*Compassionate Conservative* Bill Bennett: Abort every black baby, reduce crime.
Posted By: Libby on 2005-09-29
In Reply to:
William Bennett Defends Comment on Abortion and Crime
'Book of Virtues' Author Says Hypothetical Remark Was Valid
By JAKE TAPPER
- After pondering on his radio program how aborting every black infant in America would affect crime rates, best-selling author and self-styled Values Czar Bill Bennett is vehemently denying he is a racist and defending his willingness to speak publicly about race and crime.
On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, syndicated by Salem Radio Network, a caller raised the theory that Social Security is in danger of becoming insolvent because legalized abortion has reduced the number of tax-paying citizens. Bennett said economic arguments should never be employed in discussions of moral issues.
If it were your sole purpose to reduce crime, Bennett said, You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.
That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down, he added.
Outrage From Democrats
Bennett was secretary of education for President Ronald Reagan and is considered one of the Republican Party's big brains. But this week Democrats and some Republicans seemed to also question if Bennett's mouth is of size as well.
Democrats expressed outrage, ranging from demands for an apology to requests that the Federal Communications Commission suspend Bennett's show.
Republicans, Democrats and all Americans of good will should denounce this statement, should distance themselves from Mr. Bennett, said Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill. And the private sector should not support Mr. Bennett's radio show or his comments on the air.
I'm not even going to comment on something that disgusting, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Really, I'm thinking of my black grandchild and I'm going to hold (off).
'Things That People Are Thinking'
In an interview with ABC News, Bennett said that anyone who knows him knows he isn't racist. He said he was merely extrapolating from the best-selling book Freakonomics, which posits the hypothesis that falling crimes rates are related to increased abortion rates decades ago. It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies, Bennett said. So why immediately bring up race when discussing crime rates? There was a lot of discussion about race and crime in New Orleans, Bennett said. There was discussion – a lot of it wrong – but nevertheless, media jumping on stories about looting and shooting and gangs and roving gangs and so on.
There's no question this is on our minds, Bennett said. What I do on our show is talk about things that people are thinking … we don't hesitate to talk about things that are touchy.
Bennett said, I'm sorry if people are hurt, I really am. But we can't say this is an area of American life (and) public policy that we're not allowed to talk about – race and crime.
Robert George, an African-American, Republican editorial writer for the New York Post, agrees that Bennett's comments were not meant as racist. But he worries they feed into stereotypes of Republicans as insensitive. His overall point about not making broad sociological claims and so forth, that was a legitimate point, George said. But it seems to me someone with Bennett's intelligence … should know better the impact of his words and sort of thinking these things through before he speaks.
The blunt-spoken Bennett has ruffled feathers before, most recently in 2003 for revelations that despite his best-selling books about virtue and values, he is a high-rolling preferred customer at Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos.
In light of accusations that the Bush administration should have been more sensitive to black victims of Hurricane Katrina, a Republican official told ABC News that Bennett's comments were probably as poorly timed as they were politically incorrect.
ABC News' Avery Miller, Karen Travers and Toni L. Wilson contributed to this report.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Parents want to abort Bennett's 3M pact
Parents want to abort Bennett's $3M pact
By MENSAH M. DEAN
deanm@phillynews.com
Philadelphia parents and education activists are
demanding that the city school district end the $3
million contract it awarded in April to K12 Inc., in
light of controversial remarks the company's board
chairman made this week about aborting black babies.
William J. Bennett, chairman of the board of the
Washington-area education company and a former U.S.
Education Secretary, set off protests with remarks he
made during his nationally syndicated radio talk show
Wednesday.
Responding to a caller, Bennett took issue with the
hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason
crime is down is that abortion is up. Bennett said:
If you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that
were your sole purpose - you could abort every black
baby in this country and your crime rate would go
down.
That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally
reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would
go down, Bennett said.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday
said The president believes the comments were not
appropriate.
Bennett later said his comments had been
mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea
of supporting abortion to reduce crime was morally
reprehensible.
