Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

What`s Next for Republicans?; How Will Political Change Affect World Politics?; New York to Allow Gender Changes on Birth Certificates

Aired November 09, 2006 - 19:00   ET

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

GLENN BECK, HOST: OK, the Democrats are in charge, so what does that mean exactly for the Republicans?
And from the funny days -- or day of "Saturday Night Live", also from "Spinal Tap" and "The Simpsons", the one and only Harry Shearer. Coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by the Republican Party, abandoning its principles since 2004. And also brought to you by the Democratic Party. Thanks for choosing us, suckers! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Well, it`s official now: 28 governorships, the House of Representatives and now the United States Senate are in the hands of these guys. Wow.

To the Republican Party, I can only tell you this: that is exactly what you get when you abandon your principles.

So here`s the point tonight. I don`t know about you, but I actually care about the things that I`ve been fighting for, for the last few years: smaller government, lower taxes, a strong defense, cracking down on illegal immigration. But apparently, the leaders in Washington, not so much.

They`re fickle about their own conservative values, and now everything that we have worked to fight for over the last few years, especially if these new conservative Democrats are only being used by the extreme left, everything we`ve worked for is about to be completely erased.

Here is how I got there. I heard three pretty scary things over the last few days. First one is about illegal immigration. The next one is the economy. And the third one is the war in Iraq. Let`s start one by one. Here`s the first one. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, there is progress being made on the border in terms of security, and I would hope we can get something done. It`s a vital issue. It`s an issue that -- there`s an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK. Here`s why this should terrify you. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan tried to make a compromise with the left on immigration. Reagan wanted crippling fines for big businesses that were enabling and employing illegal aliens. The Democrats who controlled Congress gave him that, in exchange for amnesty for illegals. One side got what it was promised. The other left out in the cold. Guess where Reagan was? Yes, out in the cold.

The middle class has completely eroded in Los Angeles. And you better get used to it. Across the entire southwest, compromise will not stop illegal immigration, because neither side truly wants to.

The Republicans are in bed about big business, and the Democrats are in bed with unions. The freight train to hell doesn`t stop there.

You know, the record economy that we`ve been enjoying lately, that`s going to disappear quicker than K-Fed`s new album. When asked last week whether or not the Democrats would raise our taxes, here`s what Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel had to say: "No question about it. Everything has to be on the table." That is the second scary thing I have heard.

If you are trying to solve the deficit problem, which is huge, leave taxes alone and cut the spending. I am sick and tired of having the same argument with people. You know, it`s been liberals and now lately, it`s been with Republicans.

Here`s the thing. It has been proven time and time again, if you cut taxes the economy grows. Tax revenues grow. Unemployment right now is at 4.4 percent; 5.3 million new jobs have been added in the last three years. All of those people now pay taxes.

Tax relief has put $880 billion back in the pockets of average Americans like you. Low taxes equals more jobs, equals more tax revenue. If you raise taxes, like the Democrats would like to do, and couple that with out-of-control government spending, like the Republicans have been doing, well, have fun kissing the economy bye-bye.

But the most disturbing thing that I heard this week -- regarding the Democratic victory and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld -- is this: "A great victory for the Iraqi resistance. Even Bush has admitted by sacrificing the tyrant Rumsfeld on the altar of the Democratic sweeping victory. This is further proof that our just cause and that of tyranny will be defeated."

This was said today by a spokesperson for the insurgent Islamic army in Iraq.

So I ask the new controlling party in the House and the Senate, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, the insurgents are happy you`ve won. Please understand this. Please don`t allow our country to go soft.

It`s OK to celebrate your victory on Tuesday. Congratulations. You guys did a great job. But do everything in your power to present our enemies from celebrating as well. Otherwise, it will send a dangerous message to them, and it will be open season on our troops.

So here`s what I know tonight. Yesterday on this program I asked a guest if this election was the bottom of the barrel for the Republican Party. He didn`t know. I don`t know. It could only get worse. Maybe.

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh, known as the preeminent defender of the Republicans, walked way from them, saying they don`t speak for him anymore. When conservatives start walking out on the GOP, forget about having a third party. You now have a one-party system.

Then again, we might already have one party. Because it seems to me the Democrats and the Republicans seem to be united on one thing: they`ll both do anything they have to to win. It`s the election party.

Here`s what I don`t know. How could we have been so stupid and allowed ourselves to be duped by all of these people? Jim Vandehei, he is the national political reporter for "The Washington Post".

Do you see the thumping of the GOP party as the end or just the beginning?

