Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Can We Turn Back the Nuclear Clock?; Former "Apprentice" Contestant Runs for Office

Aired October 16, 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: Coming up, nukes. Who`s got them, who wants them and who`s going to launch them?
Plus did the Bush administration use evangelicals to gain power. A guy who would know is Attorney General John Ashcroft. He`ll be with us in just a few.

And our week-long series "Porn: America`s Addiction", begins tonight. That`s next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: China...

ANNOUNCER: ... and Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sleep tight, America.

ANNOUNCER: We`ve got your back, seriously.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, we mean it.

ANNOUNCER: You can trust us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We love America.

ANNOUNCER: Sort of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Over the weekend, the U.N. Security Council voted 15-0, including China and Russia, our good buddies, on a resolution punishing North Korea for its nuclear bomb test.

The resolution bans the sale of weapons and planes and tanks and other heavy artillery to North Korea, plus an inspection of cargo that leaves or enters the country.

Whew! I don`t know about you, but, wow, I feel so much better now that the U.N. is in charge.

And if that weren`t enough, Condoleezza Rice is heading over to Asia, where this week she will talk to our best new pals, the Chinese. Here is what she had to say about her upcoming trip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: The Iranian government is watching and it can now see that the international community will respond to threats from nuclear proliferation.

I expect the Security Council to begin work this week on an Iran sanctions resolution, so the Iranian government should consider the course that it is on, which could lead simply to further isolation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I mean, to me, that`s almost laughable. They are watching. And do you really think that they`re going to stop? Not the Iranians.

I`m so tired of the U.N. I`m tired of the politics of all the -- I`m tired really of everybody lying to themselves. Here is the point tonight.

The day that the North Koreans detonated their nuke, the world changed forever, just like it did on December 7, `41. But unlike that day of infamy, it will take a few years before anybody notices that the world changed. Here`s how I got there.

It is quite clear now that North Korea is that rogue state. They don`t care what anybody thinks. When they tested their nuke, it started a chain of events which got the clock ticking towards the first nuclear attack since Nagasaki.

According to a "New York Times" article yesterday, atomic officials estimate that as many as 40 more countries have the technical skill and, in some cases, the required material, to build a nuclear weapon, countries like Iran, Libya, Egypt, Syria, just to name a few.

In five to 10 years, we could be looking at a world where almost everybody has a bomb. When that happens, it would be impossible to contain the rogue states and the terrorists, because any terrorist who wants one can buy one if they have enough money.

That`s why it is so important to act before North Korea got the bomb. We blew it. Now I believe we`re in a position where we can only delay the inevitable.

This weekend, when I saw a former Clinton negotiator say something like the Clinton administration should get credit for delaying North Korea`s nuclear program I realized that, yes, they should. And, two, this could be as good as it possibly gets.

We have entered a new nuclear age. And these weapons will be part of the global landscape from here on out. If it`s now or a few years from now, there`s nothing we can do except delay the use of a nuclear weapon and wait for the shoe to drop.

In 1994, the Clinton administration tried to lure North Korea away from its nuclear program by offering them a water reactor in exchange for the halting of their nuclear program.

According to some people, the U.S. had no intention of ever fulfilling that end of the deal. They just figured that an unstable North Korean government would fall apart. They figured wrong. North Korea never fell apart, and they continued their program. Had we talked tough back then and backed it up, perhaps we wouldn`t have been in the dangerous situation that we`re in right now.

On the other hand, George Bush, I believe, talked too tough when he said a nuclear North Korea is not acceptable. He talked too tough because he couldn`t back that up with any sort of action. And now we`re headed towards a global nuclear arms race.

And it`s not going to be like the good old days in the Cold War where America and Russia had the capability but not the insane desire to end mankind. Nobody back then had a sincere death wish.

Unfortunately, you can`t say the same thing about some of the terrorists and the rogue states who might develop nuclear weapons a few years from now. If -- no, actually, sorry, when they get them, someone will use one.

So here`s what I know tonight. I know that we need to prepare for the worst mentally. It might not happen today. But in a few years, someone somewhere could wake up to a mushroom cloud.

On its web site Ready.gov, the U.S. government is telling us how to survive a nuclear attack, because you can survive them. But what is the first step in being prepared? Admitting that the world has changed, and it changed dramatically a week ago Sunday.

Here`s what I don`t know. Is there any way to reverse the clock? Can Superman fly really fast around the earth a bunch of times and turn back time? Or is our only choice now simply to slow the clock down and slow down the coming of the inevitable?

