tv The O Reilly Factor FOX News September 19, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PDT
>> good. it is at 5:00 a.m. >> jimmy, how is it going? >> go and buy his book. half a million people watching the show. at least two buy the bloody book. >> it is gavin mcguinness. >> bill: "the o'reilly factor" is on of the tonight -- >> 47% of the people who -- not everybody. >> liberal america outraged that governor romney says the country is becoming a nanny state driven by people who feel entitled. we'll analyze what he said with charles krauthammer. alan colmes and monica crowley. one of the most glamorous women in the world, kate middleton, photographed topless in an outrageous invasion of privacy. she and her husband, prince within, are fighting back.
is it legal? on the case (it's happening, people. it's on. here it is. >> bill: jon stewart already in training for the big rumble in washington. >> oh, yeah, it's on! >> bill: when he will debate me live on the internet. he will be here tonight. >> i'm so scared! >> bill: caution. you are about to enter the no spin zone. "the factor" begins right now. >> bill: hi. i'm bill o'reilly. mitt romney, the truth and the folks. that is the focus tonight. now we have a controversy over governor romney telling supporters that a large portion of the american population is dependent on government and most likely will not vote for him.
here is my question: why is that controversial? that's true. mr. romney said that back in may at a fund-raiser in florida where he was secretly videotaped >> bill: i believe the governor overestimates the number. i put the percentage of americans who want a nanny state at about 40%. my analysis today found a gallup poll which asks which comes closer to your own view? the government does too much, 54% said that. should do more, 39%. depends. now if you say the federal
government should do more social engineering then the obama administration is currently doing? then you want a nanny state. if you want a nanny state, you're not going to vote for romney who is a big self reliance guy. so again, what on earth is the controversy? if i'm governor remain knee, i run with this all day long. and i have the stats to back my position up. right now the federal examine state governments are spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on means tested entitlements. those are payments other than social security and medicare. more than 46 million americans are now receiving food stamps. that's a record. nearly 9 million americans are now on federal disability. another record. more than 100 million americans, 35% of the population, are living in a household receiving some kind of welfare. i'm assuming governor romney wants to get people back to work so they can pay their own bills. i'm assuming that's what he wants to do. so romney should be pointing a
finger, a finger at president obama saying he wants a welfare state, the president does. and he's well on the way to creating one. because that's what the stats show. this is so painful, this is so crazy, i should say, it's painful. did you know that last week the fed pumped about $23 billion into the banking system? just threw it out there in the marketplace! flooding the zone with dollars hoping they will be loaned out by american banks. that puts us all in danger. the more dollars that are in circulation, the less the currency we have in our wallet and our bank is worth! that's why opec jacked up oil prices, to keep their profits steady. so while we have a leming like press, braying over romney being insensitive or something, the man is telling the absolute
truth! the u.s. government is broke! the feds are borrowing heavily, $3.5 billion every day! and now they're manipulating the dollar in order to pay the bills. that's economically insane! that's greece! all americans should wise up. if you're on the dole, other people have to pick up your tab. and right now, there aren't enough other people to do that! that's why the country is at $16 trillion debt. unbelievable. that's a memo. now for the top story. reaction, joining us from washington, charles krauthammer. spectacular key points, right? spectacular. >> you know, if romney had said what you had said instead of what he said, he'd be president. i mean, that is -- what you presented is the guts of his case, which i think is a winning argument that obama is turning
america into an entitlement state. the problem is the actual words he used. number one, he said 47%. to max the number of americans who aren't paying income tax. and then he said these are people who consider themselves victims. now, that's not a very smart thing to say. not even accurate. and you tonight win an election by disparaging just about half of the electorate. so simply as a matter of appealing to the electorate, the way he put it was about the worst possible way. i think the only way out of this is not to go over it line by line, but is to pivot away p say look, the heart of this is the question of entitlements and to go right after obama with an attack. look at what he's done on welfare. this was the one bipartisan success of the 1990s, democratic president, republican congress came together on up with of the great social successes of our
