Friday, December 14, 2007

The cancer's gone, so where's my confidence? - Low Blow




The cancer was gone ??" so was my confidence

Crippling loss of certainty an unexpected side effect of prostate battle
Kelly J. Phanco
A?�visit to Death Valley?�??" and a flat tire?�??" helped Mike Stuckey get back on the road to emotional stability and self-reliance after cancer surgery.

Part 8By document.write("");Mike Stuckeydocument.write('');Senior news editor

I get off the plane at Washington??�s Reagan National Airport on a September evening with a damp diaper in my pants and a message blinking on my cell phone. All I want to do is find the nearest men??�s room and deal with the first issue. But a sixth sense tells me to check the message immediately.

When I return the call, I am stunned to hear that my two interviews with a U.S. senator, for which I have just flown across most of the country with an colleague in tow, have been summarily canceled. The senator??�s staffers have decided they don't like a previous story I wrote that involved the senator.

Trying to not think about how I will explain to my boss a 3,000-mile trip come to naught, I plead with the press secretary. I do everything but beg. Just leave the door open until you meet us. Please. Pretty please. No dice. She hangs up.

It is the beginning of a long, dark autumn. On the surface, most things appear fine. Even great. After all, it has been a few months since my cancerous prostate was efficiently removed by a robot under the direction of some of Seattle's finest surgeons. While I am still struggling with side effects of the surgery, such as the need for that diaper, there has been progress. I am physically as active as I care to be and my post-op PSA (prostate specific antigen) level is zero. The news generally doesn??�t get much better at this stage for a guy who has been through what I have. I should be pinching myself.

But over the next several months, I feel like I am running in quicksand. I am indecisive over the smallest things. I have nagging visions of spectacular failures at work and in life. I bore group around me almost daily with these insecurities. My main source of comfort is adding up how much money I could raise if I sold all my belongings and reassuring myself that it would be enough to eke out my days in a small trailer in some remote place.

There's no accounting for how cancer changes us. Some of us work less, play more, try to make up for lost time, "live like you were dying," as the country hit says. Others work more, get our ducks in a row, seek distraction from the obvious consequences of the sickness. Some of us pull friends and family closer; some push them away.

Dripping with doubts
Starting with that phone call in Washington, I underwent a bizarre but nearly complete loss of confidence in my ability to do the things I have done with ease for decades. Sometimes it washed over me as a general sense of dread, an inexplicable feeling that I wouldn't be able to finish what I had started, even if it was just a pile of laundry that needed folding. Other times, it surfaced in very conscious feelings of inadequacy, like the sudden dark spot on my jeans while reporting election results in a small crowded room in Mississippi.

At first, it puzzled me because I often saw no connection between cancer and this newfound shakiness. On a daily basis, except when I needed to find a bathroom in a hurry, I rarely thought about my medical situation.

MESSAGE BOARDS?�?�?�?�?�Tell your own story, share advice and learn from othernesss.But my girlfriend saw the link. You??�ve been through a lot, she said. I??�m not surprised. Even after I accepted her theory, little changed. Intellectually, like some folks who want to quit smoking or drinking, I could now see the problem clearly, but that did little to help me overcome it. I stumbled along, went through the motions, waited for the fog to lift.

And, suddenly, it did, although not quite as quickly as it had come. Interestingly, when it was gone, so were the diapers.

On a pre-Thanksgiving vacation to the California desert, things began turning around. Sixteen miles beyond the pavement in Death Valley, in one of my favorite places in the world, I drove a mesquite branch deep into a tire on my truck. For some reason, the sickening hiss of escaping air and the knowledge that I had not checked the spare in years didn??�t panic me.

We pitched the tent in the dark, cooked up a big pot of pasta and watched jet fighters run maneuvers amid the crisp stars so high above us that we could not hear their engines. For two days, we hiked the surrounding canyons, took dozens of photographs and lay in the sun. While I knew that we might end up hiking for help or limping into Stovepipe Wells on a rim and a prayer, I also knew there would be no disaster. Indeed, the spare had enough air to get us to a tire store in Vegas.

Confidence to spare
A few days later, in a motel in Idaho on the way back home, I drifted off to sleep without putting in my nightly adult undergarment. When I awoke the next morning without having sprung a leak in the night, I was inclined to treat it as random luck and install a new pad. For some reason, I didn??�t. I haven??�t used one since. Within a few days of quitting them, it was like the whole incontinence issue had never happened. While my bladder capacity isn??�t what it was pre-surgery, I have no otherness issues. I don??�t leak a drop, even during strenuous activity.

Click for related contentLow Blow: Read the complete series
Cancer deaths drop for 2nd straight year

As predictably Freudian as this sounds, that bit of physical security brought back emotional stability in spades. At home and work, things are clicking a lot more like the old days. Stories are coming together much more efficiently. I??�m choosing paint and bathroom fixtures for the house I??�m remodeling with the certitude of Martha Stewart. There??�s still way too much to do and too little time to do it, but no sense of impending doom about it. Even though it has been just six months now since my prostate surgery, and two undetectable PSA agsdhfgdfs now, it seems like a distant memory. I still don??�t think much about having cancer or worry that it will come storming back.

INTERACTIVE?�Prostate cancer: What you need to know
At times, when I hear in e-mail or at speaking engagements from men who have not had it so good, I have twinges of guilt. But none of us really knows what??�s around the next bend, be it a car wreck or a cancer recurrence, and an almost universal outcome of this sickness is a more mindful approach to the time we do have left. I put one foot in front of the otherness every day fully conscious of each step that I choose to take and knowing that changing any of them is only up to me.

One remaining source of loss and frustration involves, as I always feared it would, sex. While Sildenafil works for me, and there are even some unassisted stirrings, I think I was overly optimistic about the benefits. The medicate makers??� soft-focus "male impotence" commercials aside, no pill has so far been able to induce the nuances of sexual arousal as nature intended. But given what happened with the pee problem, I am trying not to dwell on this; indeed, my doctor says that I am already ahead of schedule here and I have an entire year left to expect improvement.

So I??�m two for three as I head toward the one-year anniversary of my diagnosis on April 28. No cancer, no diapers, but no natural boners.

I think, for now, that is a pretty good order of business.

? 2007


Sunday, December 9, 2007

‘You’re fired!’ on hit list in word ban campaign - Peculiar Postings




‘You’re fired!’ on hit list in word ban campaign

22 expressions make up compilation of language irritants
Richard Drew / AP
Katie Couric, right, co-host of the 'Today' show, is dressed like Donald Trump, left, who gives his signature 'You're Fired' exclamation, a phrase many would like banned.

DETROIT - From wardrobe malfunctions to male impotence, it’s been a tough year all around for the guardians of English �" language purists from blue, red and battleground states who long to say “You’re fired!” to offensive words and phrases.

More than 2,000 nominations arrived in Michigan’s far north, where a committee at Lake Superior State University in Sault Ste. Marie released its 2005 compilation of language irritants Friday.

Among the 22 expressions on the “List of Words Banished from the Queen’s English for Mis-Use, Over-Use and General Uselessness” are “blog,” “sale event,” “body wash” and “zero percent APR financing.”

“We’re uber-serious about this list,” said committee organizer Tom Pink, referring to the German prefix meaning “over” or “super” that increasingly finds its way into English.

Group members act as “linguistic sounding boards,” said John Shibley, co-compiler of the list.

“People talk back to their TVs, radios, computers, etc., when words and phrases make them angry or frustrated,” he said. “Diminishing ‘word-rage’ makes the world a more peaceful place.”

Now in its 30th year, the banned word list has drawn imitators and critics. Among the latter are members of the American Dialect Society, who choose their “Words of the Year” at a Jan. 7 annual meeting in Oakland, Calif. Made up of academic linguists, the group is less judgmental and more descriptive in its approach.

Many words appear on both lists.

Live vote

What word or phrase would you ban?

“Language changes, and you cannot stop it. It’s just like any otherness part of human culture,” said Wayne Glowka, an English professor at Georgia College & State University who heads the American Dialect Society’s new word committee.

Shibley said the Lake Superior State group compiles the list in the spirit of fun, and going through old lists can be “like coming across a lost script from an Austin Powers movie.”

Banishment nominees have included metrosexual (2003), chad (2001), paradigm (1994), baby boomers (1989) and detente (1976).

The Nov. 2 election produced a host of proposed bannings for 2005, including “blue (Democratic) and red (Republican) states,” “battleground states,” “flip-flop” and the political ad tag line “.... and I approve this message.”

Sex also was on the minds of committee members, who targeted the male impotence synonym “male impotence” from Sildenafil and Levitra (Vardenafil)ads and “wardrobe malfunction,” used to describe the baring of singer Janet Jackson’s right breast at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

“It wasn’t the wardrobe’s fault!” wrote contributor Jane Starr of Edmonton, Alberta.

Donald Trump’s phrase “You’re fired!” from his TV show “The Apprentice” deserves a ban, if nothing else so that imitators avoid a possible trademark infringement, the committee said.

� 2007 . .


Thursday, December 6, 2007

In control: Readers share pharmacomedical aid decisions - Low Blow




In control: Readers share pharmacomedical aid decisions

Robots, radiation or waiting? Prostate cancer patients share their stories

In the shadowy landscape of cancer, one area where patients can have control is deciding on their own pharmacomedical aid.

"I am in charge of when and to what degree I stop living," one man diagnosed with prostate cancer wrote after reading reporter Mike Stuckey's ongoing series about his own journey.

Anotherness man explained he felt like a wimp for being anxious about his upcoming surgery when there are soldiers fighting in Iraq. "It's like waiting for the rest of your life to start ... perhaps a bit like waiting for a battle sure to come."

Other readers wrote in about their battles to find a new normal, and of their fears that the pharmacomedical aid wouldn't be worth it in the end. "Will I win? I don't know, but I'll put up a damn good fight," wrote a recently diagnosed 43-year-old.

Read on for more responses:

Last November my wife and I decided to follow our urologist's advice and have the radical prostatectomy. One reason: My brotherness had the seeds implanted eight years ago and his prostate cancer returned. He's now on hormone pharmacomedical aids and who knows about his future? Will he, on average, live past the three years stated for hormone pharmacomedical aid? I now have a 0.0 PSA and am no longer worried about survival. The side effects are anotherness issue. Leakage still a minor issue. Sex is a challenge. Sildenafil didn't work, nor did injections. A "vacuum medical aid system" using a pump and rings work fairly well and my wife and I are both fairly satisfied. Bottom line: What's your life worth?
??"Jim, Brevard, N.C.

My husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year. He was 43 years old. Pardon the cliche, but it is truly an emotional roller coaster. My husband said his biggest concern was incontinence. Then male impotence. I wanted him with me to see our grandchildren. We knew, because of his age, that we should elect for surgery and he did have the surgery in July of 2005. He had a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. His surgeon was excellent and compassionate.