JIM VANDEHEI, "THE WASHINGTON POST": It`s impossible to know right now. I think some people are over interpreting what happened.

I think there was such a negative mood, environmentally. People were against the war; they were tired -- they were tired of corruption. So I think Republicans paid a price very broadly for that.

The question is if that atmospheres improves over the next few years, if Republicans maybe took a -- rein in spending, start to change their philosophy a little bit, and things in Iraq start to go better, does the environment change and things return to normal? But it`s not certain. I don`t know.

I mean, Iraq was such a factor in this election. I don`t think that you can take that away from the results here. You look at so many races like up in New Hampshire, where they lose two House seats. One of those House seats is directly attributable to the war.

BECK: Yes. I mean, well, you look at the northeast. And I think that`s the difference. I think the northeast just votes in a different way.

The Republicans, as I see it, lost their course, lost their soul, lost their values. But haven`t the Democrats done the very same thing? They are certainly not the party today of Alec Baldwin. Or at least -- I mean, they have the face of Alec Baldwin, through Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy and all these extreme left people, but they won through coming -- moving right.

VANDEHEI: Well, the truth is they won by not really taking firm positions on a lot of issues. It was a strategic decision to put all of the emphasis on Republicans. Well, now you`ve got to govern. Now you`ve actually got to spell out what do Democrats believe in. And I don`t know that answer.

I mean, Nancy Pelosi has a record of being a very liberal leader on the left. But there are so many, you know, moderate or conservative Democrats either who won in this election or won since 1996 that you have a pretty wide variety on the ideological spectrum.

The question is, OK, what does that mean? What is the governing formula now? Do they go to impeach President Bush like John Conyers of Michigan wants to do? Or do they try to run in the middle like Bill Clinton taught Democrats to do in the 1990s?

BECK: Right.

VANDEHEI: My hunch is they`re going to try to run from the middle and try to do a lot of what we saw from Bill Clinton, because they know what it`s like to be in the minority. And they know now what it takes to win. You can`t win in this country being sort of a hard left party. You have to do something from the middle.

BECK: But doesn`t that shake their hard-core -- the Deaniacs?

VANDEHEI: Sure, you know. You`re always going to shake your base. I mean, the question is, when you`re a governing party, you have to learn how to, you know, basically keep your base happy enough but not too happy.

Because if you`re doing what your base always wants to do, you`re just not going to win your national elections on a regular basis. And it`s always the trick for Republicans. It`s going to be the trick for Democrats.

Democrats have had a harder time with it, I think, of late because they`ve been defined, you know, in the absence of having power by MoveOn.org or Hollywood types who tend to be offensive to a lot of people in middle America or in the South. And so I think that`s hurt their party.

Now the question is, you`ve got power, what are you going to do with it? Rahm Emmanuel would tell you that you`ve got to do something about governing from the center. Because it`s hard to stitch together a winning coalition each and every election, unless you`re winning seats in the Midwest and in the South. The South has been a killing field for Democrats over the last decade.

BECK: Let me ask you, because you`re sitting there at the "Washington Post". You`re part of the media. I ain`t a journalist. I mean, I`m a rodeo clown. So to answer this question, why is the media spinning this as a victory for the Democrats instead of Democrats move right?

VANDEHEI: I mean, I have no idea. I can`t speak for the media. On the whole don`t think that -- that we`ve spun it either way. I mean, I think most people are looking at the results and they say that it`s victory for Democrats. Obviously, they picked up seats.

But I also think it was more a repudiation of Republicans. I mean, people weren`t voting -- when you looked at the exit polls, I think they`ll say, "Wow, we love Democratic policies. We love Democratic candidates".

BECK: Right, right.

VANDEHEI: No, they are sick of Republican policies, sick of the war, sick of corruption. I mean, if there`s two things that cost them the races here, it was corruption and it was war. Bush did not win the debate over the Iraq war.

BECK: Right.

VANDEHEI: And then when you had the Mark Foley sex scandal, that really crystallized in the mind of voters what they -- what they were tired of when they look at conservative governance. And so they decided, "You know what? We`re going to -- we`re going to vote Democrat."

BECK: OK, Jim, thanks a lot.

Now, there is a lot of fear out there that Nancy Pelosi, with a track record of rabid partisanship, isn`t exactly going to be the most Republican-friendly speaker of the House.

Frankly, I mean, I don`t know what they`re talking about. Listen to some of the things that she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: We could not be better served than having -- the president stay the course. -- The president -- as you know -- has been a leader in protecting the American people.

