FORMER CHAIRMAN, CHRYSLER MOTORS: You
know, I‘m not too sure of what you just said. Now everybody gets a
great deal. SNOOP DOGG: For shizzle, Iaco-sizzle. (MUSIC) (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: That, of course, former Chrysler Motors
Chairman Lee Iacocca and avid dope-smoking rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg in a TV ad for the car company. A Chrysler spokesman is to cut through the clutter and get
people not to change the channel. It will do that. It looks like
a pretty good ad. Will it get them to buy Chryslers? Will people
who like Snoop Doggy Dogg buy the Sebring? (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: I suggest not. Jerry Falwell, are you going to
buy the Sebring based on this ad? FALWELL: Well, I—I don‘t—I don‘t own a Chrysler, but
I like Iacocca. And I suppose drug addicts and dope heads may buy
automobiles. And maybe that‘s what they had in mind. (LAUGHTER) FALWELL: But I can‘t imagine
it does very much good for them. MADDOW: Well, I—you know, actually, Snoop said very
publicly when he started coaching his son‘s football team... CARLSON: Snoop? We on a first-name basis with
Snoop now? MADDOW: Mr. Snoop. CARLSON: OK. Mr. Dogg,
that is. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: Mr. Dogg. When he started coaching his kid‘s football team, he
stopped smoking pot. He gave it up very publicly. He said, I know
I‘ve been known to do it in the past, but no more. So, maybe this is,
you know, part of his redemption. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Oh, I don‘t care if he smokes pot or
not. I just... (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: I just think that the target audience is
maybe not the audience—probably, the audience more interested in Escalades
than Sebrings. But what do I know? (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: Or the Chrysler 300C, which is kind of a
hip-hop car and is very cool. CARLSON: Or the Crossfire. MADDOW: Crossfire. CARLSON: All right. Rachel, Reverend Falwell, please
stick around. Much more ahead on THE SITUATION. Here‘s a glimpse. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CARLSON (voice-over): Why NBC‘s hit show “Vegas”
might be out of bounds for the National Football League. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Apparently, it isn‘t your kind
of town. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: A by-the-book conversation with Senator
Rick Santorum about a possible run for higher office. Prescription for murder. You won‘t believe this
accused child killer‘s shocking defense. Plus, how to make your 92nd birthday a real
splash. It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean,
I did what I wanted to do. (END VIDEOTAPE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Still ahead, many Americans have lost a pet
due to illness or old age. So, wouldn‘t it be great if everybody could
clone their beloved animals? Well, the head of the Humane Society is
outraged by the mere suggestion. “Op Ed Op Ed” is next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for “Op Ed Op Ed.” We spent a very busy day
reading just about every editorial page in the country. It was fun,
though. We picked two the best we could find, to which the three of us
will respond. First up, earlier this week, Korean scientists announced
they had cloned a dog. This was great news for dog lovers across He writes this in “L.A. Times”—quote—“With millions of
healthy and adoptable cats and dogs being killed each year for lack of
suitable homes, it‘s a little frivolous to be cloning departed pets.” Yes, it is a little frivolous, unless, Wayne, it‘s your
dog, in the same way it‘s not a big deal if a child gets sick, unless it‘s
your child. And for those of us who love dogs, this is answer to
prayer. I have noticed, I will say, that
people who advocate on behalf of animals for a living tend to have a pretty
abstract view of animals. And, for most dog lovers, there‘s nothing
abstract about it. You want your dog to be around for as long as
possible. Mr. Falwell, what do you think FALWELL: I have no problem with animal
cloning. I have a great problem with human cloning. And while I‘ve—I‘ve—I don‘t think I‘d spend that kind of
money to clone any dog I have ever owned—and I‘ve owned lots of it, 17 at one
time—at the same time, I don‘t see anything morally wrong about it. MADDOW: I think -- 17 dogs at one time?
Hunting dogs? FALWELL: Oh, yes, I‘m a dog lover. And I—I
judge people by whether they love dogs or not. CARLSON: Good for you. MADDOW: Again, we—we have talked about cloning
before on the show. And my issue on this is that I‘m not exactly sure where
the objection is to cloning. If it‘s a waste of resources, well, not
necessarily if it‘s going to pay big health or scientific dividends. Is
it weird? Well, a lot of things—I think “80s nostalgia is weird.
A lot of things are weird, but I‘m not going to ban it. The question is if it‘s dangerous. And, like with
genetically modified crops, I‘m not sure that I want them to be set loose or
put into the food supply without anybody knowing it. I think people
should be able to decide whether they want expose themselves to it. But
the safety concern is really the only part of cloning that concerns me. CARLSON: Well, let‘s start with dogs and let‘s start
very soon. That‘s my feeling. Well, this Saturday marks the 40th anniversary
of the Voting Rights Act of 1865 (sic). In “The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution” this morning, Andrew Young writes we can improve upon
it by changing voting times. He says people don‘t vote because
they don‘t have time. He believes Election Day should be
changed—quote—“We need to emancipate the day of the week that we vote. His point is, people are too busy
to vote. They‘re too busy to vote, too busy to cast absentee ballot, to
vote online, as you can in a lot of states, to make the polls closing, which
is really—they‘ll stay open for you, if you really need to. If you‘re
too lazy to do all that, you can‘t be bothered, I don‘t want you deciding who
my government is, right? I mean, it is a good bar. We have government by the
interested and the engaged and the well-informed. And I think we should
keep it that way. Jerry Falwell? FALWELL: Well, I—I don‘t see any need to change the
date. But if they do change it to the weekend, I hope they do it on
Saturday and not put something else on Sunday, robbing people of church time
and family time. CARLSON: Well, you can be assured they‘re not going
to put it on Sunday. MADDOW: I think that‘s true. I mean, we all do, though, want more people to vote.
We have got about 50 percent election participation in this country. The
other 36 major democracies have something like in the 70s. And so, our
voting participation is very low. And we‘d all like that to go
up. Particularly, Democrats would like that to go up. CARLSON: Not me. I‘m not interested in having
it go up at all. MADDOW: You don‘t want more people to be voting? CARLSON: No. Every—people who can‘t be
bothered to vote shouldn‘t vote. I want people to vote who are in—who
know what they‘re voting for, who care enough to vote. If you don‘t care enough to vote, I don‘t want you controlling my
life. MADDOW: I think voter turnout in the And I do care about it and I do want more people to
vote. And maybe, whatever the personal reasons are why people
don‘t vote are laudable or not. But I want there to be more voting
participation. I think people should vote over three days. I
think it should be on a weekday, but it should be a federal holiday. I
think we should whatever we can to make people vote more. If you put it
on the weekend, everybody will just not vote, because they‘ll be off on their
weekend schedule. CARLSON: Well, that‘s good. I don‘t want those
people having any control over me whatsoever. MADDOW: They‘re don‘t have control over you.
They‘re participating with you in a group decision, Tucker. FALWELL: I‘m against over three days. I think
one day is enough. Give the Democrats too much time to cheat. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: That‘s right. CARLSON: All right. MADDOW: That‘s what we‘re best at, really.
Come on. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: Up next on THE SITUATION, Senator Rick
Santorum joins us live to discuss his new book, a possible run for the White
House and much more. Stay tuned. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back. It‘s been a while since a book by a politician has
received as much attention as Senator Rick Santorum‘s latest, entitled “It
Takes a Family.” The book is a broadside against the effects of
liberalism on the American family, among other things. Not
surprisingly, it has Santorum‘s political enemies outraged. It has also
fueled speculation that the Pennsylvania Republican is running not simply for
reelection in 2006, but for the White House two years later. Joining me now, Senator Rick Santorum. Thanks a lot, Senator, for coming on. SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R), CARLSON: Thanks. Now, we were just talking about the news that emerged
recently that—that Judge Roberts, now up for the Supreme Court slot, worked
pro bono on behalf of gay rights. What was the first thing you thought
when you heard that? SANTORUM: What I thought is that, you know, when you work as a lawyer, you take a lot of clients
and you do a lot of things for a lot of different reasons. And he may
have agreed with that argument. He may have done it because his firm
asked him to do it. There are a whole lot of reasons that lawyers take
cases. You know, I try to look at—at—at his record as a judge, look at
what he—what he—what he has at least told me, look at his writings. And
I feel very comfortable with him. CARLSON: You don‘t think there‘s any—I mean, there‘s
such a long history of Republicans nominating Supreme Court justices who turn
out to be not just liberal, but assertively liberal. SANTORUM: There‘s a long history, but not—in my
opinion, there‘s a long history when—when presidents don‘t take their time or
they don‘t take their—the nomination process seriously. George Bush understands the consequences of this
nomination. This isn‘t his dad, who just sort of passed off the process
to—to—to his chief of staff and said, find somebody. This is something
that the president campaigned on. This is something the president cares
deeply about. This is something that the president, I know, has spent an
enormous amount of his own personal time on, as well as his staff. He
isn‘t going to make a mistake. CARLSON: So, you‘re pretty sure that Judge Roberts
is opposed to Roe v. Wade? SANTORUM: I‘m pretty sure that Judge Roberts will be
a judge who understands the role of the judiciary and the checks and balances
and the balance of power. He will understand—he used a term that I have never heard
a judge, any—anybody coming in for a judgeship use. And that‘s the word
modesty and humility when it comes to the court. That is—from the
legislator‘s point of view, those are music—that‘s music to my ears.
That means... CARLSON: Well, from... (CROSSTALK) SANTORUM: ... I
understand—I understand the role of the court. CARLSON: From the citizen‘s point of view, it‘s
pretty appealing, too, I have to say. Now, in the—in the—in the publicity—and you have received
a lot—surrounding your book, there‘s been the allegation that you heap scorn
upon mothers who work. Explain to me your position on working mothers.
Is it wrong for women to—with kids to work outside the home? (CROSSTALK) SANTORUM: No, it‘s not wrong for mothers to work
outside the home. What I basically said is—and I think very clearly said—is
that, you know, being a mother and being a father are the most important jobs
that you have, if you‘re a parent, and that we should at least honor
motherhood and fatherhood, as much as we honor people who do radio talk shows
or do—or are senators or doctors or anything else. And—and we don‘t. And I—I just think that‘s
wrong. And I think we—in a culture that is throwing more at our
children, more things that are harmful to our children, that we actually need
to spend more time parenting, not less. And all I‘ve said is that those
who can should—should reexamine to see if they can spend more time when kids,
you know, need to be parented and times when they‘re home without
parents. That‘s all. And that doesn‘t mean mothers or fathers—in fact, I was
very neutral in the book on that. All I said is, this is an important
job, probably more important than when I—you and I were being raised.
And it‘s something that our society desperately needs, is more time at home
with our kids. And, by the way, most mothers and fathers would tell you
they want more time at home, too. CARLSON: Yes. That‘s absolutely right. SANTORUM: And I lay out a lot of things that—that
the government can do and society can do to make it easier on parents. CARLSON: Well, one issue that you talk about in your
book and you talk about in public quite a bit, embryonic stem cell research,
it‘s a complicated issue. Even people who are adamantly opposed to
abortion find it hard to get their minds around this. Give me not the long explanation. Give me the
shortest possible explanation for why it‘s wrong. SANTORUM: It‘s taking of a human life. That‘s
about it. CARLSON: But this is—I mean, this is a human life
that most people don‘t recognize as a human life.. SANTORUM: Well, I... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Because it exists in a petri
dish. SANTORUM: Well, you know, a human life is at the
moment of conception. It‘s genetically human. And it is
alive. So, it is a human life by definition. And we‘ve had this legal construct under the—under Roe v.
Wade that says, just because you‘re genetically human and you‘re alive
doesn‘t make you a person under the Constitution and therefore, we can do
whatever we want. Remember, what we‘re talking about here is federal funding
of this. We‘re not talking about whether it can be done or not. Anybody
in CARLSON: Well... SANTORUM: In my mind, that is a fairly small
limitation on a very unethical practice. (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Why keep—why keep—then why keep the
limitation that small. I mean, if it‘s taking of a life, why not make
it illegal? SANTORUM: Because I—just the same reason that we
have legalized abortion, but we don‘t fund abortions, because we believe—this
is an area where the federal government and state governments have decided,
most of them, have decided that they‘re not going to have taxpayer dollars,
which a very sizable percentage of them don‘t agree with the morality of this
situation, that we‘re not going to use their tax dollars or any tax dollars
to fund this activity. CARLSON: All right, one—one of your—finally, one of
your former staffers I read described you not simply as a politician and a
policy man, but as something of a Catholic missionary. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: Do you think that‘s right? And do you
see yourself that way? What does that mean? SANTORUM: No, I—well, I—well, first off, I don‘t
know what it means. He‘s a former staffer. And I underline
former, number one. And, number two, you know, I see myself as someone who
tries to do the best job I can for the people of my state and try to be
accountable. That‘s why I wrote a book a year-and-a-half before maybe
the toughest election of my career, because I think it‘s important—more
important today than ever for politicians to come forward and say what they
believe, why they believe it and be accountable to the people that they
represent. CARLSON: What about the election after that?
If you were to lose reelection in ‘06, would you—could you still run for
president? SANTORUM: Oh, well, I‘m not worried about
that. I‘m worried about running for reelection in ‘06. I‘m—I‘m
running for the majority whip position, the number two position in the—in the
United States Senate. You know, that‘s—those are two—two—two
races. That‘s plenty for me. CARLSON: All right. Senator Rick Santorum, one of the most articulate members
of the Senate, one of my favorite, thanks a lot for joining us.