Jim Carafano, he is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Jim, where are we in the clock? Can we turn time backwards and stop it?

JIM CARAFANO, SENIOR FELLOW, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, Glenn, you know, I listened to your monologue. And I don`t want to say you`re wrong about everything, but the last time I was on your show you told me the world was going to come to an end.

BECK: Really?

CARAFANO: You were wrong about that one.

BECK: No, Jim, I don`t think I ever said that.

CARAFANO: Now...

BECK: But that was a nice try and good spin.

CARAFANO: No, I mean, you make a good point. I`ll tell you one thing.

BECK: Yes.

CARAFANO: We`ve actually done some war gaming on this and we said, "Well, what happens when one country gets nuclear weapons and then their neighbors are fearful and they start to get nuclear weapons.

BECK: Right.

CARAFANO: And so we`ve actually run scenarios in Northeast Asia and in the Middle East of what happens when Iran -- and then just domino.

And I`ll tell you, the shocking founding of the study was it`s a world you don`t want to live in, because what happens is -- is countries, you know, they`re dealing with multiple countries simultaneously, and they try to fix one problem and something else gets worse. And we played -- the first time we played the game, we played it five times, and we had nuclear war five times.

BECK: So, Jim, I`m wrong about everything but not wrong about this? Is that what you`re trying to...

CARAFANO: I mean, you`re right. That`s -- the world we don`t want to live in is a world with a lot of new nuclear powers, all of which are kind of independent.

You know, one thing is a new country with a nuclear weapon is like a teenager with a driver`s license. I mean, they feel empowered, and they can do anything, and then they start to make trouble. And what happens is you can very easily stumble into a war.

You know, the United States and the Soviet Union, I mean, we lived through this fear of the mushroom cloud really going off.

BECK: Sure.

CARAFANO: And it took years for the United States and the Soviet Union really to realize that nuclear weapons are only good for one thing, and that`s to deter somebody else from firing nuclear weapons.

BECK: OK, so again, Jim, what I`m asking you is -- we agree on this, then. What I`m asking you...

CARAFANO: Well, then, I`m not so sure I`m right. But go ahead.

BECK: North Korea, I don`t think, is the dangerous one here. They are the lesson giver. They`re the ones that are teaching people like Iran, you know what? The world isn`t really going to stop you. Look how tough they were on us. They`re not going to stop you. If you want one, you can get it.

Once they start to get it and other rogue states see it, it is only a matter of time before someone takes a nuclear weapon or is sold a nuclear weapon, and they drop it someplace or plant it someplace on the planet.

CARAFANO: Well, but, see, here`s the point, though. It`s how does the world react to that? If the United States continues to have a really robust nuclear deterrent, if we build missile defenses that take missiles off the table, if we work on this thing called the proliferation security initiative, which interdict people trying to smuggle nuclear weapons.

If we get countries to isolate and vilify countries the guys that get them, other countries may look at this and say, gee, not such a good deal. But look, lots of people got nuclear weapons. Did it ever solve anybody`s problems? Did it end the Cold War? No.

Did it end the controversy between Pakistan and India? No. Did it make Israel secure? No.

So you know, there`s a lesson to be learned here, and it`s how we treat these countries that go down this road.

BECK: All right. Again, you and I agree. I think we`re doing a horrible job on that. And one of the things I think is the biggest joke ever is the nuclear proliferation treaty. You could -- apparently you can sign that and then you can just back out any time you want. And you can sign it and lie, and there`s absolutely no repercussions on that.

CARAFANO: Well, the NP -- the nuclear proliferation treaty is great if you`re a country that doesn`t want nuclear weapons.

BECK: Yes, OK, great!

CARAFANO: But what`s really important is, you know -- and you`ve got to look at all the things -- it`s not just, well, this won`t stop them. It`s look at all the things together: deterrents, missile defenses, proliferation security initiatives, working with other countries to isolate them. That does mean something. It`s not just rhetoric.

BECK: But you need -- when you say, you know, let`s work with other countries, tell me those countries. The problem is, we don`t have a lot of willing partners. You know, I -- you might disagree with me, but I think China and Russia are a joke on this. If they wanted to stop it, they`re the ones to stop it.

CARAFANO: Well, see that`s where you`re wrong. And this was -- this was...

BECK: I knew it. It took a while, but I knew we`d get to it.