We believe that we have -- with the president, a magnificent, talented, genius -- the president of the United States. -- It`s good for our country. -- Staying the course -- is clearly working -- and has clearly -- made our country safer.

The American people with their votes yesterday -- clearly -- placed their trust -- in the Republicans. -- I hope that over and over again -- Democrats are ready -- to continue down this catastrophic path. Thank you all very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: This is GLENN BECK.

BECK: To me, it`s very clear.

All right. Does Rumsfeld`s resignation mean a new direction for Iraq? And what does it mean for our troops down on the ground?

Plus, Britney kicks K-Fed to the curb. And now he wants custody of the kids. What does the future hold for these shining examples of parenthood?

And he`s the voice behind some of your favorite Simpsons` characters, the remarkable Harry Shearer joins me tonight. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I can`t take arguments like that anymore. I can`t do it. How many times do I have to win this freaking argument? You reduce taxes, people spend money, business grows, more people are employed, more tax revenue! I don`t know how to make that any easier. There`s no way.

You`re just -- you`re dealing with people who either don`t want to get it. People have more money and then they spend more money. And the company has to hire more people because people are buying their stuff. And those people have jobs and they pay taxes!

Cutting taxes! I can`t argue it anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK; I tell you, I can`t.

On the heels of the Democratics seizing -- Democrats seizing control of the House and the Senate yesterday, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided to help lighten the mood just a little bit by resigning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I must say that it`s been the highest honor of my life to serve with the talented men and women with the Department of Defense, the amazing men and women, young men and women in uniform, it`s a privilege. And their patriotism, their professionalism, their dedication is truly an inspiration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Now, there`s a ton of ways to spin this thing. And in the last 24 hours, I`m sure you`ve seen most of them, but the simple fact remains that we still have men and women over in Iraq and Afghanistan in harm`s way.

So please, can we put aside just for a second the exploring of the political ramifications of Rumsfeld`s -- Rumsfeld`s departure, whether it was a strategic move by the Bush administration. And let`s just think about those who are literally on the front lines of this situation.

According to the Associated Press, some in the Middle East were cheering in the streets when they heard the news, as were anti-American factions across Europe and Asia. If I were in uniform, I`d be worried a lot more about that than the beltway politicking.

Joining me now is retired Lieutenant Robert Maginnis.

Colonel, what does this mean for our troops on the ground?

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Well, for the troops on the ground, Glenn, likely, they won`t know anything for a while other than what they read on the web sites and on the TV. Unless you reduce their troops stay there and that will have an impact.

But they do think about these things. And a recent poll in "The Army Times" suggested they wanted them out.

BECK: Yes, I`m not suggesting that. I think that`s too early; you`re right. What I mean is, do they have a bigger target on them because our enemies see this as a sign of weakness? I don`t even think the people that we`re fighting understand that we have peaceful changes of power.

MAGINNIS: Yes, you`re absolutely right, Glenn. They do see this as a weakness, you know. They defeated, like they did in Madrid a couple years ago, the U.S. government. They turned over the government from the hands of the president.

And guess what? The booby prize here is Mr. Rumsfeld, the arch nemesis of a lot of those people in that part of the world that are fighting us, he was kicked out the next day. And they`re going to get maybe Harvey Milquetoast to replace them. So you know, they probably are celebrating, and I suspect the web sites are going to indicate that in the coming days.

BECK: So does this put our troops in -- in harm`s way, because these people are emboldened? Or...

MAGINNIS: Well, it could increase the violence. Last month they were trying to upset the apple cart here, and I think that, in fact, they obviously had an impression and a lot of people went to the poll that made Iraq part of the decision process. So yes, it could increase the violence over there.

Now we`re taking all of the precautions we clearly can. But when you look next door in Iran and Syria, and you wonder, what are they thinking? They`re saying, "Well, the Americans are on their way out of Iraq." And we`re fat, dumb and happy. They`re not going to bother us.

BECK: I saw something last night by the guy who`s replacing Rumsfeld. And it scared the living pants off of me. It was a report that he wrote and said, you know, basically in a nutshell, "Hey, we`ve got a lot in common with Iran. We should find common ground."

Are we suddenly going to find ourselves taking a European approach with the Middle East?

MAGINNIS: Well, I think he`s in the camp with James Baker, of course, who is very cozy with a number of key leaders over there. And perhaps one of the things Iraq Survey Group`s going to do is come back and say we`ve got to talk more with Iran, with Syria, with you know, some of the -- maybe the Sunni radicals that are running the insurgency. So this is a major change in approach over there.