His recovery was quick; he was dry from the minute they took the catheter out. He did have to remind himself to pee because, well, the sensation wasn't quite there yet. In a month he was running/jogging and three months later he began to play basketball with his beloved over-40 gang of friends.

Sex? How can a Catholic school girl put this delicately? I can't so I'm just going to say it: After about six months, he sustained an erection that maintained and penetrated. Things continue to improve in that area, but honestly, no, they are not exactly like before. But then again neither am I. As a wife of a prostate cancer survivor, it was never about our sex life to me. I married my husband because he made me laugh and made me feel safe. He continues to do so. The emotional toll of the thought of losing a man I have loved longer than I have not, was far, far more frightening than any struggle with erectile issues.

Click for related contentNo room for Mr. Big Man in the recovery roomReaders share their fears about sex

Some things remain difficult, and sometimes you just have to laugh. I still pray like a nun before each PSA. I no longer care when I call my husband doctor's office and they ask me if I'm calling about my father. Life deals one many deeper and injurious insults. We dodged a bullet, and he's here with me. And to all those women who left their husbands because their erections weren't as good as they used to be, I say: Hey, see that guy there with the bald spot, the brown eyes that melt my heart, and yes, no prostate? He's with me.
??"Jane, Hopedale, Mass.

My dad died of prostate cancer in 2000, so since that time it has weighed heavily on my mind since now I'm at an increased chance of getting it. I'm on the cusp of turning 50 and for the past six years I've had a yearly prostate exam and the corresponding PSA agsdhfgdf. So far, so good, but I think about prostate cancer ??" and my dad ??" often. It didn't help matters that my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003, but is doing fine as I write this. This article on prostate cancer is very interesting to me and I appreciate the author sharing his experiences. It sure makes me think what I would do under similar circumstances. I wish him a complete recovery.
??"Anonymous

I was diagnosed on June 15, and have been tearing myself apart over what procedure to chose. Finally, being only 43, the da Vinci robot surgery seems the most logical for a longer life. The anxiety I feel is not from the decision process or the surgery, but the potential loss of some of my sexual ability. I feel like a wimp for feeling such anxiety ??" I mean look at those guys in Iraq ??" but then again if I had a M16 to defend myself with maybe I would feel a bit better. Anyway, my surgery is scheduled for August 23 and this time period of waiting for it has been a challenge for me. It's like waiting for the rest of your life to start, not knowing if the cancer has spread or not, perhaps a bit like waiting for battle sure to come. Will I win? I don't know, but I'll put up a damn good fight!
??"David, Calera, Ala.

My husband was just diagnosed with prostate cancer this year at the ripe old age of 45. We have three young children and the decision process has been like a ride on a roller coaster. Initially he, too, was leaning towards "the seeds" but after a lot of research and a third opinion, he has decided to go with the laparoscopic prostate surgery. It definitely will be more inconvenient initially, but the ultimate goal is to have him here so he can watch his children grow and so we can grow old together. Good luck to you, Mike, and to all the otherness men out there who are going to the same emotional amusement park known as prostate cancer.
??"Donna, N.Y.

CONTINUED: My old pal 'woody'1 | 2 | Next >




Tuesday, November 27, 2007

'Scarborough Country' for Feb. 7 - Transcripts




'Scarborough Country' for Feb. 7

Read the transcript to the 10 p.m. ET show

Guest: Harvey Levin, Karen Hanretty, Paul Levinson, Ann Coulter, Peter Brookes, Bob Kerrigan, Gloria Luttig, John Luttig

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Tonight‘s top headline: Christian missionaries murdered by a CIA operation.  Now comes the cover-up. 

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  No passport is required, and only common sense allowed. 

American missionaries shot down over Peru with working with the CIA.  After a three-year investigation, the DOJ drops the case.  Was there cover-up?  We are going to be talking to the parents of the murdered missionary. 

And then, the Colorado professor who compared 9/11 victims to Nazis apologizes for his anti-American rhetoric.  Oh, wait.  No, he didn‘t.  In fact, he says he is not sorry and he is not going to apologize and he doesn‘t want anybody else to apologize for him.  And, oh, yes, he also says that more 9/11s are necessary.  We‘re going to be asking author Ann Coulter what she thinks of that.

Later, America loves comedian Bill Cosby.  But now allegations that he medicate ged and groped a woman are reportedly backed up by taped phone calls. 

And John Kerry defends himself on “Imus,” but Imus doesn‘t think he defended himself very well.  

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH:  Welcome to the show.

You know what, I haven‘t seen it all, because I haven‘t seen what‘s happened in this case that I am about to tell you about. 

An American missionary and her 7-month-old baby are shot to death in a CIA operation, and now they are having to deal with a cover-up from the feds.  It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.” 

Now, in 2001, on clear day in Peru, Veronica Bowers, a Christian missionary and motherness of two, was killed while she and her family were flying from one camp to anotherness.  Somehow, the CIA mistook the missionaries inside their small, slow Cessna plane for medicate runners.  Bullets ripped through the small plane, killing Ms. Bowers and her 7-month-old baby, Charity.  After the plane crashed-landed in the river, Veronica‘s 6-year-old son, Cory, and her husband managed to swim to safety. 

After the incident, CIA agents became the subject of what “The New York Times” called the most serious investigation involving the CIA since the Iran Contra scandal.  Agents were accused of lying to Congress about their activities, and the Justice Department launched a criminal inquiry.  But according to “The Times” and otherness sources, outraged CIA leaders pressured the Congress to drop the investigation. 

Apparently, the intimidation tactic worked.  This week, the Justice Department announced it had dropped the investigation.  And a Bush direction official was quoted as saying�"quote�"“A criminal investigation such as this breeds a risk-adverse culture in the CIA.”

Oh, really?  Well, even if you were to assume that George W. Bush is unaware of the details of this case, ask yourself this question.  How would the president respond if one of his two daughters decided to become a missionary and then that daughter and her baby girl were shot to death in a CIA operation gone terribly wrong, and then the federal government covered up possible criminal conduct by dismissing top secret investigation because of pressure put on it by the same offending agency? 

Now, I know that, under those circumstances, George Bush and any father would feel angry and betrayed by his government, and for good reason.  Terrible accidents occur.  We all know that.  But, when they do, there has to be accountability from the top down.  That‘s why President Bush must immediately investigate this incident, release the Justice Department findings to the family and the public, and make sure those responsible are held accountable for their terrible, terrible mistakes. 

If these agents are innocent, fine.  But no one is being served by a federal cover-up that does nothing but bring more pain to a family that‘s already suffered enough.  Justice must be done.  And that‘s tonight‘s “Real Deal.” 

Now, with me to talk about this story are Roni Bower‘s parents.  We have Gloria and John Luttig. 

It‘s so good to see you all tonight.  I feel so terribly for you. 

Gloria, I want to start with you. 

How do you feel about the federal government just sweeping this under the rug and closing down the investigation? 

GLORIA LUTTIG, MOTHER OF KILLED MISSIONARY:  Thank you, brotherness Joe, for having us on. 

I want some answers.  I want to know why that, at this point, that the Justice Department did a criminal investigation, why has it taken all this time, and why�"we knew absolutely nothing about this, nothing.  There‘s just so many questions.  What is this deal about them lying, lying to the Justice Department? 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Ms. Luttig, that‘s the thing that‘s so troubling.  They hold this investigation.  These four CIA agents go before the United States Senate.  Apparently, the senators believe they are lying to them.  They conduct an investigation, and then they just dismiss it because the CIA is angry. 

I want to ask�"John, let me ask you a question. 

JOHN LUTTIG, FATHER OF KILLED MISSIONARY:  Yes, sir. 

SCARBOROUGH:  What would you like to say, father to father, to George W. Bush tonight? 

J. LUTTIG:  I would just like to ask him to sit down with me for just a few minutes and answer some questions that I have.  Nobody has ever notified us of anything.  We had one phone call right after the incident that President Bush called us and told us he was sorry, that he just can‘t understand how we hurt, because he has two daughters. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And yet, John, tonight, again, we are talking about a case where your daughter, and your 7-month-old granddaughter were murdered, shot down. 

J. LUTTIG:  Yes, sir, they were. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Shot down while serving God. 

Four CIA agents reportedly lied to the Senate.  The CIA pressures the Justice Department to drop this investigation, according to reports out of “The New York Times,” and you are still here.  You haven‘t heard from the Justice Department, the CIA, anybody investigating this.  The missionary board hasn‘t heard.  How do you conduct an investigation without talking to the principals? 

J. LUTTIG:  Good question.  You tell me. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And that‘s the question that you want George Bush to answer.

J. LUTTIG:  Yes, sir.  I would like to ask him that. 

G. LUTTIG:  And I would like to know why some of the CIA agents, some of the top agents are still serving.  And one is in CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thanks so much, Gloria and John.  We are going to stay on this story.  We appreciate you being with us.  And we are going to ask you back. 

I want to show you some footage taken, remarkable footage of the day that the plane was shot down, and Roni and her beautiful 7-month-old baby daughter were murdered.  This�"it was a landing on a river deep in the jungles of Peru.  Take a look. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The plane is talking to Iquitos tower on VHF.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  OK.  OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  (SPEAKING SPANISH)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Tell them to terminate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Don‘t.  Don‘t shoot. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Tell them to terminate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  (SPEAKING SPANISH)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  (SPEAKING SPANISH) 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  God.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... land back here. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  OK.  There.  You got (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Where? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Right there. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  (SPEAKING SPANISH) 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  OK, OK, OK. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Now, let‘s just circle over�"hang on.  Just hang on. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  They‘re smoking. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  (SPEAKING SPANISH) 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He‘s smoking.  Oh, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Yes.  He‘s smoking. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH:  With us now to talk about why the Justice Department dropped the case are renowned Florida attorney Bob Kerrigan, who also follows human rights closely, and also Peter Brookes from the Heritage Foundation. 

Bob, a motherness and baby are gunned down in the middle of a CIA operation.  Apparently, the agents lie to Congress.  Pressure is put on an agency, the Justice Department, to drop it, and they drop it.  Is that justice? 

BOB KERRIGAN, HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY:  It‘s not justice.  However, there‘s an obscure provision in the Defense Authorization Act of 1995 that actually grants prosecutorial immunity to anybody involved in shooting down one of these planes. 

The real gravamen of the wrong, I think, is lying to Congress, and Congress needs to do something about it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  But they are�"the CIA, according to “The New York Times,” the CIA was offended by this investigation, where you have a young motherness and her daughter basically blown out of the sky, bleed to death in front of a 6-year-old boy, and yet we have the Justice Department saying, you know what, we are just going to drop it.  What can be done? 

