I'd pretty much debate anybody. I prefer to debate smart liberals. I'm not saying this about Stephen Colbert but, unfortunately, the most famous liberals generally aren't the smartest ones. I have a list of the smarter liberals I recommend.

Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with judicial activism. It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point.

The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail.

Liberals say this over and over and over again to hide the actual history, which is why I go through the specifics on the big segregationists in the United States Senate, the ones who signed the Southern Manifesto and the ones who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. There's a panoply of issues to consider. The first time they objected to the Federal government doing something was when it came to civil rights legislation. This is in stark contrast to the very few Republicans who voted against the '64 Civil Rights Act.

What I'm critical of is - the White House attacking conservatives, for saying we're elitist for pointing out that Harriet Miers isn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I'm starting to feel sort of bad about - about saying that. And I'm annoyed with George Bush [Jr.] for putting us in the position of having to say that.

Back when they supported segregation, Lott and Thurmond were Democrats.

Even if evolution were true, it wouldn't disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution. It's not even a daunting challenge to a belief in God. If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures.