tv Lou Dobbs Tonight FOX Business July 13, 2013 10:00am-11:01am EDT
nearly five seconds. [tires seeching] stop the texts. stop the wrecks. visit us at stoptextsstopwrecks.org. good evening everybody. thank you for being with us. cheers erupting inside the house republican caucus meeting on immigration. speaker john boehner and the republican leadership confirming late today that the house of representatives will not be taking up the senate-passed gang of 8 immigration bill. congressman darrell issa confirming to fox after the meeting broke up that the senate bill will not see the light of day in the house of representatives. >> the important thing is it was not a well thought out approach in the senate. it's for the reasons that the senate bill has little chance of ever -- no chance of really
being considered here. however, we are looking at what to do with 11 million people. >> this after congressman of florida told fox news earlier in the day that the house's gang of 7 bill is quote all done. just not public. the congressman also said that the gang of 7 bill would not be discussed in that caucus meeting. the house republicans have now succeeded in taking up national leadership on the issues of immigration, and border security. the white house efforts to push boehner into -- as the president plotted legislative strategy with democratic members of the congressional hispanic caucus. his economic team today trying to help the way forward, releasing a report claiming a broad coalition and major economic benefits from the gang of 8's now dead proposal. council of economic advisers
chairman gene sperling made a point of naming some who agree with the president's approach. >> it reflects a very widespread bipartisan agreement. so for example, people like grover norquist, douglas holtz eek in, former vice presidential candidate paul ryan, former republican president george bush. all of them agree with the administration on the basic premise that comprehensive common sense immigration reform will be good for economic growth. >> as sperling noted, president george bush reemerged in the public arena today after remaining largely out of public view since he left office. mr. bush tried to offer a helping hand to his beleaguered and frustrated successor in the white house. >> we have a problem. the laws governing the immigration system aren't working. the system is broken.
we're now in an important debate reforming those laws. and that's good. in the politics or the specifics of policy. but i do hope there is a positive resolution to the debate. >> president obama's press secretary jay carney taking a different approach, essentially blaming his boss's support for the senate gang of 8 bill and the house's reluctance to hold a vote. >> i know that it annoys them that he's in office. let's just accept that and posit that. this isn't about that. the reason why we have the progress that we've seen is in no small measure because of the support the president has put behind comprehensive immigration reform, in no small measure because of the advocacy he
engaged in throughout the campaign and throughout his first term. but it is not about him. >> so it is not about him. although it was about him, but it isn't. the communications department at the white house struggling with the language. most americans learned in last year's presidential campaign that for conservatism to prevail, true conservatives have to be about far more than a balanced budget. conservatism has to be about our less government than president obama and his predecessor created. to prevail on the issue of immigration or any issue in washington, conservatives must have better ideas, stronger principles and courage than the left. they must embrace the national interest, not imitate liberals and their proposals. today the house republican leadership demonstrated that they are now on that new way.
our first guest tonight inside the house caucus meeting, he's one of those leading the way on the step by step approach to immigration reform, joining us now is congressman trey gotti, member of the judiciary committee, chairman of the subcommittee on immigration, a member of the house oversight committee. congressman, as always, good to have you with us. that must have been something to hear cheers break out in what was a late, rather somber meeting when the caucus convenes. >> i think it got the loudest cheer when he said i'll be brief. but the second loudest cheer was pe reiterated that he has said time and time again is that the senate bill is not going to be voted on in the house. if i knew another language to say it in, i would say it in another language so maybe our friends in the senate would get the message. but their bill is not going to be voted on in the house of representatives. we are going to do our own bill,
our own way step by step. it's been 27 years since the last foray into "comprehensive immigration reform." i don't know what the rush to do it in the next 27 days would be other than a political rush. i got to add this, too, lou. >> sure. >> i was listening to jay carney and i have looked and looked and looked since i got to washington for the comprehensive immigration bill that president obama and the house and senate democrats passed in 2008 and 2009 when they had control of both bodies of congress and the white house. they didn't lift a finger on comprehensive immigration reform, which makes skeptics think they're more interested in 2014 and the election cycle than the real remedy. nevertheless, we'll work our will in the house and do it responsibly step by step and hopefully engender public trust in the process. >> a that process will be
regular order in the house? there will be hearings? there will be studious and rigorous analysis of issues and questions asked and there will be insistence upon answers before public policy is created by the house? >> as novel as that sounds and as unusual as that is for us, we have had four hearings so far. when the amendment process went well into the late evening and that's the way it's supposed to be done. if you have a better idea than the one proposed, debate it with civility and fact. you don't lump everything in together, the good, the bad, the ugly, the not so ugly and then throw more ugly in certain states where you need those senators to vote for it. that's not the way our framers set it up and that's not the way we're going to do it. we have passed four bills out of judiciary. another out of homeland security that deals with the border. there are other bills to come. and we're going to let the housework its will.