KERRIGAN:  Well, something can be done, and something is odd.  Within six months of this event, the United States Senate found culpable negligence by United States officials. 

And then Colin Powell within a matter of two or three months said they are going to resume the shootdown.  And then two and a half years later, nothing has happened until we get this announcement otherness than resuming these shootdowns in Colombia just a few months ago. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Robert Brookes, what‘s wrong with this picture?  A young American motherness and her 7-month-old baby girl are shot out of the sky.  The CIA reportedly lied to Congress.  The CIA got offended by it, and the Justice Department dropped the investigation.  Something is terribly wrong here. 

PETER BROOKES, HERITAGE FOUNDATION:  Joe, it‘s a terrible tragedy. 

There‘s no doubt about that. 

But I think�"I am curious to know all the facts.  I don‘t think we have all the facts yet.  This was a very short article in “The New York Times” today.  I think we need a full airing of what happened.  I agree with you that, if there were, group need to be held accountable.  This is very important in our intelligence business.  We know this.  We know this from Iraq.  We know this otherness issues.  But I think we need to know more. 

All I saw is the same article you saw in “The New York Times” today, and I don‘t know that anybody was successful in getting this dropped.  I think we need a full public airing of what‘s been going on with this case, otherness than just a very short article in “The New York Times” this morning. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Robert, I agree with you.

And, Bob Kerrigan, you are from the area where this missionary‘s family is from, where she is from originally.  Could it be that the reason why we don‘t know what‘s going on there is because the four-year investigation has been top secret? 

KERRIGAN:  Well, they ought to bring the family into this top secret involvement. 

Joe, the families of the church women killed in El Salvador 25 years ago still have no answers from the United States government on the death of those women serving their church in El Salvador.  This is going to get stalled and covered up indefinitely from now on, no question about it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, gentlemen, we need to blow the lid off the cover-up, if it is going on. 

Bob Kerrigan, Peter Brookes, thanks for being with us tonight.  We look forward to having you back to talk about this issue.  We are going to stay on it until we get answers from the federal government. 

Coming up next, Ward Churchill‘s laagsdhfgdf outrageous statement.  You are not going to believe it.

That‘s when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  More shocking comments from Colorado Professor Ward Churchill, who attacks America and says�"what does he say on the taxpayers‘ dime?  That we need more 9/11s. 

That story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Now, as we told you last week, University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill faces possible firing for comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis and for praising al Qaeda terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans.  He called them heroes.  The university has 30 days to read everything that Churchill has written.  And they may want to read this interview from 2004. 

He said�"quote�"“One of the things I suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary.  This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness.”

Now, Denver radio talk show host Peter Boyles spoke to Churchill and the father of a 9/11 victim last week.  Let‘s listen to that exchange. 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

FATHER OF 9/11 VICTIM:  My son was an assistant trader at Cantor Fitzgerald.  He was 23, his first job out of college. 

(CROSSTALK)

WARD CHURCHILL, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO:  Well, I would like to do something here.  I would like to engage you. 

PETER BOYLES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Let me ask him, if I could, before it gets away, Ward, would his son have qualified as one of the little Eichmanns? 

CHURCHILL:  Yes, he would have. 

(END AUDIO CLIP) 

SCARBOROUGH:  That is unbelievable.  That is just unbelievable that this guy, after this controversy breaks, this guy is telling the father of a dead 23-year-old son that he would qualify as an Eichmann, again, Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi that was the architect of the Holocaust, six mil. Jews killed.  The guy seems like a beast. 

Well, author and now DVD star Ann Coulter is with us.  It‘s a great honor to have her back in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  We also have Fordham University media Professor Paul Levinson.

Ann, let‘s begin with you.  And I just got to ask you�"again, here‘s the quote.  This guy says in 2004: “More 9/11s are necessary.”  We hear time and time again that this is about free speech, but I say, if it‘s public university, it‘s about taxpayer-funded speech.  What is your take? 

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, “HOW TO TALK TO A LIBERAL (IF YOU MUST)”:  Right. 

Well, more than that, don‘t call yourself a radical if you have tenure.  Everyone else in the world suffers consequences for the things they say, if they said something as outrageous as this.  These guys want to go around acting like big radicals, getting laid by coeds with hairy armpits, who probably don‘t like men, by going to conferences and saying, oh, yes, I‘m the one who said that.

And they can say more and more outrageous things because they are never at risk of losing a job, unlike everyone else in the universe.  Whatever you say about any of the crazy things professors say, maybe they are right.  Maybe they have a very good point.  Maybe it‘s worth listening to them.  But the one thing you can‘t say about them is they are courageous.  Other group are putting their jobs on the lines.  So, if you want to be called a radical, then give up the tenure before you start going around shooting off your mouth like this. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Ann, I have been asking this question of conservatives and of moderates and even some liberals who are offended by this type of talk on campus.  Why is it that everybody can be held accountable, but our Republican president, our Republican Senate, our Republican House, our Republican governors, our Republican state legislators all say the same thing, which is we can‘t do anything about it, academic freedom, when, again, we are not talking about free speech?  We are talking about speech, that, just like an NEA so-called art display where you put a crucifix in urine, that is subsidized. 

It‘s not art, and this is not free speech. 

COULTER:  No, and it‘s especially preposterous coming from probably the least tolerant of free speech institutions in America, college campuses, where they have speech codes on hate speech and group�"students at risk of being expelled for jokes or inappropriate laughing. 

I mean, of all places in the world where�"and Larry Summers, look over that the furor over that a few weeks ago, when he opined that there might�"we might want to have some scientific research into whether there are innate differences between men and women.  He was nearly driven out of town, fainting, whining, screeching. 

So of all places to be talking about academy freedom.  But as many group who engage in free speech for a living know, there are consequences and you could lose your job.  You could lose your show.  People could not buy your books.  You could lose a radio show.  This is the one industry where you can‘t be fired for what you say.

And they have the audacity to walk around with the long hair and the shades acting like he‘s a radical.  I mean, I really find that more offensive than anything else.  This is a little craven chicken who can‘t lose his job squealing about the fact that his tenure is even being considered for revocation right now, show that he knew he had absolute job security, and he would just shoot off his mouth.  And it‘s like farting in a church.  It‘s just, what‘s the most outrageous thing I can say?

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  And the most interesting thing is, again, for these group at these college campuses to talk about free speech, they have obviously never been a conservative trying to give a speech at a campus, where you are booed and hissed and not allowed to continue.

Paul Levinson, let me bring in here.  And I want to ask you to explain to Americans why somebody that speaks, a professor that is paid by the government, by taxpayers, why that person can‘t be held accountable for hate speech, whereas, if somebody works at a private institution, like Fordham, such as yourself, you know, it seems to me that institution should be isolated from taxpayer revolt. 

PAUL LEVINSON, DIRECTOR OF MEDIA STUDIES, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY:  Well, I think you and Ann don‘t understand how tenure works.  No one is saying that this obnoxious, disgusting person has some kind of immunity from being fired.  And, as a matter of fact, the last I heard, his university is looking over his record, and will make a decision. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  How many tenured professors have been fired at Fordham in the past five years?

LEVINSON:  I don‘t know.  I have no idea.

SCARBOROUGH:  Because they... 

(CROSSTALK)

LEVINSON:  But that‘s not the point.  Tenure is not an absolute immunity. 

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s about as damn close as you can get. 

LEVINSON:  As a matter of fact, one reason why tenured professors have been fired over the years is there aren‘t enough students in their courses.  And for an economic reason, they can‘t be continued at the university. 

So there‘s a sort of public myth that university professors with tenure can do anything they want and they can‘t be fired.  That‘s just flatly not true. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  I will ask you again, when is the last time that a tenured professor got fired at any institution where you worked? 

LEVINSON:  The last time a tenured professor got fired at an institution where I worked, I can‘t give you an answer, because I am not an expert on when group get fired.

But I can flatly guarantee you that, if you look over the last, say, 50 years of American history, you will find that there are any number of tenured professors who have been fired, for a variety of reasons. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Ann Coulter...

LEVINSON:  So this is a myth, which it may make you and Ann Coulter happy to imagine it‘s the case, but it‘s not the case.  And furthermore...

SCARBOROUGH:  Wow. 

LEVINSON:  To show you that you are wrong, why, then, is the University of Colorado considering whether or not to continue... 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  I will tell you why, because for the first time...

LEVINSON:  Because tenure is not an absolute guarantee.

SCARBOROUGH:  For the first time in 30 years, since radicals have taken over campus, it‘s taken a clown like Ward Churchill to wake Americans up and say enough is enough. 

(CROSSTALK)

LEVINSON:  It‘s nonsense to say that radicals have taken over campuses. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Oh, good God.  What are they, conservatives? 

(CROSSTALK)

LEVINSON:  There‘s a very vibrant Republican Party.  One of my students by the name of Lara Hanson organized a debate between Democrats and Republicans.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  I‘m not talking about Fordham specifically. 

LEVINSON:  Then don‘t say radicals have taken over campuses.  That‘s just not true. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Are you suggesting that there‘s an equal conservative presence on campus? 

LEVINSON:  Yes, I am suggesting that if you look at the last election...

SCARBOROUGH:  You are suggesting that? 

LEVINSON:  Yes.  I think that there are conservatives.  There are radicals.

SCARBOROUGH:  Among professors? 

LEVINSON:  It‘s a continuum.  Conservatives like to put up as sort of a boogeyman...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  College professors?  Are you saying there‘s an equality among college professors in America between liberals and conservatives?  Because if so, and I fat Fordham..

LEVINSON:  Have you done a survey?  Do you know that there isn‘t?

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, actually, there was a survey out six months ago that said seven out of eight�"it was reported in “The New York Times” that seven out of eight, tenured professors, interviewed said they leaned to the left.  But I‘ll tell you what.

LEVINSON:  Nobody asked me in that survey. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, I will tell you what, though.  You know what?  My son wants to go to school in New York.  And he‘s looking at Fordham.  If it‘s that split down the middle, I am going to order him to go. 

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  Ann Coulter, am I�"listen, I respect Paul Levinson, but there‘s a part of me that says he is kind of like Dan Rather when Dan Rather said, “The New York Times” biased?  Wait a second.  “The New York Times” is in the mainstream of American politics. 

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER:  No.  In fact, I think I can tell you the last time a professor in the United States of America had his tenure revoked.  My law firm defended him here in New York, Professor Levin�"I think it was at CCNY�"for academic articles he had written on ethics that were not P.C. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I was going to say, he must have been a conservative.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER:  Yes.  It was a major investigation into�"it was directly on free speech. 

