Dick Morris gave this speech at an exclusive retreat hosted by David Horowitz in Santa Barbara, California, in late March. -- The Editors.
I used to believe that people got more religious when they got older because they were getting closer to death and they felt they needed to hedge their bets. And I felt that people got more conservative as they got older because they got richer and wanted to keep more of their money.
Then, when I got older, and became both of the above, I came to realize that while that’s true with a great many people, there was an alternate explanation that I would like to believe is true in my case and those of many others. You become more spiritual and more religious, because you realize nothing else works. And if you live a life like I have, you tried everything else. I’m the only guy that had to go to a 12-step program to get over Bill Clinton. And you become more conservative, not because you become more selfish, but because you keep the ideals that you had in your earlier years. But you realize that the way to achieve them is not the straight-ahead path that the left suggests, but the smart path that the right suggests.
So I’m fiercely proud of the welfare reform bill -- cut welfare by 60%, but more importantly, cut child poverty by 40%, by making welfare recipients get off their duff and out of the house, and get to work, and then rewarded their work by the earned-income tax credit, which the Clinton Administration doubled in the stretching out the eligibility for Medicaid and food stamps, so you didn’t lose them when you went to work; and then giving employers tax incentives to provide jobs for former welfare recipients. So you took someone making 5,000 or 6,000 a year, and all of a sudden their pretax equivalent income was 30,000 or 32,000. And when the recession hit, they kept their jobs. And they’ve stayed out of poverty.
So I believe that Winston Churchill had it right -- if you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart. And if you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no brain.
Because sometimes, the tough solution -- welfare reform -- is the way to bring down poverty. De-control of prices is the way to lower prices. Stimulation of energy discovery and production is the way to lower the cost of energy. Increases in the price of energy is the way to wean people away from oil dependence. Those policies that seemed counterintuitive to me as a young person became increasingly obvious as the correct solution.
I would urge you all to read the new book by John O’Sullivan, called, “The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister.” It’s a great book, and it really explains a lot about the Reagan-Thatcher approach, and how it basically ended the -- Communism in the world and changed global economics.
But I don’t really feel that much of a convert. I in fact notice that I’m sort of standing in the same place I always have. The scenery is just rotating around me, in front and in back. And it -- and what used to be a liberal position I now try to achieve by conservative goals, by conservative means. I used to refer to triangulation as using our tools to fix their car. And in a real sense, that’s a little bit of what I really believe in doing.
But of course, the other problem is they switched Clintons on me. There is, in fact, no such thing as the Clintons; these folks aren’t even related. There’s no DNA, there’s no shared inheritance. It’s not like saying I like John and Bobby, but I can’t stand Teddy Kennedy; at least there’s a presumption that they’re from the same gene pool.
In fact, anybody that knows Bill well and knows Hillary well has to begin their understanding of them not by their similarities, which almost don’t exist, but by -- they’re polar opposite people. They’re completely different human beings. Bill is intuitive and instinctual; Hillary learns everything by rote. Bill is creative and comes teeming with new ideas and insights. Your function in dealing with Bill is a little bit like trimming a hedge. You got a topiary; you got to take his ideas and shape them into something. Because otherwise, they just grow wild with this incredible creativity and this undisciplined, unbridled ability to look at things and see new paradigms.
But with Hillary, her next creative idea will be her first one. This woman is not a creative person. She’s not someone who looks for new solutions. She’s a tank. She gets programmed, and she goes straight ahead. And they tell her where to shoot and what to shoot, and she does it. She’s a vehicle for advocacy; whereas Bill is the embodiment of creativity and alternative ways of looking at issues and problems.
Bill likes people; Hillary basically doesn’t. Bill enjoys being with people; Hillary doesn’t. Bill is totally undisciplined. He has absolutely not the slightest whiff of discipline about him, in anything. Hillary is the single most disciplined person I’ve ever met in my life. For Bill, priorities are mild suggestions; for Hillary, they’re commandments. For Bill, focus is something that he doesn’t like, because it distracts him from all the stuff he’d like to look at. With Hillary, she feels insecure without focus and needs it, and looks straight ahead, and looks at what she’s zeroing in on.
