Best of the Program | Guest: Jeffy Fisher | 7/31/19

Welcome to the podcast.

Pat and Stu in for Glenn today.

Jeffy, of course, joins us as well.

Sorry about that.

We have a...

We have a lot of going over the debate to do today, I would say, is the focus of the program.

Because there's a lot of crazy people on the left, and they did a lot of crazy things last night.

So we wanted to tell you about them so you didn't actually have to watch the debate.

Oh, what?

I didn't have to watch it?

No, you didn't have to watch it.

Here's the thing.

If your favorite football team is going to the Super Bowl, you watch the other conference championship game because you want to know what team is going, what their strengths are, what their weaknesses are.

So that's why we actually waste time doing this.

And so we go through that kind of in-depth today.

Also, tell you about another sports-related thing as I'm making a sports analogy, Pat.

The soccer team.

The U.S.

women's soccer team.

Yeah, the women are so discriminated against and making so much less than the men.

It's really, really, really tragic and wrong and discriminatory.

We somehow

find out that that's

not at all.

And Islamic.

Islamophobia.

yeah, Islamophobia.

Islamophobia, I think, has a lot to do with it.

They do.

Wow.

I wouldn't have seen that one come.

There's also some soccer phobia in there.

I believe that.

It all is.

You're part of the thought.

I am soccer phobic and proud of it.

That's what I've said for years.

Pleased to hear you finally admit it.

We'll go into that and a preview of tonight's debate as well on the podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Blimbeck program.

What a great debate last night.

Was that fun?

Was that fun?

Oh, man.

I had a blast.

I could watch it all night and really kind of did because it lasted a long, long time.

Could that have been longer?

Well, it ended 15 minutes ago.

So yes, it could still be going on.

At one point, I'm like, what time is it?

And it's like 20 minutes after the start of the debate.

And all they've done is sing the national anthem, have the color guard come out and do opening statements.

They hadn't asked one question 20 minutes into the debate.

I know.

But it gave people a chance to catch up on the debate if they got, you know, if they joined it late.

Like Jeffy said, he joined it late, and so he didn't miss anything.

No, you can't.

There was no joining it late because there was nothing good.

Right.

Did you have a moment there where you're thinking to yourself?

It was awesome when we had a country where capitalism was a part of it,

where people thought that the Constitution was something that we should think about occasionally.

Yeah, where class warfare wasn't practiced every single minute of every day by Democrats.

Maybe that would be great.

Yeah, that would be great.

I mean, I can't believe this idea, and this is the narrative coming out of the media today, which is there was this battle for the soul of the party between the moderates and the left.

You know, you got the socialists out there, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, in the middle of the stage, and then you had all these moderates coming after him.

Yeah, no.

Where were the moderates exactly?

I didn't see anything.

What time did they get on the stage?

Because I missed all of them.

You know, the moderate.

Think about this.

The moderate position now in the Democratic Party is only two years of free college for every single person in America.

That's the moderate position now.

That used to be an insane left-wing position.

Now it's the moderate position.

Even Steve Bullock last night said he's a progressive.

He's not a moderate.

Everybody's saying he's a moderate.

He says he's a progressive.

Well, okay, then you're saying essentially that you want the socialist policies they do.

You just want to progress there gradually.

Right.

That's all that is.

Oh, yeah.

And

that was the fascinating part of this because the discrepancy between Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and people like John Delaney and Bullock and others

and Klobuchar, none of it was based on the idea that getting to full socialism was a bad idea, that that would be a terrible outcome.

It was all based on we can only get certain things done, let's be realistic and get the parts of it we can get done now and keep advancing.

The only one who sort of stood up for some sort of sanity is Hicken Looper, right?

And he was, I would say, probably the worst one in the debate.

He's awful.

Brian is really bad, too.

He's also a guy who went to

like a porn movie with his mom when he was 18.

This is a fact.

It's kind of weird stuff, and he's a weird guy.

But at least he is saying, look,

we need to ground this party in reality.

We can't be socialists.

We can't.

We will lose the election if we're...

And I hope he's right about that.

But again, what you're saying is key.

It's not that socialism is bad,

we need to be realistic or we'll lose.

Because some of the American people don't see the brilliance of our socialism yet, so we need to slow play this thing.

That is a totally different point than saying socialism is bad.

I mean, Hickenlooper is a guy who's best known for basically saying, you know, that Second Amendment?

What if we didn't have it?

That's basically what he did in Colorado.

That's what he's famous for.

That's true.

You know, that whole Second Amendment thing, they probably didn't mean that one, right?

Like, that is where he comes from.

And he's, again, the moderate.

I mean, Delaney, I thought, had really

good points against Sanders and Warren, and they went back and forth quite a bit about, you know, whether you can have Medicare for all.

Do you want to really want to force 100 million people to abandon their health care and go on government health insurance?

Yeah.

And

is that the type of thing we want to be?

As a Democratic Party, do we want to be the party that says, hey, we're taking away that thing that you like?

Right?

And that's a good point.

It is a good point.

However, he's not making it

with the idea of, well, the proper outcome is people should always be able to choose and the free market should have these wonderful forces to help control costs and all this.