I don`t think we`re going to increase troops. And I`m not so sure the Maliki government over there is ready to take on more responsibility. After all, the Iraq security forces are not getting as good as we`d like them to be.

BECK: But see, to me, explain, because I really -- if it`s a new strategy, I really want to understand it. And I would like an easier answer than just going over and making our troops stronger and just wipe out all of our enemies.

How do you make peace with people who want to destroy the western way of life and set up democracy? Those two are opposed to each other.

MAGINNIS: Absolutely. They`re contrary. And we went in there with a vision. At least the articulated top vision is that we wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East. We want it to spread throughout.

Without recognition that an insurgency was beginning to happen. There was a juxtaposition there back in `03, in July. Mr. Rumsfeld got up and said, "No, there`s no insurgency."

And two days later, John Abizaid at CentCom said, "Yes, there is an insurgency."

So you know, the reality of insurgencies in the last few hundred years, Glenn, is they last nine to 12 years. And I just listened to a British general who said, "Look, you know, we`ve been in Northern Ireland for 37. So you Americans better watch what you`re doing in Afghanistan and Iraq."

BECK: Yes. OK. I`ve only got 15 seconds. The legacy of Rumsfeld, what do you think it will be?

MAGINNIS: Transformation. He made some significant changes. I think he`s done a reasonably good job, but 9/11 just threw him for a loop. And I`m not sure he`ll recover.

BECK: OK. Thanks a lot, Robert.

Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: This story is going to kill you. New York City is now working on a plan to make it a little easier to switch your sex flipped -- listed on the birth certificate.

You don`t have to go under the knife any more. Now, there are some conditions. You`ll have to change your name from, like Ben to Benjamina. And you have to live life, you know, under your new adopted gender.

Currently, the city rules say that only people who can show proof of surgery can qualify. Not quite as easily as choosing a pizza topping, but still, not that tough.

Psychologist Jeff Gardere is here with us.

Jeff, you know, I feel really bad for people who are in this situation, because I talk to people who really, truly believe that they were born as a woman. And it`s not at all about sex. It`s a weird, sad kind of condition, isn`t it?

JEFF GARDERE, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, it`s what we`re talking about as far as gender identity disorders. There is a body of knowledge that now says, hey, you know, people who are born of one sex and feel that they`re the opposite sex, perhaps there`s something that`s going on as far as some sort of a physiological mechanism that has either kicked in or not kicked in. But those people really do suffer, Glenn.

BECK: OK. Right. NO, I know that. And so I don`t want to take this lightly, although, come on, is there a box for "other" on your birth certificate?

Do you believe that it is something physical? Or can this be something from your upbringing or...

GARDERE: Certainly, there are people, I believe, in my clinical practice who have had issues with gender identity because they`ve had trauma in their lives.

But primarily, many of the people that I`ve spoken to who are having these issues or who want to go to the other side, if you will, really do believe from the earliest memories that they were born a certain sex but believe that they are the opposite sex.

BECK: You know, I have -- I have three daughters and a son. And I`ve got to tell you, they from birth act differently. My son is an all- American boy. He`s -- I mean, don`t even know, in my house, I don`t even know how he saw baseball, but he knows baseball and he`s swinging at bat at everything. Do you know this kind of stuff from birth?

GARDERE: Yes, absolutely, you do. And again, a lot of the anecdotal and scientific information has shown that children know what their sexual identity is from the ages of 2 to 3, and they behave differently.

It`s not that they`re unequal. It`s that some do act as female if they`re female, and some act as male if they`re male. And then there are those who are somewhere in the middle and have these gender identity issues for many years in their lives. And these are the folks that I guess we`re focusing on today.

BECK: Now, the whole being able to switch your sex on your birth certificate without -- I mean, parts are parts. Without changing the parts, does that seem sane to you?

GARDERE: Well, I think what`s going on, certainly, I understand what it is that they`re trying to do, Glenn. They`re trying to say that, hey, yes, you know, you may be of the opposite sex psychologically, physiologically. It doesn`t take an operation to have to prove that.

But some of the issues I have with this, Glenn, are if we go back and change someone`s birth certificate, as we can do now after sexual reassignment surgery, are there those people, perhaps, who are not totally sure of who they are or are able to get any psychologist or anyone to sign off and say, yes, you are of the opposite sex? And you can buy that.

BECK: I am not smart enough to live in this century. It`s just too confusing for me. Jeff, thank you very much. Talk to you again.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Welcome to "The Real Story." This is where we try to cut through the media spin and figure out why a story is actually important to you.