When you get down to it, Bill is in politics for fundamentally neurotic reasons. He’s in politics because he does not have a strongly internalized self image. And as a result, he constantly seeks to learn who he is from the environment that surrounds him. Clinically it’s called narcissism. He’s constantly looking for a mirror to tell him what he’s like. Ooh, does this audience have some PhDs and educated people, and they’re all applauding me? Man, I must be smart. Does this audience have some people who are moral and ethicists and so on? I must be a good person. Does this audience have some women who are applauding me? I must be attractive.
In fact, I’ve isolated, after long research, what is the quality about women that attracts Bill Clinton. It is respiration. But if you forget the war on terror -- and that’s a big forget -- he was a pretty good President from the neck up.
But she would not be. She doesn’t care about popularity. Bill will never get too far away from what you want him to be. Because his goal in life is to please you, and therefore ratify a good opinion of himself. That’s how he works. That’s why I had such power over him, because I was the pollster. When he said, “Mirror, mirror, on the wall,” he was talking to me. And therefore, he’ll never get too far away from what the public really wants.
Hillary, on the other hand, could care less about popularity, except as a means to an end of getting elected. She’s in politics because of a deeply seated ideological point of view that she believes is right.
And if you agree with her, you’re in the wrong church now; maybe the wrong pew. Because if you agree with her, you ought to be supporting her. Because beneath all of the phoniness, beneath that cutesie giggle, beneath that, “Oh, I just stayed home and cleaned out some closets,” or, “Oh, I throw a few things together for Bill when he comes out -- goes somewhere after playing golf,” or all of that cutesie, studied informality, there lurks a woman who has a very clear sense of who she is.
And she is a really strong left-wing liberal. “Liberal” is an inadequate phrase; “socialist” is really the proper phrase. She is the closest thing we have to a European socialist. You want to know what she’s like? Look at Schroeder, in his pre-reform days. Look at Jospian in France. Look at Mitterrand before privatization blew up in his face. Look at the old Labor Party leaders that never got power, like Michael Foot and some of the others. She’s a real European socialist.
We spend about 33% of our gross domestic product on state, local and federal government. Britain spends about 39 or 40%. France spends 48%, Germany 51%, Sweden 55%. And Hillary would like us to move into the high 40s and the low 50s. And she’d like that to fund free higher education, free healthcare, free daycare, free extra nutrition, more food stamps, more welfare; the whole bit. And if you think that those are good goals, and if you think that’s the way to achieve it, support her. Because she really will do that. It’s really what she wants to do.
She will not just raise taxes because of the deficit. She will not just raise taxes to fund ambitious social spending. She’ll raise taxes to redistribute income. And by the way, we have a lot of income redistribution in this country.
I always tell Latin-American politicians, the reason you’re screwing up is you’re not good enough communists. You’re not as good communists as we are in the United States. We have 1% of our population that makes 20% of our national income and pays 36% of our national taxes. And we have 50% of the population that pays three and a half percent of our taxes in the United States. And that includes sales tax and property tax, and all of that.
And Hillary will just tilt that playing field even more. And I believe that that’s wrong. Because while I believe in higher education for everyone, and I believe in medical care being available to everybody, I also realize that the only way you can do that is to create wealth, so that you then can redistribute it. Trickle-down doesn’t work in my judgement, but irrigation sure as hell does.
And you can’t irrigate when it doesn’t rain. And I believe that Hillary will dry up the job creation, the economic force vital, that animates the growth in the American economy and leave us with what Western Europe has. Since 1980, 80% of the jobs that have been created in the OECD world -- the industrialized world of Western Europe, North America and Japan -- were created in the United States. Another 10% were created in Britain, and another 10% were all of Europe and all of Japan combined. And the reason is that we have this incredibly low tax cut rate; lower thanks to Bush.
By the way, did you see what the Democrats did the other day? They passed a reconciliation or budget bill, and they announced, there is not a penny of tax increase in this bill. Yeah, right. But it repeals all of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, when they’re set to expire. So it’s the biggest tax increase in history. But they’re busy saying there’s not a penny of tax increase in this anyway. And the alternative minimum tax basically replaces the tax code. We’re going to have a flat tax, guys. But it’s going to be 40%.
So the whole -- I believe that the whole engine of our economic growth would be sapped if Hillary implements the plan that I think she has in mind for the United States. And Hillary Clinton will do this. For all of the phoniness, for all of the insincerity, this is who she really is.
But a long time ago, Hillary came to the conclusion that we wouldn’t vote for her if we knew what she was like. And she’s right. She’s got a case. So she develops these many masks that she puts on -- the mask of moderation, the mask of being just a normal working mother, the mask of being a feminist. This woman never accomplished anything; her husband handed it to her.