i think that's what the american people want. i think they want to see the process unfold and not have some deal cut behind a mahogany door. >> well, it is -- it's exhilarating to be quite candid about the matter, to hear you and to hear the leadership, the other members of the leadership of the house of representatives say that this is going to be a government well-run, a process well-managed and the people served rather than to see another effort by -- i once thought they were well-meaning, i have to say congressman, i'm not certain that all the members of the gang of 8 and this president are well-meaning because it suggests that they -- if they are well-meaning, they missed entirely the lessons of 2006 and '7 which is the american people deserve far better on the important issues that matter to our sovereignty, our destiny, our lives as americans. and, of course, border security
and immigration -- border security must be present, immigration must be reformed. but it's got to be done sensibly and in the national interest. you all have decided to do it the right way. i use the word again. it's exhilarating. >> i'll tell you what was exhilarating for me, lou. in that conference to hear my colleagues who have some very compelling stories about how their families came to this country. we are a nation of immigrants. we are also a nation of law. that does not mean you can't balance law with compassion. i'm thankful that we have a compassionate citizenry and that we live with compassionate people. but we are about the respect for the rule of law. i don't know if the colleagues in the senate noticed or not, but there's a tremendous decrease in confidence in the institutions of government. if nothing else, people are going to have confidence in the process. i hope we end up with a product they like.
but whether we end up with a product or not, they're going to have confidence in the process. again, i don't want to repeat myself, but there are some who believe the president is more interested in the issue in 2014 than he is a solution. and look no farther back than his first term when he had nancy pelosi as the spoker and harry reid as the leader of the senate and he did not lift a finger on comprehensive immigration reform. why before august? they didn't do it in two years, why in the next 27 days. >> congressman cantot made an interesting point last night. if president obama can selectively enforce obama care, who is to say he cannot be selective as an enforcement on border security? in fact, i will say to you that he's been extraordinarily selective both in enforcing security on our borders, but also in immigration law itself. >> i can tell the president right now, we're not going to
give him the authority to decide which parts of the law he wants to enforce, nor secretary napolitano. you can add recess appoiitments on the list of laws that he selectively enforces when he wants to. look, i'm about respect for the rule of law. if you don't like the law, change it. but it's not his job to decide which ones to enforce and which ones not to and eric cantor is right. >> congressman gowdy, always good to talk to you. first, before i say good night to you, i want to say congratulations to you on the republican leadership. quite a day in washington. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. the egyptian military gets more help from its friend. four more f-16s from the united states. general david grange on that and the redaction in the size of the u.s. military next.
a new outrage for taxpayers. the pentagon likely to tear down a $34 million state-of-the-art facility in southwestern gavin stand that u.s. force also probably never use. just three years ago commanders in afghanistan warned the pentagon they didn't need the massive operations center. -- marines are pulling out. the afghans can't afford it, partly because it's wired for american appliances. the military says it's investigating what went wrong. the white house today vowing to take its time deciding whether to freeze aid to egypt while avoiding the label of a military coup. this is the pentagon has moved ahead to send more fighter jets to the egyptian military. joining us is general david
grange, former army brigadier general, former commander of the first infantry division along with many more prestigious prominent commands. general, great to have you with us. >> thank you, lou. >> let's start with the why the idea that senator john mccain, a military man, saying the united states should cut off aid to egypt. your thoughts? >> well, historically egypt, israel, greece, turkey have received the bulk of the aid, u.s. aid for the military. but in this case, i think with the changing dynamics in this area and egypt is a very important country in the middle east and north africa. i think it would probably be a good idea to maybe commit the aid and not provide it until the dust settles on what type of government, how they treat the
people and their place in the region. >> the interim government bringing in the muslim brotherhood, we do not know whether at the behest or the insistence of the obama administration. but we do know that saudi arabia and kuwait, among others, providing substantial aid to the egyptians with the fall of the morsi government. do you look upon that development as a positive one. not only for egypt itself, a time when it desperately needs that money but also nfor the region. >> lou, i believe it is positive. it's positive because it's good to have the arab states, the other regional countries that can provide, have the ability to provide funding to do so and relieve the burden on the united states and some of the other western countries that may have fulfilled that requirement in the past. i think that is a good sign. then we should, i think, just kind of sit back a and see how things turn out.
that doesn't mean you turn your back because that will destabilizes our relations in the area. just stand back and wait until we provide aid again. >> the administration considering a zero option that is with the withdrawal of all of our troops from afghanistan next year. a wise course? >> i don't think so. i know we did that in vietnam. haven't been a part of that. i think in afghanistan, again, because of the strategic location tied to pakistan, what's going on right now in southwest asia. we need some type of training force, some type of commitment to not only keep an eye on the commitment that we -- and sacrifices that we've made but just to understand the way ahead. not be totally cut out of that country. i think a zero pullout is
unwise. >> and 12 combat brigades to be cut from ten u.s. bases, combat brigades to be pulled from ten bases. this looks like an extraordinary piece of -- well, a complicated surgery that the military right now can't really afford. >> well, you know, if you look back in history, vietnam and first iraqi war, other wars in history, we always do this. looking for people are the most expensive part of the military but also the more critical. they're more critical than the type of equipment you give them. without good people, you can't operate the equipment. so i think that cutting these brigades out, i think we've got to be very careful which ones and how hard we do that. you just can't -- you cannot mobilize, recruit, train, mobilize those type of units overnight. in today's environment things
happen overnight. and so i think that it's better to have the forces at a good rate that provides the proper rotations overseas, gives you an opportunity to mobilize a spectrum of threats and you know, also, lou, it provides jobs. i mean, the military provides some superb jobs for people, not only while they serve but also when they get out and go back into society. so it's also an employment issue and every g.i. and their families provide jobs for three to seven other people in the communities where they serve. so i think when you cut out the troop strength, it affects more than just the numbers of the army itself. >> general, thanks for being with us as always. david grange. thank you. >> my pleasure, lou. up next, new york mayor michael bloomberg tapping into his billions trying to destroy your second amendment rights. in the chalk talk, we'll show you why debt money is being
poorly spent. ouble miles from their capital one venture card to fly home for the big family reunion. you must be garth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the veure card because you can fly any airline anytime. two words. double miles! this guy can act. wanna play dodge rock? oh, you guys! and with double miles you can actuay use, you never miss the fun. beard growing contest and go! ♪ win! what's in your wallet?
sounds right, doesn't it? mayors against illegal guns. what's wrong with that? he's making a lot of enemies these days. senate majority leader harry reid is upset with mayor bloomberg and his group "mayors" for targeting four democratic senators who voted against expanding background checks. he's gone after harry reid's democrats and two mayors, including the mayor of illinois's third largest city, recently announced they're ditching the group. bailing out because the group isn't carrying out its stated intentions. part of the problem, bloomberg named the group "mayors against illegal guns." instead it's become mayors for gun control. more specifically, mayors for an assault weapons ban. it might as well be mayors against the second amendment of the constitution. but the fact is that an assault weapon's ban focuses on a small number of firearms that are, in fact, rarely used in the committing of crime.