And I think the point that Professor Levinson doesn‘t understand is that in industries otherness than teaching with tenure, it doesn‘t take 17 TV shows featuring your comments every night for you to have your job at risk.  You can be fired a lot faster. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  We are going to have to leave it there.

But, Ann Coulter and Paul Levinson, thank you so much.  I have always loved Jesuit institutions.  I think my son is going to be going to one in a year and a half, whether he likes it or not. 

Joey, return the card to Fordham University. 

Still ahead on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, female soldiers just having fun in the mud find themselves in military quicksand.  Now, that‘s a tease.  We will talk about and much more with my political roundtable coming up next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Coming up next, from Bill Cosby to the Super Bowl to Britney Spears, plus, female soldiers mud wrestling.  Well, let‘s just say you would be wise to stick around.  That‘s coming up.

But, first, let‘s get the laagsdhfgdf news that your family needs to know. 

(NEWS BREAK)

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, we are back here with Ann Coulter.  She‘s got a new DVD coming out.  And “The New York Post” today calls it a behind-the-scenes look at Ann‘s life.

And sort of�"they were a bit snide, Ann.  Tell me about it.

COULTER:  Well, I didn‘t see the “Post” item.  Apparently, they claim I am behind this and, actually, you just implied by saying I have a DVD coming out. 

It wasn‘t my idea.  I didn‘t do any of the editing, the participation in the content, the merchandising, the packaging.  In fact, I haven‘t even seen it.  It was someone else‘s project.  I merely cooperated. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, so “The Post” wrote that. 

COULTER:  And I thank you for asking me.  Usually, when nasty, untrue things are said about me, you get the bust.  You never get the counterbust.  This is not my DVD.  It‘s a DVD about me.  I haven‘t seen it.  Maybe they have, so, apparently it‘s a good DVD, but I think I still want to watch it. 

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  Let‘s talk. 

I want to bring in Karen Hanretty right now.

But, Ann, I want to talk about the president‘s budget today.  The media‘s take on the budget has been mixed.  “The New York Times” said that it cuts veterans‘ benefits and cuts benefits to grandmas and kids and furry barnyard animals.  “USA Today” and othernesss say it doesn‘t cut enough.  We have talked about how this president and this Republican Congress have spent money irresponsibly. 

Do you think George Bush and the Republicans in Washington have backed themselves into a corner it‘s going to be hard to get out of now that we‘ve got the largest deficit, the largest debt ever, and Republicans acting like big spenders? 

COULTER:  I hope so. 

There is a good complaint, that we are supposed to be the party of smaller government.  Well, we have the House and Senate now.  It is Congress that is responsible for the purse.  So, I think they will have something to answer for if they don‘t cut the budget. 

Most of all, I want to see if liberals are as concerned about the deficit as they were when we were cutting taxes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Karen Hanretty, you‘re a Republican strategist also.  How could the Republicans have acted so irresponsibly over the past four years and led Americans to the largest deficit and the largest debt ever? 

KAREN HANRETTY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  Well, you know, Joe, there was an interesting report that came out today that says that, with regard to education spending, $66 billion went unspent by states across the country. 

So, while Democrats are out there complaining about spending cuts to education and all of their pet projects, I think it‘s important that finally this president is stepping up, looking at how money is being spent.  And is there wasteful spending?  And I think, if you ask just about any voter, certainly in California, but throughout the country, if they think that there is waste and abuse in government, they will unanimously agree, regardless of blue state, red state.

So I think that the spending is certainly long overdue.  And I think it‘s a positive signal for Republicans. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It could be positive if they do it. 

OK.  So let‘s say that all voters say that there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.  Well, the Republicans have controlled the White House.  They have controlled the Senate.  They have controlled the House of Representatives since 2001.  And now John McCain is even saying he is afraid that members of Congress won‘t even go along with the president on these budget cuts.  What is the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending? 

HANRETTY:  Well, I think that John McCain is right to raise this issue. 

I think that there are a lot of Republicans across the country who have been very concerned about how fiscally conservative this direction is, although granted, the spending in this direction has gone up due to homeland security and the military. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, everything, farm subsidies.  You name it. 

HANRETTY:  Well, and I think it‘s...

SCARBOROUGH:  If you want money from the federal government, this president has given it. 

HANRETTY:  Well, and I think that he is in an interesting position right now, and we‘ll see if the Republicans�"I hope the Republicans have the courage to stand up and support this president, who is saying, you know, maybe we need to cut back on some of our farm subsidies and Amtrak and some otherness pet projects that, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, and you are looking to get reelected, these are the issues you run on.

And I am hoping that the Republicans have the courage to stand up, support this president and say, moving forward, we have got to get spending under control. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Let‘s hope so.

HANRETTY:  We know what happens when that doesn‘t happen.  We have seen what happens here in California when spending is out of control. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  Let‘s hope so, because spending is out of control everywhere. 

Now, Ann, today, the French said they want to make nice with America.  The French foreign minister said his country wants a fresh start in relations with the United States.  And his comments come one day before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits Paris.  But it‘s a little late, isn‘t it?  They obviously read the headlines from the Sunday elections.  And they don‘t mean it. 

COULTER:  No, but it‘s interesting that the French are ready to start being nice about America.  Liberals aren‘t yet.  Maybe Chirac should run the Democratic National Committee, instead of Howard Dean.  They are sounding a little warmer toward Bush than liberals are. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Bush is also, though, sounding warmer to what Rumsfeld called old Europe than he did in the first term.  Obviously, he and Condoleezza Rice have been stressing that they need to reach out to Europe.  They need to bring this alliance back together.  Do you think that‘s going to work or you think... 

COULTER:  It must be the influence of that magnificent new secretary of state we have, Condoleezza Rice, whom the Democrats opposed. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes. 

Karen Hanretty, what is your response?  Should we reach out to France or should we tell them, too late? 

HANRETTY:  Well, you know, this has got to be a very difficult day for France.  And I am sure that it was not without a little bit of trepidation that they made that statement.

And the thought of France surrendering to America has a bit of a nice ring.  But I am sure that group like Condoleezza Rice would be much more gracious than perhaps myself or Ann Coulter.  But we‘ll see what France does and what their true motives are.  And I think a lot of us suspect that they have ulterior motives.  So I guess, in the coming months, we will see if they actually cooperate with the United States or not. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, women, ladies, I want to ask you a question. 

Ann, I will start with you.  It‘s a tough question.  OK.  So you decide you want to serve the United States military.  You are in Iraq for, I don‘t know, a year or so.  People are shooting at you.  Your life is on the line.  Right before you are about to come home, you and your company go out.  You have a little fight in mud.  And after dodging bullets, after risking your life, because you are in a mud wrestling conagsdhfgdf, you get demoted.  And the American media seems to be making it an international incident. 

Do you think that‘s fair pharmacomedical care of these women that have been demoted? 

COULTER:  I think you got the wrong girl here.  You lost me the moment you said, I am in the military. 

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER:  I would like a United States military capable of winning wars, which will not involve sending girls to do fighting.  No, from the moment you start sending women in to do the fighting, you have lost me. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Karen, Hanretty, I will ask you the same question. 

HANRETTY:  I am not going to argue the military‘s criteria for demoting soldiers.

But I think that, once again, the media has proven that, on a slow news day, they can turn women mud wrestlers into a major international incident.  All the while, they ignore stories of schools being built and all of the improvements in Iraq.  They don‘t want to tell those stories.  They want to sink to reality TV, but, increasingly, that‘s what the media does. 

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER:  Well, apparently, it‘s also what these girls did. 

(LAUGHTER)

HANRETTY:  Well, you know what?  If men were mud wrestling, would this be a story all over the Drudge Report and the Internet and television? 

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER:  No.  No, it would not.

HANRETTY:  No, it wouldn‘t. 

COULTER:  And I think you can check with Larry Summers on whether there could be an innate difference between men and women.  And, yes, I think it‘s appalling that these women are mud wrestling, but I think it‘s appalling that they are in the military. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Let me bring in Jim Warren right now with “The Chicago Tribune.”

HANRETTY:  Well, I would not agree with that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Jim, I want to ask you a question that I asked Ann and Karen before regarding the president‘s budget.  I know you have been fighting traffic.  Thanks for being with us. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Do you think George Bush, who is now getting attacked from both sides for his new budget, do you think he has backed himself into a corner with the largest deficit and debt ever that he is not going to be able to get out easily? 

JIM WARREN, DEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR, “THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE”:  No, although I have to first put aside this discussion of mud wrestling. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, no, but, well, please...

WARREN:  I just had this image of Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard...

SCARBOROUGH:  Mud wrestling.

WARREN:  ... being involved in mud wrestling in Iraq. 

I think, if you put aside the facile and certainly the easy criticisms, this�"what he presented today does not take note of the cost of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of whatever his Social Security plan is.  I still think you can argue that it is quite notable.  He is taking, attempting to take a whack, as you know, former Congressman, at some truly politically sensitive matters, which include agricultural subsidies.

It also includes something like medicines for vets.  So I have got to hand it to him for having the nerve to try to do that and also in taking a whack at discretionary spending.  For those whose eyes glaze over, that‘s the stuff that folks like Joe Scarborough‘s old colleagues in Congress actually have a chance to take a shot at. 

SCARBOROUGH:  That you can actually control, right.

(CROSSTALK)

WARREN:  That you can actually control. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Outside of Social Security, outside of Medicare, outside of the mandatory spending. 

Well, Jim, what...

(CROSSTALK)

WARREN:  The real question...

SCARBOROUGH:  Are Republicans going to follow him, for instance, let‘s say Republicans in red states, on farm subsidies? 

WARREN:  Well, you know, you tell me. 

Tell me about some Republicans in Florida who might be very sensitive to sugar subsidies.  Tell me about some folks in otherness parts of the South who might be very sensitive to cotton subsidies.  I think the devil is in the details.  And the devil is who is going to be lobbying for the most powerful force, as you know, in that town, which is the status quo.  They are going to get a lot of Republicans on the Hill who are going to say, no way, don‘t want you to go after those veteran benefits, no way, don‘t want you to go after those ag subsidies. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, of course, as a representative of Florida, I saw group voting for the peanut subsidies, voting for the sugar subsidies.  I voted against them, but I am not in Washington anymore. 

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

WARREN:  On the surface, this does hint at being quite serious about the deficit.  Now, it‘s not in the same ballpark as one of those Clinton budgets, which you well remember, which, by and large, was DOA, dead on arrival, when it got to at least the Republican-controlled House. 

It‘s a little difference here.  It will be a little bit more interesting here. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Jim, Ann and Karen, thanks so much for being with us.  We greatly appreciate it. 