Is there anybody who seriously believes she could ever have been elected senator from New York State, in which she’d never lived, and gotten the Democratic nomination without a primary fight, if her husband weren’t President at the time? Is there anybody who here seriously believes she could be running for President if her husband were not Bill Clinton?
There’s nothing that brings Obama to the table, there’s nothing that brings Edwards to the table, there’s nothing that brings Giuliani or McCain or any of the other candidates to the table, except their own biography, their own worth, and their own merit. If you want a feminist model, look at Condoleeza Rice. She made it herself; brought herself up from the Birmingham ghetto. And everything she’s done in life, she has created and she has done.
The only -- Hillary Clinton most reminds me of somebody else who’s in the White House whose father preceded him in public life, and wouldn’t be there unless his father were there. But maybe I should save that for another church and another pew.
But the point is, to describe Hillary Clinton as a feminist is just ridiculous. And what she does is she hides behind these masks, behind these alternate constructs of who she really is. A week after 9/11, Hillary announced on “The Today Show” with Katie Couric that Chelsea’s life was saved because on 9/11, she was jogging around the towers of the World Trade Center, and she ducked into a coffee shop at the last minute, when the plane hit, and she actually heard the airplane hit.
Well, four months later, Chelsea gave an interview to Talk Magazine that my wife, Eileen, found -- nobody else focused on the discrepancy, and she e-mailed Drudge, and Hillary was caught red-handed in this distortion -- Chelsea said she was asleep in her apartment four and a half miles from Ground Zero. And a friend called her and said, “Wake up and turn on the television set, and look at what’s going on. You’ll never believe it.”
So why did Hillary completely fabricate this story one week after 9/11? You can’t say that she didn’t know what Chelsea was doing; obviously she would have talked to her in the intervening seven days. Why would she invent this out of whole cloth? To understand that, you come to understand how Hillary fakes it, and why she fakes it.
Hillary was having a big problem at that point adjusting to being the Senator from New York in the wake of 9/11. Was the first time we really needed a senator -- “we” because I’m a New Yorker. I feel those two Twin Towers missing like molars missing in the back of my mouth. And we needed a senator. And here we have this Arkansan, or Illinoisan, or whatever she is. And, you know, can she find the World Trade Center? Does she know where Ground Zero like is?
So Hillary went before a rally at Madison Square Garden, a few days after 9/11, for first-responders and for policemen, firemen; and for survivors and the families of victims. And she was booed off the stage. She literally said, “Hello” -- said, “Ladies and gentlemen.” And soon as she said, “Ladies,” a crescendo of boos came up. She couldn’t get out a word, and she had to leave the stage. In the video of that, it’s edited out.
So she knew she had a problem. And then, she knew that Chuck Schumer, the other Senator from New York’s, daughter, Jessica Schumer, went to my alma mater, Stuyvesant High School, which is located right next to the World Trade Center. Had the World Trade Center fallen east instead of southwest -- fallen west instead of southeast -- it would have crushed the high school and killed Jessica Schumer.
So Hillary had to sort of one-up her co-senator from New York and, at the same time, establish a bond of intimacy with the people who were the first-responders and the families, to get over the feeling of estrangement of being an alien senator at the time when they really needed someone who they felt close to them. And she felt she’d never get caught. And she felt she could lie about her family endlessly, which she does. And she made this up, and just invented it out of whole cloth.
So she’s very different from Bill. Bill wouldn’t have to invent that. Bill would never be booed off that stage. He’d get up there biting his lower lip; tears would well up in his eyes. Everybody -- they’d be rushing up to give him handkerchiefs. Bill has this empathy with people. You’d swear that he’s an emotional, empathetic person, but he’s not. He’s like a headlight reflector that reflects the headlights of the car. He picks up your empathy, and he shines it back at you. And you’d swear he’s shining, but he’s not. He’s reflecting what you’re sending out. And as a narcissist growing up in an alcoholic household, he learned to pick up those vibes and react to them, and reflect them.