Though some of the Philadelphia school district's top
science teachers raised concerns about K12's
qualifications and experience, the district awarded
the company the contract to supply kindergarten
through third-grade science curriculum materials in
April.
I find it hard to see any explanation for why they're
here in Philadelphia educating many of the black
children Mr. Bennett clearly finds it provocative to
call expendable, said Helen Gym, a mother of a
district third-grader.
I am very rarely struck speechless anymore. However,
I could not get words out of my mouth this morning
when I realized that my school district is somehow
providing support to this company, said Ellayne
Bender, mother of a district 11th-grader.
On a moral level, as a human being, Bender added, I
would like to see the contract voided.
Last fall, Bennett publicly touted district schools
CEO Paul Vallas as a good candidate to become the next
U.S. Secretary of Education. Last night, however,
Vallas stepped away from the man with whom he had been
cordial.
I read his comments, and his comments are outrageous
and offensive to all of us, Vallas said of Bennett.
We do not have a relationship with Bill Bennett. Our
contract is with K12, who are doing an excellent job
in our schools. In my opinion, any extension of the
contract could be jeopardized by his continued
presence on the board.
The length of the contract was not immediately known.
Bennett was education secretary under President Reagan
and director of drug control policy when Bush's father
was president.
I must be misreading the Hate Crime Bill
Nothing I've read says that any of the things that are crimes now (such as pedophilia) will be considered any less of a crime...pedophilia is still an arrestable offense. My interpretation of what I've read is that the only thing this bill does is expand the group of people who it is okay to assault/kill simply based on their lifestyle changes. In other words, you can't kill someone just because they're gay, Buddhist, Belgian, short, or ugly. It doesn't decriminalize any behavior to my reading. That concept seems to be a figment of somebody's imagination, and much like the game of telephone we played as small children, the actual facts of the bill have gotten more twisted with each telling.
If it were ectopic you would have to abort...sm
There is no way medically the baby would survive anyway.
No, McCain will reduce
taxes and make it lucrative to keep businesses here, not obama. How can you believe a man who is a pure politician in the worst sense? He has no record of DOING much of anything and no experience to speak of, but just the talk. He might be good at mobilizing communities, but doesn't stand up and fight for you other than that. He will SAY anything and change his position based on public perceptions. no, i want a man who stands on his principals and stands FOR us, even going against his party and even going against public opinion. A man with guts! A man with principals! You want to save your job, save your country from disaster, vote MCCAIN!!
They can reduce the interest to normal levels...
and wipe out whatever they are in arrears, and readjust payments. There is NO NEED to reduce principal. That is just another gimme. And if they can't make the payments on reduced interest they will lose the house ANYWAY. I do not understand this penchant for rewarding irresponsibility ... on the part of the buyers AND the lenders AND the government officials who encouraged the doofus process....can we all say FRANK and DODD???
as a mother I would not subject my baby, or anyone's baby
to that type of situation. but then again, I am not the kind of mother who agrees with the village raising the child, or whatever Hillary used to say. to me the child's safety would come first above and beyond what I was doing, and I would not expose the baby to all that. that is just me.
mostly I am talking about at the end of her speech when the baby was being passed around and then she eventually grabbed him, half paying attention to him.
it is my opinion but I found it a little troubling and my heart kind of went out to that little baby.
What is not compassionate about that?
I said we all agreed we should insure all children. I merely said that that should get top priority among social programs. Why is that not compassionate? What is wrong with prioritizing the spending? We cannot go on forever, more programs, more taxes, more programs, more taxes...I don't know about you, but 35-40% off the top of my paycheck already makes it difficult to make a living and make my own insurance premiums. I am in medical transcription so I am by no means rich. Keep taxing me and I will need programs to get by. Now is that going to help anything? If we cannot prioritize spending 35-40% of the nation's income off the top, we a real problem, friend. We cannot do every thing for every person. So let's prioritize. Let the children's health coverage come first, and prioritize from there on down. Why is that not compassionate? Do you feel that illegals should have access to all our social programs? Do you seriously feel that??
Compassionate? Hardly, I think.......... sm
but you may be on to something about engineering healthy future generations of government workers who will be physically and mentally able to repay this enormous debt.