time. decreased the poverty rate of children, addickcally reduced the welfare roles. what does obama do? the media announces the point that romney made that obama is completely wrong. obama has in this regulation, romney has to keep trying to make the point unafraid, the essence of it is to young mine the legal underpinning of the fact that you must work to get welfare. that's the core of the regulation. the law was written so that nobody has the right to waive the requirement. not a governor, not the hhs, which is how obama has now. >> bill: 'cause he signed an executive order giving these people wiggle room in describing who can get the welfare payment and who can't. that undermines the strict interpretation of if you're not looking for work, if you're not doing something, you're not
going to get the check. okay. let's get back to romney and romney's points of view. he basically is saying to america, you got to make a decision. you got to make a decision. he's not saying it strongly enough. he's not saying it the way i would say it or you would say it. we have to stop the nonsense. this is nonsense. this is economic armageddon. that's where we're heading right now. we tonight stop it. i can stop it. i, mitt romney, could stop it, because i'll create jobs. i'll free up the private sector. they'll have more confidence. money natural money, will get into circulation. not printed -- that money that we're throwing out there in artificial ways. dike it. and i'm sorry if i offended people, but i have to get your attention and i did. that's how i would handle it. if he's going to back off, charles, if he's going to try to parts it, he's going to lose. he's got to be right in your face, mitt romney has to be
right in your face trying to warn the american public of the danger ahead. that's it. >> all that is true. and that is what he was trying to make the core of his campaign, it was the core of his speeches at tampa. the problem is this thing he said at the fund-raiser is not that. he didn't say i'm out here to create jobs. he was making an analysis. he was standing back and playing the pundit trying to explain why he's not going to win 47% -- >> bill: that's meaningless. doesn't mean anything. >> it doesn't mean anything, except it was caught on tape and it has him calling half the american people people who consider themselves victims in which you include social security recipientses. that's not smart. >> bill: well, i don't know if he included social security -- >> when he's talking about people who don't pay income tax, if you're over --
>> bill: i think he was talking about currently working people. i didn't take that away from him. >> that's not 47%. >> bill: no, as i said, he made a mistake. real quick, what percentage would you put on the american people that are in that category? i want my stuff and that's it. i just want it and i don't really want to work that hard for it. how many? >> hard core, 20% of americans who call themselves liberals. i'd add another 10% who who are on the band wagon. and the rest can be persuaded either way. >> all right. charles, thanks. next up, democrats saying mitt romney's cessment of the entitlement -- assessment of entitlement is cruel. more coming [ male announcer ] if you believe the mayan calendar, on december 21st polar shifts will reverse the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space.
which would render retirement planning unnecessy. but say the sun rises on december 22nd, and you still need to retire. td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. we'll even throw in up to $600 when you open a new account or roll over an old 401(k). so who's in control now, mayans?
>> bill: continuing with our lead story, mitt romney telling the truth as he sees it about america's entitlement culture. president obama's campaign is outraged. >> this revealed something about his value system. for him to speak with such disdain about so many americans and he wants to be our president. this man apparently feels that if you're not a part of his social class or his economic -- you don't have his economic status, that somehow you're a parasite. >> bill: joining us to creek,
monica crowley. alan colmes with his new book. let's talk about me. >> my favorite topic. >> bill: yeah. i believe that romney is correct in his assessment that the president has built an entitlement culture in this country. you can see it, the stats back it up. yeah, you can blame it on the recession, you can a blame it on a lot of things. but the culture we've created now is heading toward the western european model. am i a mean guy for believing that? >> i don't think you're personally a mean guy, but the attitude comes off as insensitive because it's systemic. it's not barak obama who did this. i got numbers where romney was right with the numbers. but most of the people who are getting help or want help are in and out in a short period of time. they're in and out in a year and a half. >> bill: would you say 35% is a food number? >> absolutely not. >> bill: that's too high.
