Glenn talks to Senator Lieberman




GLENN: That's tonight we're going to be covering that at 6:00 Eastern time. Stu, are you doing shots all night? Is that what you are doing every time something is called for a Democrat?

STU: No, not doing that for a Democrat. We may have a couple of participants from our staff who would volunteer doing that, which is such a shocker.

GLENN: Yeah, the alcoholics on the staff. I mean, the recovering alcoholic is not doing that. But all those that I have strangely hired and put around me going, "Glenn, it's just one; it's no big deal."

STU: Hugh Hefner, Hugh Hefner has just called. Let's do another shot.

GLENN: Is he going to be watching all of the -- he's going to be specifically watching.

STU: MSNBC, just to see how much tingling goes on with the staff.

GLENN: Full-fledged --

STU: Tingle.

GLENN: I mean, 30 Rock is like, you know, orgasmatronic over there. That's all that is. It's just sitting there. It's going to vibrate tonight.

STU: They are going to get like Dick Clark to host that thing on MSNBC. It's going to be like a giant party countdown. It is going to be the greatest moment in Keith Olbermann's life.

GLENN: It is.

STU: Congratulations.

GLENN: It is. That guy is so angry, just so angry.

STU: How great was the sketch on Saturday Night Live about that, with Ben Affleck. How fantastic is that.

GLENN: Who is that person here? Lynn who has been holding for a while. Hi, Lynn.

CALLER: Hi, Glenn.

GLENN: You were calling about the Olbermann thing, right?

CALLER: I was hoping to hear about it Monday and then talk about it today. I thought they did justice to his personality.

GLENN: Oh, you know what? A tingle went up to my leg to know that it was Ben Affleck that did it.

CALLER: I know.

GLENN: I mean, I couldn't believe it. And did you notice? Maybe it was just me wanting to read more into it. It seemed to be done with glee.

CALLER: It was. I think he actually cracked up a couple of times when he was doing it.

GLENN: Yeah. And it's not -- I don't think it was done in the done in the spirit of just good-natured ribbing. It seemed as though they really did not like him.

CALLER: Well, I know you'd think somebody -- or someone reported that he showed up at the set and Affleck was not comfortable with that when he was there.

GLENN: Well, what was it, Stu? Were you the one who told me what Olbermann said? "You know, I just wanted to see exactly what was going on so we could all laugh together." And you know that he wasn't laughing. He is not the kind of guy that is going to take --

STU: He will certainly say that he is, you know. "Oh, it was all in good fun and everything else." But you look at it and I think there is an element that has been brewing for -- I think really when it was highlighted by the, "Shut your damn mouth, George Bush" and also when he was hammering Hillary Clinton in that one about how she should drop out of the race and everything. And I think it's come to the point now where liberals are embarrassed by Keith Olbermann. Like they are getting to that point where they are like, "All right, we don't want people to think we're like this guy." And there's a lot of people. I mean, you know, like there's a lot of people who are I don't think right but sensible and calm and not idiotic like Olbermann that believe liberal things. And you get to that point where you actually get embarrassed now.

GLENN: I've never watched Rachel Maddow's show but I've tuned in across and seen a little bit. I don't know. She's very, very liberal, everything that I believe. But I believe that she's the kind of person that you could have dinner with and have a reasonable conversation. She's not trying to kill you and drag your body through the streets.

STU: It definitely seems. And I have not watched the show at all but I've heard from people who are conservatives who say she at least seems likeable.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Which is a huge, a massive difference than Keith Olbermann who couldn't possibly be less like.

GLENN: That's the kind of atmosphere that we need to get to, you know, to where we can sit down. I mean, I worked at CNN. I can work with uber liberals and like each other, and really like and respect each other. Just disagree on those things. But you don't have to be nasty about it. And that's where we have to get away, you know. We just had Orrin Hatch on and now we have Joe Lieberman on. Here's an example of two people who are not nasty. They know what they believe, they stand up, and if you disagree with them, that's okay but they don't have to be nasty about it. And that's the direction we need to go in.

Joe Lieberman, welcome to the program, Senator. How are you, sir?