Could you be any more judgemental, any less compassionate?
You said: "I do not want to TAKE CARE of any more people. He should be preaching get up, get an education, take care of yourselves."
Do you think he should preach 'GET UP" to people flat on their back?
Your mentality is sickening in America - and you are far from alone. PULL yourself up by your own bootstraps and don't whine to me that you don't even own boots!!
UNTIL you walk a mile in the shoes of those who many need a helping hand, dont you dare judge whether or how much we CIVILIZED Americans should assist them.
There but for the Grace of God go you 'my friend' -
IF THIS GOVERNMENT CAN RAP E THE TREASURY TO PAY FOR FAKE WARS, IT CERTAINLY CAN CREATE A SAFETY NET for its most vulnerable citizen. Shame on anyone who says otherwise.
Compassionate conservatism
Two years ago I took in a friend who had fallen on hard times. We have known one another since high school, over 40 years. For the last several years she had been living with relatives who by her account were very mean to her and treated her as a sort of servant. She had lost a small disability pension, with its medical insurance, and had gone through all of her meager savings. Her disabilities are of the vague, undiagnosable type: Diffuse pain, muscle spasms, respiratory problems, palpitations, strange allergic reactions to foods/ medications/environmental irritants. She was accident prone, unable to concentrate and had out-of-control emotions a lot of the time. I attributed much of this to the stress of her living situation and could see no way to help her, other than getting her out of what seemed to be a very hostile environment.
So I made this offer: Move in with me and regroup. No one will harm you here. Get your mind and body back in some kind of balance. File your pension appeal. Another friend told me of an attorney who had handled her similar appeal. I shared my car with her, since hers had bitten the dust years before. I was determined not to pressure her, but to let her manage her own financial, physical and emotional recovery.
No one forced me to do this. I shared my home, provided food, shelter and transportation without expecting a cent, out of friendship. You have no idea what this offer has cost me. The monetary issue is quite secondary to the peace and tranquility I (who have lived alone for most of the last 40 years and loved it) have sacrificed. And it is true what they say: You don’t really know someone until you live with them.
For more than a year, nothing much changed and I grew very tired of her constant whining and self-pity. It seemed that the more I did for her, the more she needed me to do (but only those things she would accept - I could keep my advice to myself.) And I grew weary of hearing her complain that I am so fortunate, that I cannot possibly feel her pain, nor can I possibly understand that she can’t concentrate on her pension paperwork for more than a few minutes at a time, can’t bear to sit and type, can’t read the fine print without her vision blurring. My offers to help her with this - after all, I type medical and psych stuff for a living - were refused over and over. Her filing deadline came and went, and that opportunity was lost forever. She claimed the lawyer never told her there was such a deadline. I guess it was my fault for not finding her a better attorney. Now each month she gets a bill from him.
Every serious conversation went in circles and ended in tears and recriminations from her. Now I was the one being mean to her. Frankly, I could barely stand being in the same room, yet she followed me around asking why we never talked anymore. So after 15 months I was forced to go all *tough-love* on her. I gave her an ultimatum (the or-else unspecified) that within 60 days I must see some progress with her situation. She had to file for SSDI, Medicaid, food stamps, find some psychological help, go to a free medical and vision clinic, etc. I provided all the contact information she would need. I was willing to support her, but was not going to bankrupt my self assuming her medical and legal bills for the rest of her life.
And still, 50 days later I saw no indication that she had done anything. Not wanting to wait for the 60th day and my bluff to be called, I finally had to be so mean that she was forced to turn to the county mental health system. This was the only way I could see to get her some help. Taking her back to her family was not an option and I was not going to send her to live under a bridge (a very real possibility.)
Since then she has had a social worker leading her through the application process for all those services, and she is now accepting advice from the social worker that had been unacceptable when it came from me.
So here’s the thing. I have a new perspective on her family members, who were probably doing their own version of tough love, but would never think of throwing her butt out. My friend maintains that if she were still living with them, she would have ended up at county mental health just the same. Nonsense! Without some imminent threat, she would still be crying on my shoulder daily about her nasty family and their lack of understanding.