CARAFANO: This is the big news item that everybody missed. The Chinese told the North Koreans, don`t do missile tests this summer. They did then. The Chinese told the North Koreans don`t do a nuclear test. They did it. The North Koreans were sending a message to the Chinese just as much as they were sending it to us.

People think that China can just pull the strings and the North Korean puppet jumps. They`re wrong. So I think China is sitting there scratching their heads just as much as we are.

And if anything, every time North Korea gets more and more dangerous and they do some of these crazy things, the more and more they`re pushing other countries to cooperate with us to isolate them.

I mean, China I think, is looking at this just as troubled as other people but, you know...

BECK: OK. But, you know, you`re probably wrong. Thanks a lot.

Coming up, did the Bush administration use its evangelical base for political gain? I`ll ask former attorney general, John Ashcroft, in just a second.

And what about this election? Many in the GOP are gearing up for big losses but not the man they call Bush`s brain, Karl Rove. What does he know and when did he know it?

Also, the first installment of our series on the evils of porn. Don`t miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I don`t know about anybody else, but I go stay in the hotel. I turn on the TV and that thing goes, "I`ve got naked women right here, naked women, hello."

I -- it took everything in me to -- I`m watching war movies and I`ll hear, war movies? Why make war when you can make love?

It is so hard to stay away from it. It takes everything -- if I wasn`t a spiritual guy, oh, I`d be telling you about the evils of porn and I`d be surfing for porn right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: And I`m not kidding you. I would have 24/7 porn playing on the GPS screen in my car if I could. But that is exactly why we decided to do a series this week on something I really think is destroying a lot of lives in our country.

Our first segment is on the addiction of porn, and it is coming up in just a little while. Do not miss it, please.

But first, "60 Minutes" aired a segment last night in which former White House deputy director for faith-based initiatives, David Kuo, basically said that the administration is using evangelical Christians solely for political gain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You write in the book that in the White House staff, people roll their eyes at the evangelicals. They call them us nuts. They call them goofy. Is that really what the attitude was?

DAVID KUO, AUTHOR: Absolutely. You name the important Christian leader, and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places. The president of the United States promised that he would be the leading lobbyist on behalf of the poor. What better lobbyist could anybody get?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What happened?

KUO: The lobbyist didn`t follow through.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Such a slanted interview.

John Ashcroft, the attorney general of the United States during President Bush`s first term in office, a very important person. Did you happen to hear anyone mocked?

JOHN ASHCROFT, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, but I can`t say I wasn`t in all the meetings everyone else was. But mockery wasn`t part of what we were doing. We were pretty doing a lot of things, but mocking wasn`t part of it.

BECK: I mean, there, you know -- I don`t know if you address this in your new book, but I seem to remember that there were prayer meetings. There were Bible studies happening at the White House. It seems like -- and I mean, in every office there`s people who believe and people who don`t believe. But isn`t there a great deal of people who firmly believe in religion in the White House?

ASHCROFT: Well, I can`t speak for the White House. I can just tell you as the attorney general, I felt keenly my need for extra help. And the media got me in trouble, sort of took me to task for praying before the day and for inviting the presence and wisdom of God in what I did. And I can relate one little account.

I was with the president one time in Philadelphia. And we had spent some time working on crime issues. But before we left the city where we were going to drop by and see the leader of the Catholic Church -- I believe, Cardinal Bellavacqua, or Archbishop Bellavacqua. I hope -- I may have said the wrong designation.

BECK: Yes.

ASHCROFT: A person we greatly respected and admired.

And on the way over there, the president leaned over and says, "Hey, John, I hear that -- from the media that you occasionally have prayer in the Justice Department."

I said, "Well, before we go to work some days, like they do in the Senate and the House of Representatives, we just invite the presence of God." And I thought, boy, I`m getting in trouble now, because I`ve caused the president some...

BECK: Right.

ASHCROFT: And he just sort of looked at me and said, "Don`t stop, John."

BECK: Good for you.

ASHCROFT: So at least from that perspective, I -- I personally took that as a sincere expression on the part of the president that I could be who I thought I needed to be. And I was free, I guess just like the Supreme Court, which -- or the Congress that welcomes the presence of God and the wisdom of God in their proceedings, to do so in my own office.

BECK: Well, General, I mean, in your book "Never Again" you talk about how you don`t like people to impose their religion on others. It`s against the way you practice your religion.

But there`s a difference between that and God being a part of your life and your decision-making. I pray several times a day. Anytime I go out on stage or anything else, I always say a prayer for guidance.