It was like, well, if we do that, people will get mad at us and they'll elect Donald Trump and we won't be able to get any more socialism.

So if we do it my way, we'll get a good chunk more socialism.

And then we could do it again next election, right?

We can slow play this.

Like, people didn't like Obamacare at first.

So we can get Obamacare.

Then next election, which is, by the way, what they're doing,

they can come in and say, well, now we need Obamacare times two or times three or times four.

Which, again, is exactly what we said was going to happen.

And here it is playing out, just like everybody knew it was going to happen.

Triple 8, 727, back.

I'm also in love with the climate change hysteria, too, because

that's just good fun

when they tell us that we have 10 years.

But there was a little discrepancy.

It's either 12 years or it's 10 years, and then catastrophe now.

And that was, by the way,

disproven by the people who did the study they're quoting.

They have outwardly come out and said, no, it's not 12 years or 10 years.

That's not what the study says.

Why do people keep saying that?

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to clear it up.

And

it was actually fact-checked by NBC and others.

And they said there's no catastrophe after, you know, 2030 is not the demarcation of catastrophe for the climate change thing.

It's not.

What they're trying to say is that they need to do something.

You know, we need to get really serious about it.

They're just, they're not saying it's going to be catastrophic if we don't.

No, but who is going to respond if you say we need to get serious about it within 12 years?

They're like, nobody, right?

That's the problem.

And they know that, and that's why they keep doing the hysteria.

That's why.

Yeah, this is why they're trying to lie.

This is why they lie about it because they know you know they're trying to get people to act on this thing and it's a wonderful way to to push this stuff through right the green new deal was the most clear

illustration of this right how long has have conservatives said global warming is essentially the way the left uses it, a front to bring in large government control, slash socialism, slash every other freaking policy they've asked for for the past few decades.

Why not get it all done through environmental means?

And then they kept saying, What are you talking about?

This is science.

We have scientists here.

They're all saying how bad this is going to be.

This is crucial.

It's the most important issue.

It's not al-Qaeda.

It's not school shootings.

It's not opioids.

It is this.

This is the most important thing.

It's not even nuclear weapons.

It's this.

It's the globe warming 0.9 degrees over 100 years.

That's the most important thing.

So, what's the policy you want to address with it?

Oh, here's the Green New Deal.

Why does it have Medicare for all in it?

Why does it have required jobs in it?

Why are you talking about every left-wing fever dream for the past half century?

Why are all of those things in the Green New Deal?

Because honestly, if you want to help the environment, the best thing we can do is let people die.

If people just die, then we'll cut the CO2 emissions.

You don't want extra health care.

It's the worst thing in the world for the environment.

People living is terrible.

That's their sell.

Did you guys talk about a couple of weeks ago, Mo Brooks was they were doing a hearing on climate change and mo brooks uh

got four scientific global warming experts on to admit uh that

that the earth has been warming for 20 000 years ever since the last ice age

essentially off and on other than a few dips for little ice ages and whatever in the meantime it's been warming for 20 000 years was that caused by global warming was that caused by humans?

Oh, of course not.

And every one of them said no.

And so

the average temperature increase, he said, over

the

centuries per century was

0.4 degrees.

I think because it's gone up 11 degrees in 20,000 years.

Okay, so I think it worked out.

I don't remember all the specifics, but what he got them to admit was the average of the last 20,000 years is about the same as it's been the last hundred years.

It's really no different.

And yet they're attributing all of this in the last hundred years or the last 50 or the last 30 to humans, to human-caused

greenhouse gas emissions.

Amazing.

When it's the same as it's been

the Earth's natural climate changing situation that's happened forever.

Tino, I can see the denial coming from you right now.

I can see it.

I can see it.

Yeah.

And it's scary because I live on this earth.

Yeah.

Yeah, I know you do.

My children live on this earth.

And what you're doing to them.

But with your denial.

What am I doing to your children?

You're terrifying me.

Oh, boy.

You know, this is why we can't just go with the moderate proposal for how to deal with global warming from someone like John Delaney, who's offering

too conservative an approach of only spending $4 trillion, his number,

on global warming.

Now he's below a beto, who I think is at $5 trillion.

We need to warm up.

And it goes up from there.

Are you saying about $90?

I say $90 trillion a month is about the number I'd like to, I'm comfortable with.

$90 trillion a month.

Can we fix it at $90 trillion a month?

We cannot.

Oh.

Because the problem is at that point,

you're printing so much money that just the machines to print the money cause more global warming, so you need to spend more.

But I mean, that's probably true.

I will say this: $90 trillion a month is not enough.

And you've seen these hardcore right-wing proposals from, again, the quote-unquote moderates last night in the debate.

John Delaney did mention this briefly, but I've looked at the extensive plan.

His plan, again, the moderate, the guy that you watched last night, I think everybody in this audience, if they watched the debate last night, watched and said, that guy actually kind of seems sensible on some of this stuff.

Like, he's okay on health.