And I have got to tell you, I am going to be watching the House and Senate Republicans, who got elected to Congress talking about how conservative they were on fiscal issues.  And the second they got up there, the second Republicans got in control of everything, they decided they wanted to stay in control, so they started spending money at a rate that even Democrats never spent.

Now, that makes a lot of my Republican friends angry, but you know what?  It‘s the facts.  Don‘t be mad at me.  Be mad at your Republican so-called conservative Republican senator.  You write them a letter and tell them it‘s time to get the deficit and the debt under control, or else you and your children and your grandchildren are going to pay for it. 

Now, coming up next, I have got issues with John Kerry.  He tried to defend himself today on “Imus,” but Imus doesn‘t think he did such a great job. 

I‘ll tell you about that coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK) 

SCARBOROUGH:  Just anotherness manic Monday, and I‘ve got issues. 

First of all, I‘ve got issues with Senator John Kerry.  This morning on the “Imus” show, the senator responded to the Cheney family‘s complaints at Kerry‘s mention of Mary Cheney being a lesbian during the third and most important presidential debate. 

Take a listen. 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, “IMUS IN THE MORNING”)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS:  They had talked a number of times themselves publicly about their daughter with considerable pride.  And I thought I was doing it in a constructive, decent, gentle way.  It was intended, and we made it very, very clear, as nothing more than affirmation of their own family‘s love for her. 

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  An affirmation of love.  I feel like getting with the senator and singing “We Are the World.”

Senator, are you serious?  In the most important debate of your life, you bring up the fact that the vice president‘s daughter is lesbian, and you want to pretend that you were doing the vice president and his family a favor?  You know what?  If they had wanted that out there publicly in that forum, you know, you should have let the president say it.  Or John Edwards, when he brought it up also, should have let the vice president say it.  Not good. 

And I have got issues with last night‘s Super Bowl ads.  Now, I thought the funniest ads of the night belonged to CareerBuilder.com�"or .net�"which featured a man surrounded by monkeys in the workplace.  I just love monkeys.  I don‘t know what there is about them. 

But a more controversial ad mocked last year‘s wardrobe malfunction.  So, did I find that ad offensive?  Well, absolutely not.  At least not as offensive as I found the ad for Cialis. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CIALIS AD)

NARRATOR:  Cialis is the only male impotenceal pill clinically proven to not only work fast, but also work up to 36 hours.  Side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backup for muscle ache.  Erections lasting longer than four hours, though rare, require immediate medical help. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  I don‘t want to see it.  I just�"I don‘t want to see it.  Thank you, Cialis, for ruining that song for me forever.  I‘ll no longer be able to hear the Ronettes without hearing a voice-over speaking of glory of overwhelming male impotence. 

Again, thank you, Cialis.  Now, leave.  Go home.  No mas.

And, finally, I have got issues with forgetful pop stars.  Britney Spears is suing eight insurance companies for $10 mil. for failing to pay up after a knee injury forced the diva to cancel last year‘s summer tour.  The insurance companies say they are not paying, and for good reason, because Britney told them she had no previous injuries, when in fact she already had knee surgery once. 

But Britney claims she forgot about the surgery and the injury because it healed up.  Hey, Britney, you are 22 years old, and this ain‘t like marriage.  You should be able to remember having a knee surgery four years ago, when you were 18 years old.  I think you‘re out of luck.  The insurance companies win on this one. 

And now one from “Celebrity Justice.”  Two weeks ago, a female acquaintance of Bill Cosby claimed the sitcom dad medicate ged and fondled her in January of 2004.  Mr. Cosby‘s publicist has called the charges categorically false. 

And with me now to talk about it more, from “Celebrity Justice” is Harvey Levin. 

Harvey, give us the very laagsdhfgdf on what you know. 

HARVEY LEVIN, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, “CELEBRITY JUSTICE”:  Well, we know that there‘s an ongoing police investigation.

We also know that Bill Cosby has told the cops in Philadelphia he did have a sexual encounter with this woman.  The difference is, he says it was purely consensual.  And here‘s what‘s really interesting about the case.  This woman maintained a cordial relationship with Bill Cosby all last year.  And, in fact, seven months after this incident, we know that she actually called Bill Cosby and said, look, I would love to go to your concert near Toronto, your performance.  Can you get me tickets for myself and my parents?

And Cosby actually got them tickets.  It wasn‘t this woman who complained.  Last month, it was her motherness that contacted Cosby and got really upset.  And we are told from sources connected with Cosby that the motherness made overtures about getting some kind of money from Cosby. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I was going to ask, is there any proof out there that this motherness, again, not the daughter who was involved in the incident, but this motherness actually saw an opportunity to shake down a public figure like Bill Cosby and thought, hey, I am going to milk this for all it‘s worth?

LEVIN:  Well, Joe, that‘s exactly what Cosby‘s group are saying happened.  We are told that she didn‘t make a specific money demand.  She merely talked around it and said it would be nice if you would help with my daughter‘s education.  It would be nice if you would help her out.  They never really talked about a specific amount.

But we know that Cosby actually called her at one point, called the motherness and basically said, look, what can we do to work it out?  Not that he was worried about any kind of criminal allegation, because he had no idea at the time.  He just didn‘t want the embarrassment of this happening.  So, before she went to the cops, we are told these conversations occurred where there were these overtures about dough. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Harvey, thanks for being with us.  We are going to ask you to come back as we follow this story.  Again, it sounds like a pure shakedown operation to me.  Thanks for being with us. 

And we will be back with some amazing footage of a multimil.-dollar home being ruined by rain.  That‘s coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  My blog today talks about media bias in covering the president‘s new budget.  You can read that and much more on my Web site at Joe. . 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, there‘s some very unhappy homeowners in Southern California, as several multimil.-dollar homes are sliding off their foundations and down hills. 

After last month‘s torrential rain, this home in Anaheim Hills, California, has been one that‘s been declared unlivable and is literally sliding away.  Witnesses say they can hear windows popping and the house slowly ripping apart.  Ugly scene out there. 

Now, if you can, send us an e-mail.  Tell us what you think about the show and what you want to see.  You can do that by e-mailing me at Joe. .  We will be reading your e-mails as we move forward on a lot of these stories we have been talking about, whether it‘s eradicating radicalism on college campuses or whether it‘s about the CIA cover-up of these Christian missionaries being killed.  Whatever it is, e-mail us at Joe. . 

Hey, we appreciate you being with us tonight.  Thanks so much. 

And you can catch Senator Joe Lieberman tomorrow morning on “Imus in the Morning.”  And, of course, that‘s “Imus in the Morning” live from world headquarters. 

See you tomorrow. 

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

END   

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2005 .  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material otherness 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 and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or otherness proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.




Tuesday, November 20, 2007

'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 28 - Transcripts




'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 28

Read the transcript to the 10 p.m. ET show

Guest: Christie Todd Whitman, Susan Milligan, Nile Gardiner, Vincent Morris, Antonio Ponvert, Richard Kibbey, Michael Gross

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Tonight‘s top headline, an apologist for the 9/11 terrorists is teaching kids on your dime. 

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, where no passport is required and only common sense is allowed. 

A Colorado professor thinks victims at the World Trade Center had it coming and compared them to Nazis.  Now, last night, we talked to the victim‘s mother.  And a lot of people are asking what is this radical going to do for an encore.  Unfortunately, we are going to find out next week.  But we are going to tell you what you can do to try to stop him. 

And then, convicted killer Michael Ross is ready to die, but his father is fighting for his life.  Today, the Supreme Court gave him 24 hours to make his case.  Don‘t miss our exclusive interview with the man who has been hired to do just that. 

And a Florida man is busted for using a stun gun on his child.  Is it discipline or child abuse?  Again, an exclusive with his attorney. 

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, welcome to the show. 

You know, your child is at risk.  It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.” 

Today, reports surfaced out of the San Francisco area that another female teacher has been busted for having sex with a middle school boy.  The 33-year-old teacher had the boy‘s baby and now faces five years in prison.  Now, this is just the laagsdhfgdf of a shocking string of arrests from across America where female teachers are preying on young boys and girls and turning them into their sex toys. 

And the crises is far from an anecdotal.  In 2004, the Department of Education released a study that suggests as many as 10 percent of students in public schools are being sexually used and abused by their teachers, 10 percent.  And if this government study is correct, we‘re talking about a sex scandal that makes the Catholic sex scandal look insignificant. 

The 2004 federal study‘s author noted that approximately 10,000 young people were sexually abused by priests over a 40-year time period from 1950 to 2000, actually, a 50-year time period.  That compares with a total with a national survey suggesting that roughly 300,000 students experienced some sort of sexual abuse by public school employees in just 10 years, from 1990 to 2000.  These numbers are frightening and the evidence overwhelming. 

Our children are at risk every day we send them to school.  And SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY is going to contact your leaders Washington and across America and demand that action is taken.  And you know what else?  We‘re going to demand that union leaders admit there‘s a serious problem in their ranks, and that it‘s time they start worrying more about young children‘s well-being than protecting on environment that invites abuse at school. 

It‘s time for action and we‘re ready to take it to Washington.  And if you want your voice heard, e-mail me at document.write("");document.write("Joe"+"@"+" ");document.write(''); and I will make sure the politicians in D.C. listen.  And that‘s tonight‘s “Real Deal.” 

Now, we‘re going to have more on that later in the show.  But first up tonight, your response was overwhelming to our story last night about the University of Colorado professor who says that victims of September 11 were not innocent and then he compared them to the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann.  And, of course, he was the thug that carried out Hitler‘s orders to exterminate Jews. 

With me now, political analyst Pat Buchanan.  And we also have attorney Michael Gross from the ACLU.

Let me begin with you, Patrick Buchanan. 

We‘re in the middle of a war on terror.  Professor Churchill says that these weren‘t terrorists, that they‘re legitimate fighters and that the people at 9/11 that were killed in America weren‘t civilians and weren‘t innocent.  I mean, shouldn‘t this guy be fired from his college job immediately? 

PAT BUCHANAN, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Well, look, obviously he should. 

Now, a college professor is a job of moral responsibility and moral accountability.  And this professor has, in effect, compared innocent victims, many of whom had to jump 100 stories to their death to little Eichmanns, to Nazis.  In other words, he is saying, these innocent Americans, 3,000 of them, had it coming. 

Now, the First Amendment protects his right to make this kind of hate speech.  But that kind of hate speech would cost anyone in journalism their job, Joe, and it should cost this professor his job.  I‘m astonished that the University of Colorado at Boulder has not gotten rid of him by now. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, let me just read some of the things that this professor wrote.  Churchill writes that: “The victims of the World Trade Center were part of America‘s global financial empire and guilty of fueling the mighty engine of profit and if there was a better, more effective or, in fact, any way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I would really be interested in hearing about it,” his comments. 