But Hillary can’t do that. But she grew up around a guy who does. And she saw that this is essential to his political advancement. So she tried, and she knows she can’t, so she fakes it. She was -- Chelsea was at 9/11. She was a concerned parent. She’s named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who climbed Mount Everest five years after she was born. She’s a Yankee fan. She moves to Arkansas and affects a Southern drawl. She goes to New York and discovers that her step-grandfather was Jewish. She goes to Selma, and she says, “I stand on the shoulders of Martin Luther King, who made it possible for a woman to run for President,” cleverly confusing the 19th and 15th Amendments to our Constitution. And then she goes to New Hampshire, and she’s Catholic all of a sudden. “John Kennedy stood here, and he was the first Catholic, and I’ll be the first woman.” And her strategy is essentially to fake this kind of connection, because she can’t generate it internally.
Now a gentleman over there said that he would like me to stop telling people that Hillary’s going to win. Well, that’s like asking Paul Revere to say the British aren’t coming. Now it doesn’t mean that they’re going to win, but they are definitely coming.
And I began to hear, a year ago, Republicans say, “Oh, I wish that Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, because she’s going to be the easiest for us to beat.” And that is just flat out wrong. It’s like saying, I wish there’ll be a nuclear war. Hillary would be a disastrous President. She would be a horrible President. And it’s a fate to be avoided like the plague. Not only would she be the liberal we’ve been talking about, but she would manage to combine that radical liberalism with a Nixonian feeling about means and ends.
Because Hillary believes she is the last good person on earth. Because Hillary believes that everybody who opposes her programs is doing so out of selfish greed; that they want to keep their money and soak the poor. Because she believes that she’s the only one that has the courage to stand up and speak out for the needs of women and children, and re-jiggle our tax structure to completely turn around our national priorities. And because she believes that about herself, she believes anything is okay to achieve her ends. Mother Teresa wants to feed the starving in Calcutta, so she highjacks a jet and flies over there to get there faster.
Hillary is a deep believer in the means justifying the ends. What woman would hire private detectives to snoop on her husband, to find the names of all the women he’s been involved with; not for the purpose of confronting him or divorcing him or reforming him, but for the purpose of blackmailing the women into silence so he can get elected President, and she can go along as First Lady to the White House?
She is a Nixonian in her view of means. And I do not want that woman controlling the FBI and the CIA and the DEA and the IRS and the FBI. And if she does, and you want to hear me speak in the future, Santa Barbara’s too close; you’ll have to go to Peru. But yet, but yet, she has a very good chance of being elected.
Now, recently there was a poll that said that 50% of the American people said they would never vote for Hillary Clinton -- a Harris Interactive Poll. And the problem with those polls is the first question they ask is, “Are you registered to vote?” And if you say no, they politely hang up. And if then they say, “How likely are you to vote,” and if you say, “I won’t vote; I never do,” they politely hang up. But that’s Hillary’s base that they just hung up on. Those are the people she’s going to use to win.
The fundamental dynamic of American politics since 1996 has been an increase in turnout. In ‘96, we had 95 million voters. In 2001, we had 101 million voters. In 2004, we had 121 million voters. And if Hillary runs, you’re going to get 135 million, 140 million Americans voting out of a voting-age population of 200 million. And overwhelmingly, those new voters are going to be single women. Half of all women in the United States are single -- there’s hope, guys. And women are 54% of the vote. They’re 52 of the population, but they register more, and they vote in higher numbers.
So 27% of the vote should be single women. But it was 19% in 2000, it was 23% in 2004. And if Hillary runs, it’s going to go up to 27 or 28% of the vote. There were 19 million single women who voted in 2000. There were 27 million that voted in ‘04. She’s going to move it up to 35 million or 40 million. And all of those voters are going to be Hillary Clinton voters.
There was a poll just done by Gallup. And it showed that men and women over 50 are 35 for Hillary if you’re a woman, and 34 if you’re a man. Gender made no difference. But under 50, like all of you are, it made a huge difference. Women under 50 were 43% for Hillary; men under 50 were 27% for Hillary.
So young, single women, who are juggling two kids, who work minimum-wage jobs, who pay no attention to politics, who never watch Fox News or CNN -- they watch the Oprah show and they watch the soap operas, and they watch the downscale programming, and they never vote; they don’t participate -- but they’ll learn three weeks before the election that there’s a woman running with a serious chance of winning. And they’ll learn that that is somebody that really could provide them with daycare and with healthcare, and with a higher minimum wage and with guaranteed fringe benefits and pension benefits. And that’s going to be -- and child support enforcement. And that’s crucial to them.