Now, I know the election`s over, and it`s quite clear that the Democrats are firmly in control of the House and the Senate. By now, that`s an old story, but here`s the real story behind their triumphant return to the majority. It had nothing to do with the quality of their candidates or the auspicious Democratic agenda. Stay with me. This isn`t sour grapes. I`ve actually got 150 years worth of evidence to prove it.

Well before the election, a research paper was written by Colleen Shogan. She is an assistant professor of government and politics at George Mason University. She found that there is a undeniable pattern of ill- fated events that unfold during a president`s sixth consecutive year in the White House that results in the president`s party losing seats in the midterm election.

Professor Shogan calls it the "six-year curse," and it has plagued every president, Republican and Democrat alike, since Ulysses S. Grant. Here are the major components of the "curse": scandals, weakened political coalitions, and midterm electoral defeat.

I`d say it`s pretty safe to say the Bush administration has had their fair share of gaffes and blunders. Uncontrolled illegal immigration, perceived corruption, and an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq are all just really the tips of the iceberg.

Now, as for weakened political coalitions, this is a no-brainer. As I`ve been telling you, the mistake the Republicans made this year, it wasn`t that they went too far right but too far to the left. They overspent, and they were way too soft on border security.

The Democrats saw an opening and brilliantly inched over to the right and beat the Republicans with their own conservative platform locally. The president`s party forgot who it was. I`d call that a weakened coalition, wouldn`t you?

As for the third part of the curse, the huge midterm losses? Yes, kind of know how that one played out.

So, Democrats, before you all get hoarse singing "Happy Days are Here Again," remember, over the last century and a half, these political cycles have been playing themselves out and will continue to do so. So enjoy your time there while it lasts, and be sure to send the Republicans a thank you note, because, whether you like it or not, the election was more their loss than Howard Dean`s win.

Now, speaking of losers -- and this is a big one -- Mr. Britney Spears, also known as Kevin Federline. And I like to call him K-Fed myself. He has been given his walking papers. While we were all squandering our time electing those men and women who will govern our nation, Britney Spears was making real news by filing for divorce from K- Fed.

I don`t know about you, but when I first heard this, I was shocked. Now, I would hate to be considered cynical for throwing a love of their caliber under the bus. You know, it`s not that I`m saying that Britney Spears is Princess Grace or anything, but look at the yutz she married.

Last week, he spoke to CNN`s "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT" and had this to say about his beloved.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN FEDERLINE, EX-HUSBAND OF BRITNEY SPEARS: She`s another person to me. You know, she`s a talented person, and she`s -- I love her to death, you know? It`s crazy. It`s something that I can`t explain, because a lot of people look at her, and they`re fans, you know, and they look up to her as that artist. You know, I look up to her as my wife and like a real, genuine person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: What a tool that guy is. And since K-Fed is Britney`s babies` daddy, he wants custody now. And I believe he means that right here. The real story here is that Kevin Federline doesn`t want custody of his children as much as he wants custody of the millions of dollars that belong to his soon-to-be ex-wife.

Now, look, I`m a divorced father myself, so I am not without compassion for what Britney`s bouncing babies will have to go through as children of divorce. However, I also have a problem with the prevailing notion that, in custody battles across the country, children automatically go to their mother.

Granted, it has been suggested that one of the reasons Britney is letting her dreamboat go is that she fears that K-Fed is a bad influence on their children. No, really? Britney, I hate to tell you this, but it wasn`t like he was a humanitarian Rhodes Scholar when you decided to mate with him, but that`s a different story.

At the end of the day, divorce is hard on everyone involved, and the added pressure of celebrity certainly isn`t making anything easier for these guys. But if there are any lessons to be learned here, here they are.

Britney, I mean this: Don`t give up. Your first marriage only lasted 55 hours, and this one made it two, whole years. Now, I know it`s not exactly `til death do us part, but it is progress.

And K-Fed? You dope, When you`re going to marry an international pop star worth a couple hundred million dollars, don`t sign a pre-nup, you putz.

Jacalyn Barnett, she`s a high-profile divorce attorney. Jacalyn, please tell me there`s hope for these crazy kids. Are they going to be all right?

JACALYN BARNETT, DIVORCE ATTORNEY: Are the crazy kids Kevin and Britney? Or are they their kids?

BECK: No, no, his kids are screwed up for life. I mean...

BARNETT: Well, they weren`t lucky enough to have the six-year curse. They didn`t make it that long. But I think they`re both going to be fine. And I think they would be best-served by keeping it down low for the time being and trying to solve their problems discreetly and outside of the media.