US Senator Joe Lieberman

SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Hey, Glenn, great to talk to you. I'm good and I'm honored to be on after my dear friend Orrin Hatch. We worked a lot together. We disagree but, you know, this is a friend and a most civil person. So thank you.

GLENN: I will tell you, Senator, I will tell you that I am -- you know, I just talked to Senator Hatch about this. I fear our Constitution is hanging by a thread. I fear our Constitution, we are in real, real jeopardy here because we haven't faced this perfect storm before that we have. I mean, everybody right now is just talking about the economy, but let's talk about what the heck happens with Israel and Iran and even Iraq at this point.

SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Yeah. No, look, there's no question that when people get up in the morning, they're worried about the economy. They are worried about their jobs, they are worried about their savings and investment, worried about whether they can pay their mortgage. That's all understandable and that's something that is on the ballot today. But let's never forget that out there is an enemy as devastating, probably more devastating than any we've ever faced. They protect us in the homeland, these are the Islamic extremists, they ab sore our values, our way of life and, you know, this is a choice for commander-in-chief between a man who's really inexperienced in foreign policy, a smart man, Barack Obama, well spoken but never really been tested in a crisis. And we're not sure what he would do. John McCain tested all of his life in crises, passed the test, knows that the world has leaders who are good and some are evil and you're not going to talk the evil ones into being good by sitting down over a cup of coffee. You know, they have got to -- I always say about John McCain that he will be a President that our allies will trust and like and our enemies will fear. And that's the kind of President we hate. So you are right, there's an awful lot on the line today in this election. And it honestly goes to the heart of our -- in a way that seems to me more intense than any election since I've been voting, goes to the heart of our future, really what we're going to be as a country and a very more personal way, whether America's going to be as strong and free and full of opportunity for my kids and grandkids as it has been, thank God, for me.

GLENN: Do you agree that with Senator Hatch -- I've only got a minute before a network break. I hope we can hold you here. But do you agree that Senator Hatch said to me that if we don't at least have the firewall of the filibuster in the Senate that in many ways America will not survive.

SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Well, I hope it's not like that, but I fear. And I think for some of us there is a key. You know, it gets a bad name but it was really put there, a 60-vote requirement as somebody said to me when I first came to the Senate, stop the passions of a moment among the people of America from sweeping across the congress, the House, to the Senate and to a like minded President and having us do things that will change America for a long time. So the filibuster is one of the great protections we have. Glenn, I apologize. I'm running to go out with Senator McCain. We're going to Colorado.

GLENN: Best of luck.

SENATOR LIEBERMAN: I'm real proud of you. I remember you back when.

GLENN: Thanks a lot. Bye-bye.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

'The fool builds walls': China blasts Trump over tariffs

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

I can picture it now: Thousands of years ago, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, standing before hordes of his followers, in the Qin Dynasty, with a bright red bamboo hat on, and chanting, "Build that wall!"

It took a couple centuries to build the thing, but it got built. And it has been carefully maintained over the last 2,000 years, but, today, the Great Wall of China is so massive that astronauts can see it during good weather conditions from the lower part of low Earth orbit. The wall boasts over 3,000 miles of towers and brick embankments, with over 1,200 miles of natural defensive barriers. It's worth mentioning that the Chinese government is also exceptionally good at imposing digital walls, so much so that China ranks worst in the world for internet freedom.

RELATED: Trump is following through on his campaign promises. Here are the top 10.

So it's a little strange to hear an editorial run by a major news network in China criticized President Trump for his proposal to build a large wall along the southern border of America.

"Following the path of expanding and opening up is China's best response to the trade dispute between China and the United States, and is also the responsibility that major countries should have to the world," the author wrote. "The wise man builds bridges, the fool builds walls."

Similarly, the Pope told reporters in 2016, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel."

Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

If you've been to the Vatican, you know that it is surrounded by enormous walls. The same goes for all the celebrities who live in heavily walled compounds—a safety measure—but who have also vehemently criticized President Trump's plans to build a wall.

You know the adage: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses." Perhaps the phrase needs an update: Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

RELATED: Glenn responds to advocates of aborting Down syndrome babies: 'No better than Nazi Germans'

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.

And:

I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.