Return to Transcripts main page


Governor Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring; Bill Clinton Stock Deal Questioned; California Coming Down on Homeschooling Parents; Harvard Restricts Gym Hours to Accommodate Muslims

Aired March 10, 2008 - 19:00:00   ET


GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight a political bomb shell. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer linked to a high-profile prostitution ring. Details next.


BECK: Well, hello America. I mean, just when you thought it couldn`t become more nuts, here it is.

According to "The New York Times," which gave me pause, and I went, `Oh, it`s got to be wrong," but he came out and admitted it, New York state Governor Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior staffers about his involvement with a prostitution ring. Apparently, he`s -- he`s known as client No. 9. I`m not kidding.

Here`s "The Point" tonight. People in glass houses shouldn`t really throw stones, with prostitutes or at prostitutes. First, let`s start with the videotape.


GOV. ELIOT SPITZER (D), NEW YORK: I`ve acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and that violates my or any sense of right and wrong. I apologize, first and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better.

I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the state of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.

I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.


BECK: I think it would be a long time before my wife would trust me again. I`m just saying.

OK. Here`s a guy who went after prostitution rings. He went after the mob, giant corporations, government officials and Wall Street. This guy has more enemies that you could possibly imagine. How did he ever expect to get away with it?

Here`s what you need to know tonight, America. You can`t expect to get away with something like this. It`s insanity.

Jonathan Martin is a senior political writer at the Politico. And John Fund, editorial writer with the "Wall Street Journal." Both of them have been following this story today.

Guys, am I the only one that has seen a mob movie, where somebody like this starts going after the mob or giant corporations, and they say, "I want him. I want something on this guy"? How did he expect to be going after the biggest forces in New York and then make it with prostitutes without anybody finding out?

JOHN FUND, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, Glenn, it would be one thing if most of Eliot Spitzer`s obsessions and convictions panned out, but a lot of them didn`t. I mean, he would go to companies, and often there would be problems in the companies. But instead of trying to work it out with them, he would say, "Well, I want your senior management removed. And I want you to do this, and I want you to cough up $600 million here for some trust fund. And if you don`t do that, I`m going to basically shut you down."

And it was strong-arm tactics. He basically has called himself a blanking steam roller on several occasions. Some of his crusades worked out. A lot of them didn`t. And he collected enemies who legitimately felt that he had violated the terms of his oath of office as attorney general, because he had basically redefined that his job as that of a social crusader and not a law enforcement officer.

BECK: But guys, I mean, when he was elected, people liked him. The average person said...

FUND: The Sheriff of Wall Street, sure.

BECK: Yes.

JONATHAN MARTIN, THE POLITICO: Glenn, it`s the age-old lesson of scandals, sex or otherwise. And that is, these folks always think that they`re not going to get caught. And they always tend to get caught. I

And you know, it was really reckless on the part of Spitzer. Apparently, he had this liaison here in Washington, D.C. It may have been at a very prominent hotel in Washington, D.C. Eliot Spitzer is a very, very well-known politician. And in the nation`s capitol, to be doing that is just so reckless.

And again, I think it that underscores the fact that, when you do have enemies, Glenn, like you were saying, to do something like this, you`re asking for it.

BECK: Oh, yes. I mean, you`re so out of control at that point. I mean, you`re stupid to do it in the first place. You`re not a good guy to do it. But then you`re just arrogant to think that you can get away with it.

Let me ask both of you guys, are you both married?

MARTIN: I`m not.

FUND: I`m not.

BECK: You have steady significant others?

FUND: Yes.

BECK: OK. Jonathan, no?

MARTIN: I have. I can appreciate what you`re going to say.

BECK: You know, you`ve got the digits you want to throw out, whatever. Here`s the thing: in your wildest dreams, would anyone in your life accept this kind of behavior? And why is it that politicians` wives, every single time, stand by their men?

FUND: Because some political spouses -- and I don`t want to speculate on this particular case -- some political spouses realize this is a very rough and tumble business. You`re in it as part of a career, his career or her career, and you basically go with the flow. So it`s part of the implied thing. If things are troubled, you basically stand with the person.

What happens behind the scenes, as we`ve learned in recent years, may be something completely different. But the implication, the implied understanding is you stand by them in public.