Even our Founding Fathers. It`s in the Declaration of Independence. We rely on divine providence.

ASHCROFT: Yes.

BECK: How do you separate God from man and his decision-makings in government?

ASHCROFT: Well, you know, I think Ronald Reagan had the practical end of it. He said that as long as there are spelling tests, there will be God in the schools because people will pray for help.

And as long as their are challenges that exceed the capacity of human wisdom, people are going to ask the almighty for assistance and help. And I find that rather comforting.

BECK: Right.

ASHCROFT: And I don`t think that individuals, though, should impose what they believe on others because religion is -- or spirituality I might say instead of religion, is something of inspiration, not of imposition.

BECK: Are you -- are you ever amazed that people who are against religion who say, you know, these Christians are, you know, trying to impose their view on us? Are some of the same people that do not understand the threat that Islamic extremists pose, that that`s exactly what they want to do?

ASHCROFT: Well, there is a real contrast there. I mean, in a sense, those of us that believe that religion or spirituality is a thing of inspiration believe in exposing the potential of spirituality, and then people can evaluate it and embrace it if they choose to.

Those who decide that others will not embrace what they believe sometimes seek to extort adherence. And they do that by burning buildings and taking innocent people and incinerating them or tragically murdering them. We`re seeing a lot of that going on now. It`s religion by extortion and imposition. And there`s a vast difference.

BECK: Right.

ASHCROFT: The marketplace of ideas is the place of exposure, and the place of terrorism is the place of imposing or imposure.

BECK: Right, General, thank you so much for the service to your country and thanks for being a part of the program today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: What do an elephant and a mariachi band have to do with border security? I`m not really sure. But after getting fired by Donald Trump on the reality show "The Apprentice" two years ago, Raj Bhakta gave up his real estate and now is taking the same showmanship he had on the show to the political scene.

He`s now a congressional candidate in Pennsylvania, and our lack of border security is one of the main issues. He proved the point, apparently, last week by parading an elephant and a mariachi band along the Rio Grande.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJ BHAKTA (R), PENNSYLVANIA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: This is the state of U.S. border security. Here I am on the Rio Grande, having just come across on an elephant with a mariachi band playing. And there`s nobody here. Play on, boys!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Now, former "Apprentice" contestant and current Pennsylvania candidate Raj Bhakta.

Raj, how did this -- how did this idea come to you?

BHAKTA: Glenn, it came to me after watching a guy literally come under the official U.S./Mexico international bridge in Brownsville, Texas. I was there. The guy came right under the nose of U.S. security.

I figured if this guy can get across right here, only getting caught, in fact, as a result of having given him chase, you could probably get an elephant across. You could probably get an elephant and a mariachi band across. For that matter you could probably get Osama bin laden dressed as Osama bin Laden across.

BECK: Now, you actually chased the guy?

BHAKTA: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely.

BECK: Got to love that! Don`t think we have anybody else in Congress doing that.

BHAKTA: We need more people. People of action in Congress.

BECK: Do you think -- you`re a Republican?

BHAKTA: I am.

BECK: Do you think that the border issue the way it`s been handled by the Republicans is just going to end up being the death of them?

BHAKTA: Well, I think it`s clearly, sadly, political corruption on both sides. Overwhelmingly Republicans and Democrats agree that something needs to be done. You know this. But the Democrats are addicted to the notion that minority votes are Democratic votes and Republicans, due to the ties with small business, want to keep the border open for cheap labor.

But the tragedy here is that we`ve gone and spent nearly a trillion dollars in the name of national security, gone into Iraq, gone into Afghanistan, passed the Patriot Act, created the Homeland Security Department, untold treasure and lives and fortune, and I can carry on like this on the border, and people come across right under the bridge. It`s a joke.

BECK: All right. So, Raj, honestly, you know, I -- there`s -- I think we are facing some of the most critical elections of our country`s history in the next few elections. This -- this one coming up is very important. I`ve been on the radio program just saying, please look into all of these candidates to make sure that they`re not jokes. Here you are, a game show contestant. Tell me -- tell me your stance on Iran. What do you think of these guys?

BHAKTA: Clearly, I think nuclear proliferation is the biggest threat to civilization going forward. It needs to be the policy of the United States, with respect to Iran and North Korea, to bring the maximum -- maximum leverage possible upon them.

