MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Dangerous occupation.

MAJOR SCOTT SLATEN (U.S. Army, 1st Armored Division): (From videotape.) You can imagine, it's a very scary experience. You just drive up, and the next thing you know, a few hundred people are attacking you, throwing things at you, pelting you, breaking windshields.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The people attacking American troops referred to by the major are actually former Iraqi soldiers. They have no jobs and no money. Three weeks ago, Paul Bremer, the American administrator of Iraq, dismissed 400,000 members of the Iraqi military, cutting off their pay. They are angry because they see American occupiers as letting them twist in the wind.

On Wednesday, American Army troops killed two Iraqi soldier protestors after, troops claim, they were fired upon from the angry crowd. Besides Baghdad, other violent uprisings of Iraqi soldiers and
civilians have ignited across the nation. Some 50 American troops have been killed since major combat operations were announced as ended on May 1. Bullets or rocket-propelled grenades from snipers killed many of these 50.

MICHAEL PERRY (U.S. Army): (From videotape.) Isolated attacks of RPG fire, mortar fire, that's usually happening on a daily occurrence.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: What happened to the cheering crowds who welcomed U.S. troops as liberators 10 weeks ago? Lawrence Kudlow?

MR. KUDLOW: Well, there are still quite a lot of cheering people because of the new freedoms available in Iraq. When you walk through this story in its entirety, apart from the Saddamite troublemakers that seem to get the front-page coverage, what you see is more shops, more restaurants, more new businesses, newspapers galore, satellite phones galore.

And yes, there are issues here. It takes time. We're going to have to have some patience. Fortunately, Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, is now in Baghdad helping to organize the local police force, and we're trying to get some additional funds from Congress.

This thing's going to work out just fine. You know, John, the American Revolution didn't go smoothly either. Remember Shays' Rebellion. These things happen; you can't turn it on a dime. But it is going to work out fine, I have absolute confidence.


MS. CLIFT: Well, first of all, there weren't that many cheering Iraqis to begin with. I think we were misled by the Iraqi exiles who led the Pentagon to believe that the U.S. would be welcomed as

Second of all, I don't know who's strolling down all the streets and seeing all this thriving restaurant life. The Pentagon won't even let members of Congress in. There are three senators going in this weekend for the first time.

And the fact that we don't have troops that are provided with crowd-control measures, that they would fire into these crowds of protestors; why don't they have rubber bullets and tear gas? I mean, we have under-equipped the troops and we have too few troops there to protect themselves and to do the nation building.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Was it a mistake for Bremer to stop paying the salaries of the Iraqi soldiers, Tony?

MR. BLANKLEY: No. I think Lawrence has it exactly right in this instance. Obviously, the German Army -- the Nazis' army was not continued to be paid after we defeated Hitler. You don't want to have
a 400,000-man army. Things are going remarkably better in Iraq than is being reported piecemeal, in somewhat the same way that the embedded reporters were reporting the war in an accurate but incomplete way during the war.

I believe that -- and I've talked to a number of people who believe that in the next month or two, we're going to see a much more complete and positive picture on what's happening in Iraq.

MR. WARREN: No. No, even if you agree with Rumsfeld that there's been a rush to judgment by an impatient media, even if you agree with Wolfowitz, who's now recalibrating the guesstimate of how
long troops will be there -- now saying, like, 10 years --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Ten years?

MR. WARREN: -- you can still conclude unequivocally that this nation, this administration, was not prepared for peace. It was not
sensitive to the important elements for people on the ground in a postwar situation: The administration of justice; creation of a decent prison system; creation of a decent judicial system; and in an agricultural nation, giving folks their --

MR. BLANKLEY: All in 62 days, right?

MR. WARREN: -- giving folks their land.

MR. BLANKLEY: All in 62 days.

MR. WARREN: Plus, ultimately, I don't think we have the will; I don't think we really have the expertise --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think Bremer may have --

(Cross talk.)

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) -- back in the supposedly-despised United Nations --

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, we've got to move on.

(Cross talk.)

Quickly! Quickly! We've got to move on.

MR. BLANKLEY: The same people who opposed the war and misstated how the war was going to be fought out now are refighting the battle, complaining about the peace.