BECK: OK. Hang on. Jonathan, don`t you -- I have a theory, and I said this the first day that Bill Clinton said, "All right, I did, I did it, I did it." And I thought to myself, if she -- she wouldn`t go throw his clothes out on the White House lawn, but if she would have held a press conference and said, "I respect him as the president of the United States and his policies, but I do not respect the man, and no one should ever be treated like this"...

MARTIN: Right.

BECK: ... she would -- she`d be sitting in the Oval Office today. Don`t you think it is -- someone needs to send a signal to wives all around America that you don`t let a scum-bag guy treat you like this?

MARTIN: Well, Glenn, let`s be honest. It`s not just politics. There are a lot of women out there who do stand by their man when these things happen for a variety of reasons. Now I think that John is on to something that, in politics, there is something unique about some of these power couples and, obviously, there is a mutual interest in some cases. But this is not just limited to the world of politics.

But also I think that it`s worth sort of seeing how this thing plays out and whether or not they`ll stay together.

BECK: Your guess that he survives or is destroyed by this?

MARTIN: Well, I think it`s going to be very tough for him to hang on the there is some kind of law enforcement element, if he is facing charges. If that`s the case, very tough for him to hang on.

BECK: John, I think, you know, Clinton can survive, Giuliani can survive with this kind of stuff -- I mean, they didn`t do this. But you know, this kind of stuff, they can -- they can have these skeletons in the closet, but this is why Obama will go down, if he`s ever connected to anything nefarious or underhanded. Because people who say, "I`m straight. I`m clean," and then they`re not, you`re over.

MARTIN: Hypocrisy, yes.

FUND: You`re right. And you know, you have to understand, these are -- New York is a rough-and-tumble political place. And Eliot Spitzer stepped on enough toes there was no floor of political support, so he fell all the way to the basement.

BECK: Yes. Jonathan, John, thanks.

Now, when it comes to unethical politicians, we`ve got plenty. I`m all full up. Thank you. No more. Some actually want to go back and spend more time in the White House.

Back in 2004, if I may switch gears with you for a second, potential first husband Bill Clinton spoke at a corporate event and received his fee in stock options. Cool.

Then, it`s come out now, that he parlayed those options into a $700,000 payday for his foundation. Again, cool. God bless America.

What`s the big deal? Well, it seems that he took his stocks, which he got $3.50 a share for, and everybody else sold it, and they got about 60 cents a share. Now, either something shady is going on or I need to get in touch with Clinton`s stock broker.

Andrew Zajac is the national correspondent for "The Chicago Tribune," Andrew.


BECK: How are you, sir?

ZAJAC: Good.

BECK: This company that he did work for, he gave a speech for and got all this stock, it`s called Accoona, everybody else was selling their -- their shares for about 60 cents. How did he do this and make money?

ZAJAC: It`s not clear. It`s actually not clear how many other people tried to sell shares. This is -- Accoona is privately held. There is no market for this stock.

Bill Clinton was paid in options after making a speech in 2004 in an Accoona launch party, launching an Internet search engine, which was the main product of the company at the time. And he sold those shares for -- he got 200,000 shares and sold them for $700,000 some time in 2006. His foundation did, I should say.

BECK: OK. And Garry Kasparov off also got a similar deal, but he couldn`t make the $3.50, right?

ZAJAC: That`s right. His agent told me that Kasparov off also was hired to do promotional work. Kasparov, the former world chess champion and himself candidate for the presidency of Russia. Kasparov was paid in options and some time in the last year he talked to his financial advisors, and they said that at $1.00 a share, which was his strike price, he wasn`t going to make money. That the share -- the stock was worth less than $1.00 a share.

BECK: Nobody is charging here that he`s doing anything illegal, but it is -- it`s the look of the whole thing.

First of all, you`ve got -- China is one of the main backers. Who would have seen a connection with Bill Clinton and the Chinese government? And then the co-founder is a -- is a convicted felon.

ZAJAC: That`s right.

BECK: May I ask you -- may I ask you the question, is there anyone that does a background check in the Clinton camp that finds these convicted felons? Because they seem to be hanging out with a lot of them by mistake.

ZAJAC: Well, I don`t want to speak for the Clinton operation. But previously, Clinton`s representatives have said that he does many, many, many, many engagements. And it`s impossible to vet everybody thoroughly.

BECK: Are we -- are we expected to believe -- did they say that with a straight face?