what would you put? >> probably 3 to 4%. i back that up. the tax policy center did the numbers. 28.3% of households pay no federal income tax because they get all these kinds of breaks and they don't qualify. but they pay other tax. 3% are retiree, elderly, and only 6 o .9 have incomes of $20,000 a year or less. some of that 6.9% may northbound that category. but it's not the whole 6.9%. >> i say let's all be reminded of rahm emanuel's famous comment, february of 2009. never let a crisis go to waste. what this administration has done over the last nearly four years is deliberate attempt to try to get as many people dependent on the government as possible and at all levels. and the ultimate objective of that, which is what governor romney was getting at in his comments, is to create a permanent democrat voting majority. if you have people who have the chance at voting themselves
freebies, goodies and a raise from the u.s. treasury, they will. that's human nature. >> bill: that make sense to you? >> no. i don't think human nature is i just want free stuff. i think more highly of the american public. most people wants to work. most don't want to sit and collect money. >> bill: then how do you explain the demographics of both parties that the democratic party drives its power from the minority base and the lower income -- >> we're presuming the minority are lower incomes don't want to work. >> bill: i'm asking awe question. crowley says it's a conscious attempt by the president and democratic party to build up a welfare state that will vote iny made -- >> bill: you're dodging my question. the base of the democratic party falls into the category of people who don't earn much money. and who are dependent on the government for stuff. >> what's not being connected are these people who don't want to work?
>> wait a minute. >> most of them are in head states. >> bill: okay. romney has lost a lot of momentum in the last week or so. would you agree with that? >> he's on the defensive. the press is did -- >> not because -- >> bill: it's happening. doesn't matter why. on libya, on this, mother jones, by the way, put this tape out. okay. so romney finds himself now on the defensive. he's lost momentum. you're going to see it in the polling. you will. i told charles krauthammer, look, he's got to get in everybody's face now. he's got to say enough of this garbage. this is what's happening. we're going the way of greece. i can stop it. he can't. you got to vote for me or the whole thing is going over the cliff. >> that's exactly right. he has to tie this all together. in other words, what you see in the growing dependency clouds, what you see in unemployment, what you see poverty at record
highs, what you see with 49% of the american people pay no federal income tax. what you see with 49% of all u.s. households having at least one person on federal aid. when you tie that all together and say this is a direct result of barak obama's policies creating this growing dependency crowd, i'm going to put a stop to it. here is how. >> bill: you've got to be simpler. >> he needs to be talking about economic freedom and how that raises -- >> bill: he's got to do it in a direct manner. 15 seconds. to you think romney lost, right? >> i think he's going to lose the election. i think the last two weeks have been very bad. >> bill: got to run. directly ahead, john stossel does not want a minimum wage. later, jon stewart entering the no spin zone to talk about his guy, barak obama. we're coming right back
>> bill: stossel matters segment. last week we had a segment on poverty in america. rice said that i wouldn't mind paying $16 an hour as a minimum wage to my employees. by the way, all of my employees make far more than minimum wage. but i also said that if wages were significantly raised like that, it would have to be tax credits for the businesses so they could continue hiring. of course, john stossel thinks i'm a loon and the author of the book, no they captain, joins us now. so last months, you actually went up to philadelphia to talk about this minimum wage deal. roll the tape. >> how much is a living wage? >> enough to survive comfortably. >> ten bucks an hour? 100 bucks an hour? >> at least $15 an hour. >> 30 bucks an hour is substantial. a nice amount for a person who has a family. enough with the average person to eat, sleep, and pay utilities and don't got to take no damn
calculator to the grocery store. >> bill: all right. there is a lot of passion around this. i understand both sides of the issue. but i think it could be done with some cleverness and fairness to raise the minimum wage not for teen-agers, not for people like that. but for workers who are unskilled. to a level that helps them but doesn't hurt business. am i wrong? >> yes. that you think you can design the system -- >> bill: i can design it. >> my goal is to teach you how ignorant you about what you imagine you can design. >> bill: thank you very much. >> you got this complicated thing with tax credit. you're already paying people $16 an hour who work for you. why? why if you don't have to? >> bill: well, i don't look at it that way. i don't try to make -- >> it must be skilled people. >> bill: no, i want people -- look, if i hire someone and they're a good worker, i want them to be comfortable. i'll take less profit to make that happen. that's just me. i know how business works.