BECK: Now, there is -- you know, we were just saying here on "The Real Story," it really bothers me the way our society is set up, that women automatically get the kids. But I know that I was not willing to go and fight with my wife -- you know, not that we would have had this situation - - but I`m not willing to go into court and say, "She`s a bad mom." And that`s the only way a guy can get their kids now. It`s that`s not right.

BARNETT: But that`s not true, because women don`t automatically get their children.

BECK: Oh, really?

BARNETT: It really depends on who is the primary caretaker. And the fact that she`s got an infant that she could be breastfeeding certainly ups the ante that she gets to keep the child, because even he can`t breastfeed. So I think you have to look at, who is the primary caretaker and what is their relationship? And what kind of father is he to the two children he had prior to their marriage?

BECK: Right. He`s pretty good to the children, that I think he -- wasn`t his wife -- no, I`m sorry, wasn`t his girlfriend pregnant or just having a child as he married Britney in the first place?

BARNETT: Yes, and that`s a clue. When a guy does that, you know you`ve got a keeper. You know that.

BECK: Yes, no, she made some real trailer decisions here, don`t get me wrong. I would be -- this is just evil and devious. If it wasn`t that there were kids, I would be so tempted, if I were here, to say, "You know what, honey? You`re right. You take the kids," because you know he doesn`t want them. He just wants the cash. Isn`t this extortion, in a way?

BARNETT: Well, it`s not extortion. It`s, unfortunately, the one irrevocably decision we make in life is when we have children. And while you can get out of a marriage, she did it in Las Vegas, and she can get out of this marriage, she is always going to be a family with this man. She`s always going to have ties. And she`s even going to have ties to his ex- girlfriend, because her children are siblings to those children, as well.

BECK: No, it`s a beautiful, lovely mess that they`ve made.

BARNETT: And I don`t even think it`s over. I`m sure there are going to be layers and layers, because they`re young, and they`ve got a whole life ahead of them.

BECK: So how does the media affect this? I mean, it must be impossible to raise kids, as somebody like Britney Spears?

BARNETT: Well, I think if you put your child on the lap while you`re driving a car...

BECK: OK, all right. OK, they`re probably not the best answer, because if I were the judge, I would say, "You know what? I`m taking the kids."

BARNETT: But I don`t think you go to the parenting program that`s sponsored by Michael Jackson.

BECK: Right.

BARNETT: I think that neither one of them has a lock on parenthood. But I think, if I were her, I would totally make my image to be very hands- on mother, be very active with the child.

And what most people don`t realize is, even if you`re not in the media, there are cameras and records all over the place about all of us. People know when you`re going through EZ-Pass. People know when you`re using your credit card. People know when you`re at the ATM. So it`s not just the people that are in the media that need to know that big brother is watching them. Everybody has that. And in all divorces, you can prove where people are and what they`re doing all the time.

BECK: Jacalyn, I mean, you clearly have never watched the show. You don`t tell people like as paranoid as me something like that. That`s not good.

BARNETT: But isn`t it good to know that you`re right?

BECK: No -- yes, yes, it is. Jacalyn, thank you very much.

That is "The Real Story" tonight. If you would like to read more about this or if you`ve found a real story of your own that you`d like to tell us about, please visit glennbeck.com and click on the "Real Story" button.

Let`s go "Straight to Hill" now, Erica Hill, the anchor of "PRIME NEWS" on Headline News.

Hi, Erica.

ERICA HILL, CNN HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Hi, Glenn, how are you doing?

BECK: Well, I`m kind of bummed. You know, I didn`t even know that Ed Bradley was sick.

HILL: You know, that`s what we were all saying when the news crossed. It was just as we were heading into our news meeting today, and everybody was just floored, because not a lot of people did know that Ed Bradley was sick. He had leukemia apparently.

If you haven`t heard the news, very sad. We`re learning that Ed Bradley died today of complications from leukemia. It happened in New York. Of course, he is the Emmy Award-winning correspondent for "60 Minutes." He began his career in radio, Glenn, joined CBS News in 1971. He was a stringer in the network`s Paris bureau. He spent the last 25 years working over at "60 Minutes" and has compiled, I mean, quite a body of work. He got 19 Emmys.

BECK: Wow. I think his last report for "60 Minutes" was on the lacrosse team.

HILL: Yes.

BECK: And I didn`t get a chance to see it. I was coming from an airport, and I listened to it. And I said to the guy who was driving with me, I said, "Listen to him. He is really sick." And it was the first tip -- and I thought he had a bad cold or something. But you could hear it in his voice when you just listened to him and didn`t look at him.