ZAJAC: That`s their answer. I`m not in the business of assessing that. I mean...

BECK: I mean, look, here is the problem with this. When I go to any kind of thing out in public, because I`m an alcohol, and I don`t ever want to -- anybody to ever have a photograph with me saying, "Oh, look, I wonder what`s in that drink," I always drink out of a water bottle, always drink out of -- because it is the appearance. It`s not the crime. It`s the appearance.

There are so many things here that they -- that the appearance is just really bad. At any time is this going to affect them?

ZAJAC: Certainly, Barack Obama has tried to make an issue of the lack of disclosure on the part of the Clinton family, both on the personal income side, with income tax returns, and also on the foundation side, the Clinton Foundation side, because the Clinton Foundation does not disclose its donors. It`s not required to by law. And they have chosen to this point to not disclose.

BECK: All right. Andrew, thanks.

Coming up, the liberal media life cycle. We`ll examine how they not only dictate what is reported, but how it`s reported. From fiction to fact in tonight`s "Real Story."

And the great state of California has decided that it is OK to criminally prosecute parents who dare choose to homeschool their kids. You`ve got to be kidding me. Wait until you see this.


BECK: Well, the exceptions being few and far between, I`m proud to say right here, brother, the liberal slant in the media is how news is reported and sometimes created. It`s a liberal life cycle, in fact, and we will expose all of it in a story you do not want to miss, tonight`s "Real Story".

But first, in case you`ve forgotten, California is still the craziest state in the union. And here is yet another example. According to the "San Francisco Chronicle," the California court -- courts have ruled, quote, "Parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children." Really? They can be criminally prosecuted for doing so.

California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at the home, which is perfect if you`re in a union. That, quite frankly, is nuts.

It would be a lot easier to understand the philosophy if the public school system, and not just in California, but everywhere, wasn`t a total mess. In my humble opinion, most schools aren`t safe. Ask any parent who has lost a child to one of these all-too-common school shootings. Most schools have no plan, as we have shown here on this program, to safeguard children in the event of a 9/11-style emergency. Illegal drugs are as available in drugs as are legal condoms, and I don`t want my kids around either of those.

There`s unhealthy peer pressure, teachers having sex with students and public school teachers protected by an insane tenure system that only Stalin could have come up with, that places their job security above my kid`s education. On that, our kids are just good.

And by the way, I`d like to remind the state, my children are just that, my children. And the government should mind their own business when it comes to my decision on how to educate my children.

California, remember this, read the Constitution. God gives me my rights and my children. My right to raise my children in my home as I see fit. Mind your own damn business. Get away from my thermometer and get away from my kids.

Martin Forte is the co-founder of the California Homeschool Network. And Debbie Schwarzer is the legal co-chair of the Homeschool Association of California.

Debbie, how the heck did this even happen?

DEBBIE SCHWARZER, LEGAL CO-CHAIR, HOMESCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA: Well, you know Glenn, it was under the radar for all of our groups, because it came up as a dependency case, not as a homeschool case. And so none -- so because those cases are all kept confidential, we didn`t hear about it. And it came up because it`s an unfortunate set of facts. We`re getting a case of bad facts made bad law.

This -- this family made the court mad. It made the court mad, because they didn`t help the court figure out what to do in the allegations dealing with their children. And so, because the court was mad, instead of reaching a decision that affected two children, they were going to make an example. And they tried to outlaw what 166,000 children are doing.

BECK: I`ve got to tell you, first of all, Martin help me out on this one. I mean, I can tell you -- I can go to a crowd and I can meet a bunch of people with their children, and I can tell you the ones that are homeschooled. They`re different. They outperform their -- in their test scores. They outperform in college. They outperform in the workplace.

Why exactly do I need the state of California to help me when it seems like homeschooled children do better almost in every case?

MARTIN FORTE, CALIFORNIA HOMESCHOOL NETWORK: Well, they do very much better in almost all cases as a general population. And we`re not advocating that homeschools is the universal answer. But for those families who want to homeschool, they can be given the privilege and the right. Students who are properly homeschooled tend to do very much better, as you have indicated already.

BECK: I mean, look, they could be nothing worse than homeschooling your kid if you don`t want to do it. But if you want to do it, there couldn`t be anything better for your kid, especially in today`s society.

