Are the Democrats selling 1968 all over again?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 16, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington, D.C. Tonight it is just, can you believe it, 21 days before the midterm elections. We have a lot of ground to cover for you. The American voter, you have a lot to consider, so much on the line.

The largest caravan in a decade approaches our southern border. The president's response and mine are ahead.

Plus, the new tactics of the left might not be so new (inaudible) 1968? Well, former speaker Newt Gingrich on the parallels between that faithful year for the Democratic Party and what is happening today.

And we will have a new series for you tonight, "Hidden Scandals," how the media's coverage of certain Democratic candidates really amounts to a cover-up.

And tonight, our analysis of a Texas senatorial candidate, of course, Beto O'Rourke, you want to stick around for that. Victor Davis Hanson is also here. But first, the midterm border rush and possible electoral crush. That is the focus of tonight's Angle.

As our cable competitors are devoting hours of coverage today to the president's tweets about Stormy Daniels, voters I think are just tuning im out. Why? Because the voters are smarter than the media thinks they are, as usual. Americans outside the leftist activist bubble are focused on issues that actually affect their daily lives -- pocketbook issues.

Like the stock market jumped 500 points today. Tech stocks way up -- that's good for your 401(k). And the Labor Department reported that there are 7 million job openings currently in the United States. And our industrial output is surging, all fantastic news. But Americans also see some trouble on the horizon as well.

Lawlessness at the border that no advance society should tolerate. Now, we have another mass of people, as many as 4,000 I am told, another so-called migrant caravan making its way from Honduras to the United States. And President Trump has had just about enough.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have the dumbest immigration laws in the world. The world laughs at us, but we are getting them changed. We need some more Republicans. We need some votes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I will say. And for many years voters have been telling politicians, enforce the border and close immigration loopholes. In fact even on the issue of legal immigration, and a lot of people don't know this, the country is not clamoring for big increases. Check this out. Only 28 percent of Americans want immigration levels increased. Twenty-nine percent of Americans want them decreased. Now (inaudible) as you see want them just to remain the same.

Of course most politicians continue to just ignore the wishes of the people, so what they do is they continue to expand things like distant relative chain migration. They refuse to allocate money to the building of the entire wall of the southern border. And they refuse to pass legislation to allow for immediate border turn backs of anyone crossing the border illegally.

And of course, Democrats are just against all tightening of the current ridiculous rules for asylum. Donald Trump won the presidency in large part because he wouldn't accept the status quo on immigration. And as usual, he was five steps ahead of most every Republican congressman on the issue.

In July, Gallup found that Americans identified immigration as the top issue for them going into the midterms. Last month it was the second most important issue tied with just general economic problems. Democrats thought, I think, that a focus on the difficult issue of child separation, a practice that the administration has now ended, that that would turn out voters and get Democrats or Latino voters really excited to get out there.

But I don't think it is working for them. And remember back in 2016, the Latino voter turnout rate did not increase. Despite Trump's push for the wall and a lot of stronger immigration enforcement. And of course Hispanic Americans are themselves disproportionately affected by the impact of illegal immigration, and their neighborhoods and their communities. And ditto for black Americans. The good news is that as the second caravan drama unfolds, it turns out that some establishment Republicans are waking up to the wisdom of Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: It makes the immigration debate more on Trump's terms. You know, there is no right to come to America. We can have rules about who comes and where is Mexico? Mexico needs to help us because the last time I checked you just can't walk from Guatemala to here without going to Mexico.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, yes, and today the president warned the president of Honduras. If a large caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, he's going to cut off foreign aid. Vice President Pence has separately warned the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to tell their people do not make the dangerous trek to America saying the U.S. will not tolerate this blatant disregard for our border and sovereignty.

By the way, Honduras is on track to receive $65.7 million in foreign aid from the U.S. in the upcoming fiscal year, 2019. But back to the midterms, as frustrated as so many of us are with the Republicans and what they failed to do at the border, well, the cause may be totally lost if the open borders Democrats take the House while the president is focused on important things like abolishing the illegal immigrant gang MS-13, Democrats want to abolish ICE.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We can replace it and we can replace it with a humane agency that is directed towards safe passage --

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --instead of the direction of the criminalization.

(ED VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Safe passage? Everybody come on in. And Warren and Ocasio-Cortez are not alone of course. There are a lot more like them that believe the same thing. Again, the choice could not be clearer for the midterm voters. There so much on the line for America.