HILL: And he had started to look very thin and very gaunt.

BECK: Yes, it`s too bad.

HILL: It`s really sad.

BECK: Too bad. Thank you very much, Erica.

HILL: Thanks, Glenn.

BECK: Coming up in a second, Harry Shearer from "The Simpsons" and a brand-new Christopher Guest movie you don`t want to miss. Harry Shearer next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: About a year ago, my friends and I heard about a movie, "For Your Consideration." We read about it in newspaper, and we were thrilled. It is the latest Christopher Guest movie that`s coming out. It`s about what happens when a cast of low-budget independent filmmakers start to believe that their less-than-stellar performance might actually win some Oscars. Here is a clip from the movie.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, you got a minute now, because I have to go the stage. They called me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, was it important? What did you want to talk about?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A lot of things. But, look, I`m working for scale. And after my stature, 40 years in the business, there`s no excuse for me working for scale.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, when that`s exactly what I`ve been telling people. You should not be working for scale.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK? But you know these producers. They have their own take on these things. Victor, I`m on your side, all right? I`m you`re agent. You are my number-one priority. There is nothing more important than me in my life than -- than you. Excuse me. Yes?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: It is from the same people who brought you "This is Spinal Tap," one of my favorite movies, "A Mighty Wind." It co-stars Harry Shearer, who is also known as the voice of "The Simpsons." He does Mr. Burns, Ned Flanders. You know him when you see him, Harry Shearer.

How are you, sir?

HARRY SHEARER, ACTOR: I`m great. How are you, Glenn?

BECK: What a pleasure to meet you.

SHEARER: Thank you. Same here.

BECK: I saw -- I think the first Christopher Guest movie I saw, what was the one before "Mighty Wind"?

SHEARER: "Best in Show."

BECK: "Best in Show," saw that, laughed hysterically. Saw "Mighty Wind," and now I`ve been going back and watching all of them.

SHEARER: Cool.

BECK: Just really funny, funny stuff.

SHEARER: Well, I`m glad. It`s fun for us. You know, there`s a group of people, obviously, that have been doing these movies now for a while. And when we get the call, and we`re doing another one, it`s like play day begins.

BECK: You know, I asked Jamie Lee Curtis -- she was here a few weeks ago. And I said, "How come you`re not in the movies?" And she said, "Well, my husband doesn`t put me in the movies. I don`t do that." These movies are not scripted, right?

SHEARER: No, they`re improvised. And...

BECK: How improvised? How much?

SHEARER: More than our conversation right now.

BECK: No...

SHEARER: What Chris and Eugene Levy, who write them, do is they write a script so that there`s a breakdown scene by scene. Here`s what happens in this scene. Here`s who`s in it. You know, here`s where the scene takes place, so the camera knows where to be...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Right.

SHEARER: And then we show up, and we know who our characters are and what we`re supposed to be doing, but there`s no dialogue.

BECK: So who is your character in this movie?

SHEARER: I`m Victor Allan Miller. To call him a journeyman actor would be a great compliment. He`s best known for his work as Irv the Foot Long Weiner in some hot dog commercials that you might have seen. It`s not in your market.

BECK: Right.

SHEARER: And he gets this break to be in this independent film called "Home for Purim." And then there is, along with Catherine O`Hara, who plays his co-star...

BECK: She`s brilliant.

SHEARER: Well, the big thrill for me in this movie was to do scenes finally with Catherine O`Hara. It was like...

BECK: I mean, there`s not a weak person in any of the casts in...

(CROSSTALK)

SHEARER: No, it`s a wonderful cast. And Ricky Gervais, the fine British creator of the British version of "The Office"...

BECK: Right, "The Office."

SHEARER: ... is in it now. He`s joined the cast of this one. So it`s just...

BECK: You know, I think if people like "The Office," they would love these movies.

SHEARER: Oh, yes.

BECK: It`s intelligent humor, but it`s not too far over your head. You know what it is? It`s the opposite of a dirty "Jerry Lewis" movie, you know what I`m saying?

SHEARER: Yes, I do. You`ve just given me a very bad picture in my mind.

BECK: I know. It will never leave either.

SHEARER: I won`t sleep tonight. But, yes, I mean, the whole thing is about trust. Chris trusts us. We`re all allowed to trust the audience, you know, so we`re not hitting you over the head with it. And it`s also we try to be real. We try to -- we`re not doing these goofy flights of fantasy. We`re trying to be what these characters really are like.

BECK: You have been involved in some of the just the finest comedy. And it must have been tough, because you really kind of arrived on the screen. You`re the first cast member to ever be on "SNL" twice, right?