and if you raise the minimum wage to 16 bucks an hour, you'll have fewer jobs 'cause companies will higher fewer people. i understand that. but if the government on the back end, the government who has their hand in your pocket every second says if you expand your work force, we'll give you the tax credits so you don't get hurt, what's wrong with that? >> lots. first of all, complicates life. you have to hire some lawyer to understand it. >> bill: we all have accountants. >> you get the tax credit, i got to pay 16 bucks, i'm not going to hire a kid to learn on the job. >> bill: the kids have, as i said, anybody under the age of 20 would have another -- >> i'm not going to hire an unskilled 30 yearly to learn construction. it's why there is no one cleaning your win shield at a gas station. why teen unemployment is 25% now. the minimum wage cuts off opportunity. you don't give the guy a chance. it's the government -- if the government sets the way. >> bill: you say no minimum wage at all. >> would be fine. 95% of all businesses in america already pay more than the minimum wage. >> bill: then you'll start to exploit people.
they're not going to get any money because the competition will drive down the wages. >> in a were true, how come 95% get more than minimum wage? businesses compete for good workers. >> bill: there is an exploit favor situation where some business also take advantage of people uneducated, don't speak the language well. >> every business tries to take advantage of its employees and pay them nothing. >> bill: my business doesn't. >> every normal business. you're a superstar. but they contact get away with it because to get a good worker you need to pay what the market demands. that's the best thing for businesses and workers 'cause it creates more jobs. >> bill: all right. if i could design it, you say i can't, but if i could design it so that there was an elevation of a minimum wage which is 7.25, right. >> bill: say you double it. and that the small business that would be primarily what we're talk being here, didn't get hurt because they could write that off against their profits, why
would you object to that? why would you object to giving the folks more money down at that level? >> because it kills jobs. >> bill: but i just said, if the business didn't get hurt -- what does it matter? they're still paying 7.25 on their books 'cause they're getting a tax credit. >> they'll only hire skilled people. why not $100. >> bill: i think you have to have a wage scale. you have to go up the ladder. i feel bad for people making 7.25. you can't live on that. >> i do, too. but having government set a minimum hurts more than it helps. and most economists will tell you that. >> bill: all right of the john stossel. there he is. mean guy. i'm the nice guy here. am i not the nice guy on this discussion? >> lo, n. >> bill: you know what the mail will run? loon, your favor. >> really? >> bill: oh, yeah. factor, very free marketier here. plenty more ahead. jon stewart enters the no spin
>> bill: impact segment of the the daily caller web site filed a freedom of information act request to find out if the far left tax exempt organization media matters, was actively helping attorney general eric holder in some controversies. the caller got the documents and the answer is yes. media holder. joining us, tucker carlson, the editor in chief of the daily caller. i despise media matters. i think they aremerchants and tt that they operate on my tax dollar is a disgrace. and that's one of the down sides of democracy is we don't have policing of the nonprofits. it's just absolutely off the
chart. they're in business for one thing only, to assassinate people with whom they disagree and because they are so far left, that means anybody moderate and conservative can be smeared by them. they've done it foreyears and gotten away with it. you have proof not only do they smear people on the right, but they're helping the democratic party in the form of attorney general holder. correct? >> that is exactly right. we got over 70 pages of e-mails between spokesmen at the department of justice and writers from media matters in which they discuss programming they see on fox news, pieces written in the daily caller, other journalism critical or they believe is critical of certain programs from the justice department, mostly fast and furious. >> bill: why would these fast and furious is the scandal involving the guns going to mexico where the border agent was killed. why would these pages be in print? these i assume were e-mails. is that right?