We'll Trump get the funding for his wall? Will the mass migration from other poor countries in Central America be stopped at all? Ever! Will travesty such as birthright citizenship finally be ended? Will we mandate, e-verify to penalize businesses who gain the system to keep American wages low?

Of this my friends you can be sure, your views on immigration will have zero impact and zero influence on a House dominated by Democrats who want to replace you, the American voters, with newly amnestied citizens and an ever increasing number of chain migrants. If Republicans choose to unite, however, behind the presidents immigration policy, the way they just did in the Kavanaugh fight, this will stoke voter enthusiasm even further ahead of the all too important midterm elections. And that is "The Angle."

All right, joining us now with reaction here in studio with me Mark Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Tom Homan, former acting director of ICE, and Jose Aristimuno, is a Democratic strategist and former DNC deputy press secretary.

All right fellows, just a moment ago the president anticipating "The Angle" -- I'm sure -- tweeted about this very issue saying "We have today informed the countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that if they allow their citizens or others to journey through their borders and up to the United States with the intention of entering our country illegally, all payments made to them will stop."

In other words end. Tom Homan, you are the one with the most experience in this issue. Is the president right here in his approach?

TOM HOMAN, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF ICE: Yes, I think he needs to throw down the gauntlet. I mean, we give these countries a lot of aid. I think that the other issue that the president should be aware of is that the remittances running to the billions of dollars. These countries get billions of dollars a year from their citizens who live in this country illegally that sends money back to those countries and that amounts to billions.

So, that's another thing needed to address. But when it comes to this caravan, as I said last night, the president needs to work with Mexico. Mexico needs to stop them on their southern border not issuing transit visas and turn them around right there in the southern border so they don't get to the United States.

INGRAHAM: Jose, U.S. foreign aid the Honduras -- it is not a lot compared to what we give to other countries but it is not chump change either. Put up the graphics, 2017 we gave them $144 million, natural disaster that year; 2018, $52 million, this year $65 million projected.

Guatemala, they're trying to stop the caravan from coming through to Guatemala. It hasn't worked so far. In 2017, $229 million, again natural disaster; 2018, $76 million, 2019, $69 million projected. What about our sovereign right to protect our borders from what amounts to an organized effort to crush or rush the border right before the midterm election?

JOSE ARISTIMUNO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: First and foremost and with all respect to Tom, let me just say that it makes no sense for the president of the United States to threaten Honduras and say hey, I'm not going to give you this money if you let these people go through Guatemala and Mexico what have you.

It makes no sense. Less money for Honduras, less money for Central America? What's going to happen? More crime in those countries and the caravans are just going to get bigger. It makes no sense. I don't think the president thought this through and just happens almost every day every time he tweets. He should stop tweeting altogether.

But to your point, Laura, these people under international law and on U.S. law have the legality to go to our borders and seek asylum. They can do this and they should do this because as we know every single year, a percentage of those people can actually stay in this country. These are people who are fleeing horrible, horrible conditions.

INGRAHAM: How many other countries exist on the earth where people would like to flee generally a corrupt government? Because on Honduras and Guatemala, they've had corruption (inaudible) throughout the entire region for so many years. So is that really is the standard and that seems to be what the standard is today, de facto, then we better prepare.

I mean, this is going to be a wholesale migration from Venezuela where we have seen 2 million people flee. Ultimately they can get from Venezuela up to Central America, up to Mexico and the United States, and you would be OK with that?

ARISTIMUNO: They should have a right to do so. I'm not saying every single -- I'm not saying every single -- let me be clear, I'm not for open borders. I don't think every single migrant -- I am not saying every migrant who crosses the border should have a legality to do this, but they should have a right to at least be heard, that's what I'm saying.

INGRAHAM: We don't have the facilities to hear millions of millions of people which if that is the standard we'll ultimately (inaudible). But Mark Krikorian, you know, we are a giving country, we are a compassionate country. We do help people in need all across the globe. On CNN today, this reporter who is Leyla Santiago, who's covering the migration, she is very pro-migrant, but nevertheless she made this point following on what Jose said.

(BEGION VIDEO CLIP)

LELYA SANTIAGO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Many of the programs that this money pays for, those programs are to try to prevent violence, to try to help people with poverty. So, if that aid is taken away, the people who run those programs will tell you that you will likely see more immigration. You will likely see larger numbers at the U.S. border.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Mark.

MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: There are plenty of ways we can put pressure on these countries. I mean, really, what is the point of being a superpower if you can't try to get a tiny little country in your backyard to do what you want? And honestly, the most important target of this kind of pressure is actually not Central American countries, it is Mexico because they are all passing through Mexico.

Mexico is the much more functional state. It is wealthier, its government works better which is why Mexico really is responding, I think, to the pressure because I just saw on the way over here, they are sending large numbers of federal police, (inaudible) down to southern Mexico to stop these people from getting over. And that is the key before they ever get here.

INGRAHAM: Our relationship with Mexico with the incoming president AMLO is actually going to improve. This deal with the new NAFTA U.S.-Mexico- Canadian agreement (inaudible) it is actually a good new start. I don't think they want to muck that up now.

Tom Homan, and this is right up your alley. August 2017, the border arrest between the ports of entry, and just in the month of August 2017 over 22,293. Let's put up the graphic. August 2018, 37,544, and these are people crossing between the ports of entry. That is a 68 percent increase, Tom, from year to year in a month. Monthly tab, year to year.

HOMAN: Then why would they stop? I mean, you got the Ninth Circuit says we can't detain families more than20 days. We got a judge saying you can't separate, then we got a judge -- (inaudible) we're separate, we can't deport. We can't detain enough of them because Congress has not funded ICE properly. ICE is asking 20,000 (inaudible) 40,000 and to get back to my friend here, as far as they have a right to claim asylum.

People who leave Honduras have passed through Guatemala and Mexico. They are no longer in fear of persecution in that country. So this isn't about escaping fear and persecution, they can make asylum in Mexico. This is about getting to the United States.

And 80 percent of those people that claim fear lose their cases in the immigration court. They're taking advantage of that low threshold in the system. They're taking advantage -- 80 percent, not just a fact, stone cold fact.

INGRAHAM: Under Obama they were turned back to 80 percent.

HOMAN: Eighty percent and (inaudible)

ARISTIMUNO: How would they know? Tom, how would they know if they don't get to a border and they actually get to be heard? How would they know?

HOMAN: Again, they pass through two other countries before they get to the United States. Many claim asylum in Mexico to escape fear and persecution in Honduras.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: It's not on international law. It does not count as a country where you can't claim asylum. I know that is a fact that Mexico might want to change that, but Mexico is a place where you are allowed -- and they have actually accepted asylum request by some of the migrants, not that many.

I want to talk a little bit about who is funding the caravan. There is a question in the Honduran foreign ministry, corruption everywhere there, but they identified today, foreign ministry spokesman cited political sectors as culpable, unidentified political influences. Somebody is funding these caravans.

There is no way that these people who are the poorest of the poor can afford, what is it, $4,000 to $7,000 Tom, per migrant per crossing with the cartels you got to pay, with the human traffickers sometimes are involved in getting the payoffs. Who is paying for this? Someone is paying for this or they are selling themselves or their family members into some type of slavery of some period of time to pay for this. Does that not raise some questions here?

HOMAN: I think it raises the question. I think it is more important (inaudible) we need to educate American people on this by not controlling our borders, by not controlling this caravan because this caravan comes across (inaudible) because all the loopholes that Congress (inaudible) fix are going to be released. It will entice more people to come. The money, we are bankrolling the very criminal organizations that smuggle these people, are the same organizations that smuggle drugs, smuggle guns, and have killed (inaudible). So this --

INGRAHAM: Congress has to act. Congress has got to act! The president I think is doing about as much as he can here. It puts the migrants lives in danger. It puts children's lives in danger and it helps the cartels become more and more powerful.

Jose, I want to play for you, this is Rafael Hernandez who is a Honduran immigrant. He is one of the members of the caravan. Now, this is in Spanish but you can read the subtitles about why he is moving with this massive -- massive fellow Hondurans. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (text): The reason for being part of this march is to be part of the American dream, to improve ourselves again, for our children, for our family. The motivation for us to migrate are the many shortages we face in our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: OK. I understand that. Pretty much a lot of people want to come to United States but he is not sighting (ph) a credible fear of persecution. He basically just wants to come to America because probably a lot of his family members are already there. Friends that told him when you come here I'll get you a job. That is not a potential asylum.