according to the latest fbi statistics, there were just over 12,000 murders in 2011. now, believe it or not, 2011 are the most recent numbers that the government can provide us. can you imagine that in this age? 6,220 of those murders were by hand guns. hand guns. only 323 were committed by rifles, including a so-called assault weapons. they're not. but that's what they're called. assault weapons, a subset of the rifle groups, and you know what is used more often to kill people than those 323 rifles? well, body parts. well, we'll get more specific. and sharp objects. 1694 murders were committed by knives. 1694. 728 people were murdered by blows from hands, feet and fists.
and 496 murders by weapons such as clubs and hammers. more than carried out by rifles. but mayor bloomberg knows to never let the facts get in the way of what he wants. he spent at least $14 million of his $27 billion fortune on gun control ads this year. and why are some of the country's mayors allowing themselves to be bloomberg's dupes on the issue of gun control? well, coming up here next we'll be talking with one of the mayors who says he's had a belly full of bloomberg's attacks on the rights of legal gun owners. mayor larry morrissey of rockford, illinois, joins us next.
state in the nation -- lawmakers rush today to finalize a proposal ahead of a federal court deadline. both chambers of the illinois state legislature voted to override governor pat quinn, changes that the governor had made to the bill they approved more than a month ago. even some critics of the law argued it was better to approve something rather than risk the courts allowing unregulated concealed weapons in the state of illinois and chicago in particular, which has endured severe gun violence and murders over the past three years. our next guest has himself reversed course. he was once a member of new york city mayor's michael bloomberg's mayors against illegal guns. he's had enough. he quit the group after finding the agenda, in his judgment, seeking ways to ban legal guns and to attack the rights of legal gun owners. joining us now, rockford, illinois, mayor larry morrissey. good to have you with us, mr. mayor. >> good evening. great to be with you. >> great to have you.
your reaction to the illinois legislature making a decision override governor quinn's veto. >> well, i'm very pleased with the decision of the illinois legislatuue today. for a lot of us who have been in favor of concealed carry for quite a long time and we got a lot of help when the seventh circuit ordered our legislature to come up with a solution. i disagree with our governor. i think our citizens in a democracy like ours aren't subordinate, i'm pleased with the decision of the legislature today. >> i have to say, from mayor, you don't sound like a bloomberg acolyte. you've joined up with the mayors against illegal guns and now you've said you're out. why did you make this decision? >> well, back when i joined the group and this was in my first term, 2005, 2006 time frame, i took the organization for what it stood for, what its name was
about, trying to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who have no right to carry a gun in the first place. most of the crime committed in rockford, illinois and frankly in cities throughout the country is by people who have no right to carry a gun. people who already have a felony conviction, they have issues with them, they don't have the legal right to carry a gun. that was the original focus. unfortunately, over the last approximately two years, the organization shifted away from the original focus and i didn't feel comfortable supporting the organization any longer. >> last month, even senator schumer criticized bloomberg about the anti-guns ad that he and his groups have run. you told "time" magazine, the new york city mayor putting ads against people in states is not going to be effective. 900 mayors could be affected. that's how many in the organization. he's got $27 billion and as i understand it, the organization is basically funded by mayor michael bloomberg. this -- do -- you tell me.
what in the world will it take to wake people up that this mayor and others are trying to strip them of their second amendment rights? >> well, you know, i'm independent like mayor bloomberg and others and i expect reasonable, smart americans to be able to make up their own mind. my personal belief is that the organization has gone too far. obviously, you mentioned it, the organization was pretty much owned and operated by mayor bloomberg and like i said, there was a time when i was supportive of the mission. i'm no longer. i think there's others who feel like me that hait's gone too fa and it's up to individual citizens like in rockford, illinois, to make up their own minds. i felt like the organization in particular, the tactics had become too heavy handed. i didn't feel comfortable with it. i'm going to keep moving forward to help my community. but much of what we're dealing with right now and the emphasis guns themselves, it's on the he
individuals who carry them in the sub cultures and communities urban cities like ours that supported many times by a federal government that has enabled those sub cultures to exist. >> mayor morrissey, you know, as we look at what is going on here, watching mayors playing pawn, 900 of them to a billionaire and his purposes, do you think that other mayors are going to follow your lead and say, you know, they're not going to be pawns, they're not going to be dupes to a man who doesn't have any greater vision, simply a massive fortune? >> well, i don't know that i would call any of those mayors still part of the group pawns. i defended the organization at a time and i had my own reasons for being part of it. i also have my reasons for being out of it. there may be folks who agree with mayor bloomberg. i assume they do if they're still part of it.