Debbie, I`ve got a lot of calls on the radio program today from people saying, "Glenn, does this affect us in New Jersey, because we`re a liberal state? Does this affect us?" Does this have ramifications if it`s allowed to stand, other than giving dumb states bad ideas?

SCHWARZER: Well, you know, Glenn, most of the states in the country have already addressed homeschooling as a statutory matter head on. They have laws that explicitly talk about homeschooling. There are about 15 states that don`t. And the only possible states that this could affect would be the ones that regulate homeschooling the way California does, which is not at all, which means we`re treated as private schools.

And is it possible that a court in those states could look at what California has done? Sure. Is it likely? Regulation of education is at the state level. And states are real clear about that.

BECK: You know, Martin, I have to tell you, the reason why a lot of people homeschool is -- I mean, I homeschool. I don`t want to homeschool. My wife doesn`t really want to homeschool. We didn`t -- you know, we didn`t grow up and say, yes, if we could just be around our kids 24-7, it would be sweet.

We do it because the things that are being taught in school and the blurring of right and wrong, we can`t tolerate it anymore in our family. We don`t want our children in that atmosphere. That`s my choice.

At what point does the state come in and start taking away yet more rights from us, where people just say enough is enough?

FORTE; Well, what I`d like to see happen, first of all, is that the state take care of their own school system first and let the families who choose to homeschool their children go ahead and do it. The statistics favor homeschool results. We outperform. We outdo the normal classroom kids in the job, in the military. And we just need to keep that right.

The state has an interest in the general welfare, but the general welfare can be successfully addressed by the homeschool community.

BECK: OK. Debbie and Martin, thank you very much.

Now coming up, political correctness invades Harvard`s campus, restricting gym hours for men to accommodate Muslim women. We have the story next.

And are we headed towards an economic disaster? We have the signs that you should be looking out for with one very credible source. Coming up in just a bit.


BECK: The Associated Press is reporting that Harvard University has banned men from one of its gyms for a few hours a week to accommodate Muslim women, who say it offends their sense of modesty to exercise in front of the opposite sex.

It`s called Curves.

Not only does this policy discriminate against male students but male staffers, as well. During the hours, the gym has to be staffed by women only. Can you imagine anyone doing that if it was a sect of Seventh Day Christian Science Evangelical Lutherans? Never.

Irshad Manji is the director of the Moral Courage Project at New York University and author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim`s Call for Reform in Her Own Faith."

Irshad, so good to see you.


BECK: This is not -- this -- I mean, this should be left to the capitalist system.

MANJI: Look, Glenn, this episode at Harvard is actually emblematic of a bigger challenge that all democratic societies are facing today. And it can be summed up in one question: can open societies produce pluralists, people who appreciate multiple perspectives and truths, without producing relativists, people who will fall for anything if they stand for nothing?

And here`s the thing, Glenn. Both progressives and conservatives need to play a role in answering that question. Progressives at Harvard, for example, need to understand that Harvard has already accommodated Muslim students by designating special spaces in which they can pray uninhibited. So it`s not like Harvard needs to go further out of its way in order to prove that it`s not a bigoted institution.

But Glenn, conservatives also need to take some responsibility here. Because they`ve helped create an entitlement mentality among people at faith, because they`ve been pushing religion into the public square and into public policy so hard that all people of faith, not just Christians, Muslims now, too, begin to feel that they`re owed more and more. And you know what? We all have a possibility to share here.

BECK: I`m a conservative.

MANJI: Yes, you are.

BECK: But I don`t need -- I don`t need a crucifix anywhere. I don`t need a special room anywhere. I just want to be left alone.

MANJI: Right.

BECK: I don`t need, as there are now in some airports and some universities, at taxpayer dollars, foot baths.

MANJI: Yes. Right. And here is my position on all of this, which is quite frankly, because I`m a pluralist, not a relativist, I believe in as many choices as possible for as many people as possible.

So when a Jewish student genuinely feels like she can`t take a test on her Sabbath, her decision to reschedule that test doesn`t stop other students from taking the test at the appointed time.

BECK: Exactly.

MANJI: But when, of course, Muslim women say that, you know, they can`t work out in front of men, that, as you point out, displaces a whole group of people, especially -- especially when they have paid full membership fees to go to that gym. So it is about choice without impinging on other people, even as you try to accommodate a group.