ARISTIMUNO: And I agree with you 100 percent. So, we should do a better job as a government to amplify and to communicate to other countries, to know, hey, it is not easy to get asylum. You can come and you can try but most folks are not going to get it. So, I don't --

INGRAHAM: -- stop asylum applications at the ports of entry.

ARISTIMUNO: That's crazy.

INGRAHAM: Well, ports of entry make it more dangerous and they have to make that 1,000-mile trek. Why not to apply from their home country? Mark?

ARISTIMUNO: They don't have that luxury.

KRIKORIAN: Yes., See, the thing is you are saying that they're not going to get asylum, and most of them, even under Obama, 80 percent of people who went through the --

INGRAHAM: Were denied.

KROKORIAN: -- were denied. But the point is, they are already in the United States. They been working may be for several years already while their case has been going on. And when they are finally denied at the end, they just don't show up and nobody is looking for them. So the whole point is to get in.

INGRAHAM: They get here and then it's like get out of Guatemala or Honduras free card, correct. You get to stay, you're never going to be deported unless maybe you commit a violent crime, and even then sometimes you can come back, and so they know they're going to be able to stay.

HOMAN: Less than five percent of family (inaudible) case immigration have been removed. And the gentleman you saw being interviewed, the reason he didn't use the asylum claim because he has been coached by the criminal organization in Mexico. Once he gets to Mexico, believe me, he will be trained exactly what to say to CIS to (inaudible).

INGRAHAM: Everyone seems to say the exact same lines, like you start looking at the lines, they are all the same lines. My friends, thank you so much. And for more on why Trump won and how the GOP could do it again, grab a copy of my new paperback out, "Busting the Barricades: What I Saw at the Populous Revolt." Now in bookstores everywhere, you'll love it.

And up next, Newt Gingrich here in studio to explain how closely today's Democratic Party might resemble what we saw from some of them in the late 1960s. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Twenty-one days until the midterms and Democrats look to be selling, I don't know, something new like 1968 all over again. The more you see the visuals, the tactics, the lack of any tangible policy prescriptions, the more you start to realize that they are embracing the same themes -- victim culture, mobs versus jobs, stripping away law and order, hatred fo the president, and so on and so on.

Hear with his thoughts on this and the segment we just talked about, the mass of humanity crushing our border, former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich. He is also author of "The New York Times" best seller, "Trumps America." Mr. Speaker, it's so great to have you in studio.

Now, we know -- I know you want to talk about what we just talked about first so I'll let you hit that because I think this immigration issue is not the most important issue facing the country today in the eyes of the voters, economy and that, one of the top two or three. And Donald Trump has always been ahead of everyone else on this issue and now we have another scene of lawlessness coming up through Mexico and Honduras.

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: First of all, I think Kevin McCarthy has offered the best bill and committed to bring it up in December to really do whatever it takes to strengthen the border. But let me just make one key point about all this. This is insanity. No country -- imagine it was your home and people down the street said, you know, I like your home. I think I want to come and claim I need refuge.

And 6,000 people show up to your home and say, I really hope you'll take care of me. It is crazy. And we ought to adopt a policy that says to the Mexicans, nobody is crossing the border. So, if you don't want to stop them coming in from Honduras, they are going to be in Mexico. And I would do whatever it takes to control the border. Period. End of story.

INGRAHAM: Congress has to act. They have to screen the asylum laws. They've been -- I mean, I'm glad McCarthy has come along to the gospel here.

GINGRICH: The asylum law won't necessarily work if you actually control the border because they don't enter U.S. space.

INGRAHAM: But they can walk in through a port of entry and claim asylum under current law. We have to change that whole process.

GINGRICH: Well, I'm for changing that, but I'm also for saying that the ports of entry if necessary, if Mexico won't cooperate in stopping these people, it will be amazingly difficult for anything to get through the ports of entry.

INGRAHAM: That would get their attention pretty quick.

GINGRICH: You know, in about three days.

INGRAHAM: Anyway, but you agree this is a big issue and a big opportunity for Republicans.

GINGRIUCH: It is the fate of the United States. You open this country -- I have Gallup did a world survey, 165 million people would like to come to the U.S. You couldn't possibly observe that. Even left-wing cuckoos can't believe that.