Now, the point here is I think the war in Iraq has shown the limitations of American unilateral power. We`re stretched out very thinly. So we need diplomacy here. We need to work with the French and the Europeans. It`s not easy to work with the French. We know this. But we`ve got to.

BECK: Right. We`re going to France. You know what? I almost want to put you in Congress just to see you pull that one off.

BHAKTA: Yes.

BECK: Raj, thank you very much.

BHAKTA: Take care, sir.

BECK: Best of luck to you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Welcome to "The Real Story," where tonight I want to start with a despicable politician. Actually, several of them. What better way to illustrate that than with two little words: Mark Foley.

But the real story tonight is not about the Mark Foley scandal, as it`s apparently known; it is about what happened afterwards, how a case of a depraved man who did disgusting things was spun into irrelevant and misleading political noise by both sides of the aisle.

There are Democrats out there right now screaming about "cover-ups" and how this proves the Republicans are soft on sex crimes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Many of these people had very different attitudes when the now-deceased Gerry Studds, a Democrat, had his own sex scandal in 1983. Nancy Pelosi, for example, voted three different times for Studds to be chairman of the House Committee after the scandal broke. Studds even served 13 more years in office after that, after he made it with an intern or a page at 17 years old.

And now the Republicans are countering with a story about former Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds, who they say should be a household name because of his 1994 sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign worker.

Republicans are harping on the fact that Reynolds was later pardoned by Bill Clinton, which, I admit, is pretty ironic, but what you`re not hearing is that the pardon was for an unrelated fraud charge. He had already served his sentence for sexual assault.

All of this just proves my point: It is nothing but irrelevant noise. The Democrats are wrong by being hypocrites and making this political. And the Republicans are wrong by thinking that, if they can just bring up enough cases from the other side of the aisle, then we`re all even. If you are not equally offended by Mel Reynolds, by Gerry Studds, Bill Clinton, Dan Crane, Mark Foley, then maybe it`s time you take a hard look at yourself. And quite possibly the best time might be in about eight minutes when we start airing our first in our porn series.

Next, the "Washington Post" ran a story this weekend about President Bush and Karl Rove being, quote, "inexplicably upbeat" about the Republicans` chances this November. Although the story never said it, I think they`re confident because they believe that security will be the top issue and, more importantly, security is synonymous with Republicans for many Americans.

But the real story here is they`re only half right. I agree that security will be the number-one issue this fall, but I don`t believe that it will translate into people just blindly voting for Republicans. Think about this: Most people this year are not going into a voting booth thinking about, you know, who has the best plan to privatize Social Security or who supports a ban on stem cell research. Most people are going in there to vote for who is going to keep them safe.

But safe can mean different things to all of us. If you live near the border down in Texas or Arizona, you`re probably a lot more concerned about immigration and a fence than you would be if you live here in New York, where our concern is, you know, subways not blowing up.

All of us, no matter where we live or how we interpret "safe," are looking for candidates who just frickin` get it. And that`s not a Republican thing, not a Democratic thing. It`s an individual thing.

Let me give you an example. Here in New York, a Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, says that he opposes any restrictions on private planes around Manhattan because -- and I quote -- "oh, a terrorist would never use a small plane." Right. I mean, Mike, I don`t know if you noticed this, but we never thought they`d use the big ones, either. That just shows to me a complete lack of imagination on Bloomberg`s part.

Then, on the other side, there`s Joe Lieberman. Now, he`s currently being disowned by the Democrats, but here`s a guy who on my own radio program agreed with me that we face the end of the West as we know it if we don`t win this war. Now, there`s an individual -- not a donkey, not an elephant -- who I agree with and who`s going to get my vote, much to his chagrin that I just announced that on national television.

The next few elections, I truly believe, are possibly the most important in our country`s entire history. It is absolutely critical that you vote for a person, not the party, who you think really gets it, gets it the most, because, honestly, these are not the Reagan Republicans anymore and they are certainly not the JFK Democrats our grandparents voted for.

Times change, and so do the parties. But what hasn`t changed is that it is still really all up to us to figure it out.

Mark Halperin, he is author of "The Way to Win" and the political director at ABC News.

Mark, what does Karl Rove know and when did he know it?

MARK HALPERIN, POLITICAL DIRECTOR, ABC NEWS: You mean that makes him so optimistic?

BECK: Yes.

HALPERIN: I think, Glenn, there`s three things Karl Rove is thinking about. One is, he`s optimistic by nature, just like the president. Two, he believes that, because they`ve won three straight national elections, they`re going to do it again using the same things, including security.