BECK: You don`t -- you want to go, and you think that there`s a market for a Muslim-only gym, or a women`s-only gym, then go through the capitalist system and build one.

MANJI: Or -- or go to your mosque, your place of worship, and have them build, you know, a gym for you.

BECK: What kills me -- 30 seconds -- what kills me is isn`t this teaching sexism? Isn`t this Harvard reinforcing sexism? Isn`t your university, NYU, who is now building a campus in Abu Dhabi, enforcing all the things that they teach against?

MANJI: Simply by building a campus in Abu Dhabi, come on, Glenn. That is not, you know -- and that is building bridges, my friend, OK? But you`re -- but you`re absolutely right, you know, that we do have to again make that distinction between pluralism, which you and I very much embrace, and relativism.

BECK: OK. Got to run.

MANJI: Fall for anything because you stand for nothing.

BECK: Got it. Back in a minute.


BECK: Well, if you know anything at all about me, you know I`m a fan of 12-step programs. Use them a lot. Tonight I`m going to share one with you. It`s the 12 steps to economic disaster. We have some news on this front coming up in just a second.

But first, welcome to the "Real Story."

Now, instead of me just telling you yet another example of how liberal blogs and most of the mainstream media could just care less about the truth, so long as the lie fits their agenda, tonight I want to show it to you. This latest example starts out last Tuesday night during my live Texas-Ohio election coverage.

I was speaking with evangelical pastor John Hagee. We were headed on into a break. And I asked the self-professed end of days expert about the fact that some of the "Book of Revelation" crazies out there actually believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist.

Here it is.


BECK: Let me ask you -- and this is -- because I got -- I get so much e-mail on this, and I think a lot of people do. And I`ve only got a couple of seconds. And they say, Glenn, you in the media, you`ve got to wake up. Barack Obama is making people faint and cry and everything else, and he`s drawing people in. And there are people -- and they said this about Bill Clinton -- that actually believe he might be the Antichrist.

Odds that Barack Obama is the Antichrist?


BECK: No chance.

HAGEE: He has a lot of charisma. There`s a media love affair with him right now. He is a very formidable political person.

BECK: All right. Pastor...

HAGEE: But I believe the best leader for America in the future is John McCain.

BECK: Thank you very much, Pastor.

Back in just a second.

That`s good news. At least where I stand. Good news.


BECK: Well, it was good to know that Barack Obama is not the Antichrist. Welcome back to the program.

OK. Hopefully you noticed a few things about the clip. First, the entire premise of my question was that people e-mail this nonsense to me.

It`s no different than, you know, having President Bush on and saying, hey, Mr. President, I get a lot of e-mail by people who say the World Trade Center was brought down by our own government. Odds that that happened?

That`s not me being a 9/11 conspiracy nut job. That`s me giving someone on the right an opportunity to reach out and build bridges to the people who normally disagree with them and say, hey, look on this bridge, look at all the nut jobs underneath.

The second thing hopefully you noticed was that I was laughing almost all the way through this exchange. It`s called a joke, defined at the dictionary as, "Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement." But who needs dictionaries. You know, who needs context when you`ve got an election to win and an agenda to promote.

So, let`s watch the liberal media now go to work on what you just saw.

Step one is a liberal blogger becomes outraged at my comment. He then transcribes them and then sends them to a liberal Web site which, despite the eight research directors and associates listed on their site, immediately post an alert that conveniently leaves out any mention of the question`s setup or of the context.

"Today on his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck asked Pastor John Hagee whether Senator Barack Obama is the embodiment of evil."

Wow. That`s funny. We just watched the whole video there, and I didn`t hear the words "embodiment of evil." Did you? Nowhere in there. But that doesn`t matter, because once a liberal blog posts something, it`s a fact to the zombies.

Step two: The story is then leaked by the liberal blogger to a liberal Web site and it`s picked up by a bigger liberal Web site, and this one only took about one day for the blog Media Matters to put their own spin on the story. Here it is.

"Beck failed to ask Hagee about controversial statements. Instead asked him if Obama might be the Antichrist."

So now, not only did I not, you know, directly ask them about the Catholic Church and anything like that, I just asked Obama if -- you know, about Obama to see if he was the Antichrist. This is an accusation that is not only asinine, but it is also completely false.

May I present the evidence, your honor -- the very first question.