Appreciate it. SANTORUM: Thank you, Tucker. CARLSON: Coming up, there‘s already an airport and a
federal office building named in his honor, so, why are Washingtonians all in
a huff over Ronald Reagan? (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to THE SITUATION.
Sitting in tonight for the surviving members of Earth, Wind and Fire, I‘m
Tucker Carlson. Time to welcome back the Reverend Jerry Falwell and Rachel Maddow.
I‘ll admit it, I‘m completely impressed by Rick Santorum, because he
unapologetically states his beliefs. I don‘t think he‘s a hater.
I don‘t agree with everything he says, though, I have to say, most of
it. But I think the reason he‘s hated so much is because he is
the most articulate spokesman for a sort of intellectual conservatism. MADDOW: I respect that you like him, but I don‘t see
him as straightforward at all. That‘s the point—the idea that he‘s a
straight shooter, I don‘t get. Because you asked him about the stem-cell issue. You
said, “Well, why shouldn‘t this just be illegal,
then, if you think that this is basically murder”... CARLSON: Yes, I agree. He didn‘t give as
straight an answer as I would have loved. MADDOW: Yes, well, he said, “Well, it‘s not
illegal. We‘re not banning it for the same reason that we‘re not
banning abortion,” and not saying, “I want to ban abortion”... (CROSSTALK) CARLSON: Oh, come on. I‘ve lived in MADDOW: Yes, but which is not a very low—which is
not a very high standard. He shouldn‘t be lauded for being such a
straight shooter. I don‘t see him that way. CARLSON: But he is. Jerry Falwell,
what did you think? FALWELL: I‘d vote for him for president today.
And put that in the bank. I like Rick. He‘s a bright, young
star. He‘s yet to be proven in primetime, as you well know, but come
‘06, he‘ll get a chance to prove it, because he‘s up against a real tough
opponent. I certainly hope he wins. CARLSON: He‘s up against an opponent who‘s actually,
you know, far more conservative—actually, a screaming right-winger, by the
standards of the National Democratic Party—Bob Casey, Jr., the son of the
two-term governor of Pennsylvania, who‘s, you know, anti-abortion and
anti-federal funding for stem cells, et cetera. MADDOW: Well to the right of the CARLSON: Yes. MADDOW: The population of CARLSON: Well, I don‘t know, I mean, I think—you say
that, but I mean, Santorum, who is the most articulate anti-abortion guy in
government, has been elected there. Never lost an election in MADDOW: Well, I hope that he runs for president,
because I think it would be great for Democrats. CARLSON: I hope he wins. Next up, an update on a situation we first brought to you
a week ago. The Steppenwolf Theater in Two child actors have played the role, but today one of
them, 6-year-old Darragh Quinn Dolan, quit the
production at, of course, her parents urging. This is an update on a story that we talked about. I
thought it was absolutely appalling. It‘s sort of a confusing update,
in that the parents of this girl got in a dispute with the theater, by the
people running the show, and their final word was they believed the theater
had, quote, “threatened their daughter‘s career.” Right? This girl is in first grade. Her career
is being threatened. They are the stage parents from hell. I think it raises the question, you know, should you be
allowed to put your child into an adult-themed play if she‘s in first
grade? And I think my gut response is no. It‘s a complete
outrage. It‘s sick. And the rest of us sort of look on but don‘t do anything
about it. Someone ought to complain. It‘s disgusting. MADDOW: The parents were there every single second,
every rehearsal. The girl never saw the play. And the confusing
part here is that the parents are saying, “We took our daughter out of this
play because we were getting attacked in places like this show and in the
headlines”... CARLSON: Yes! MADDOW: People were calling us bad parents.
And we‘re not bad parents. We‘ve been very responsible. Now, the people in the theater company are saying they
wanted creative changes to the play. We don‘t know what the truth
is. I think the parents were responsible in this case. They say
they believe being there every second that their daughter was not exposed to
any emotional harm. I believe the parents. CARLSON: Have you seen this play, Jerry Falwell? FALWELL: I have not. You know, I‘ve been on a
protest personal and apart from everybody else against a bunch of the theater
for the 53 years I‘ve been a Christian. And certainly, you can‘t throw
the baby out with the wash. I thank God for the movies, like “Chariots of Fire” and
“The Passion of Christ,” but too many in the entertainment industry have just
flat forgotten the American people and where American values are. Their
argument is, “Well, they‘re representing it as it really is.” That shouldn‘t be the effort of entertainers. It
should be to lift the moral value system. CARLSON: As long as kids are involved, I strongly
agree. Well, the situation in The This will go nowhere, of course, until crack heads get
their own lobby, right? You know, but until they do—you can tell
literally in fifth grade who‘s going to be the trial lawyer, right?