And, finally, Karl Rove is a huge believer in psychology. So is Bill Clinton. We interviewed both Bill Clinton and Karl Rove for our book, "The Way to Win." Both of them say you`ve got to be confident. You have to project confidence. You have to project strength. I think a little bit of what Karl Rove is projecting is trying to send a signal to Republicans: We`re going to win this thing, baby.

BECK: Right. Now, I have always heard, "It`s the economy, stupid. It`s the economy. It`s the economy. People vote with their pocketbooks." Now you`ve got the Dow just on the brink of breaking 12,000. You have the deficit cut in half early, et cetera, et cetera. The economy is doing really well, at least on the surface, and you don`t hear any talk about the economy.

HALPERIN: Well, you do from the Republicans. It`s one of the big issues the president is going to continue to talk about.

But, Glenn, not everybody is as fancy as you and has a stock portfolio, so I think there are some people in this country who don`t think the stock market going up helps them in the long run. People are concerned about health care. You talked about security before. There are a lot of people in this country who equate security, not with the border or the subway, but with economic security. And that`s an issue that is hurting the Republicans now, even though there are plenty of signs the economy is doing well.

BECK: Right. Do you think -- talking about security taking -- I mean, Republicans taking some real hits -- do you think the way they handled the border has really just crippled them?

HALPERIN: Nope, I never thought that would be a big issue in this race, and I don`t think it is now.

BECK: Really?

HALPERIN: I think people who are unhappy with the way this is being dealt with are not going to take it out on the Republican Party. They did vote to build that fence. Democrats and the president are people who want to build bridges to people who are here illegally. So I think the issue is all muddled, it`s all over the place, except in a few races. I don`t think that`s a big issue in this election.

BECK: I noticed that -- and maybe it`s just me because I`m a frustrated voter -- I don`t ever hear anyone with an actual plan. I hear a lot of people complaining. I hear people saying, "We`ve got to go in there and win the war or we`ve got to whatever." And I don`t hear any actual plans.

And I`m hearing more and more, the closer we get to the election, of scandal. Does that work? Do people vote against -- I hope this isn`t true, because I`m a guy who votes for something, not against it. Am I alone?

HALPERIN: Well, the Democratic Party is not targeting you. They have too many divisions.

BECK: No kidding!

HALPERIN: They`re for big government in a lot of areas, including health care. They`re for withdrawal in Iraq, in a lot of cases. They`re divided. They`re more liberal in many cases than they want to admit. They`re basically just trying to hide what they want to do, knowing full well that the country, a lot of the country, will vote for change, even without specifics. It is a recipe for serious gridlock if the Democrats take control of Congress and have to work with President Bush.

BECK: You know, somebody called me on my radio show today and asked me, you know, what`s going to happen? I said the Democratic Party is too split. I mean, they`re fighting internally as much as the entire nation is fighting. And they`re not going to be able to do anything except agree on, "We hate Bush. Let`s investigate people." Do you foresee that, if they take control, that it is just a nightmare?

HALPERIN: It`s a huge (INAUDIBLE) I think the ball would be in President Bush`s court. Does he want to work with Nancy Pelosi? It`s very hard to find Republicans outside Mr. Optimist, Karl Rove, Mr. Optimist II, George Bush, who believe they`ll keep the House today. So it`s a reality, but it`s one that I don`t think anybody understands.

They don`t like each other. They don`t agree on much. I think it`s going to be up to President Bush if it happens, if Democrats do take the House, to say, "Does he want to work with them or not?"

BECK: I`ve got 10 seconds. Who`s going to win -- well, I don`t know if you can answer why, but who`s going to win?

HALPERIN: The American people. Or as Glenn Beck once said, "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

BECK: Thanks, Mark.

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

Hello, Erica.

ERICA HILL, CNN HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Hello there, Glenn. How are you doing on this Monday?

BECK: Very good. What`s happening in Hawaii?

HILL: Well, you know, I mean, the good news here -- let`s just preface this by saying no one was killed in the earthquake there on Sunday, and the most serious injury we`re hearing about right now is, I believe, a broken arm. But at this point today...

BECK: That`s amazing.

HILL: ... officials inspecting -- isn`t it? It`s incredible.

BECK: Yes, it is.

HILL: So officials inspecting bridges and roads across the island chain today, basically assessing the damage. Yesterday`s quake: 6.7 magnitude.

BECK: Man.