BECK: Let me get just get this right out on the table, Pastor. You`ve had some problem with the Catholics this week, and now it looks like John McCain, who you`ve endorsed, may be distancing himself.

Can you explain what happened this week and what your stance is with Catholicism?


BECK: Wow. Well, I guess I didn`t use the, you know, exact comments that Hagee posted earlier, you know, in asking the question like I guess the blogs wanted me to. But then I know that the blogs instead would have said, "Beck repeats Hagee`s outrageous claims about the Catholic Church." And I only know that because that`s exactly what they`ve done to me in the past.

Step three: Now it`s time to take the leap from the liberal blogs to the mainstream media. Most people have known now for a while that Media Matters Web site I believe feeds directly into Keith Olbermann`s teleprompter. I`m not sure, but I think then he just reads it like a Disney animatronics robot. But if you ever doubted the connection, take a look at his "Worst Person in the World" segment from the night of the Media Matters alert.


KEITH OLBERMANN, MSNBC: The bronze to Glenn Beck, asking his guest, John McCain`s pro-apocalypse televangelist, John Hagee, "They say, Glenn, you in the media, you`ve got to wake up. Barack Obama is making people faint and cry and everything else. And he`s drawing people in. There are people -- and they said this about Bill Clinton -- that actually believe he might be the Antichrist. Odds that Barack Obama is the Antichrist?"

Why do you ask, Glenn? Worried about somebody giving you competition?


BECK: Notice how he never actually played the video of me asking the question. Isn`t that weird? I mean, Christ, that would have required some actual journalism and would have proven that the whole thing was done in jest. But it`s much easier just to use the transcript using a funny voice. You know, something that I`m sure that Olbermann`s hero, Edward R. Murrow, would approve of.

Did I just do it again? I just used sarcasm. I am so sorry.

So I could clarify for the blogs, Edward R. Murrow would have despised Keith Olbermann. Clear enough?

Step four: Is the classic technique where you report on how someone did a story about your report. The day after the Olbermann segment ran, Media Matters then issued another alert. "O`Reilly, Beck receive honors in Olbermann`s `Worst Person` segment."

Now, you might think that reporting on your own report might be the last step. But then you`ve forgotten about the biggest liberal blog of them all called "The New York Times."

They ran an editorial in yesterday`s paper, the Sunday edition, about Obama. And you guessed it, they used my supposed question as evidence of how pervasive the hate has become.

"Obama and the Bigots." God, now I`m a bigot. "The rumors circulate enough that Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Reverend John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist. These charges are fanatical, America`s own equivalent of the vicious accusations about Jews that circulate in some Muslim countries."

Great. So now I`m being tied to Middle East propaganda about Jews eating Arab children.

As I look at it on the plus side, this may be the first time "The New York Times" has ever reported that there is propaganda against Jews in the Middle East. So that`s on our favor.

The worst part about all of this is that no one is less surprised than I am. I`ve been predicting for months that a mere mention of Obama will have conservatives branded as racist and bigots, and I predicted the whole Antichrist controversy on my radio program less than two weeks before it happened.

Listen to this.


BECK: By the way, this is all going to be transcribed by Media Matters today as a completely dead serious conversation.


BECK: It`s going to be great. There are going to be media alerts -- "Glenn Beck announces Obama is the Antichrist." You watch. It`s going to be everywhere.


BECK: And now it is everywhere. And to people who -- that rely on the liberal hacks who are disguised as journalists for their news, it has become the truth. And that`s the problem.

Well, it`s easy to blame these blogs and television hosts and everybody else. Maybe the real question that we should be asking is, what does all of this say about us? What does this say about the willingness of progressives to think for themselves?

It`s one thing for the blogs to lie. It`s quite another for them to know that they`ll never be caught or held responsible.

Noel Sheppard is the associate editor of, a conservative watchdog of the liberal blogs.

Noel, you apparently did a Google search on this story. How out there is my bigotry?

NOEL SHEPPARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, NEWSBUSTERS.ORG: Well, I Googled "Glenn Beck," "Obama" and "Antichrist," and I got 744,000 hits. Now, that doesn`t mean that there`s been 744,000 articles already written about this. That`s a little bit nuts.

BECK: Yes.

SHEPPARD: But it is somewhat disturbing to imagine that many Google hits...

BECK: Right.