MR. WARREN: That's right. That's right.

MS. CLIFT: In the age of CNN and Al-Jazeera, Tony, you don't have seven or eight years to rebuild a country like you did in World War II. (Laughs.)

MR. KUDLOW: But you should at least give them seven or eight months. That's really the key point.

(Cross talk.)

MR. BLANKLEY: They don't want to give them a day!


MR. KUDLOW: One other thing that's worth noting is that the domestic energy needs are now being met by oil, the water is turned on, and virtually all the power is turned on. It's only, as Tony says, a couple months, for heaven's sake.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We've lost 55, by the way, since May 1, and we've lost 91 since April the 9th, when Baghdad fell; 193 deaths altogether of American service people.

With regard to Bremer and whether he erred in judgment by not paying the Iraqi soldiers, it was a grave error in judgment. He should have kept them on the payroll. There's abundant justification
for doing that, notably, the Nunn-Domenici-Lugar bill, which provides for us to pay scientists who are now out of work in Russia in the area of nuclear, biological and chemical.

Okay. Rumsfeld's view on Iraqi turbulence. Note the word "kinetics" in this sound bite. That's "kinetics."

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD: (From videotape.) You'll recall that when President Bush indicated that the major military activities had ended, we said very explicitly that that did not mean
that that was the end of kinetics; that there would continue to have to be significant efforts to root out the remnants of the regime.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Rumsfeld describes the turbulence in Iraq, that includes the deaths of Americans, as kinetics, defined as pertaining to motion. It is chiefly a physics term. Kinetic energy is energy which a body possesses by being in motion. Has Rumsfeld hit the nail right on the head? Is that what we're seeing in Iraq today: kinetics?

Eleanor Clift?

MS. CLIFT: Actually, the word that comes to mind is more a quagmire. I mean, we weren't in a quagmire in the war; the war was fought brilliantly. But the nation-building is going very badly, and it's not surprising. We have a president who campaigned on saying he
would not engage in nation-building, and he's keeping his promise. And Rumsfeld is committed to the notion that you need fewer troops and you can do this with a light, mobile military force -- you can win military victories that way. But nation-building requires old-fashioned boots on the ground. And they have not made the commitment to Iraq that's necessary.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think he should be using the detached language of physics to describe what's happening to our soldiers in Baghdad, as well as the other deaths that are occurring there and the
general pervasive misery, which you seem to consistently deny?

MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah, look -- yeah, "kinetics" is a wonderful word. When a car is moving along, it's got kinetic energy. You apply the brake, it doesn't stop immediately. Eventually, it stops.

We have now applied the brake, slowing down the kinetic energy, which has to be absorbed. But the brakes work and the energy will be absorbed.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, let's try this out on you and see whether this works. Here's Secretary Rumsfeld analogizing the deaths in Baghdad to the deaths in Washington, D.C.

DEFENSE SECRETARY DONALD RUMSFELD: (From videotape.) You've got to remember that if Washington, D.C. were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month. And it is --
there's going to be violence in a big city; there's five and a half million people.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Imagine that you're one of the troops in Iraq and you hear the Defense secretary say it's no worse than being in Washington, D.C., even safer, statistically. What's your
response to the secretary?

I ask you, James Warren.

MR. WARREN: I can't imagine these guys are not going to be buying real estate and putting up condos because it's safer there than it is in Washington, D.C.

I still think you have the basic problem administration of justice, you have the basic problem of not having a decent judicial system. And, Tony and Larry, I just don't think this administration and this country has the will to be there in the long term, which is
why we've got to go to a multilateral --

(Cross talk.)

MR. BLANKLEY: It's only the liberal opposition that doesn't have the will. Clearly this administration does, clearly the supporters do, and the people who opposed the war say we don't have. Well, it's we, but it's not us.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why is Rumsfeld trying to minimize, trivialize, even, the deaths in Baghdad? Why is he trying to do that?

MR. KUDLOW: I don't think he's trying to trivialize it, John, but I do think he's trying to create some context and some perspective of this enormous task, and I think he is right to do so.