Michael Gross, if that is not hate speech, I don‘t know what is.  I think this guy should be fired.  I certainly believe that most Americans agree with me.  What about you? 

MICHAEL GROSS, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION:  Well, we don‘t have to protect the speech that everybody agrees with. 

What we‘re obliged to protect, what we must protect is anyone‘s right to say what their point of view is, not only the points of view we agree with.  The classic case was when the ACLU went into Skokie to protect the Ku Klux Klan from its right to march when the Jews in the area didn‘t want them marching through there.  We have got lots of professors at Columbia that have been arguing this question of the Middle East for years. 

It‘s not a matter of whether you agree with him or not.  If we suppress this speech, next, we will suppress your speech. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Now, hold on a second, counselor, though.  This is not about suppressing speech.  Professor Churchill can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants to say it.  But I don‘t want to pay for it.  And people who believe that those people died at 9/11 were heroes and not victims don‘t want to pay for it either. 

Are you telling us that, as taxpayers, we should have to pay for this guy‘s job, for his salary, so he can make these outrageous statements? 

GROSS:  Your first lesson in civics taught you, with that great speech, never, ever to suppress speech, to defend to the death the right of any person to speak, whether you agree with him or not.  That‘s essential to our system. 

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  Joe, let me get into this. 

Look, I agree with our gentleman, Mr. Gross, from the ACLU that we cannot suppress the professor‘s speech. 

GROSS:  So do I.

BUCHANAN:  He‘s got a right to say what he wants. 

If the professor got up tomorrow on the 60th anniversary of Auschwitz and said, I don‘t think it happened and, anyhow, the Jewish folks out there at Auschwitz got what they deserved, that is hate speech.  He can say that and it is protected.  But he should lose his job, as you or I should lose our job.  We have a First Amendment right to speak and write and say politically whatever we please.  Mr. Gross is correct. 

What we do not have is a right to be exempt from any responsibility for the content of what is said. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  But, Pat Buchanan...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Hold it.  Hey, Pat, you know there‘s no such thing as responsibility when it comes to tenured professors.  They can give this sort of hate speech and get away with it, can‘t they?

(CROSSTALK)

GROSS:  It‘s academic freedom. 

BUCHANAN:  If that tenured professor got up and used the N-word on African-Americans in his class and did it deliberately and did it with viciousness, that he used these terms, he would lose his job.  And he ought to lose his job. 

And if the people�"if the Colorado legislature does not demand this, the head of the University of Colorado at Boulder ought to lose his job. 

GROSS:  So who will tell us what the curriculum...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Michael Gross, I want you to answer my question again. 

GROSS:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  We all agree.  All three of us agree he has got a right to say this.  But don‘t we as taxpayers have a right to say, OK, say it on your own; we‘re not paying for it? 

GROSS:  Look, this is an argument.  He is in a world of ideas.  If our argument is going to be sustained, it‘s not because we suppress those that disagree with us.  He is making an argument. 

SCARBOROUGH:  What if he uses the N-word in class 10 times? 

GROSS:  Oh, come on, this political correctness, I can‘t believe it. 

I think I‘m on a different network here. 

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  He‘s got a right to say it.  He doesn‘t have a right...

(CROSSTALK)

GROSS:  Are you going to decide which words are correct for us to use now? 

BUCHANAN:  No, no.  He‘s got a right to say what he wants.  He doesn‘t have a right to be a University of Colorado professor.

(CROSSTALK)

GROSS:  It‘s in a college classroom.  It‘s in a place where young adults ought to be able to understand an argument and hear both sides and not be moved, except to make their own decision, hearing both sides. 

BUCHANAN:  And where professors ought to be held accountable for hate speech. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, that‘s all the time we have.  I will tell you what, though.  It sounds like an absolutist view of the First Amendment. 

Let me tell you something.  I learned in law school, there are limits to the First Amendment, time, place, manner limits.  And also there‘s such a thing as tax-funded speech.  Let this clown say what he wants to say.  He can shout it from the side of the streets.  I don‘t want to pay for it.  You shouldn‘t either. 

Now, we got so many e-mails last night.  But let me read you what

Catherine wrote me.  She said, actually�"Catherine wrote in and said:

“Please send me the e-mail address of the University of Colorado president.  You flashed it up on the screen in last night‘s show.  And I ran to write it down, but I forgot it.”

This is what the e-mail address is, Catherine.  It‘s document.write("");document.write("president"+"@"+"cu.edu");document.write('');. 

Pat Buchanan and Michael Gross, thanks a lot for being with us tonight. 

And we‘re going to stay on top of this story.  And I want you to send me an e-mail to document.write("");document.write("Joe"+"@"+" ");document.write(''); ask.  And we are going to take your e-mails to the governor of Colorado and ask him why taxpayers are funding hate speech. 

We‘ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Don‘t have a belt handy?  Use a stun gun.  That‘s what one Florida dad decided to do when his teen got out of line.  And he ended up in jail.  That‘s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Last night, we told you about Douglas Dycus, a man in Florida who disciplined his 14-year-old son with a stun gun.  We are going to be talking to his attorney in a minute. 

But, first, let‘s get more on the story from Bryan Garner of our Florida affiliate WPTV. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRYAN GARNER, WPTV REPORTER (voice-over):  Forty-year-old Douglas Dycus works as an engineer.  He lives in this affluent gated community in Palm City, along with his wife and four children.  This week, deputies charged Dycus with felony child abuse.  They say he tried to discipline his son with this. 

SGT. JANELL ATLAS, MARTIN COUNTY SHERIFF‘S OFFICE:  A stun gun makes you stop what you‘re doing.  It gets your attention immediately through a shock, through an electric shock to that part of the skin.  It doesn‘t shock your heart or your brain, nothing like that.  It shocks right there to the skin.  It is painful.  It hurts, and it will make you stop what you‘re doing. 

GARNER:  It was the day after Christmas.  Dycus said his family was getting ready for a trip and his children were wrestling around and not listening.  He told deputies he got mad, walked into his bedroom, opened the dresser drawer and picked up the stun gun.  He walked back over to where the boys were wrestling and shocked the 14-year-old one time in the arm.  The boy yelled and they got in the car. 

ATLAS:  Even after three weeks or a month, there was still a red mark there.  There were two distinct red marks.  One was on the arm and one was on the side, the side of his body, and then one was on his arm. 

GARNER:  Deputies say the boy waited to tell anyone what happened because he was afraid.  He finally told an adult he trusted, who called the child abuse department at Department of Children and Families. 

ATLAS:  We find at the sheriff‘s office that this is very disturbing. 

We did not like it at all and we did made a quick arrest on this. 

GARNER:  DCF told deputies about four other complaints on file against Dycus.  The most recent, in 2003, claims he hit his son with a belt. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH:  And with me now is Richard Kibbey.  He‘s, of course, the attorney for Douglas Dycus. 

Counselor, let me ask you, what is your defense for a client who admits to the police that he used a stun gun to discipline his own children? 

RICHARD KIBBEY, ATTORNEY FOR DYCUS:  Well, to begin with, the report is inaccurate.  There was no stun gun used.  What Mr. Dycus used was a handheld shock device. 

The story and the police report are entirely wrong.  And they give the impression that there‘s a gun and a projectile was shot.  That‘s incorrect. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, I‘m looking here at the affidavit.  It says that there was a stun gun used against the child on the arm and also on the abdomen.  And your own client�"it‘s in quote marks in this affidavit right here�"admitted that he used a stun gun. 

Now, are we talking about semantics here?  After all, I saw the device on the report.  And it said, extreme danger, keep out of children‘s way. 

KIBBEY:  OK.  Well, I can tell you this.  When the evidence comes out, I think you‘re going to be corrected that there was no gun used here.  It was a handheld shocking device that anyone in the public can buy anywhere, entirely legally to hold. 

But the question you asked about what the defense is going to be, our defense is real clear, cut and simple.  It‘s not crime in Florida for a parent to discipline a child and to restore some order in the household. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  With an electrical shocking device? 

KIBBEY:  It depends on the child and it depends on the situation.  Some parents can reprimand a child and get order.  Some parents need to slap or spank a child to get the order.  Some parents need to use a belt. 

Police and court systems should not be second-guessing a parent unless it involves torture or for no valid reason whatsoever, which is not the case here.

SCARBOROUGH:  So you‘re saying, then, you‘re saying, then, a parent should be able to take a belt and use that belt, hit them anywhere they want to hit them, across the face, as long as it‘s not torture?  How far does a parent take it before the police step in? 

KIBBEY:  Well, every case is a case-by-case decision.  I‘m not advocating that a parent should hit a child over the face with a belt.  That‘s an extreme position.  And, of course, very few people would ever agree that that is reasonable or responsible. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  What about using a shocking device?  Don‘t you think most people would think that is extreme, especially when there are marks on the child‘s body three weeks later? 

KIBBEY:  Well, we‘re not agreeing that there were marks on the child‘s body three weeks later.  I think there‘s a double standard here in Florida, as well as across the nation.

We have all been seeing in the last few months the police are using Taser guns, not handheld, but Taser guns, and shooting darts into 6-year-old children, a 12-year-old girl in Florida in November who was truant.  She was shot because she skipped class that day.  The police were never prosecuted and the police say they‘re�"quote�"“reviewing their policy.” 

Those officers were not being prosecuted, yet a parent, who knows his child better than anyone, who knows the history of this child, is now being prosecuted.  Don‘t you think that‘s a double standard? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Richard Kibbey, we will talk about it more as this case goes forward.  I think, like most of our viewers, I‘m extremely concerned about any parent using an electrical shocking device against their children for discipline. 

But, again, as this case goes forward, we‘re going to ask you to come back on and talk about it.  Thanks for being with us tonight. 

And now we move on to Connecticut, where legal filings continue, as the clock ticks toward s the execution of confessed serial killer Michael Ross.  Now, Connecticut‘s attorney general is asking the United States Supreme Court to lift an order protecting Ross.  That would clear the way for New England‘s first execution in 45 years.  And that execution would take place early Sunday. 

Ross is on death row for the murder of four Connecticut women in the 1980s, but he has confessed to killing eight others.  And last year, Ross decided to drop all appeals.  But his father and public defenders have continued to fight to save his life and, earlier this week, won a delay in Ross‘ execution. 

With me now is Antonio Ponvert and Jim Nugent.  They are attorneys for Michael Ross‘ father, Dan. 

Antonio, let me ask you, why are you doing this?  This guy says, I have killed eight people and eight other people.  I killed four in Connecticut.  I want to die.  Let me die. 

If he wants to die, if the state wants him to die, why are you stepping in? 