SHEPPARD: ... incorporating your name, Obama and the Antichrist.

BECK: Right.

SHEPPARD: How does it feel to be a bigot? It`s amazing.

BECK: It feels pretty predictable. It feels pretty -- I`m used to being a conservative.

SHEPPARD: Well, and the beauty is you did predict it.

BECK: Yes, I know.

SHEPPARD: So that`s what`s wonderful about all of this.

BECK: So you also looked at the word count. And I find this incredibly fascinating. Tell me about the word count.

SHEPPARD: Yes. I mean, basically what happened to you, Glenn, is you got cherry picked. And what that means is the question that you asked Pastor Hagee had a total of 80 words in it.

Well, what Think Progress did is they transcribed 21 words. And what`s interesting is they even missed a couple of important words in the little snippet that they took, if I can share with you.

BECK: Wow. Yes.

SHEPPARD: You had said, "There are people -- and they said this about Bill Clinton -- that actually believe he might be the Antichrist."

BECK: Right.

SHEPPARD: Well, they transcribed that as, "There are people -- they say about Bill Clinton he might be the Antichrist."

BECK: Yes. Well...

SHEPPARD: So they took out "that actually believe," which radically changes the whole context of the joke you were making.

BECK: No. No. Please.

Media Matters -- let me -- let me switch gears here. I don`t know if you`ve ever heard that Hillary Clinton helped start Media Matters. And I don`t want to just throw things out higgily-piggily. I happen to have a pretty good source on this one.

Could you roll the tape please?


SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Institutions that I helped to start and support, like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.


BECK: All right. They deny that she had anything to do with Hillary Clinton -- or that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with Media Matters.

Do I have that one right? That she`s claiming she helped but they`re saying, hey, there`s no connection here?

SHEPPARD: Yes. I mean, where that occurred was on August 4th of last year at the YearlyKos Convention in, I believe, Chicago. And she was speaking in front of all these "progressives," which is code for extreme liberals. And she bragged about the fact that she had helped create the Center for American Progress and Media Matters. And basically the context there is she was talking about how the left is doing a better job of countering the "conservative media."

BECK: Yes. I know, that kills me every time.


BECK: Noel, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

I just want to make this one thing very, very clear. The right, they have blogs that do the same kind of things. The difference is conservative bloggers are never quoted in "The New York Times" as fact.

I`m just saying.

That`s the "Real Story" tonight. For a link to the video of tonight`s liberal bias "Real Story," sign up for my free e-mail newsletter at We`ll put a link to it in tomorrow`s editions.

Coming up, we have financial prosperity. People are saying, oh, no, it looks like everything is great. What recession? Really? Are we steering towards a financial disaster?

Find out in just a second.


BECK: A couple of weeks ago I wrote a column for, something called "The DEFCONOMY Scale." It is like DEFCON scale that we use as we prepare for war, except this one counts down to financial Armageddon. The closer you get to DEFCON 1, the closer you`re getting to the next Great Depression.

I based the article off a column called "The 12 Steps to Financial Disaster." That is a must read. It`s written by noted economic Nouriel Roubini. At the time, Professor Roubini told me that he saw us heading into a prolonged recession but no worse. Now we have more horrible reports on jobs, housing, oil, credit, inflation.

I`m curious if he feels the same way.

Nouriel Roubini is a professor of economics at the Stern School of Business in New York University, chairman of

Professor, thank you so much for coming in.


BECK: Better, worse or about the same?

ROUBINI: Much worse. The situation, first, for the economy is getting worse. We entered a recession sometime this year. And this session is not going to be short and shallow, it`s going to last at least four quarters, maybe six.

It`s going to be much more severe than the previous ones. And the (INAUDIBLE) financial market is getting worse every day.

BECK: You actually say this is going to be the worst recession outside of the Great Depression. Is that accurate?

ROUBINI: Yes. It`s going to be the worst recession the United States has had in at least, you know, 30 years, probably as bad as, you know, the last 50 years.

BECK: OK. So it`s at least the 1970s, early 1980s that we`re going to be facing?

ROUBINI: Yes, absolutely.

BECK: OK. Is there -- is there anything -- you just got back from Abu Dhabi and all over the Middle East. Is there anything that you`re hearing -- are you hearing from -- for instance, Abu Dhabi wanted to help bail out Citibank. Are they still as eager to help us out? Are they backing off? Are they as concerned as we are, or more concerned?