But I think -- to Jim's point -- if you look at surveys, polling surveys here, Americans are solidly behind that. And the one thing that is not going to happen, this is not going to be a cut-and-run like Mogadishu; it's not going to happen. That was Saddam's original miscalculation. His people who's left are still miscalculating.


MS. CLIFT: The reason --

MR. KUDLOW: We are going to be there for the duration to make this an orderly, peaceful democracy.


MS. CLIFT: The reason Rumsfeld made such a grotesque analogy is because he doesn't like the fact that news reports are beginning to use the word "guerrilla" -- guerrilla fighters.


MS. CLIFT: And he wants us to think this is ordinary street violence.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He does not want to acknowledge there's a guerrilla resistance. If he were to acknowledge guerrilla resistance, what would he also be acknowledging?

MS. CLIFT: That we're in a quagmire! (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He would be acknowledging that the premises used to justify the war were fictitious.

Exit: Will the kinetics in Iraq, A, wax; will the kinetics wane; or C, will the kinetics remain about the same?

Lawrence Kudlow.

MR. KUDLOW: The kinetics will wax and wane positively as things continue to get better in Baghdad and Iraq.


MS. CLIFT: About the same. And apparently Saddam Hussein is still out there and may be inspiring some of these guerrilla fighters.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The kinetics will stay the same.

What do you say?

MR. BLANKLEY: Well, no. I think the kinetics, the energy that led to -- from Saddam's reign petering out is going to peter out.

Now, there will be other factors that will have to be managed. Part of it will be some violent opposition from Iranian agents and others. But I think that over time, it will be adequately manageable.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What about the kinetics, James?

MR. WARREN: Wax and wane negatively. And to -- you know, to take off from what Larry said, I think amid not great American support
but, I think, sadly, a sort of lack of interest, declining interest, which is something to the political advantage of the Bush administration, because leave this town, Larry, and you find out most Americans -- and, again, I think sadly -- don't care.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: His remarks, I think, make soldiers -- this comes across to soldiers as they are expendable. That's the way it comes across. They were -- somebody used the word "grotesque" here, and I think that's right on the money.

Secondly, I think that the kinetics are going to wax. I think they're just getting warmed up over there.

When we come back: Are the bulls running again on Wall Street?


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue two: Ring my bell. (Video of "Sex and the City" star Sarah Jessica Parker ringing the opening bell for the stock market on Thursday.)

Is the stock market getting sexier? Well, it's not exactly the go-go '90s, but since mid-March, Wall Street has been rallying. At midweek, the Dow was up 24 percent from a low point three months ago
during the U.S. build-up to war in Iraq, the NASDAQ up 32 percent, the S&P 500 up 26 percent.

Elsewhere, more good news in May:

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators increased by 1 percent, the largest rise in 18 months.

Production at factories up 0.1 percent, reversing a two-month decline.

Consumer Price Index flat, after a decline in April, easing any worry about deflation.

Housing still strong: new housing starts up 6.1 percent.

The bad news: the unemployment rate steady at 6.1 percent, the highest in nine years. Manpower Inc., a big temp firm, says it's, quote, "the weakest job outlook in the last 12 years."

Also, the trade deficit -- a record $136.1 billion in the first quarter. We import far more than we export.

Question: Is there a danger of jobless recovery, meaning a resumption of economic growth, but no strong increase in new employees? I ask you, Lawrence Kudlow.

MR. KUDLOW: I don't think so. I mean, I think the story here is, John, a combination of strong investment tax incentives from the tax bill -- the market is up 500 points since that bill was signed alone. The other thing that's interesting is inside the economy profits and productivity are rising very smartly.

What we need to make this a full-fledged recovery, which will bring down unemployment, is more liquidity adding, more cash adding, by the Federal Reserve. The Fed has been erring on the side of deflation for three years. It was only last autumn that they began to
make a halting move towards ending deflation. Now they must make another move this coming week. I believe they will. If that is the case, we are going to have a full-fledged, strong, bull-market recovery. And incidentally, for your portfolio, stocks are still at least 30 to 40 percent undervalued.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is the market bullish now?

MR. KUDLOW: Market is very bullish now. It's actually up 30 percent from the mother of all bottoms last October 9th.