HILL: It`s the strongest quake to hit Hawaii in two decades. It, of course, caused blackouts, temporary shutdowns at the airport, forced about 3,000 vacationers to evacuate their hotels to a local gym. It also caused a little extra -- some extra issues because there was some heavy rain, so some extra landslides, but all in all...

BECK: I will tell you that, for the first time in my life, I wish I worked for FEMA, because I thought somebody got the call, "You`ve got to go to Hawaii." Honey?

HILL: You`re not enjoying it, though, and that`s why you`re going.

BECK: I`ve got to go. Thanks a lot, Erica.

HILL: See you later.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All week long, we`re doing a series called "Porn: America`s Addiction." If you talk to any priest or any rabbi or clergyman, they will tell you that porn is one of the most destructive and insidious forces in our lives.

When you think of the early pioneers that crossed the mountains, and lived in the plains, and buried their children in the middle of nowhere, I say to myself, "Man, I would never want to live like that." But I think those same pioneers might see the way we live right now and feel exactly the same way.

Pornography is a predator which lives in our homes. You don`t close the door to protect our families from pornography. It comes to us everywhere: on TV, movies, video games, the Internet. It is everywhere, and it`s only going to get worse, as we`ll point out later in the week.

Part one of our series tonight focuses on our addiction. One estimate shows that around 10 percent of all adults admit to being addicted to porn. How many don`t admit it? And for one couple, it almost destroyed their marriage. Unfortunately, their story is more common than you might think.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BECK (voice-over): Lance and Amy look like your average American family. Nice house. Beautiful son. Happy life. But getting to this point was a lot harder than you could ever imagine.

LANCE TRACY, ADDICTION TO PORN ALMOST COST HIM MARRIAGE: I haven`t looked at porn or anything for three years now.

BECK: Lance Tracy is a porn addict, and it almost destroyed his marriage.

L. TRACY: Well, when I was first married, you know, I was looking at porn on a good day or good week maybe once or twice a week. Bad week, it would be three or four times a day.

BECK: For Lance, the deception began almost immediately. During their entire courtship and for the first two years of their marriage, he kept his addiction a secret from Amy.

L. TRACY: There`s a lot of guilt and shame and so -- you know, on my own part, because I feel morally it`s not right.

BECK: Lance was so ashamed that he privately sought help through a support group. It turns out his addiction isn`t uncommon.

ROB WEISS, DIRECTOR, SEXUAL RECOVERY INSTITUTE: There are men that I work with who will spend four to six hours a day online.

BECK: It`s easier than ever to access porn. And as a result, porn addiction is on the rise. Rob Weiss, the director of the Sexual Recovery Institute, has seen it time and time again.

WEISS: They`ll get up in the middle of the night when they`re sure their wife is asleep, and they`ll go online to look at pornography.

BECK: For Lance, his wife eventually found out, and his secret addiction became the focal point of their marriage.

AMY TRACY, HUSBAND ADDICTED TO INTERNET PORN: I was really, really hurt. I mean, I was shocked, and hurt, and felt betrayed and probably angry.

BECK: He immediately got professional counseling, but his addiction caused a deep rift in their relationship.

A. TRACY: I felt like I wasn`t attractive to him because he wasn`t initiating the same way, and I think he was getting a lot of his needs met over the Internet. And so I started wondering, "What`s wrong with me?"

BECK: Even as Lance struggled to regain control of his life, as with any addiction, there were times he fell off the wagon.

L. TRACY: While I was trying to get better and going through these different little programs and whatnot, I was still looking at it off and on. That was, you know, a good sign that I was definitely addicted. It was a failure to stop, even though I was trying to stop.

WEISS: We have a saying that Internet pornography is the crack cocaine of sex addiction. And what we`ve been able to tell in the last few years is that, on MRIs, when you see a sex addict`s brain light up around sexual stimulation, it looks like a cocaine addict.

BECK: It wasn`t easy. But with determination, spirituality and the love of his wife, Lance is getting better.

L. TRACY: I`ve been sober for three years, almost to the date.

BECK: And now, to celebrate all that they`ve gone through, Lance and Amy have decided to renew their vows on their fifth wedding anniversary.

A. TRACY: It was basically just a chance to start over and put the past behind us. And instead of trading in new partners, we just moved away from the past and renewed our vows with each other.

L. TRACY: We`ve been through the fire; we`ve made it through. And, you know, we are better for it now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Incredible story, and they are truly lucky that it ended the way it did. Even better, Lance has decided to take his own struggle and help others with their own addiction. He has a new documentary called, "Adult Entertainment: Disrobing an American Idol," which explores the nature and depth of porn in America and its addictive nature.