By being too kind (a democrat) I was enabling my friend to put off indefinitely doing anything to help herself. I had to stop giving her fish and put a fishing pole within reach (become a republican). It was up to her to pick it up and start feeding herself. It is clear that she genuinely has problems but that she is also capable of doing what is required, when properly motivated. I had to get downright ugly about it, and her social worker now sets tasks and deadlines to keep her on track. She sees a counselor. She gets medications. She qualified for food stamps. She has been approved for SSDI and Medicaid. For most of her life she paid into these systems and now it is only fair she receive something back when she needs it. Maybe I will even get my friend back and enjoy her company again.
And this whole scenario is how a helping hand is supposed to go. Wherever possible charity should be voluntary, not compulsory. Nobody forced me help; I did it voluntarily, out of affection. But even friendship and compassion have their limits; love and goodwill can be strained to breaking. There is a place for government assistance, but turning to the government should be the last resort, not the first. And you have to try to help yourself first.
And now Obama, et al, want to REQUIRE me to do this for a bunch of strangers as well? No thanks, I already gave.
Compassionate conservativism - 2
Let’s just beat this dead horse into a pulp, shall we?
Suppose we’re friends and I give you $100 or a gift worth that much, just because we’re pals. It is well within the rules for you to spend the money on anything you want. It is also well within the rules for you to exchange the gift for a different color or size, or even for something else that you like better. Still within the rules (though tacky) is to pawn the gift, take the $50 you get, and blow it on anything you want. It was a present.]
However, suppose you are my friend (or even a complete stranger) and you tell me you’re kids are hungry. Suppose I give you $100, and suppose doing that shorts my monthly budget for luxuries or even necessities, but I have decided your need is greater. This too is a gift.
But instead of spending the money on enough food to feed yourself and your family for a couple of weeks, you decide life is short (could be a big part of why you’re asking for money in the first place) and what you really need is a good time. You spend the money on dinner out, with wine, and a show, because you figure you can always put on your hungry face, trot out your starving kids, and hit up your ol’ buddy A. Nonymous for another C-note? Not illegal, and you won’t go to jail for it, but certainly violating the spirit of the gift and not even remotely within the rules of common decency. Don’t ask me to help you anymore. I would be stupid to fall for it again. You are the one starving your kids, not me, and I am very sorry.
And what if I am not the only friend you have asked for help? Better hope we don’t all get together and compare notes. Because then we’re all kicking you off the gravy train.
Im not mean..Bennett is
I think the person who is mean is Bennett. How would you like to be a black person hearing him say that..that to abort black babies would reduce/stop crime? For pete sake. He is not a straight thinking person, if he was he would not have singled out a whole ethnic group of people stating we could abort them. Also, if he was a straight thinking person, he would realize this is gonna start trouble in America, people are gonna get mad, people are gonna be asking for his head, people are going to be calling for him to lose his radio show, which they now are and also it is going to reinforce the opinion of many that republicans are a white persons political group. You cant say these kind of things, cause it is just not right. All people, no matter what color, creed, religion have their criminals and good. That is why he is not a straight thinking man. It is an inflammatory remark. I dont know where you reside but out here we have towns called Compton and Watts, mostly black areas, and the tension there is quite palpable. Those are the areas that erupted in riots after the Rodney King beating in the 1990's. All people have to hear is this remark and it can incite rage, especially after New Orleans and the feeling that maybe they were not rescued because they were minorities..even if not true, these feelings are raw and ready to blow. His remark is as stupid as the remark from Robertson about Chavez..you just dont say those kinds of things in a civilized society..Bennett can think whatever he wants but you most certainly dont say it on radio.
Wow what a loving, tolerant, and compassionate
little liberal you are...NOT. You just wished me dead. How sweet!
What a wonderful way to show your *compassionate*
side at Christmas time.
This woman's soldier son was killed in Iraq right before the holidays, leaving behind a wife and child, but you glibly act like it's no big deal.