MR. KUDLOW: And technology has led the way. Tech stocks are up 50 percent.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want to ask Warren about deflation. Does this remove, delete the hobgoblin of deflation -- this recovery that we're talking about here?

MR. WARREN: No. All due respect to Larry, who tends to know this stuff cold, I mean, yes, you do have some fairly promising incremental positive numbers when it comes to things like housing
starts, which came out the other day.

But at the same time, Larry, you look at a lot of companies around the country, payrolls are declining; they are voraciously cutting costs; they aren't creating jobs; they aren't buying many goods. So I think there is a problem. People keep waiting for the prices to go down even farther. Something like the Consumer Price
Index, which is everything -- right? -- except what, energy and food, that is now running at something like 1 percent real growth.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Larry, in characteristic economist limited vision and reducing the circle too finely, has he neglected -- there is something in the air; there's a psychic change that is going on.
It's more than can be translated into straight economic terms. Don't you think that the president's behavior in going to Europe and settling our differences, to a great extent, with the European Community, then going to the Middle East, that all of this collectively creates a more -- what? -- a bit of fugitive euphoria, as it were.

MR. BLANKLEY: Look, I think that the atmospherics are getting better; the numbers are getting better. One of the problems, and why there may still be a jobless recovery, is because the increased
profits that companies are making are coming out of cutting costs and increased productivity; they're not yet expanding to look for new markets. So that's the question mark.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So you think it can be resolved only in economic terms? Don't you think there's something in the air?

MS. CLIFT: No. I think the guy out there who's without a job doesn't give a whit that President Bush went to Europe or that he went to the Middle East. He might notice the Middle East process is falling apart.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But we've got the positive signs there.

MR. WARREN: Oh. What are the wonderful atmospherics? I mean, you've had a --

MS. CLIFT: There are no jobs!

MR. WARREN: You've got a big shouting match, John --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you know what I'm talking about, do you know
what I'm talking about, that we made a psychic -- we turned a psychic


MR. KUDLOW: Look, I think we have in this sense; I think the
greatest benefit and the greatest blessing to the USA is that we have
not had any terrorist attacks since 9/11. That by itself is
extraordinarily positive. And to the extent we are taking it to the
terrorists abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is also positive.

But let me say this; with the tax cuts and all the other
positives, the Fed must deliver, because these guys are right, it's an
incomplete --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, we're going right into that now.

MR. KUDLOW: It's an incomplete recovery --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You set up the exit question, Larry.

MR. KUDLOW: -- unless the Fed creates enough monetary --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, here's the exit question: How much will
Greenspan cut interest rates when the Federal Reserve meets next week?

Lawrence Kudlow?

MR. KUDLOW: I think he's going to cut them 50 basis points. And
I also think they might announce a purchase program, a special
purchase program of 10-year bonds.

MS. CLIFT: (Laughs.) I have no idea. But I appreciate being
included in the meeting of the Consumer Price Index Board! (Laughs.)


MR. BLANKLEY: A quarter point.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's 25 basis points.

MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah, I think that's the most. They're definitely
going to do it --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, quickly.

MR. BLANKLEY: -- but I don't think more than that.

And Samuel Britten, in the Financial Times last week had a
brilliant analysis of how the Fed plans to sort of jawbone, as well as
take actual actions.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think?

MR. WARREN: With characteristic modesty, I'll admit that I don't
have a clue. I'll go with Larry.

MR. KUDLOW: Go long, go long! (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, the answer is, it's a half point. He
wants to really jolt the situation. He wants to kill the talk about
deflation, the remnant talk. True?

MR. KUDLOW: Right. I agree with all that. And that will create
the jobs. That will really trigger a full (flood ?).

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue three: Dr. Dean's Elixir.


HOWARD DEAN (D-VT): (From videotape.) I'm Howard Dean. It's
time for the truth, because the truth is that George Bush's foreign
policy isn't making us safer. His tax cuts are ruining our economy
and costing us jobs. And too many Democrats in Washington are afraid
to stand up for what we believe in.