INGRAHAM: Americans don't want at the Gallup poll and let's say Americans don't want it. All right, Newt, 1968, one of our mutual friends (inaudible) and I were talking the other day, one of the great guys in radio and one of my old, old friends. He said, do you see some of the parallels going on here? It looks that they're going to move right from 1972 and nominate a far left guy, of course George McGovern in 1972, but before that it was a build up of lawlessness and a lot of violent hatred.

GINGRICH: Actually (inaudible) in Des Moines last -- look, the hard left --

INGRAHAM: And quite surely (inaudible).

GINGRICH: Which is now much of the left is committed to believing that they have the right to bully you, to attack you, to trash you. Antifa has said publicly, this is a hard left group, that they are intent to go in, destroy offices if they fell like it. And you just said in Portland, people are being harassed while the police sit there and watching.

So people need to understand, the left today, the Democrats today stand for breaking up the whole process. Abraham Lincoln said it brilliantly at Cooper Union when he said, "you will rule or you will ruin" (inaudible) southern slave owners. Well, the modern American left resembles those southern slave owners and their commitment to rule or ruin. And that is why you are seeing scratching the Supreme Court door.

INGRAHAM: Favorite image of the year.

GINGRICH: Yes. And my goal is to ensure that the next 40 years, the closest they get to a Supreme Court seat is scratching on the door.

INGRAHAM: Well, do you think this is a moment for Republicans, they united behind the Kavanaugh confirmation and look at what happened. The country was motivated and they are excited. This isn't fair. We wish all the best of all these women but it is not fair. Basic principle of fairness.

GINGRICH: I had a woman call to me last night who said, she had been a Democrat. She's 75 years old, she has switched parties after Kavanaugh and every member of her family in four states had switched and she said she was disgusted. This was no longer the party of John F. Kennedy.

INGRAHAM: Well, again, we have a situation where America and a midterm cycle usually, you know, you see the party in power lose seats. There have been a few occasions in which that did not happen. When was that?

GINGRICH: That's right. Well, it didn't happen in 1934, it didn't happen in 1998, didn't happen in 2002. I think this year we're going to gain seats in the Senate for sure. And I think the way that things are developing right now because of Kavanaugh, I mean, these people are disgusted with the Democratic Party and a little frightened by it. I think we might actually shock them in the House.

INGRAHAM: Project Veritas did on one of their undercover sting videos, and this involving -- yes, but this involving Claire McCaskill and a staffer talking about whether she is really, you know, open-minded on certain issues. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were saying that you think she's more progressive than she lets on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think so too. I think she's a lot more open-minded to like alternative routes to things but she can't be open about that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because this is a 19 point Trump state.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because she would completely isolate the moderate Republicans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's like we have to lie to get elected.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Essentially.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRICHL: Well they do have to lie to get elected, that is why Bredesen is lying in Tennessee, that is why McCaskill is lying, that's why Sinema is lying, that's why Heitkamp is lying. I mean, go down the list - why Donnelly (ph) is lying. Look, there is a simple test every American can apply to your candidate for senator.

Are you going to vote for Chuck Schumer? If you're going to vote for Chuck Schumer, you're a liberal. Period. End of story. I mean including (inaudible). People mostly (inaudible) the mansion. If you honestly believe what you claim you believe, how come you're not voting for McConnell?

INGRAHAM: One also mentioned, you know, voted for the disastrous Obamacare, which was a complete disaster.

GINGRICH: Of all these folks running back home, they say I'm really not the person you thought I was in Washington and I didn't mean to do it. And please elect me again. They just know how to say them straight up. If you're going to vote for Schumer you are a left-winger. You're putting left-wingers in power and therefore I have to vote against you.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I know we have these people like in the 7th district of Virginia, Dave Brat (ph) of course, the unseeded Eric (inaudible), one of the big signs of this populist revolution coming when that happened. I mean, that's a tight race. That could go either way.

And I look at the Virginia -- Commonwealth of Virginia -- you can't choose the Democrats here. I mean, that is going to take your state backwards. You want to go forward. Dave Brat (ph) and so many people like him are supporting Trump. This is why the economy is growing. This is why we're seeing optimism growing.

GINGRICH: Well, that's why the line you used last week are the choices is jobs or mobs is real. I mean, let's be clear. We have the lowest black unemployment in history, we have the lowest Latino unemployment in history.  We have the largest number of unfilled jobs in history. The economy is growing. And the fact is, the Democrats promised to throw all of that away based on their socialist ideology.