Of course, to those of your ilk, the only good soldier is a DEAD one, so it's perfectly understandable.
Crawl back under your rock. You're nothing but an ugly, hateful snake.
Carla... (((hugs)))... please ignore this ignorant, hateful subhumanoid creature. Don't read any more of its posts. It is clearly an evil force that only truly belongs on the CON board.
I think we should all ignore this poster and not feed its hatred. Just like Bush, It clearly has no compassion for those it sends to fight a war based on lies and deceit.
Compassionate euthanasia. It is not that far a reach any more. sm
It happened in Italy just the other day. It took the lady 4 days to die.
That is what you have to look forward to if the premise of his health care plan is correct.
So when they talk about leaving the debt to our children, g-children, and g-gchild, then they will be healthy enough to cough up the money to pay the piper.
JMHO though.
Make that Compassionate conservatism
Oh, duh!
WH criticizes Bennett..
Wow..even WH criticizes Bennett for his comments..guess now the neocons will stop defending Bennetts comments and stop posting their feeble defense on the liberal board..
White House criticizes Bennett for comments
Ex-education secretary tied crime rate to aborting black babies
Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET Sept. 30, 2005
WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.
“The president believes the comments were not appropriate,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Bennett, on his radio show, “Morning in America,” was answering a caller’s question when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.
“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,” said Bennett, author of “The Book of Virtues.”
He went on to call that “an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”
Democrats demand apology
On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats demanded that Bennett apologize for the remarks.
Responding later to criticism, Bennett said his comments had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was “morally reprehensible.”
On his show Thursday, Bennett, who opposes abortion, said he was “pointing out that abortion should not be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism ... should be supported or opposed for economic reasons. Immoral policies are wrong because they are wrong, not because of an economic calculation.”
Reid, D-Nev., said he was “appalled by Mr. Bennett’s remarks” and called on him “to issue an immediate apology not only to African Americans but to the nation.”
Rep. Raum Emanuel, D-Ill., said in a statement, “At the very time our country yearns for national unity in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, these comments reflect a spirit of hate and division.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
UGLY BENNETT
Ugly Bennett
|
Hit on 'abort every black baby' gaffe
|
By CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
|
 |
William Bennett |
|
Morality maven William Bennett was in holier-than-thou hell yesterday after the White House and just about everybody else blasted him for saying the crime rate could be reduced by aborting every black baby in this country.
The best-selling author of The Book of Virtues insisted he was no racist and refused to apologize.
I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition, Bennett said on his Morning in America radio show.
But the Bush administration quickly distanced itself from the cultural conservative. The President believes the comments were not appropriate, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
While Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats demanded that Bennett apologize, NAACP chief Bruce Gordon said he was personally offended and angry that Bennett felt he could make such a public statement with impunity.
The Rev. Al Sharpton called the conservative's comments blatantly racist. He's a man who thinks black and crime are synonymous, he said.
But Bennett was defended by his brother, high-powered Washington lawyer Robert Bennett.
What I would emphasize is that he called this morally reprehensible, the lawyer told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. I think it's largely making a mountain out of a molehill.
Responding to a caller on Wednesday's radio program, Bennett said he disagreed with the hypothesis put forward in another best seller, Freakonomics, that crime goes down as abortions go up.
But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, said Bennett.
Bennett, a Republican who opposes abortion, then added that this would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything links the drop in crime to a drop in the number of children born into poverty after Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. But authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner did not assume that those aborted fetuses would have been black.
Race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime, Levitt wrote on his blog yesterday.
The Brooklyn-reared Bennett was education secretary under President Ronald Reagan and the nation's first drug czar under the first President George Bush. A darling of the religious right, Bennett's credentials as moralizer-in-chief were tarnished two years ago when he admitted he had a gambling problem.
Dumb's the word
What William Bennett said:
But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
Originally published on September 30, 2005 |
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Yeah, right; I forgot, more compassionate conservatism.
Because Bennett's *values* match their own.
They must be very confused by the WH's response. Probably don't know what they're allowed to *think* about this.