Well, I believe it's time to put our people back to work, to
provide health insurance for every American, and time for Democrats to
be Democrats again. That's why I'm running for president. That's why
I approve this message. I'm Howard Dean, and it's time to take our
country back.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Dr. Howard Dean, Yale class of '61, was the
popular governor of Vermont for more than a decade. He cut taxes
twice, created 40,000 jobs, doubled the minimum wage, and has moved
from symbolic candidate status to a long-shot, but not impossible
winner, of the Democratic presidential nomination. One reason is the
Internet, and the 35,000 eager recruits his website has produced.
Last week, Dean won the Wisconsin straw poll by a margin of 4-to-1
over number two John Kerry. And he is running strong in Iowa and his
neighbor state, New Hampshire, both critical early primaries.

Question: Right now the polls show that Kerry and Lieberman are
the Democratic front runners, with about 15 percent each; all the rest
of the pack have slipped to single digits. Can Dean catch up? I ask
you, Tony Blankley.

MR. BLANKLEY: He can. I don't believe -- the polling, at this
point, really doesn't matter much. I think the Democratic Party
activists are split in whether they want to go the radical-left way or
more centrist way. If they want to go that way, I think Dean has a
chance. My suspicion is they'll end up either with Gephardt or Kerry,

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How do you account for this mobilization that's
occurring in Dean's campaign? How do you account for it?

MS. CLIFT: He has a clear message, and he's not a victim of the
Washington-speak that the other candidates have, where they're afraid
to offend the special interests that they've been getting money from,
and they have votes on all sides of every issue. And he is not a
radical leftist, he's --

MR. BLANKLEY: To you he's a centrist; I understand.

MS. CLIFT: -- pro-gun, he's pro-death penalty, balance the
budget. He's got a reasonable health care plan. But the
establishment Democrats are worried about him. He's the classic

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let me point out that he has 35,000 eager
recruits that he got through the Internet software (Meetup ?), and he
is doing -- they're doing a lot for him. My question to you is, do
you think that there is enough there for him to close the space?

MR. WARREN: Yeah, I don't know where these polls come from. In
a place like Iowa, as Tony mentioned to me earlier, Gephardt is
undoubtedly in the lead and will remain in the lead for a good while.
He's got a tricky thing here to do, Dean. He's got to, on one hand,
come off as the tough-talking insurgent truth-teller bashing Bush on
foreign policy and the economy, and at the same time watch out that
the Tony Blankleys of the world don't caricature him as, oh, Dukakis
or Mondale redux. He's got to figure out a way to show that that
Vermont legacy --

MR. BLANKLEY: McGovern redux.

MR. KUDLOW: Yeah, that's the one.

MR. WARREN: -- that Vermont legacy is pretty intelligent and

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know, you may want to dismiss Dean -- that's
the drift I'm getting -- polls and so forth --

MS. CLIFT: No, he's --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, he's talking about Iowa. But he's doing
quite well in Iowa. And the point is that he has inspired fear now in
the Democratic ranks because, if this is a repeat of McGovern, this
guy is going to lose more House seats and more Senate seats for the
Democrats, and all they need is six Senate -- is three Senate seats
to take over, or 12 House seats.

MR. KUDLOW: I think you're right. You know, at the margin,
Dean's been kind of the big-impact player in this his whole Democratic
primary shebang.

And it's interesting. At a lunch the other day, a very senior
White House political guy told me that he thought Dean was the one
Democrat who would most get under President Bush's skin.

But having said all that, I'm afraid, Jim, I'm going to use
another name. He is McGovernizing the Democrats at the moment when it
won't pay off for them.

MS. CLIFT: Well --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The exit question -- and this is a one-word
answer, because we're way out of time -- on a presidential primary
probability scale from zero to 10, zero meaning zero probability, 10
meaning metaphysical certitude, what's the probability of Dean winning
the Democratic presidential nomination, Lawrence?

MR. KUDLOW: Oh, gosh --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Give me a number.

MR. KUDLOW: I'd give it three.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think?

MS. CLIFT: I'd say between seven and eight.


MS. CLIFT: Yeah. I think he's one of the main contenders.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think?

MR. BLANKLEY: About a four.


MR. WARREN: Empirically speaking, 4.23.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You've hit it right on the nose -- 4.23.
(Laughter.) How did you know I was thinking that?

We'll be right back with predictions.


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Prediction, Lawrence?