ROUBINI: They`re actually very concerned, because the sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf and also in Asia, they`ve already put something like $100 billion into the U.S. banks...

BECK: Right.

ROUBINI: ... and financial institutions to recapitalize them. But now they`re seeing increasing losses. And in their region they were saying Citigroup alone might have another $20 billion need for capitalization given their expected losses, let alone all the other financial institutions. So they`re starting to wonder, does it make sense for us trying to bail out the U.S. financial system.

BECK: Right. If Abu Dhabi is thinking that, who has the pockets deep enough to bail us out?

ROUBINI: Unfortunately, we`re in a situation which today no domestic financial institution has enough money to recapitalize the U.S. banks and financial institutions. So there are only foreign institutions. And those foreign institutions are also government-owned. These are the sovereign wealth funds.

BECK: Where do you see us on the 12 step -- you know, where do you see us in this? Twelve being total meltdown. Where are we, and are we going to get to total meltdown?

ROUBINI: We`re somewhere in the middle of that process. Certainly in the last few weeks the condition in the credit markets have become much worse. There is contagion from residential investment and mortgages, to commercial real estate, to consumer credit. Now there is trouble in auto loans and credit cards, with student loans.

BECK: Right.

ROUBINI: Even very, very safe agencies (ph) that until now was safe is now going into trouble. Even municipal bonds. So that`s really a scary situation.

BECK: I remember when we first started talking about the economy a year ago on this program, maybe a little longer than a year ago, I said, there`s real trouble on the horizon. Last August I started ringing the bell -- wake up.

Pariah. Nobody would back that up. They`d back it up in the hallways, but they`d come on the air and they`d never say it. Now everybody is saying "recession."

Is there anybody besides, you know, kooks or, you know, professors like you -- when does it start to get to the point to where the average person will admit on Wall Street and they will talk that we are in deep, deep trouble so the average person will recognize how much trouble we`re in?

ROUBINI: Well, we`re at the point in which as of last Friday, after this disastrous (INAUDIBLE) number, almost every bank on Wall Street now is saying we`re going to have a recession. Until last week they were saying maybe we`ll be able to avoid one. Now I think there`s a consensus. But again, they`re trying to minimize the problem.

They`re saying it`s going to last only six months and the economy is going to recover by the middle of the year, with the Fed easing. But we have massive credit problems in the economy, and they`re spreading from the housing sector, to commercial real estate, the corporate sector, to the financial system. So this is something severe.

BECK: Thank you very much, Professor.

We`ll be back in a minute.


BECK: Well, the big story of the night is Eliot Spitzer, the governor of New York who is reportedly under investigation for meeting with a prostitute. It seems to be a problem for some people. I don`t get it.

One of them, you`d assume, would be his wife. But she was standing by his side when he gave this statement earlier today...


GOV. ELIOT SPITZER (D), NEW YORK: Good afternoon.

Over the past nine years, eight years as attorney general and one as governor, I`ve tried to uphold a vision of progressive politics that would rebuild New York and create opportunity for all. We sought to bring real change to New York, and that will continue.

Today, I want to briefly address a private matter. I`ve acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and that violates my or any sense of right or wrong.

I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better.

I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good, and doing what is best for the state of New York. But I disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.

I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much.


BECK: I`ve got a question for you, Eliot. When will one of these wives just walk away? When? When? When will one of them stand up for themselves?

Another question.

Governor, is there anything that a politician can do that would surprise America these days? These people are amazing.

Remember, Spitzer is famous for investigating everyone as attorney general. Even went after prostitution rings.

I guess it is important to remember how he got the job in the first place. If you want to take a quick jaunt back and look how Spitzer`s 2006 run for governor went, it`s inspirational. Make sure to notice his slogan at the end of this campaign ad.


NARRATOR: Remember New York, the New York that all roads led to, that luminous beacon of hope, that big brash promise of opportunity, the state that buzzed and hummed and churned and thrived, and shouted so loudly you could hear it all the way to L.A.? If you don`t remember that New York, don`t worry, he does.

Spitzer for governor.


BECK: Bring some passion back, buzzed and hummed.

By the way, we`ll include links to internal documents in the Spitzer case in tomorrow`s free e-mail newsletter. Sign up now at

From New York, goodnight America.