He‘s the little B.S. artist. He has nowhere to go but to the trial
bar. MADDOW: Listen, you can make this a trial lawyer
case all you want. But what‘s interesting to me here is that you can
plead voluntary intoxication if your drugs are prescribed, which means you can
be lit on Oxycontin, prescribed, you know, if
you‘re Rush Limbaugh or something, you‘re abusing it or whatever‘s happening,
you can be lit on Oxycontin, and as long as it‘s
prescribed, that‘s legal. That‘s kind of bizarre. CARLSON: Well, that‘s because, presumably, if the
drugs have been prescribed, you need them for medical reasons. It‘s not
your fault. MADDOW: But if you take something that makes you
intoxicated, you can then say, “Listen, I‘m not going to be held accountable
for the murder”? CARLSON: You could raise the argument. Jerry Falwell, do you buy any of
this? FALWELL: Well, whether it‘s prescribed medicine or
non-prescribed medicine, if an animal takes a little girl like that and kills
her, he should be executed as soon as possible. CARLSON: Well, that‘s plain-spoken. MADDOW: Fair enough. I‘d prefer a trial along
the way. (LAUGHTER) CARLSON: ... on Jerry Falwell‘s
side. I‘m not for... (CROSSTALK) FALWELL: I think he should spend at least a week on
a trial... (LAUGHTER) FALWELL: ... but these people, I‘ll tell you—what‘s
happened to the little children out there, and that‘s just one story.
The news articles are filled with such horrible stories. And it‘s
unreal that we take any other look at it, except that these people do not
deserve to be in society. CARLSON: All right. Next situation, a plan to honor Ronald Reagan may be
hitting a speed bump. A Republican member of Congress from Texas wants
to rename Washington, D.C.‘s 16th Street
Ronald Reagan Boulevard. His proposal does not sit well in the mostly
Democratic city, which already has a It doesn‘t sit well with me. I‘m a Ronald Reagan
fan, but I don‘t think you should name public buildings, or accommodations,
or thruways after figures who are in any way controversial, because, at some
point, the situation is going to flip. Democrats will be in charge of Congress. And then we‘re
going to have a (LAUGHTER) We‘re going to have a MADDOW: Because Jane Fonda was the president. CARLSON: ... a No, but I‘m serious. (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: ... was president
under the Democrats. CARLSON: I‘m serious, I mean, a law passed in And I just think we should be very, very, very reticent,
hesitant before running around changing things after political figures.
Jerry Falwell, what do you
think? FALWELL: Well, you asked the wrong person. I‘m
so prejudiced in favor of Ronald Reagan, I‘d be in favor of changing the name
of MADDOW: It‘s funny, I was going to use the same
argument, but on the other side of it. I was going to say we should
just call D.C. Reaganistan, because that‘s all I
think it—I mean, the P.R. campaign to rename things for Ronald Reagan is very
impressive. We‘re going to have him on money in my lifetime, that‘s
the way it‘s going. (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: It‘s a deliberate campaign. I mean,
it‘s amazing—just the fact that Reagan is described as a good president and
that he‘s hero to you, Reverend Falwell and to others,
doesn‘t mean that his legacy is not controversial, as you pointed out. I mean, for me, the greatest legacy of Ronald Reagan‘s
presidency, growing up as a gay kid in the ‘80s in San Francisco, is AIDS and
spending the first seven years of the AIDS epidemic never saying a
word. And so to me, naming something after Reagan hurts me. But
to you, he could be a hero. CARLSON: Maybe when we have more time—and it may
take a lot of time. You can explain how Ronald Reagan is responsible
for AIDS. MADDOW: How the president ignoring an epidemic that
was killing thousands of people including lots I knew,
that did hurt the problem. Yes, it did hurt. CARLSON: Yes, I don‘t think that‘s a fair
characterization at all. I don‘t think the government ignored
AIDS. I think Reagan was too uncomfortable to use the word in public... MADDOW: That‘s right. CARLSON: ... but I still
think, as an abstract question, we ought to be hesitant. As a
conservative, I‘m against change. MADDOW: As a conservative, could you be against
renaming the street because of the deficit that he ran up? CARLSON: No. I don‘t care to reargue the
Reagan legacy. But I think winning the Cold War kind of trumps all. But anyway, Jerry Falwell, thank
you very much for joining us. Rachel Maddow, as always. MADDOW: Thanks, Tucker. CARLSON: See you Monday. |
Back to Articles
Home | Bio | Forum | Blog | Media | Fan Resources | Contact