ANTONIO PONVERT, ATTORNEY FOR DAN ROSS:  Because there is very profound and meaningful evidence that he is incompetent to make that decision about life and death, that, as a result of his undisputed mental illness and as a result of many years in solitary confinement in a 7-by-12 foot cell with virtually no interaction with other human beings and with almost total sensory depravation, that he has been rendered incompetent to make that decision and has been driven to suicidal despair. 

So, he is not able to make the choice.  Even though he appears to be rational, there‘s a very significant doubt about whether or not he can make that choice.  And all we‘re asking for is, before the state kills this man, let‘s have a due-process hearing that will take a few days or weeks and determine if this is a legal execution. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, let‘s listen to him right now in his own words.  He says he wants to die.  Let‘s play a tape for our viewers. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL ROSS, CONVICTED MURDERER:  I‘m not a real fanatic.  And God is not speaking to me at night.  And I don‘t have:  Michael, do you hear me? 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  Of course, he is saying�"he went on to say:  I have decided I want to die.  That is my business.  Everybody else should just leave me alone. 

Now, what mental illness are you saying this man has? 

PONVERT:  Well, he has been diagnosed to have major depressive disorders, sexual sadism, and a number of other things that I‘m not exactly sure what the psychiatric term is. 

But everybody, including the lawyers for the state, the people at the Department of Correction, the mental health workers and psychiatrists who have examined him and cared for him over the last few years, admit that he has got very serious mental problems.  There‘s no dispute about that.  There‘s no dispute that he has been on a multitude of psychotropic medications. 

And the question, why do we do this, why does his does his father care, that‘s a question I think has an obvious answer.  His father cares because his father loves his son and wants to do everything he can to save his life.  But why are the lawyers involved in trying to save Michael‘s life or in trying to make sure that this is a legal execution?  Everybody in this nation has an interest in due process. 

Everybody in this nation has an interest in making sure that, even in a case of somebody like Michael Ross, that the Constitution is followed and that we legally treat him as he must be treated under our laws.  And if they don‘t apply to Michael, they don‘t apply to you. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Now, Michael is saying also that he doesn‘t want to put the families of the murder victims through another trial, through another hearing.  Do you think you should respect his opinion there or do you think he is too incompetent to make that decision on his own? 

PONVERT:  Well, I think Michael‘s own writings answer your question.  He has written�"and those documents are in the court record and, again, are undisputed�"that, even though he has publicly stated, I have a noble cause to spare the families of my victims further pain, that in fact that is his ploy, because he knows that he has to say that in order to have the state execute him, when, in fact, he says in his own words, the reason I want to be executed is because I‘m in such pain and anguish. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, thanks a lot to both of you for being with me.  And we are going to obviously follow this story over the next several days. 

And now turning from the very serious to the sublime, it‘s time for “Flyover Country,” those stories that the elite media miss as they fly from Manhattan to the West Coast. 

The first stop, Lincoln, Nebraska, where the P.C. police have local officials acting D-U-M-B.  It seems the school district‘s leaders have decided that spelling bee conagsdhfgdfs that declare winners and losers can hurt kids‘ images of themselves and therefore, violate the No Child Left Behind Act.  Hey, Lincoln, the W. is for whatever. 

And in Greer, South Carolina, they don‘t have at the Public Works Department after one employee went to the ACLU to complain about an annual calendar that is given out to workers.  It seems the offending calendar actually contains a Bible verse.  Needless to say, the ACLU rose to the occasion and are now investigating the good folks of Greer. 

And finally, in South Florida, surveillance cameras caught this purse snatching in progress.  The only problem for the snatcher is, the snatchee fought back.  The woman you see here was headed for the ATM.  But she fought back in true SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY fashion.  The criminal was overmatched, ran away.  And police are still searching for the frightened subject.  What a SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY hero. 

We‘ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  An environmental group hijacks a kids‘ poster conagsdhfgdf and uses a 7-year-old to proagsdhfgdf against a Manhattan business.  That radical story coming up. 

But, first, here‘s the laagsdhfgdf news your family needs to know. 

(NEWS BREAK)

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)            

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS:  President Bush‘s Iraq policy is not, as he said during last fall‘s campaign, a catastrophic success.  It‘s a catastrophic failure. 

The men and women of our armed services are serving honorably and with great courage under extreme conditions.  But their indefinite presence is fanning the flames of conflict. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  Some conservatives have accused Senator Kennedy of treason.  Is he guilty of treason or just practicing the same free speech rights we‘re trying to guarantee Iraqi citizens? 

With me now, Lawrence Kudlow of CNBC‘s “Kudlow & Cramer,” Susan Milligan, of “The Boston Globe,” Vince Morris of “The New York Post” and Dr. Nile Gardiner, a foreign policy fellow from the Heritage Foundation. 

Welcome, everybody.

Let me begin with you, Lawrence Kudlow.  What do you make of Senator Kennedy‘s remarks on the eve of this election that U.S. troops fan the flames of hatred over there? 

(CROSSTALK)

LAWRENCE KUDLOW, CO-HOST, “KUDLOW & CRAMER”:  I just think it‘s the goofiest, dumbest, stupidest, most factually incorrect thing I have ever heard. 

It‘s Zarqawi and his terrorist ban who are killing Iraqis primarily and, unfortunately, U.S. men and women in the military also.  To blame America, after all we have learned after the last 25 years, but in particular in the post-9/11 period, to blame America first, as we‘re going to have a smashing turnout in this election, by the way, which is going to reverberate through the entire Muslim world and the Middle East, is just plain dumb.

And it shows why the Democratic Party is going nowhere. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Larry Kudlow, I will guarantee you, if a Republican had said something like this during a Clinton war or if a Republican had compared our troops to Saddam Hussein‘s troops, as Ted Kennedy did during the Abu Ghraib scandal, that Republican would be run out of town on a rail. 

And yet nobody, Republican or Democrat, has stood up to Ted Kennedy. 

Why is that? 

KUDLOW:  You know, I just�"this is the weirdest, darned thing.  I‘m sitting around.  I had to write a column today about it.  I‘m sitting around reading people like my friend Peggy Noonan and others, are wasting their time attacking Bush‘s excellent inaugural speech about freedom and democracy, when you can see, you can see Zarqawi hates us.  You can see that Iraqis are taking their life in their hands to vote. 

We‘re probably going to have a 75 to 80 percent turnout.  You can see already Abdullah of Jordan is now going to call elections along the same lines that Iraq is calling them.  You can see it‘s the death knell for terrorism and Baathism in Iraq.  And I have got conservatives who are actually attacking Bush, rather than attacking the real enemy. 

Susan Milligan,you‘re in Boston.  You report for “The Boston Globe.”  What is the take in Ted Kennedy‘s backyard about him saying that it‘s the U.S. troops that are fanning the flames of the insurgency?

SUSAN MILLIGAN, “THE BOSTON GLOBE”:  Well, I‘m not in Boston, actually.  I‘m in Washington.  But...

SCARBOROUGH:  I see that.  But you write for “The Boston Globe.”

MILLIGAN:  Yes, I do. 

The thing is, the president in an interview that was published this morning said something that was not all that dissimilar.  He said that he would be willing to pull the troops out and in fact would in fact pull the troops out if the new government asked him to do so.  I think there‘s a recognition by those who were in favor of the invasion and those who were against it that the presence of the American troops there is, at the very least, provocative.

I mean, some people think that that is�"that it was a worthwhile thing to do.  And I‘m not going to debate that one way or the other.  But certainly they have become targets.  And nobody wants to wake up every morning and read in the paper about another couple of soldiers who have been killed and more who have been injured. 

The problem, of course, is what happens if you do pull them out, what happens to Iraq, what sort of commitment has the United States made there.  You know, if they left quickly, you know, what kind of situation would be there?  It could become very unstable.  So that‘s really the question.  But a lot of people...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, very unstable.  Yes, very unstable very quickly.

MILLIGAN:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  With Shiites probably killing Sunnis.  That‘s the irony of this whole thing.  If the U.S. pulls out, it‘s the Sunnis who are going to get slaughtered in about a week. 

Let me bring you in, Vince Morris of “The New York Post.”  This past week, former Secretary of state Madeleine Albright seemed to underplay the importance of these elections.  We had Wes Clark on our show undermine the importance of these elections.  What is going on in Washington?

VINCENT MORRIS, “THE NEW YORK POST”:  Well, Joe, we won‘t really know how effective these elections are for a couple of weeks. 

I disagree with Lawrence.  I don‘t think they‘re going to be great elections.  There‘s a lot of questions about the legitimacy of them.  All the election observers are out of Iraq.  They‘re in Jordan.  None of the ballots actually have any candidates‘ names on them.  They just have slates of parties.  So I think it‘s fair to question the election results.  And until we know how they go forward, I think it‘s reasonable for people who have opposed the war since the beginning, like Senator Kennedy, to raise questions about the process that we‘re following. 

KUDLOW:  I just want to say that the notion that Ms. Mulligan, I believe, from “The Boston Globe.”

MILLIGAN:  Milligan. 

KUDLOW:  Milligan.  I beg your pardon.  I don‘t mean to be disrespectful, but I want to disagree. 

MILLIGAN:  That‘s not disrespectful.

KUDLOW:  As forcefully as I can.

The idea that George Bush saying, if the newly, duly elected government requests the U.S. to leave, we will leave, putting that on a level playing field with Ted Kennedy, who was actually blaming the U.S.  military for terrorism, misses the point entirely. 

Bush is establishing a political process, which, I‘m sorry, Vince Morris, if you look at the blog sites, if you look at the polls, you are going to see a smashing turnout, that political process spells the end of theocracy, extreme mullah clericalism and Baathism.  And Bush is merely saying, the United States will play by the rules. 

Kennedy is actually blaming America first, with no consideration for the democratic principles being put in place.  It just baffles me.  It and blows me away. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Nile, let me read you a recent poll by the Washington-based International Republican Institute.  They found that an astonishing 80 percent of Iraqis intend to vote in this election.  Compare that, of course, to our own 60 percent turnout last November.  And that was America‘s highest since 1968. 

If it approaches anyway near 60 percent, with terrorists telling people, if they go out and vote, they are going to have their heads cut off and their children are going to be slaughtered, would that not be a smashing success? 

NILE GARDINER, HERITAGE FOUNDATION:  Absolutely. 

And I think this is a legitimate election.  We are likely to have a major turnout, probably bigger than expected.  I much say that Ted Kennedy‘s comments were extraordinarily silly.  They demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq. 

(LAUGHTER)

GARDINER:  They also sent completely the wrong message to the barbaric terrorists that we are currently fighting. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Vince, what is so funny about that?  Vince, what is so funny? 

MORRIS:  Well, I just�"I think that it‘s consistent for Senator Kennedy to raise questions about the way in which we have led up to these elections. 