SHEARER: Yes, I was that stupid.

BECK: But you were so stupid...

SHEARER: I went back.

BECK: No, but you went, in 1979, weren`t you known as -- I mean, you never replace the guy who replaces the guy, you know what I mean? You don`t want to replace Bill Murray or Dan Aykroyd.

SHEARER: I just replaced Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi, that`s all.

BECK: That`s it.

SHEARER: That`s all.

BECK: I mean, that`s suicide.

SHEARER: Yes, it was suicide.

BECK: And then you went back...

SHEARER: With Christopher, after "Spinal Tap" came out, they said, "Oh, it`s going to be so different."

BECK: Nightmare?

SHEARER: Two nightmares, horrible nightmare. Just, you know, you ever had a bad boss?

BECK: Yes.

SHEARER: Yes.

BECK: That`s it?

SHEARER: Yes.

BECK: And you actually found trouble making fun of Tom Brokaw in one of those experiences, didn`t you?

SHEARER: Well, not trouble, but I was playing -- I wrote a sketch with Marty Short, where I was Tom Brokaw going into the office of the head of NBC News complaining about the writers "putting too many L`s in the copy. I mean, why do we have to say `liftoff"`? Why do I have to say `lunar` or `lander`? Why cannot be just say `blastoff`? And not even `blastoff,` just, `took-off`?"

And we heard, you know, Tom was on another floor of the building watching the feed of the rehearsal and was not pleased. But that wasn`t trouble. It was just amusing. I kind of like it when they show the pain, you know?

BECK: Yes.

SHEARER: What I resent is, when you make fun of somebody, you go to the trouble of making fun of somebody, Glenn, and they act like a good sport about it, you know?

BECK: Right. And you hate that.

SHEARER: I hate that.

BECK: I know. Listen, we`re out of time, but we want to have you for our podcast.

SHEARER: Cool.

BECK: I want to talk to you about "The Simpsons" and stuff. The movie that`s coming out is "For your Consideration," opens select theaters November 17th. Trust me, don`t miss it.

SHEARER: And I did the selecting.

BECK: Did you?

SHEARER: Oh, yes, each one.

BECK: Omaha, Nebraska, number one.

SHEARER: Give me that one!

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Hello, friends. Doesn`t it feel good that the political nonsense of the election is almost behind us? The effects, clearly, are going to resonate for approximately a trillion years, but as far as the actual election, there are only a few more days of reaction until my mind completely turns it off.

Actually, tomorrow on the radio show, we`re doing a politics-free Friday. And I don`t care who you call me up and talk about, as long as they don`t have an "R," a "D," or an "I" after their name. But until then, we have Daniel from Utah who sent in this video mail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIEL FROM UTAH: Isn`t that a beautiful shirt? Hey, Glenn, how is it going? I went in and voted tonight. And because I`m registered already, I didn`t have to show any kind of identification, just had to sign my name and go in.

Now, I have a big problem with this, because the average Joe could walk in there, sign my name, and cast my ballot for me. I want to have to prove that I am who I say I am. I want to have to show my driver`s license or my Social Security card. And I don`t know who I can talk to, to make a difference, so I`m talking to you. Thanks, Glenn. I hope you can do something.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: How dare you even ask me that? If you had to bring some sort of official identification to the polls, how exactly would illegal aliens be able to vote? How would convicted felons vote? How exactly would the people who are just like you and me, but happened to just pass away a decade or so ago, get into the voting booth? The answer is: They wouldn`t, and that`s obviously your plan, to disenfranchise those people who don`t fit your profile of "legal registered voter" or "non-deceased person," you evil hatemonger. But thanks for your video mail anyway.

And you can submit your own at CNN.com/Glenn.

Now, before we go, let me take one minute to talk to you about something that is thankfully much more a higher priority than politics. Every year, I do a fundraiser for the USO New York. And our radio audience has donated over $1.1 million, and I hope you don`t mind helping me increase that number.

Right now, you can make a donation of any size to the USO just by calling 800-457-4292. It is literally the easiest job I have every year. Whether you agree or disagree with the war or how we`re fighting it, these guys are risking their lives for us. The least we can do is take care of them when they come home, and that is exactly what the USO does.

So, please, just take a couple of minutes, give a few bucks. The number again is 800-457-4292. If you missed it, all of the information is on the front page of glennbeck.com. Please call them now.

We`ll see you tomorrow. Also, Danny Bonaduce, if he makes the plane, will be here tomorrow night, you sick freak.

END