why didn't they delete them? >> because they can't. because e-mails from executive branch offices are subject to freedom of information requests. which, by the way, we put in nine months ago. the rules require them to respond within 20 days and it took nine months and slow walking for them to come up with the documents and i can see why, because they're damning. >> bill: anybody, any government agency, the justice department, in this, when they e-mail somebody, they have to put the e-mail in their system and keep it? >> exactly. for official business. >> bill: so they e-mailed 70 pages to media matters. that's an outrageous in itself, just the e-mailing that kind of volume on our tax dollars, all right, the justice department is supposed to be solving crimes and they're e-mailing media matters. that itself is outrageous. >> the problem is that the office of public information, its job is to explain to the public what the justice department is doing and yet in these e-mails, it's very clear
they are coordinating with media matters to create propaganda, to subvert the facts for political gain. there is really no way around that. that's what they're doing. >> bill: give me the smoking gun memo. give me the most powerful thing that you got out of the request. >> there are a couple. in one instance, you have a writer from media matters e-mailing almost instant mentalling, to the head of public affairs at the justice department saying, are you watching bill hemmer right now? are you watching the tease for a story they're about to do on fast and furious? she writes back, no. and they start talking about it. and then three hours later, he has a piece attacking fox news' coverage of fast and furious. in another case, we have the head of the public information office at the department of justice e-mailing to media matters and saying, in effect, hey, you should do a story on this. within three hours, out came a story on this. >> bill: this is tracy smaller woman? >> that's exactly right.
>> bill: so she's the point person for -- and again, we can't say that attorney general holder knew about this. this is low level stuff. he might not have known about it. but this woman who represents holder, she's holder's voice to the public, she has an inappropriate relationship with media matters because it's orchestrating coverage, not here is what we're doing, here is our side of the story. it's trying to manipulate propaganda from their side out. right? >> yet. it's colluding. it is getting together with media matters, which is a tax exempt left wing political organization, to create so-called news that would not exist otherwise. by the way, i believe eric holder is aware of this because he personally confronted one of my reporters, wagged his finger in his face examine scolded him for the daily caller's coverage of fast and furious. i think he's very aware of his press coverage examine i think she's doing this at his
direction. >> bill: that's just your opinion. >> it's not my opinion that they scolded one of my reporters. >> bill: no, but you're linking the two. the irs is oversite. if they wanted to pull the tax exempt status, it has to go through the irs. correct? >> yes. they could be spurned by congress. tax exempt organizations are not supposed to be engage not guilty political conduct. >> bill: when we come back, kate middleton, one of the most glom russ women in the world photographed topless. now there is a legal battle underway. is it legal? that's
>> bill: thanks for staying with us. i'm bill o'reilly. after all the controversy recall voting, fear examine loathing in wisconsin over governor scott walker limiting public union bargaining rights, walker's victory is now been partially overturned by a judge. kate middleton in the middle of a topless photo controversy. here now, attorneys and fox news legal analyst, kim guilfoyle. let's go to wisconsin. we knew this would be challenged in the court. basically it's the governor and other governors as well saying look, we can't be negotiating with you people for this. only in a very narrow way. >> with the union, you mean? >> right. >> bill: and he won and legislature passed that law. and the judge now says what. >> court says that's a violation of the first amendment right to
free association. you can't put an impediment on people that want to associate with a union in this case. >> bill: well, i think the supreme court ruled that you can't strike if you're public workers. remember the air traffic controllers. that ruling doesn't really stand up. >> i think it may. this is only a circuit judge. it's going to go further. but if they can show that there are undue burdens op association, that is your fees can't be paid a certain way or you won't get a certain salary, just because of association -- >> bill: they're working for the public. they're on the public -- >> the thing with reagan, that's a different example. public safety issue. it may not be here in this case. >> bill: it's a public safety issue because it was bankrupting the state and they couldn't afford to pay them and the state was going to go down if they strike. what do you say? >> i think this is obviously a complicated issue. the way the judge issued and worded his ruling, it was on point in terms of the constitutional issues saying it would single out unfairly a group of people trying to