INGRAHAM: And the left still thinks that devoting hours of coverage to Michael Avenatti and Stormy Daniels, and the president sent a tweet out and a phrase which I don't think he should have done, but they think the voters are going to turn out because of a tweet. They still don't get it, Newt.

GINGRICH: No, they don't get it. But people ought to look at this stuff and say to yourself, do you want a party which has been delivered results for the last two years, or do you want a party dedicated to resistance?  Because that is really what the choice is. And I think the average American is going to look at what is happening, and I think they're going to conclude that in fact Republicans have been doing a pretty darn good job, and the Democrats are, frankly, kind of scary.

INGRAHAM: Results versus resistance, Newt Gingrich, we love having you.

GINGRICH: Always fun.

INGRAHAM: Thanks so much.

And the Democrats were sure that Hillary Clinton could leave them to victory with a coalition of women that included white women, but when that didn't happen, they became the new enemy. We reveal the examples, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: When 52 percent of them voted for Trump on election day, 2016, the left found a new target to deride, white women, an odd voting bloc to alienate ahead of the midterm elections, don't you think? In the last couple of weeks, though, they've been called white privilege apologists. A "New York Times" opinion piece noted that they will defend their privilege to the death. Following the Kavanaugh votes, Susan Collins and others supported the basic principle of due process were called, quote, rape apologists by the women's march. And who can forget earlier this year when Hillary Clinton claimed white married women only voted for Trump because of their husbands.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, D- FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We don't do well with married white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and an ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining me now to react, FOX News contributor Rachel Campos- Duffy along with speaker and activate Jamila Bey. Jamila, is it wise to alienate a voting bloc that is pretty big? White women? Some of the things that are being said, it is like a whole voting block stigmatized based on their race. I thought we were supposed to get away from that?

JAMILA BEY, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Clearly. You're right, we are supposed to get away from that. I don't think it is an issue of stigmatizing and entire voting bloc. I think it is looking at people who don't vote in line with the particular group we are talking about. So if we're talking about the left, which is a multitude of people who just left of center, there are a lot of opinions. There's a lot of diversity. And they are talking about the white women who voted for Donald Trump. They're not talking about all white women, and I don't think --

INGRAHAM: White women can't vote for conservative?

BEY: Every American should have the right to vote for whoever he or she --

INGRAHAM: I agree with you. Let me play this. Michelle Bernard, who was a -- she is great. I'm sure you'd say she's great. I don't know her. She made an interesting if not controversial point on AM Joy. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHELLE BERNARD, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I do not see any reason for Democrats to believe that after the Brett Kavanaugh hearings we are going to see a flood of white women, particularly Republican red state feminists, come out and vote for Democrats. Whatever is going to happen in the midterm elections, it is going to be because of the vote of black women and other women of color.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Rachel Campos-Duffy, your reaction to that?

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think this whole thing come everything we have seen over the last three weeks, Brett Kavanaugh, Kanye West, the total meltdown by the left about that, the lawsuit in Harvard between the Asian-Americans who are suing over affirmative action at Harvard, and even Senator Warren with her clinging to the idea that she still is this hope, that she is Native-American, what we are all seeing is the death throes of identity politics. It is finally, I think, reaching the ends of its game where it has become so ridiculous to tell people because they are women or because they are black or because they are Asian or white how they should think and how they should vote. People are rejecting this en masse.

Frankly, I think it is why they voted for Donald Trump in 2016, because as crazy as some people might think he was and how unpredictable and how untraditional he ran his campaign, they felt this was the last hope to try and break this down. I think it's starting to break down. And I think that's why you saw what you saw this whole week, especially with Kanye.  And now you see they are going after white women and telling them that they are traitors of their gender. It is ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: Here's something I wanted to read to Jamila. This is from The New York Times. The headline is "White Women, Come Get Your People" by Alexis Grenell. This October 6th. This is part of it. "White women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources from mutual gain. So it seems that white women are expected to support the patriarchy, marrying within their racial group, reproducing whiteness, and even minimizing violence against their own bodies. So white women who voted for Trump did so to prop up their whiteness."

I have got to say, that is one of the wildest things. I read a lot of wild things. I don't know anyone who thinks that way and I don't know any women who are smart, working at home or working out of the home who vote because of their husbands or think about a patriarchy monopolizing their thoughts.  Jamila, you seem a purely smart person. How is that not really condescending to women?