And someone who knows a whole lot more about this is Rob Weiss. He is the director of Sexual Recovery Institute and author of "Untangling the Web: Sex, Porn and Fantasy Obsession in the Internet Age."

Rob, how does porn destroy marriages?

WEISS: Well, porn destroys marriages when it becomes a secret, when there`s something going on that one partner doesn`t know about. And usually a husband finds himself taking more and more time, energy, focus away from everything that`s important in a marriage.

BECK: So you don`t think that -- because, I mean, you look at porn -- and maybe it`s because I have three daughters -- you start to look at women differently. I think you can so easily be sucked into things that you just -- you know, you didn`t think were normal or whatever and are very appealing. And all of a sudden, everything -- the world is kind of changed on you. Does that make any sense to you at all?

WEISS: Well, I think actually that`s one of the points in Lance`s film is that he took some time to expose men to pornography over, like, a 30-day period. And what he found was that they were increasingly stimulated everywhere they went by all the women they saw and less and less stimulated by their partners.

BECK: Well, so doesn`t that -- you don`t have to be addicted to porn to see a destructive force in your relationship, do you?

WEISS: Well, I don`t know that that`s necessarily true, because I`m not sure that everyone looks at it for three hours a day, every single day, as, you know, for example, the film that he made asked them to do. I`m not sure and it`s not my job to say whether occasional use is problematic for people.

BECK: Right. You know, I`m an alcoholic, and I also love to eat. It is harder for me to stay away from food, because I got to eat, and so you`re constantly making those choices. The same thing could be said with porn. It`s everywhere.

WEISS: Well, I think what you said about an eating -- about issues with eating is accurate, because the way we treat sex addicts is very much like you treat someone who has an eating problem, which is, you know, you don`t want someone with an eating problem to stop eating, and you don`t someone with a sexual problem to stop having sex. So with those healthy behaviors you have to define what really works with them and what doesn`t and then ask them to stick with it.

BECK: As I just pointed out, I`m an alcoholic, and it took me a very long time. I did not admit that I was an alcoholic for a very long time, because I thought that was, you know, horrible, et cetera, et cetera. How do you know if you`re an addict, a porn addict?

WEISS: Well, one thing you said, Glenn, is really important, I think, which is I think the sexual addiction issues are probably where alcoholism was like 25 years ago: a lot of shame, a lot of secrecy, a lot of hiding, hard to talk about.

BECK: OK. Rob, thank you very much.

More on our series, "Porn: America`s addiction," tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, it`s time for a new feature on the show. It`s video mail, your chance to send in your comments in a new way. I mean, it`s no porn expose, but, hey, it does include amateur video shot within the comfort of your own home, which makes it all the more disturbing that we`re starting with someone named Eric in Cleveland.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC IN CLEVELAND: Glenn, Eric from Cleveland. Every day I come home from work, and my wife`s like, "I love Glenn Beck. Honey, we got to watch Glenn Beck."

Listen, I`ve been watching your show for a month now, and what it needs is some more time with your guests. You get good, insightful guests on, and you just don`t let them speak. Listen, you sick, twisted freak, let your guests speak.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Look at that. Look at that. His shirt says, "Save the Liberals." Eric, there is a compassionate conservative. God bless you.

As far as the guests, I think we`ve already addressed your concerns for the most part. I mean, I`m always going to have a fat mouth and cut people off when I`m bored, which happens like that because I`m riddled with ADD. Damn this disease!

But when we started this show, we were trying to jam in several guests on one topic, which left us about 12 seconds per guest, but I think we`ve changed that and let the interviews breathe a little. Hopefully, you`re, you know, noticing, you know, some difference there.

And we`re going to announce here in the next couple of days something we`re going to do that is dramatically different on this program with guests. We`re going to be spending a lot of time with some really good guests and really get to know them. Look for that announcement coming in the next few days.

Now, if you want to send in your own video mail, here is how you do it. You just tape yourself and then go to CNN.com/Glenn. Keep it short. Keep yourselves fully clothed. And try to light it a little better than a scene from "The Grudge II," like our friend Eric in Cleveland there.

We will see you now tomorrow on the radio, then back here for some more of porn, right here -- well, you know what I mean. Tomorrow night, right here. We`ll see you then, you sick, twisted freak.

END