Basically, when you get down to it, people under the age of 65 and over the age of about 30, who are married, usually don’t need government, unless there’s some extraordinary thing, like they’re handicapped, or they’re brought up in a heritage of poverty, or they’re the objects of discrimination. But younger people and older people need government. And if they’re single especially, they need government. Because they got shafted in the divorce, or they’re single parents trying to make ends meet, or they’re retired, living on after their husband died, on a single income. And that creates a tremendous impetus for voting Democratic.
So all of the polling examines only the current numerator and the current denominator. And yeah, it’s true -- of the 120 million people that voted in ‘04, there are probably 60 million that’ll never vote for Hillary. But there are 20 million new ones coming in that won’t come in if anybody but Hillary runs, and they’re going to vote overwhelmingly, three to one and four to one, for Hillary Clinton.
Remember that while Rove squeezed out every last Republican, and got them to the polls in ‘04, and increased turnout among white, married men and women from 60% to 70%, to bring in the Bush election of ‘04 -- so Bush got 12 million more votes in ‘04 than he got in ‘00 -- that while that was happening, nine million more people voted for Kerry than voted for Gore -- overwhelmingly single women. And that’s the army that’s going to elect Hillary Clinton, if she wins the Democratic nomination.
Now, I believe that she still can be defeated. But we have to understand the danger, and we have to rally and move against it.
Now, I’m working with a group at Citizens United, headed by Dave Bossie, that is producing a film on Hillary Clinton. It’s going to be a 90-minute documentary. If you’ve noticed, I’ve spoken for more than 30 seconds today? It’s taken longer than 30 or 60 seconds to tell you who Hillary Clinton is. And Citizens United is going to produce a full-length film, like the swift-boat movie, or on the left like “Fahrenheit 911,” to really give people the flavor and an understanding of why she should not be President. And I would urge you to contact Citizens United and do what you can to help that. It’s CitizensUnited.org. And I believe that you can bring the story to people’s attention.
Now, in the current race, in the current play-by-play, it’s very interesting what’s going on. Hillary is sinking, in part not because anyone’s hitting her, not because anyone’s knocking her. There are no negative ads running, and for the moment, she’s not in the middle of a scandal -- but because people are seeing her and deciding, God, what a phony this woman is. They’re watching her positive campaign, and they’re coming to a negative conclusion, which is really neat. She’s making a negative campaign redundant.
The problem is that Obama isn’t doing anything. Obama had a good head of steam in January and February. And think what you will about Obama; he’s ABH -- anybody but Hillary. And Obama was doing pretty well, and then he sort of ran out of gas. He hasn’t moved up in the last month and a half. And when you look at his polling, you come to understand that the reason he’s not moving up is that he’s not articulated any kind of positive rationale for his candidacy. His campaign boils down to, “Here I am,” and, “Read my books.”
And it reminds me a little bit of the Gary Hart campaign -- fresh ideas, new approach, but where’s the beef? And Edwards has moved up slightly in the polls in the last week or so; I don’t think so much because of sympathy, but I think that people actually saw him on “60 Minutes” and were very taken and very impressed. And I think that he certainly deserves that. But it’s going to take some doing to defeat Hillary for this nomination.
Now I know that as Republicans, as conservatives, you would like the Republican nominee to be somebody with a long history of support of the pro-life movement. And you’d like someone with a long history of opposition to gay marriage. And you’d like someone with a long history of opposition to gun control. But wouldn’t you like to beat Hillary more?
And believe me, there is one guy that can defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton. And his name is Rudolph Giuliani.
And like I told you, I’m a New Yorker. And, you know, if Bloomberg runs and Hillary runs and Giuliani runs, there’ll be two and a half New Yorkers in the race, just like “Two and a Half Men” TV series. But look, when Rudy took office as Mayor of New York in 1993, there were 1,994 homicides. And when he left office in 2001, there were 650, if you don’t count the 3,000 they killed on 9/11.
But the point is that he took a city that was absolutely going, going, gone, and he completely turned it around. The unemployment rate went from twice the national average to less than the national average. The budget went from deficit to surplus, with no significant tax increases. He had the usual increase of real estate taxes, but it was less than anyone else had done. And at the same time, he cut the other taxes that New York depended upon.
And this guy absolutely understands the number-one social issue of our time, the number-one concern of the pro-life movement, the number-one concern of the pro-gun movement, the number-one concern of the heterosexual marriage movement, the number-one social conservative issue of our time -- terrorism. Because pro-life includes living if you have an office in the World Trade Center.