there's more than 900 mayors throughout the nation and there's a lot of folks who feel just like me, that we need to be supportive of the second amendment, supportive of responsible citizens. really, that's what our founding fathers -- it wasn't just about hunting rifles and guns that they were thinking about. they know that there needs to be a balance of power. our government is our people. it's not the cops and the professional police against our citizenry. we all have to be part of the solution. >> yeah. mr. mayor, let me be clear. the reason i said dupes, it was not in any way pejorative, per se, but as you point out yourself, when you join a group called mayors against illegal guns and you find out that he guy financing the deal and running the deal and approving the ads is against all guns, not just illegal guns and when you find out what he wants to do is make all guns illegal, it gets to be something -- those mayors are moving into the area, i
would just say the approximate area of dupe. mayor, we thank you very much for being with us. we thank you for sharing your thoughts and your reasons for leaving the bloomberg billions >> thank you, sir. i appreciate the opportunity to be on tonight. you know, cities like ours have a lot of real issues and my goal is to focus on those real issues. >> you're a good man and thank you for being with us. >> thank you. innocent until proved guilty. today damaging testimony by a weapons expert supporting george zimmerman's story about how trayvon martin died. fox news legal analyst lisa wheel joins us on the prosecutionns crumbling case in dobbs law.
wiehl. good to have you here. >> good to be here. >> this testimony today, my god, the forensic specialist saying that trayvon martin was above george zimmerman when the bullet was fired. >> right. this is a gunshot expert who has had 40 years of experience. he's been a professor, written books about this and he was very commonsensical because he looked at the way that martin's shirt came down upon zimmerman, right, when the shot was actually fired. he just talked about gravity. when you're over somebody, your shirt is going to go down like this as opposed to back on the person. that's important because when he was shot, there was about 2 to 4 inches between the gunshot and martin itself. it was bombshell testimony today. now, jurors will often discount what experts say because they're paid by either side. but this was just, again, so much common sense. oh, yeah, that makes sense. he was on top of zimmerman. >> all of the witnesses, all of
the testimony over the 11 days, could you cite one piece of testimony, one piece of evidence that speaks to george zimmerman's guilt in absolute terms, that is without a doubt? >> no. the only evidence that was brought in, i thought, that helped the prosecution was the defense bringing in martin's father. i mean, that was just -- i don't understand why that happened. because martin's father was able to testify, yeah, that was my son that was calling for help on that 911 call. because that was a critical piece of evidence, who was calling. >> contradicted himself earlier. >> right. >> i don't -- i couldn't agree with you less that it was important evidence. >> you asked me for a piece. >> if that is the strongest piece of evidence that the prosecution presented that is a contra dick tiff witness, a witness contradicted by his own words recounted by the lead investigator, the prosecution looked like abject fools here
for being -- >> here's the problem. here's why i think they did. they did not bring these charges for 40-plus days after the incident. >> they were forced to by the politicians. >> in fact, the local d.a., they had to bring in another d.a. the local d.a. saad no. here's a strange, bizarre thing to be looking at and watching and analyzing this trial. the witnesses for the prosecution, i.e., the detectives who normally present your case, they didn't want to be there. they were all for the defense. they didn't want to be there. >> they felt george zimmerman was speaking the truth. a prosecution that is incapable of presenting over the course of 11 days, one scintilla of evidence or testimony that supports a case tells you that this is a travesty of political corruption, pandering and absolute disregard for the rights of an american citizen. >> i mean -- >> by the way, we have the trugs of a president saying that would
be his son. the politicos and the activists demanding this trial and now we have now we have the sheriffs of the state of florida banding together to come up with a video to beg the people of florida not to riot if this man is determined to be not guilty by a jury of his peers. >> right. now -- >> this is america, right? this is the country -- >> that all being said -- yes, that was absolutely political and i agree with you 100% there. but there is still a dead boy there. getting at least according to some reportss >> correct me if i'm wrong, but prosecutors all across the country every day have to make a determination about whether to -- >> prosecutorial discretion. >> in this case they exercised that discretion. they were charged by the president of the united states effectively with being corrupt and prejudiced.