BEY: Let's be real aside. People tend to -- aside from the Carville marriage, Carville-Matalin, most people marry people who think similarly.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Why do you assume that the women are following the men?

BEY: I'm not making that assumption at all.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I know lots of marriage where the men can agree with the women.

BEY: What I am saying is it is not a hard point to make that like marries like. You tend to marry somebody you think like. If that is the argument that was made in a "New York Times" piece, it's not --

INGRAHAM: It's an obsession with the whiteness. Again, I just think the obsession with race is not breaking through I don't think to a lot of people. They just want a better life. They don't want the obsession, as we saw the other day with Stacey Abrams in Georgia where she said, I represent black, white, disabled, differently-abled, pacific islander, and then she said at the end, documented and undocumented. Everything is too hyphenated and everything is too segmented. I think people want to be more unified and more hopeful about just being together as Americans like we were after 9/11. Like what is wrong with that?

BEY: I certainly don't hope we have to see a terrorist attack on American soil again before we recognize that --

INGRAHAM: I'm just saying --

CAMPOS-DUFFY: We don't have to go back.

BEY: I know you're not saying that, but I'm saying we can find that in other ways.

INGRAHAM: I bet if you and I say down for a half-hour we could find five major things we actually agree on, about kids, about conservation, about how to treat animals. I think that's a lot of stuff we agree on. And Rachel Campos-Duffy, I think, though, President Trump does have to be careful. The women's vote is sensitive. Tonality matters to women. The tone does matter. I don't think the horse-faced thing was smart. I have to say that wasn't my cup of tea.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: It was grotesque. It was grotesque. It was unnecessary.  That said, we need to get away from talking about gender and skin color and who is more oppressed and who is the bigger victim. We need to talk about ideas. And we don't need to go back to 9/11, Laura. What we need to do is go back to what MLK said, which is we need to be about the content of our character and not the color of our skin. That is the America people want back again. And I think that they are voting that way, and they are responding to that because they are tired. They're just exhausted from identity politics.

INGRAHAM: I think we have to end on that, unfortunately. But what a fantastic conversation from both of you, Jamila and Rachel, thank you so much.

And the new cycle, by the way, has in many ways you could say been breaking towards Trump lately. Victor Davis Hanson is here to explain exactly why that is, plus his reaction to the suggestions that President Trump is somehow to blame of the Saudi journalist being killed. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Are Democrats destroyed what was shaping up to be a really huge blue wave? The approaching caravan has put the focus back on immigration, an issue the Democrats have completely ceded to the president as far as I can tell. And the Kavanaugh battle revealed the left's shameless tactics.  And the calls, of course, for incivility from Eric Holder, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, they show they care more about promoting anger than solving problems. Kick them when they are down.

Joining is now to discuss, Victor Davis Hanson, senior at the Hoover Institution. Victor, it is great to have you with us. What do you make of the recent political calculations we have seen from the Democrats, many of them of course with 2020 ambitions?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION: It is almost like they're wolves I wolves' clothing. I thought that they would at least try to disguise their empathies and politics before the midterm. But your past segment about white this and white this and white supremacy and white women, this is a time after the 2016 lessons that you should be appealing to the white working class if you want to win those states and yet they're not doing that.

We saw during the Kavanaugh hearings, why not protect American jurisprudence. We all support due process. But when we get done with that circus it was as if the Democrats wanted to be on the side of the French Revolution.

And then when we had all these demonstrations, Antifa and scratching like maenads on the Supreme Court doors, you would think that somebody in the party would speak up against that. But instead if you collate what Cory Booker said or what Eric Holder said or even Hillary Clinton, it was almost as if these people were seen as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party.

And then the height of silliness, why now would Elizabeth Warren come out when you have this high profile trial, suit by Asian-Americans against Harvard in the same city, and then proclaim that she is one percent, maybe, one percent at best and therefore all along really was a genuine minority.  She should have apologized. And then it is all topped off by this caravan, and what are the Democrats going to do? Are they going to say let them in because they have a right for refugee appeals or something? Anybody knows in their right mind that you can't have a nation when people storm across the southern border by intent and they are empowered by the Mexican government. So all of these issues --

INGRAHAM: It's a huge plus for the Republicans, Victor. The president is so far ahead of everybody else on this issue of immigration, all the other politician. He sees it. He knows it's a problem. He wants to fix it. He is very frustrated with Congress, as he should be.