And I believe that Rudy Giuliani, uniquely among the candidates running for President, understands the war on terror, gets it, and understands how to deal with it. And that’s why I’m supporting him for President. And the fact that he can beat her is not a problem with me.
Now, you know, I have earlier been a strong supporter -- and my wife and I wrote a book on Condoleeza Rice, who I think has done an incredible job as Secretary of State. This is the untold story of the George Bush Administration. Libya flipped. Iraq and Afghanistan are not pacified, God knows, but they no longer subsidize terrorism. Sudan terrorizes its own people, but it’s out of the terrorism-sponsoring business. And Bush has drawn that noose tighter and tighter and tighter around the neck of North Korea and Iran.
What he did with North Korea is he realized that economic sanctions wouldn’t work. Because Kim Jong-il doesn’t give a damn how many of his people starve to death, as long as he gets his three meals every day, that includes caviar and a whole lot of other stuff. But he did realize that Kim Jong-il has a work ethic. This man has labored in the vineyards counterfeiting money, running the drug trade, laundering funds and engaging in all kinds of illegal activity. And he had this piggy bank in Macau, where he had $25 million in his own personal savings account. And George Bush told the Macau bank it could no longer use U.S. dollars.
And then China followed suit, with Bush’s urging, and closed down the piggy bank. And for him to get his money out of the bank, he’s got to start dismantling his nuclear weapons. And this infant, this man with a psychology of a seven-year-old, faced with not having his toys, is actually backing down in the nuclear issue. And I believe Bush will continue that pressure.
How did Bush and Rice get China to turn on a dime? One word -- Japan. They went to China, and they said if North Korea goes nuclear, Japan is going to go nuclear. Self defense, deterrence. And if there’s one thing on earth that Beijing does not want, it’s a nuclear Japan. They’ve had some bad history together, chemistry that really didn’t work. So I think that that has been so successful, that diplomacy. And the son-of-a-gun won’t claim credit for it.
When North Korea exploded its atomic bomb, three and a half weeks before the November elections of ‘06 -- just like Fidel Castro’s missile placements were revealed four weeks before the congressional election of 1962 -- I was on O’Reilly, and Hannity & Colmes, shrieking, “Talk about this. Make this your issue. Get people’s mind off the war. Focus on the really serious threat of a crazy guy, a lunatic with nuclear weapons. Get people focused on it.” Instead he didn’t, because I think he felt that to do so would be counterproductive. And instead, he initiated this quiet diplomacy that is now working before our very eyes, and suitably buried on page A26 of the L.A. Times and A31 of the New York Times. Nobody’s covering it. But yet he’s saving the Far East.
And in the meantime, he’s drawing the noose closer and closer around the neck of Iran. What he’s doing is understanding that the Achilles heel of Iran is its economy; they have none. Eighty-five percent of their government revenues come from oil and gas revenues. And when the Shah was around, it was producing six million barrels a day. Now it’s down to 3.9 million barrels. And the reason it can’t get that production higher is because they can’t pay for oil exploration or drilling or pipelines. And they don’t have refineries. Half of their refinery capacity is in Dubai.
So Iran is an economic basket case. Domestic demand is rising at 10% a year. And the oil revenues of Iran are going to decline from 55 billion in ‘06 to 44 billion in ‘07. And that’s 85% of the government’s revenues. That means they have to stop subsidizing gasoline at $0.35 a gallon. They have to stop free food and subsidized housing. And with 70% of their population under the age of 30, you cut those subsidies, and you are in terrible trouble politically. And since only 40% of the Iranian population is Farsi, there’s ethnic splits there as well that develop. And Bush is squeezing Iran incredibly.
Now, this is something that is not a spectator sport. You can participate in that; each of you, each one of you. We currently have tremendous economic leverage as citizens over Iran, if we choose to use it. There are 485 companies that are publicly traded that provide Iran with $80 billion of energy investments. And the pension funds of the United States, the 50 states, supply those 485 companies with $170 billion of pension fund investments.
So get a hold of Schwarzenegger. Get a hold of the State Treasurer in California. And urge them to cut off their energy investments to any company that does business with Iran and North Korea.
Now stop clapping and pick up a pen, okay? I got homework for you -- pen and paper, everybody. Come on, get them out. Okay.