they were threatened by the same president with the u.s. justice department which he has politicized. this is, to me, it has the worst kind of stench about it. >> you're so right. because one of the big jobs for a prosecutor is to weigh the evidence as it comes in and then deny a case. don't bring it or bring it to a grand jury and have a no true bill. that's part of the judgment of a prosecutor. >> the judiciary, the legal system in this country looks to be, as i said at the outset of this broadcast, to have never been more fairly charged with corruption, incompetence, plitization. every middle class american, every poor american who aspires to be middle class, watching you, listening to you and me tonight, they know that they stand the almost absolute certainty of being impoverished,
their lives torn apart if a prosecutor makes a political decision. >> absolutely. your life is over. >> and how in the hell are we tolerating this skiend kind of conduct for any american. >> i can't answer that question. i can answer the legal question. >> your lawyers are making it all possible. >> all the lawyers -- >> where is the aba on this? >> here's what's going to happen. assumes he's acquitted of all charges. >> sure. >> then zimmerman, dollars to doughnuts is going to bring a civil lawsuit against the city of sanford. all of that. >> another court -- you know, this isn't the answer. >> that isn't -- >> we've got to a strip a lot of the money out of this legal system, strip the corruption out of it and we've got to strip the particula politics out of it. >> i don't disagree. >> i'll get a memo to you by tomorrow morning. i'll be writing it. >> you got it.
lis, good to have you with us. >> thanks. up next, crude oil prices at the highest level in more than a year. even as production is soaring to all-time highs. what's going on? we'll have it for you next. the pursuit of a better tomorrow is something we all share. but who can help youfi yo? who can build you a plan, not just a pie chart?? who n help keep your investments on course, whatever lies ahead? that someone is a morgan stanley financial advisor. and we're ready to work for you.
joining us now senior equity strategist, scott win. good to have you here. first of all, this is stunning stuff. there's the fed doing whatever they can to -- everything they can to be accommodating. they're talking about more money into market and there's the crude oil prices pulling it out. what do you make of it? >> that is the last thing the fed wants to see because, you know, crude oil, higher prices
at the pump are a tax. i was in chicago this last week. gas town, town. $4.20, $4.30 a gallon. clearly if we get some heightened tensions in the middle east and oil goes to $120, $130 a barrel. we see the national average at $5, $6, something like that, that is clearly going to take a lot of wind out of the already slow recovery. >> let me ask you a question that my friend bill o'reilly would insist upon. and that is, we're watching oil production just scream higher and higher and prices have been lower until just the last few weeks. what is going on here with crude prices and will we see them abate? will we see them reverse? >> well, i think a lot of it has been these middle east tensions. really, lou, if you think back between israel, are they going to bomb iran, just the things going on in iran and now syria
and just all the tensions in the region, that have really helped elevate oil prices, because certainly if you look around the globe, there's a lot of supply, economies are pretty slow. i just think that -- i don't agree with bill o'reilly's conspiracy theory on oil. i mean -- >> nor do i, let me be clear. >> there are, you know, hundreds of thousands of participants in the oil market that are in there buying and selling every day. you know, the market right now is running on a little bit of fear because we know there's plenty of supply out there despite the inventory numbers we saw today. there's a lot of oil out there. >> there's a lot of oil. >> i think -- there is. it's purely middle east tensions and the uncertainty over that. >> scott rinne, we thank you. >> a lot of uncertainty, lou. >> that's what makes markets, that's why we love them, right? >> scott, thanks for being with us. >> have a good evening. >> you too. up next, the brand new book,
collusion illustrates how team obama used the liberal mainstream media to steal the 2012 election and how to avoid a repeat in 2016. britt bow zel is next. the boys used double miles from their capital one venture card to fly home for the big family reunion. you must be garth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the venture card because you can fly any airline anytime. two words. double miles! this guy can act. wanna play dodge rock? oh, you guys! and with double miles youan actuay use, you never miss the fun. beard growing contest and go! ♪ win! what's in your wallet? for their family. that's why i created the honest cpany. i was just a concerned mom, with a crazy dream. a wish that there was a company that i could rely on, that did of the hard work for me.