associate and collectively bargain which is inappropriate, anything base -- >> bill: the air traffic controllers could have said that, too. you're saying let me out because a federal employee, you're telling me i can't have collective bargaining powers. >> a higher court could overrule this decision and be on solid legal ground. >> a big difference from air traffic controllers and people that are working just in the basic state government. >> bill: why? what's the difference? >> the reagan and the traffic controllers, that was a huge safety issue. planes were going to be going down. >> bill: i don't think that's why the ruling was made. they uphold the ruling that if you're work for the municipal government, there are certain things you can't do as opposed to the private sector. i think that was it. >> that's true. >> bill: let's get to the most important story of the world right now. kate middleton. and i haven't seen these photo, but i understand you have seen them? >> yes. >> bill: for research purposes. they're all overt internet,
right? >> they are, that's the problem. they've been so we hadly disbursed. no one hasn't seen them except you. >> bill: i'm the ohm one in the world. i like this woman. she handles herself very well. she's in a private setting with prince william, right? >> yeah. >> bill: they're on vacation, south of france. eating he escargot and bag gets. she gets topless and a little better tan. >> which is cuss discuss item marry in europe. >> it's not in poland. it's customary in the south of france. >> here is the deal, they were able to prevail against this french magazine. >> bill: who bought the photos? , why correct. they said if you don't turn them over immediately, you'll be paying hefty fines. they're making so much money, i would pay the fines. >> bill: why does the magazine
make any money if they're all over the internet? why buy the magazine? >> perhaps they have the original resolution, the imis better. >> bill: here is the bottom line, i feel bad for this kate middleton and all of that. these scummy paparrazzi are the worst. >> you can't use high powered lenses to intrude examine invade. >> bill: you can and they do, but and then they take what comes. >> and the law is so different. in france it's so much tighter, the right to privacy is so much tighter than here in this country. >> bill: no, no. jennifer aniston won a bunch of money for the same thing. but you can do it because of the internet. you take the picture, throw it out, it's all over the place. everybody sees it and that's that. >> we don't have is a criminal provision here. these people -- >> the crown wants to see criminal charges in addition to civil penalties. >> bill: i hope they do that. >> the criminal code in france is very, very plain. >> bill: take your lens to devil's island.
that long bread, none there. >> you don't eat bread, that they the problem. >> bill: no wheat. in maine, this is a terrible story. we're shifting gears here. a ten-year-old is put in charge of an infant to baby-sit, which is insane. right away from the jump. the baby winds up dead with bruce all over the baby's body. and the ten-year-old has been charged with manslaughter. >> not the mom. it wasn't just a ten-year-old, it was the mom who was actually supposed to be baby-sitting this child and she had a ten-year-old daughter that ended up baby-sitting. >> bill: where did the mom go? >> different room, we don't really know. >> bill: we don't know where the mom was. there is the mom right there. >> this is a mom of the deceased infant. now the mother who is her co-worker who was baby-sitting this child had her ten-year-old daughter who suffers from some emotional problems like dcs was aware of her. >> bill: she puts a ten-year-old child with emotional child and the woman we saw was the mother
of the baby. and she died. we don't have a picture of the mother who -- >> it's not reloosed. >> bill: but the ten-year-old, is charged with manslaughter and convicted, she stays in custody -- >> 'til 21. >> the mom could be charged, too. >> bill: i think the mother will be charged. probably wreckless endanger. >> it's unique you would have a ten-year-old because they have no minimum to charge a minor for an offense like this. it's been approximately 25 years in the state history. >> the mother should be charged. >> bill: horrible. i agree with you. the mother should be charged. >> the baby had amphetamines, the medication that the ten-year-old was taking in her system. >> bill: thank you. in a moment, the rumble and the air conditioned auditorium. a live debate between me and jon stewart in washington, d.c stewart will be here to explain the madness after these
>> bill: back of the book segment, as we reported, jon stewart and i will hole a live debate at george washington university in dc on october 6. you can see it on the internet for 4.95. we will count the pennies. you just go to the rumble2012. com for details. the question is, why has stewart lowered him stove do this? here he is to sling. >> i'm here, the reason i'm doing this is very similar to luke skywalker and darth vader. as he told, i believe it was yoda, i sense there is still good in you. >> is that right? >> i sense you can be saved, that there is still good in you and it is my job for the good of this planet, to bring
from the dark side. >> bill: so you're hanging with me -- >> this a dart vader movement. >> bill: you're hanging with me just so to keep me from going all the way over? >> that's right. there has been talk that you are now more machine than man. but i believe we can bring you back. that's when this night is about. this night is about redemption. >> bill: what is the poet -- >> what is the protocol? is it a wedding thing? >> bill: no, none of that. we're going to be like we really are in real life me, very successful. you're just hanging on. when we show up on october 6, it will be like a presidential debate. me the president and you, i have no idea. >> challenger. >> bill: right. but we're not rooting for either guy. that -- >> you're making a big mistake. when i'm done with you, you're going to walk off, you'll be 5' 7, i'll be 6' 4. >> bill: magic. >> by the end of t people will go, is that dudley moore? that's o'reilley.