You got to go online, and you got to go to www.disinvestterror.org. That’s an organization run by the guy you’ll be hearing today: Frank Gaffney. Frank will show you that there is a mutual fund, called the Roosevelt Fund, that does not invest in any of these 485 companies and has a return that probably equals or beats the mutual fund your personal assets and your 401(k) is invested in.
Well, if we hit Shell Oil with a reduction in their share price, which means a reduction in the bonus to the CEO, they’re going to run screaming from Iran so fast you won’t know what caught them. And when they do that, Total and Repsol, and Hyundai and Siemens, and a whole lot of those companies that are on that list, are going to be following suit.
And there’s another thing you can do. This one involves you being -- working with some Democrats. When I worked for Clinton in ‘96, Alfonse D’Amato was pushing a bill called the Iran Libya Sanctions Bill. And it was a brilliant piece of legislation. It said that when a foreign company -- American companies are prohibited now -- but a foreign company invests in Iran’s energy sector, the United States government must impose sanctions on that foreign company. And the sanctions where you can’t get import-export bank financing, you can’t underwrite a treasury bond issue, you can’t become a defense contractor -- can’t be in the overseas private investment corporation funding -- all kinds of stuff that really is significant.
And Clinton, of course, wanted to veto the bill, because Sandy Berger got him to do it. And I used that argument that I always used with Bill -- you’ll lose the election if you don’t. And he agreed to sign the bill. But Berger got a national security waiver inserted that said the President could waive these sanctions any time he wanted. And it was passed, and Clinton signed it and bragged about it in his acceptance speech at the ‘96 Convention -- I know; I wrote it.
So then the two times that that issue came up, he waived the sanctions. Because the Western Europeans raised hell -- that this was extraterritoriality, this was American inserting sovereignty over companies that were none of its business, and la-dee-dah-dee-dah. And Clinton was petrified by that, and he waived the sanctions.
Bush has been even worse. He hasn’t even waived the sanctions. He hasn’t even mentioned them, isn’t applying them; the law’s still on the books. But he hasn’t enforced it, because he doesn’t want to get Western Europe even angrier at him than they are over Iraq.
But now, Chris Dodd in the Senate and Tom Lantos in the House -- Democrats both -- have introduced the Dodd-Lantos amendment that eliminates the national security waiver. You know, they’re Democrats; they want to sock it to Bush. And it forces him to apply those sanctions. And Duncan Hunter, the Republican running for President, is co-sponsoring that bill in the House. And Trent Lott is about to join it as a co-sponsor in the Senate.
And I believe that bill may pass, with a veto-proof margin. And George Bush may say to the Congress, “Oh, my God, are you going to pass this bill? Well, then, I am going to veto it. And if you override this bill, well, then there’s nothing I can do, is there, folks? I have to go to Western Europe and apply these sanctions.” And they say, “How dare you assert extraterritorial -- this is American imperialism.” Bush can say, “I couldn’t agree with you more; I vetoed the bill. And those son-of-a-gun Republicans overrode my veto, and Condi and I are helpless.” And I think that will be a tremendous arsenal in the quiver of our effort to deal with Iran.
And I believe that when all this happens -- when you switch your 401(k)s, when you get Schwarzenegger to withdraw his pension money, and when the Lantos-Dodd bill passes -- I do not believe it will be necessary to attack Iran militarily, because they won’t be in business anymore. They’ll be on the ash heap of history, like Ronald Reagan said.
Well, I was very deliberate in my choice of timing here. I wanted to speak only after you’d eaten, because I knew my talk about Hillary might ruin your appetites. But now that you’ve safely digested, I would be happy to answer questions from anybody.
But first, I do want to give you another piece of homework. My wife and I write a column almost every other day. And it’s really an analysis of the Presidential race, brought to you live and in person. And if you want to get it e-mailed to you for free, pretty much every day, go to DickMorris.com and enter your e-address, and sign up, and you’ll get it.
And next week, we’re actually going to be beginning to use that website for more than that. We’ll be putting a lot of material on it about staying current in the Presidential race. And love you to come online, and love to be able to share my thinking with you.
My wife and I also have a book coming out at the end of May called Outrage, which is an essay about things that really piss us off. The first chapter is on all the illegal immigrants that come here -- not over the border from Mexico, but legally, at Kennedy Airport and LAX -- and get off the plane, show their visas, and then overstay the visas and stay here legally. They’re 45% of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. And virtually all of the 9/11 terrorists came that way. And another chapter says that there is nothing wrong with education in America that breaking the power of the teachers union wouldn’t cure.