my next guest says the mainstream media has never showed as much bias as they did during last year's presidential election and if conservatives don't do something and now, they won't win in 2016. here to talk about his new book, the media's role in president obama's reelection, brent bozell, president of the media research center. he's the author of the brand new book entitled, "collusion, how the media stole the 2012 election. how to stop them from doing it in 2016." brent, great to have you here. congratulations on the book.
amongst the examples of media bias, you talked about cnn's candy crowley and the way in which she responded and interjected in that debate, asserting that the president had declared benghazi to be an acted of terrorism. and there was no consequence, was there? >> no, it there wasn't. it was interesting because every four years republicans complain about the moderators which they had a hand in choosing. but this last year, it was really interesting because the two moderators you expected to be left wing, jim lehrer and especially bob schieffer. both of them did a terrific job in the first and third debates. you have to say that. they both did a great job. the middle one was candy crowley. i would have put my money on her doing a good job. she was horrific. she took away the golden moment for mitt romney. mitt omney heard the president say that he has declared it a
terrorist attack, that romney loooed at the president in disbelief, if you recall, as if to look at him and say do you know you may have given me the presidency with that statement? and she rushed to defend the president and stated the president was right. he made her repeat that he was right and in fact, he wasn't right at all. >> not right. wrong. and the idea, though, that -- and i have to say this, brent. as i watched that moment, i thought, well, this is still -- it's an even better moment for governor romney because now he can stand up and take on the media as well as the person with whom they are most complicit, that is the president of the united states. had he chosen to do that, it would have been a golden moment, perhaps a decisive moment for the governor. >> what was the high watermark for newt gingrich? it was georgia when he took on the media. that was the point where he went into first place in this
campaign. george bush 41 tried that and but he did it in the last hours of the campaign. all was lost, it looked like desperation, it was desperation. even then, it grabbed hold. look, the conservatives can't stand this agenda against them. what you saw, lou, last year was that nonstop, character assassination attacks against every single republican, while whitewashing any controversy over barack obama and i think conservatives are fed up with this. >> i want to remind our viewers, the book is "collusion, how the media stole the 2012 election." you say -- i thought this was fascinating. three main reasons that the republicans can't withstand these assaults and can't seem to come up with a way in which to counterattack the national media. and i love the fact -- you talk about ignorance, arrogance and fear. and all i can think of, you and reince priebus aren't going to
get along. >> think about it. ignorance, they just will not understand how important this is. it should be at the top of their agenda that they have to get in the war of ideas. they've got to get through this force that's stopping them at every opportunity. the arrogance is to think they don't need to do that. we're above that. this haughtiness, you saw it with the romney campaign. my goodness did you see it. they made no effort to address this. and then fear, so many republicans believe if they get smacked once, they better not respond because they'll get smacked again. >> i couldn't agree with you more. and i find it amazing that republicans last year didn't think they needed to get out the vote either. that was sort of, i think, a silly oversight on their part in a presidential election. >> lou, i was asked last night, brother hannity asked me is it fair to say that the media stole the election? let's put this --
>> very quickly. >> mitt romney lost it for many reasons. but i do believe that had the media been fair, barack obama would have been defeated. brent bozell, the book is "collusion." thank you for being with us and good night. >> announcer: the following program is a pd adrtisement for the food lovers fat loss system, brought to you by provida life sciences-- better living.tions for >> i'm annette, i'm from studio city, california. i'm a mother of three, i weight 155-1/2 pounds. this is the heaviest i've ever been. i'm a size 10. ...and this is me now! i lost 25 pods and went from that size 10 to this size 2 in just 12 weeks. how did i do it? i became a food lover. >> i'm a food lover and i lost 36 pounds. >> i'm a food lover and i've lost 50 pounds. >> i'm a food lover and i lost 60 pounds. >> i'm a food lover and i lost 82 pounds in eight months.