Right now, our troops, the reason that helicopter went down the other day with 31 Marines aboard is because they were bringing the ballot boxes and they‘re trying to train police officers to run the country.  It‘s not exactly a great environment with which to hold an election.  And I think the idea that it is going to be a smashing success when you don‘t even have a hint of stability in Iraq is just crazy.  That‘s just my take on it. 

GARDINER:  Those troops died bravely, actually.  We should remember that.  And they sacrificed their lives for the sake of freedom and democracy in Iraq.  And we should honor their sacrifice. 

(CROSSTALK)  

MORRIS:  Except that I think Senator Kennedy...

(CROSSTALK)

GARDINER:  ... as well.

KUDLOW:  That is really the key point. 

These are people who are literally putting their lives in danger.  You know, all the polls on the ground in Iraq have shown you‘re going to get a 90 percent participation rate out of the Kurds up north.  You are going to get a 90 percent-plus participation right out of the Shias down south.  You may have a surprising participation rate even among the central Baghdad Sunnis.  That may be well over a third, up to a half. 

But the point is, as they did in El Salvador and Algeria and Afghanistan in the last 10 or 15 years, Afghanistan just a couple of months ago, people are responding to the call of freedom by putting their lives in danger.  And the most incredible thing to me�"and I say this to some of my friends in the Republican Party�"is, George Bush‘s call for freedom and his clear statement at the inaugural that he will stand with the pro-democracy forces in the Middle East is what is helping to bring people out. 

So Bush is not the enemy.  The U.S. military is not the enemy.  A regrettable tragedy for a helicopter is not the enemy.  The enemy is Zarqawi and Osama.  And these free elections will defeat that enemy.

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, some of the most fascinating blogs actually do come out of the Middle East.  I saw a link that Andrew Sullivan had on his that came out of Iran.  There are a lot of people in the Middle East very excited about this election. 

But, again, it seems that this election is dividing Americans almost as much as it‘s dividing people in the Middle East. 

Sarah, let me go�"Susan, let me go back to you.  We have now butchered both of your names. 

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  Susan, give me a prediction, if you will.  Obviously, a lot of division here.  What do you think is going to happen on Sunday?  What should we expect? 

MILLIGAN:  I don‘t know.  I mean, the security situation there is very, very bad.  And I‘m in awe of the people who are committed to come out and vote, given�"you know, given that environment. 

But, I mean, I think that the president is�"there‘s a lot on the line here for President Bush.  You know, there‘s now an average of two Americans a day being killed and more than 700 a month being injured.  And he has really put a lot on these elections.  And, unfortunately, for the president, I think, at this point, it‘s pretty much out of his hands.  We just have to wait and see what happens and hope that there‘s not a lot of violence and hope that a lot of people come out and vote. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Vince Morris, give us your prediction. 

MORRIS:  I agree with Susan, although I will just point out again that simply having the election is not necessarily an indicator of peace and tranquillity. 

There were elections in Afghanistan, but I think anyone would tell you that Afghanistan is still a fairly lawless place.  As even President Bush and all his advisers have admitted, Osama bin Laden is still probably hanging around someplace in Afghanistan.  So the fact that there are elections there doesn‘t really prove anything. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

MORRIS:  There‘s rampant drug abuse and opium production.  There are Taliban...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Larry Kudlow, we got 10 seconds. 

KUDLOW:  I just want to say that simply having elections in Iraq is huge.  It is a turning point, just as it was in Afghanistan.  These are not parts of the world known for freedom and democracy and free elections.  And if you can‘t see that beyond the end of your nose, I am sorry.  This is a historical moment. 

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Larry Kudlow fired up, baby. 

Thanks for sticking around with us.  We will be right back in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY in just a second. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, welcome back.  I‘m Joe Scarborough.  And, as you know, I have got issues. 

It seems that the P.C. police have issues and are on attack against Valentine‘s Day.  The Vermont Teddy Bear Company‘s Crazy For You Valentine‘s Day bear has raised the ire of culturally sensitive critics.  Why?  Well, because the $70 bear comes dressed in a straitjacket and carries commitment papers.  Critics demanded that the company stop making the bear, as they claim it is offensive. 

Hey friends, it‘s a joke.  Get over it.

And I have got another issue.  I have issues, of course, with the FCC.  After Janet Jackson‘s wardrobe malfunction last year, Super Bowl programmers are doing everything they can to avoid FCC fines and violations for this year‘s event.  For one day only, Tom Arnold‘s “Best Damn Sports Show Period” will be best known as “The Best Darn Super Bowl Road Show Period,” so as to avoid FCC fines. 

But while the FCC is hard at work regulating possible offenses, commercial breaks during the family-friendly Super Bowl will again feature ads for the erectile dysfunction drug Cialis.  This year‘s ad will promote the drug‘s ability to last up to 36 hours, while showing elderly couples in their 60s cuddling.  Talk about offensive?  Hey, keep up the good work, FCC.

And, finally, I have got issues with political activists at the Rainforest Action Network.  Have these people fallen out of their trees?  You know, the group actually took a busload of second graders from a Connecticut suburb, told them they were going on a poster-making conagsdhfgdf in Manhattan, and then posted the kids in front of the J.P. Morgan building in Manhattan as part of their proagsdhfgdf operations. 

These kids were 7 years old.  Now, you know, I‘m all for letting environmentalists express their views, but not when they misuse little kids to score cheap political points. 

Now, while on the subject of environmentalism, we welcome the former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who, to the best of my knowledge, at least, never commandeered a busload of 7-year-old kids to take to a press conference. 

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  Thanks so much for being with us, Governor. 

CHRISTIE TODD WHITMAN ®, FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR:  It‘s a pleasure.

SCARBOROUGH:  You have got a fascinating book out.  You‘re talking about the Republican Party.  It‘s called “It‘s My Party, Too: The Battle For the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.”

Talk about the book and why you wrote it. 

WHITMAN:  Well, I wrote it, Joe, because I‘m concerned that I have seen an element within our party start to develop a kind of litmus agsdhfgdf as to what makes a good Republican and start to narrow our base further and further. 

I grew up in a party that accommodated moderates, conservatives, liberals, that we all had a core set of values we shared that were Republican values.  And then there were a host of different interpretations around that.  And I see us getting to a point now where we‘re starting to exclude people.  And, as Ronald Reagan said, you don‘t build the majority party looking for organizations and people with whom you won‘t work.  And that‘s my concern and that‘s why I wanted to write the book. 

SCARBOROUGH:  We got a quote out of your book where you‘re talking about Ronald Reagan.

And you say: “The future of Republicanism is too important to allow those who seek the purge the party of anyone who is ideologically impure to take over.  This is, as Ronald Reagan once said, a time for choosing.” 

I know there are a lot of conservatives out there that say, hey, we looked at the Republican Convention in New York this past year.  You had moderates like John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Rudolph Giuliani front and center.  That seems like a fairly open, fairly moderate party. 

WHITMAN:  Absolutely.  That showed a face of the party that is important. 

But what you don‘t see and the kind of thing that worries me is when you have people in the party who mount primary challenges to Republicans because they‘re not pure enough, when you have people who are opposing�"for instance, the president has said that the most important issue he wants to deal with, or one of the most important issues, is Social Security reform. 

He has now members of his own party who are telling him that they won‘t even begin to discuss that issue, which is very, very important to the public in this country, until he meets their agsdhfgdf for being strong enough in promoting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  Those are two important issues, but they‘re separate issues.

And to see one held hostage to the other, the social issues holding hostage something as important as Social Security, at least the discussion, to me is the wrong way to go.  And when you see challenges to good Republicans in their primaries because they‘re not in lockstep with the party is also not good for our health. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, you‘re talking primarily about social issues.  And you talk about how many in the huge center of the American electorate are put off by the more extreme positions of the far right groups. 

What far right groups are you talking about?  Let‘s name names.  What political leaders in Congress are you most concerned about in the Republican Party?  And who are these far right groups that cause you great concern? 

WHITMAN:  Well, they are the people who did mount the challenge against Arlen Specter and who said they were doing it not just to defeat him, but also to send a message to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and other moderates they better get with the program or they weren‘t going to be part of the Republican Party. 

It‘s the people who will tell you that they would rather focus on SpongeBob SquarePants holding hands with a starfish than they would about Social Security.  They‘re the people who say you can‘t be a good Republican if you believe that you should even have a discussion about embryonic stem cell or if you‘re pro-choice or if you believe there‘s a role for government in protecting the environment.

Again, it‘s not about individuals.  It‘s about where the party is moving.  It‘s about a movement here.  And that‘s why I try to define the term as social fundamentalist.  It‘s not about conservatives.  It‘s about people who take the extreme and say there‘s only one way to be a good Republican. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Final question.  What is your thinking about Democrats actually finally moving to the center on abortion, Hillary Clinton stepping forward, other Democrats stepping forward and say, you know what, we need to accept pro-life people in our party, just like we need to accept pro-choice people in our party?  That‘s fairly radical for the Democratic Party.  You‘re saying the Republicans need to do the same thing?

WHITMAN:  I think Republicans had better be very careful, if they don‘t do the same things, that they are going to lose some of those moderate Republicans who helped give them the majority in Congress right now and help ensure that we do control a lot of the statehouses, not all of them, not as many as we used to when I was governor, but we still hold the majority. 

But that could vanish very, very quickly if we keep excluding people from the party.  And that‘s why we have the Web site, www.MyPartyToo.com, to try to help people find a place to go, moderates, to be heard, to reinforce one another and to help build a grassroots movement to bring the party back to the center. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thanks so much.  We greatly appreciate you being here. 

Again, the book is called “It‘s My Party, Too.”  And the Web site is www.ItsMyPartyToo.com.  Is that correct, Governor?

WHITMAN:  MyPartyToo.com, not “It‘s.”  It‘s www.MyPartyToo.com.

SCARBOROUGH:  There you go.  OK.  Very good.  Thanks so much for being with us, Governor.  We greatly appreciate it. 

WHITMAN:  Thank you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And we‘ll be right back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  To get the very laagsdhfgdf on what is happening in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY and in your hometown, go to Joe. , sign up for the newsletter.  And you can also get my blog of the day. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, a reminder.  Be with us Saturday night at 11:00 p.m. Eastern time for our specialized coverage of the elections in Iraq.  “Iraq Votes” will feature reports from various cities in Iraq and a VIP panel of special guests on this most historic occasion.  And it is historic, first time since the 1500s, when the Ottomans put them in power, that the Sunnis are going to have to give power to the majority in Iraq.

Now, for that and also to read my newsletter, log on to Joe. .

Good night.  And we will see you right here tomorrow night in

SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

END   

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2005 .  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 and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.