My hunch, based on their own posts, is that at this moment in time, they'd all vote for Bennett because his inner prejudices and hatred match their own.
Our hatred? Please refer to post above by your compassionate left
x
Some states have passed compassionate euthanasia already, Oregon. nm
x
So you have nothing to offer when it comes to defending Bennett's statements...sm
as you posted earlier that they were taken out of context. When asked to enlighten us on the context, you instead want to take Zauber to task. I know why, because there is no defense for these statements and a sound minded person wouldn't even try. Even the dupes on capitol hill are criticizing the statements.
What exactly was Bennett's point in making this comment?
I guess one could say that statistically he could be somewhat right, but then you could also say that since North Dakota has the hightest alcoholism rate that perhaps we could hypothesize the elimination of all North Dakotans, or all Alaskans since it has the highest illicit drug use rate. Yes, one could break down all the social ills of our country by region or ethnicity and make assumptions and point fingers but what is the point? It seems to me his ethically tactless comment serves to inflame a great racial and socioeconomic divide in this country.
I am sure it has something to do with the fact that Coombs knows Bennett is not a racist. nm
Freakanomics, Democrat, is NOT Bennett's book. sm
It you had read the entire article posted here and gone to Bennett's website, you would know that. But it's easier to just run with the first bone of information and negate the facts. If Bill Maher told Bennett to do that, he would make a fool of himself...yet again.
If one was to say that Bill Bennett believed crime could and should be reduced by abortion, then one could also argue that liberals who support abortion believe in and advocate black genocide.
Do they really want to go there...?
You can't rightly theorize when you still don't understand what Bennett was saying. sm
And you don't, or won't.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
Read on down. Some posters below are defending Bennett's remarks...sm
so while you may feel they are wrong, which I think the white house was right to condemn them. BENNETT having served in two high positions, Secretary of education and over drugs under Bush Sr with these views, is worrisome.
I think his true *colors* are shining through.
If anyone is dividing America it is Bennett by his remarks and Bush
No, Im not trying to defend the democratic party or help with dividing this country. Bennetts remarks have nothing to do with political parties, they have to do with insensitive hurtful hateful remarks made by him..I divide the black white community? I beg your pardon, I have always associated with minorities in America. I have lived side by side with them, dated them, married one of them and I will continue to care for the minorities..the white republican capitalists do not need my support nor do they deserve my support..
Media Matters...William Bennett Audio...sm
You'd have to hear it yourself to get the correct context. The caller was not even talking about reducing the crime rate, Bennett brought this up out of the blue, and he says I do know... before he made the comment, NOT making a reference to Freakonomics but his own opinion.
From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Bennett and Ralph Reed sitting in a tree.. B-E-T-T-I-N-G
Reed fought ban on betting
Anti-gambling bill was defeated
By JIM GALLOWAY, ALAN JUDD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 10/02/05
Ralph Reed, who has condemned gambling as a cancer on the American body politic, quietly worked five years ago to kill a proposed ban on Internet wagering — on behalf of a company in the online gambling industry.
Reed, now a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Georgia, helped defeat the congressional proposal despite its strong support among many Republicans and conservative religious groups. Among them: the national Christian Coalition organization, which Reed had left three years earlier to become a political and corporate consultant.
A spokesman for Reed said the political consultant fought the ban as a subcontractor to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff's law firm. But he said Reed did not know the specific client that had hired Abramoff: eLottery Inc., a Connecticut-based company that wants to help state lotteries sell tickets online — an activity the gambling measure would have prohibited.
Reed declined to be interviewed for this article. His aides said he opposed the legislation because by exempting some types of online betting from the ban, it would have allowed online gambling to flourish. Proponents counter that even a partial ban would have been better than no restrictions at all.
Anti-gambling activists say they never knew that Reed, whom they once considered an ally, helped sink the proposal in the House of Representatives. Now some of them, who criticized other work Reed performed on behalf of Indian tribes that own casinos, say his efforts on eLottery's behalf undermine his image as a champion of public morality, which he cultivated as a leader of the religious conservative movement in the 1980s and '90s.