MR. KUDLOW: By year end, the Dow Jones over 10,000.


MR. KUDLOW: (Chuckles.)


MS. CLIFT: Howard Dean's fundraising numbers for the second
quarter will be better than expected, making everybody reassess his
seriousness as a candidate yet again.


MR. BLANKLEY: House Republicans will pass prescription drug
reform with virtually no Democratic help in the House.


MR. WARREN: Clinton-bashers, relax. Hillary's book may be big,
but the new Harry Potter will outsell it by 10 to 1.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I predict that Palestinian Prime Minister Abu
Mazen will successfully dismantle Hamas by force.

And don't forget: You can watch "The McLaughlin Group" on
streaming video worldwide at our website,

Next week: More kinetics in Iraq. Bye-bye!



MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue four: Ooh, that smell. (Music: "That
Smell" by Lynyrd Skynyrd, containing these lyrics: "Ooh, ooh, that
smell. Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, ooh, that smell.")

Public nuisance du jour. What is it? Perfume. Second-hand
perfume. Allergies and chemical sensitivity to perfume scents are
behind the nascent public outcry. Perfume scents can cause nausea,
dizziness, headaches, difficulty in breathing.

Halifax, Nova Scotia, wants to ban the wearing of perfumes,
colognes, scented deodorants and scented beauty products in all public
buildings. Saint Michael's Church in Halifax has designated
fragrance-free pews -- and increased its membership as a result.

In Shutesbury, Massachusetts, the town meetings have three
seating sections: for those wearing fragrance, for those not wearing
fragrance, and for those who have lingering traces of fragrances on
their clothes.

Marin County, California, has restaurants with fragrance-free

In Salt Lake City, Utah, a nurse is suing the hospital where she
works. The charge: her co-workers' perfumes made her sick.

And get this: A Florida man charged his wife with battery when
she scented their home with perfume and room fresheners and Lysol. In
fact, the husband had the wife arrested.

Question: Okay, we've banned peanuts on airplanes and peanut
butter sandwiches in schools, on behalf of the nut-sensitive.

Now we're talking fragrances. What do you think of that idea, and
what's next?

James Warren.

MR. WARREN: Well, this allegedly nascent public outcry hasn't
quite made it to my neighborhood.

MS. CLIFT: (Laughs.)

MR. WARREN: I had not known this was a major public policy
issue. Although I can report exclusively that there are women in the
Chicago Tribune editorial library who are at odds with women down the
hall from the Human Resources Department because the Human Resources
women wear heavy perfume, according to the library folks, which angers
them greatly.

But I don't exactly want Richie Daley or anybody else in the
government to get involved in this. This is -- it would be a little
bit ludicrous. If an individual employer wants to do something, let
him do something. If someone's getting truly sick because of the
perfume that Eleanor is wearing, let the manager do something.

MS. CLIFT: I'm perfume-free! I'm perfume-free! (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Tony, you live on that rural estate of yours
with the peacocks and the llamas. My question to you is, should you
have the right to plant flowers out there or trees or grasses, if your
neighbor is allergic to pollen? Does it mean that you can pollute the
airways with pollen and allergens and harm your neighbor's health? I
mean, how far are we going to carry this?

MR. BLANKLEY: Yes, because our little farm is located in the
United States where we're free. And this is all, of course, nonsense.
For me, personally, whenever I've worked in a office, my favorite time
of day is at closing time when all the ladies put on the perfume and
you go down the elevator, it smells wonderful. I think people should
have more perfume, and we should smell tobacco and sausages roasting.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You're a smoker, right?

MR. KUDLOW: I am a smoker.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And don't you object to the -- those who don't
like smoking getting a ban effected so they won't be exposed to your

MR. KUDLOW: Yes. Yes.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Isn't that intolerance?

MR. KUDLOW: It is. This is government dictating lifestyle.
Now, it's okay to have -- if you want to have separate sections, fine.
But you can't say yes or no. These are legal activities. The wearing
of perfume is legal, smoking is legal, drinking is legal, et cetera,
et cetera.

MS. CLIFT: I just want to make sure aftershave lotion is
included in any ban anybody passes, okay? (Laughter.)

MR. KUDLOW: I don't use any myself.