>> bill: i didn't see you, though, you were in tampa. >> for the conventions. >> bill: i didn't see you. >> we couldn't get on the floor. we couldn't get press passes. >> bill: because you mocked them. you know that. >> i did not realize that was their objection to us. >> bill: yeah. why should we let this guy in. he's going to mock us. >> i didn't realize that the political powers that be could be brought low by simple puns. >> bill: so you are an out lier, you were in the suburbs broadcasting? >> the dnc put us up, this is true, in south carolina. >> bill: you took their money. >> they did not allow us -- n, they wouldn't put us up in a hotel in state. we were in south carolina. the north carolina people, i'll it will you, i will say this, the nicest people. most hospitable you ever want to meet. there was a certain point, 'cause you know us coming from new york, where i felt almost like it was sarcastic. >> bill: that they were mocking you? n being too nice. like can i get you -- are you doing good?
you having a good thing? i'll like, you want a piece of this? is that what you want, lady? >> bill: was there anything, anything at all at the democratic convention that impressed you? >> at the democratic convention? >> bill: yes. >> yes. streets did not run red with the blood of protesters. i was impressed that the whole thing didn't desin grate into anarchy. i was assuming -- >> bill: police in both cities did very well. in the editorial side. >> i thought they surprisingly did a very nice organizational job. each night had a speaker of note. >> bill: sandra fluke? you like sandra, right? >> i saw a little of her speech and i thought she was well possessed. i know she's a particular punching bag for you -- >> bill: no, no, no. >> god forbid a woman come out and speak about an issue chose to her heart without having -- >> bill: her hand in my wallet -- let me just ask you, this is going to come off at the rumble.
do you want to pay for this woman's birth control? do you want to do that? >> here is what i want to do, i want to make sure that women are entitled to the same health care benefits that men should be entitled to and if that is a part of their -- >> bill: that's not a part of it. the men don't get that. >> she works for a private institution. catholic is not. >> bill: georgetown. come on. >> i don't pay any -- >> bill: she wants everybody to get paid for! we have to pick up the dating now in this country. we have to pick up dating! >> you understand the difference between a public institution and a private institution? >> bill: dating game is going to be on pbs. we'll pay for it! and the aftermath. >> what did those nuns do to you? >> bill: i don't care what sandra does. i don't want to pay for it! >> we are all the product of this. >> bill: yeah, i do. republican convention, clint eastwood. scare you when he went up there? >> he looked great. >> bill: please.
>> at 84 he could take boast of us and still throw us over a bridge. these things are scripted. to have a guy get up there -- inform and he's real. >> he's real and he's doing his own thing, it was a breath of fresh air. i thought it was hilarious. the funniest thing must have been back stage with all the romney advisors going -- >> bill: they didn't know whether to like it or not. did you think it was disrespectful to talk to a chair that represented the president? >> yes, no. my idol, you're thinking of elvis. i don't think it's disrespectful to talk to a chair. these are political conventions. the whole point of these things, they should be called three disof disrespect to the other guy. that's what the whole thing is. so i had no problem with that. i thought it was hilarious, but i also thought it was indicative of the entire convention, which is this fictional invisible obama that only republicans can see, that's this scary, kenyan,
muslim socialist and when you look at the facts, you realize the guy sitting in the actual chair is just -- >> bill: scary muslim, kenyan socialist. so stewart and i and this is charity, by the way. >> have you picked your charity? >> bill: i have. it's on my web site. issue go there. keep everybody out of the u.s. to keep the white people charity, that's the one. you get a flavor of what's going on. get out of here. the web site if you want to see it is the rum be2012. com. somebody tape his mouth. factor factor tip of the day on deck. kindness to strangers. the tip, 60 seconds away