It flies in the face of the kinds of things the Christian Coalition supports, said the Rev. Cynthia Abrams, a United Methodist Church official in Washington who coordinates a group of gambling opponents who favored the measure. They support family values. Stopping gambling is a family concern, particularly Internet gambling.
Reed's involvement in the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000, never previously reported, comes to light as authorities in Washington scrutinize the lobbying activities of Abramoff, a longtime friend who now is the target of several federal investigations.
The eLottery episode echoes Reed's work against a lottery, video poker and casinos in Alabama, Louisiana and Texas: As a subcontractor to two law firms that employed Abramoff, Reed's anti-gambling efforts were funded by gambling interests trying to protect their business.
After his other work with Abramoff was revealed, Reed asserted that he was fighting the expansion of gambling, regardless of who was paying the bills. And he said that, at least in some cases, his fees came from the nongaming income of Abramoff's tribal clients, a point that mollified his political supporters who oppose gambling. With the eLottery work, however, Reed has not tried to draw such a distinction.
By working against the Internet measure, Reed played a part in defeating legislation that sought to control a segment of the gambling industry that went on to experience prodigious growth.
Since 2001, the year after the proposed ban failed, annual revenue for online gambling companies has increased from about $3.1 billion worldwide to an estimated $11.9 billion this year, according to Christiansen Capital Advisers, a New York firm that analyzes market data for the gambling industry.
Through a spokesman, Abramoff declined to comment last week on his work with Reed for eLottery.
Federal records show eLottery spent $1.15 million to fight the anti-gambling measure during 2000. Of that, $720,000 went to Abramoff's law firm at the time, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds of Washington. According to documents filed with the secretary of the U.S. Senate, Preston Gates represented no other client on the legislation.
Reed's job, according to his campaign manager, Jared Thomas, was to produce a small run of direct mail and other small media efforts to galvanize religious conservatives against the 2000 measure. Aides declined to provide reporters with examples of Reed's work. Nor would Thomas disclose Reed's fees.
Since his days with the Christian Coalition, Reed consistently has identified himself as a gambling opponent. Speaking at a National Press Club luncheon in Washington in 1996, for instance, Reed called gambling a cancer and a scourge that was responsible for orphaning children ... [and] turning wives into widows.
But when the online gambling legislation came before Congress in 2000, Reed took no public position on the measure, aides say.
In 2004, Reed told the National Journal, a publication that covers Washington politics, that his policy was to turn down work paid for by casinos. In that interview, he did not address working for other gambling interests.
Some anti-gambling activists reject Reed's contention that he didn't know his work against the measure benefited a company that could profit from online gambling.
It slips over being disingenuous, said the Rev. Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, who worked for the gambling ban. Jack Abramoff was known as 'Casino Jack' at the time. If Jack's doling out tickets to this feeding trough, for Ralph to say he didn't know — I don't believe that.
A well-kept secret
When U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) first introduced the Internet gambling ban, in 1997, he named among its backers the executive director of the Christian Coalition: Ralph Reed.
In remarks published in the Congressional Record, Goodlatte said, This legislation is supported ... across the spectrum, from Ralph Reed to Ralph Nader.
But Reed's role in the ban's failure three years later was a well-kept secret, even from Goodlatte. That's in part because Reed's Duluth-based Century Strategies — a public affairs firm that avoids direct contact with members of Congress — is not subject to federal lobbying laws that would otherwise require the company to disclose its activities.
We were not aware that Reed was working against our bill, Kathryn Rexrode, a spokeswoman for Goodlatte, said last week.
Several large conservative religious organizations, with which Reed often had been aligned before leaving the Christian Coalition in 1997, joined together to support the legislation. Those groups included the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council — and the Christian Coalition.
In addition, four prominent evangelical leaders signed a letter in May 2000 urging Congress to pass the legislation: James Dobson of Focus on the Family; Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition; Jerry Falwell, formerly of the Moral Majority; and Charles Donovan of the Family Research Council.
Among the other supporters: the National Association of Attorneys General, Major League Baseball and the National Association of Convenience Stores, whose members are among the largest lottery ticket sellers.