But I also want to talk about foreign policy, Victor. That is really your forte in many ways. This Khashoggi murder at the consulate in Turkey, the Saudi consulate, there are actually liberals blaming this on, somehow on the chaotic foreign policy of President Trump. And he addressed these general issues tonight with Trish Regan. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You will start here, what is happening? Turkey is looking at it very strongly. We're all looking at it together. But Turkey and Saudi Arabia are looking at it very strongly.  And it depends whether or not the king or the crown prince knew about it, in my opinion. Number one, what happened, but whether or not they knew about it. If they knew about it, that would be bad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I don't think most American voters, aside from the barbarity of this, the American voters, this isn't the issue that motivates them on the election time. It might be something we have to deal with, but it is extremely complicated.

HANSON: Yes. To paraphrase Winston Churchill about the Soviet Union, it's a riddle wrapped in an enigma inside a mystery. When you go into an embassy you expect that to be a sanctuary, and we are living in 2018, not the medieval period where you draw and quarter bodies. So that is stunning and shocking.

But on the other hand, and also Mr. Khashoggi was a U.S. resident, he went to university in the United States, he wrote op-eds, so there was a lot of drama to this. But on the other hand, a lot of our shock has been that -- we are not shocked by what Saudi Arabia does. That is embedded with our relationship with Saudi Arabia. That said, what we're worried about in geostrategic terms is we've had an alignment now with the Gulf monarchies, the moderate Arab states, Israel, believe it or not, to confront the existential treat of a nuclear Iran and its terrorist appendages like Hezbollah or Hamas or people in Syria. So we don't want to jeopardize that new alignment. And yet we don't want to condone it, and I think Trump is trying to square that circle. It is very difficult to do.

INGRAHAM: It is a balancing act, VDH, and the president is trying to do it. It is not easy. But the idea that he can be blamed. Richard Haas was like, at some point an amoral foreign policy becomes an immoral foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy under Trump has reached such a point -- we won't even bother with that. But the Council on Foreign Relations is not exactly I think speaking for most Americans. Thank you so much, Victor, we really appreciate it.

And coming up, we have a new series for you just ahead, hidden scandals revealing with the networks will not tell you about certain candidates.  Our expose in part of Texas Democratic Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Now to a new segment ahead of the midterms, Hidden Scandals, what the media are not telling you about certain candidates.

With the midterm elections just three weeks away the media are picking teams. And one of their favorite players this cycle is Beto O'Rourke, the Democrat darling challenging Senator Ted Cruz for his Senate seat in Texas.  Outlets have published glowing profile after profile, fawning all over the new lone star star leftist before he even won a primary.

On February 19th The New York Times affectionately dubbed Beto the lone star longshot. TIME magazine in May said Beto O'Rourke is on a long, hard road. But they described O'Rourke as handsome and charismatic. This past August, Esquire wrote "Meet the Man Democrats Hope is the Next Obama." Going on to ask, "Is this the man who could save the world from Trump?" And finally Vanity Fair went to the place that sends a shiver up any Democrats leg, calling him Kennedy-esque.

As it turns out, Beto, whose name is Robert Francis, is more Kennedy-esque than we thought. What those features failed to fully examine is O'Rourke's 1998 DWI, the details of which were much worse than previously reported.  Now, the news, details that were finally revealed in a August 31st "Houston Chronicle" piece. Beto had this to say when confronted about the incident during a debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETO O'ROURKE, D- TEXAS SENATE CANDIDATE: I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense. And I will not try to provide one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: But Beto's answer here directly contradicts the police report obtained by the "Houston Chronicle." In it a witness reports that O'Rourke was driving drunk at a high rate of speed, then lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that O'Rourke had tried to drive away from the accident.

The media's incessant puff pieces on Beto O'Rourke have scarcely mentioned a 20-year-old DWI, downplaying the incident if they even mentioned it at all. What is more, the press, which prides itself on accountability, has shown little interest in calling out the lie.

All right, we'll be right back. Last bite is coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for the last bite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL MOORE, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: He outsmarted -- he may be the smartest candidate ever to run for the president of the United States. And he continues to outsmart the left and the liberals and the Democratic Party. And unless they start to respect the fact that he is going to be in office for two terms they will not prevent that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Poor Michael. Does he ever wash that baseball cap? God bless him.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the fantastic "Fox News @ Night" team, take it from here, Ms. Shannon.
 
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.