Opponents, in addition to eLottery and other gambling interests, included the Clinton administration, which argued that existing federal laws were sufficient to combat the problem. In a policy statement, the administration predicted the measure would open a floodgate for other forms of illegal gambling.
To increase the measure's chances of passage, its sponsors had added provisions that would have allowed several kinds of online gambling — including horse and dog racing and jai alai — to remain legal.
Thomas, Reed's campaign manager, said in a statement last week that those exceptions amounted to an expansion of online gambling: Under the bill, a minor with access to a computer could have bet on horses and gambled at a casino online.
Thomas' statement claimed that the Southern Baptists and the Christian Coalition opposed the legislation for the same reason as Reed.
Actually, the Southern Baptist Convention lent its name to the group of religious organizations that backed the legislation. But as the measure progressed, the convention became uncomfortable with the exceptions and quietly spread the word that it was neutral, a spokesman said last week.
As for the Christian Coalition, it argued against the exceptions before the vote. But it issued an action alert two days after the ban's defeat, urging its members to call Congress and demand the legislation be reconsidered and passed.
In fact, the letter signed by the four evangelical leaders indicated a bargain had been reached with the Christian Coalition and other religious groups. In exchange for accepting minor exemptions for pari-mutuel wagering, the evangelicals got what they wanted most — a ban on lottery ticket sales over the Internet. Other anti-gambling activists say the exceptions disappointed them But they accepted the measure as an incremental approach to reining in online gambling.
We all recognized it wasn't perfect, Abrams, the Methodist official, said last week. We decided we weren't going to let the best be the enemy of the good.
Any little thing, she said in an earlier interview, would have been a victory.
Plans to expand
Founded in 1993, eLottery has provided online services to state lotteries in Idaho, Indiana and Maryland and to the national lottery in Jamaica, according to its Web site. It had plans to expand its business by facilitating online ticket sales, effectively turning every home computer with an Internet connection into a lottery terminal.
The president of eLottery's parent company, Edwin McGuinn, did not respond to recent requests for an interview. Earlier this year, he told The Washington Post that by banning online lottery ticket sales, the 2000 legislation would have put eLottery out of business. We wouldn't have been able to operate, the Post quoted McGuinn as saying.
Even with Abramoff and other lobbyists arguing against the measure, and Reed generating grass-roots opposition to it, a solid majority of House members voted for the measure in July 2000.
But that wasn't enough. House rules required a two-thirds majority for expedited passage, so the legislation died.
In addition to hiring Abramoff's firm to lobby for the measure's defeat, eLottery paid $25,000 toward a golfing trip to Scotland that Abramoff arranged for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) — then the House majority whip, later the majority leader — several weeks before the gambling measure came up for a vote, according to the Post. Another $25,000 for the trip came from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, an Abramoff client with casino interests, the Post reported. The trip, which is under review by the House Ethics Committee, was not related to DeLay's indictment on a conspiracy charge last week.
The campaign against the Internet gambling ban was one of several successful enterprises in which Abramoff and Reed worked together.
The Choctaws paid for Reed's work in 1999 and 2000 to defeat a lottery and video poker legislation in Alabama. In 2001 and 2002, another Abramoff client that operates a casino, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, put up the money for Reed's efforts in Louisiana and Texas to eliminate competition from other tribes. Reed was paid about $4 million for that work.
Abramoff, once one of Washington's most influential lobbyists, now is under federal indictment in a Florida fraud case and is facing investigations by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the Justice Department into whether he defrauded Indian tribes he represented, including those that paid Reed's fees. Reed has not been accused of wrongdoing.
Reed and Abramoff have been friends since the early 1980s. That's when Abramoff, as chairman of the national College Republicans organization, hired Reed to be his executive director. Later, Reed introduced Abramoff to the woman he married.
In an interview last month about his consulting business, Reed declined to elaborate on his personal and professional relationships with Abramoff. At one point, Reed was asked if Abramoff had hired him to work for clients other than Indian tribes.
Reed's answer: Not that I can recall. |