I mean, I don't agree with him, but he's much better than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

He introduced a plan that would require every person, when they turn 18 years old, to serve the government in a mandatory fashion for one or two years,

doing things like installing solar panels and

I love this one,

increasing awareness about sustainability.

Now, I don't know what that means exactly.

I assume it's like you have a megaphone.

You're like one of the like end of the world preachers who are just going like, you know,

sustainability.

No one is.

Be aware of it because I got to increase the awareness of sustainability.

So

sustain, if you would, please.

Thank you.

That is, so you have to actually,

you're brought into service.

You're going to go to places and install solar panels because what 18 year old who can't get my order right at a fast food restaurant wouldn't be capable of installing a solar panel.

I mean, of course, that's going to be just, it's going to come natural, but they'll train them all to, and they'll pay them, and they'll put them up in housing, and it will be a requirement for every 18-year-old to do.

That's the moderate in this party.

Have you heard this?

Let's take a 60-second break here, Pat.

And we should come back.

And remember, do you remember the Obama era?

Do you remember this?

Do you have any recollections of Barack Obama as president of the United States?

I actually do.

And remember how liberal they were, like really far left, and we were complaining about it all the time.

And there were crazy people like David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel who were kind of going, they're just saying all these crazy left-wing things and no one could believe it?

Yeah.

Let me tell you where these people stand now.

So back in the day, back in the old days when Barack Obama was president, there were a lot of figures we talked about.

People like Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod, who had really far left-wing views that none of us were comfortable with.

They were views that were rejected by big portions of the United States.

Remember, Obamacare was entirely unpopular.

The entire time it's existed since it was proposed until very recently.

It was very unpopular, underwater in almost every way.

Well, Rahm Emanuel came out the other day and said, hey, I'm noticing these candidates going really far to the left.

And, you know, I don't think they understand what the middle of the country is like.

They're going so far left, they're never going to win in these states, you know, because he's obviously in Illinois.

But, I mean, the states that surround him are not hardcore left states.

Yeah.

Wisconsin, Michigan.

They lost him last time.

This is a guy who dealt with the realities of, you know, governing a country.

Obviously, I think they did it very poorly, but at least he has awareness.

Yeah.

So that first round Emmanuel comes out and says that yesterday or two days ago, here's David Axelrod talking about

where this party is going.

Again, this is not some conservative critique of the Democratic Party.

This is David freaking Axelrod.

Listen.

You said something interesting, which was it isn't good enough to argue that the country doesn't want this.

It does seem if you're running for president that you ought to take into consideration what the country wants.

And the fact is large numbers of people oppose the Medicare for all proposal if it replaces private insurance.

We've seen it in poll after poll after poll.

A large number of people in this country do not believe the border should be decriminalized.

A large number of people in this country don't believe that undocumented immigrants should qualify for.

Yeah, and by the way, he's right on all of those things.

The polls show about 25 to 27 percent for all three of those policies.

So free health care for illegal immigrants, decriminalizing the border, Medicare for all

with eliminating private insurance, which is the Bernie and Elizabeth Warren plan.

You're talking about 26 or 27%

support by Americans.

And I believe all three of those policies are underwater with Democrats.

Okay?

So think about this.

The people who are winning, somehow winning right now, with the exception of Biden, he's the only thing in between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders leading this race.

They're in the center of the debate last night, and they're talking about policies that are underwater with Democrats.

How about John King from CNN talking about how far the party has moved to the left?

What Senator Sanders was just describing, what Senator Warren is describing, has not happened in our lifetime.

That a Democrat can run in a national election to be for Medicare for all, for free college tuition, maybe for reparations, for giving health care to undocumented immigrants, a host of liberal proposals way to the left of the last Democrat who won Barack Obama.

Way, way, way, way, way, way, way left to Bill Clinton, the Democrats to win before that.

My first campaign was Dukakis.

He was not as liberal.

I mean, this is remarkable.

Yeah.

Everyone is admitting this now.

This is something we've talked about forever, Pat.

You know, Bernie Sanders in 2013 proposing Medicare for all and getting zero co-sponsors on it.

Zero.

Yeah.

Now, I don't think he'd be able to stop people from co-sponsoring it.

He'd want the credit for himself, and everyone's jumping on his bandwagon.

And, you know, you can watch that debate last night, and I think pull out a lot of different things.

I thought Bernie Sanders, I mean, the man has never had a happy moment in his life.

I've never seen anyone who is more angry and awful.

There's no, I cannot imagine a candidate like that winning in the United States of America.

He is just an angry curmudgeon.

Yes.

And I, you know, look, people talk about Trump's anger, and he gets pissed off a lot too, but at least occasionally he makes jokes.

Sanders is miserable, a miserable human being.

But I will say this: and I don't think he did a great job in the debate last night, but how can you not say he's the winner here?

He has absolutely transformed this party from a party that was really super liberal to a party that is outwardly socialist.

I mean, the fact that John Delaney, who is a Maryland congressperson, a former Maryland congressperson, looks like a conservative on the stage is really revealing.

David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, John King there talking to you about how far this party has moved so quickly.

I mean, Bernie Sanders,

you know, his loss in 2016 and then the subsequent Hillary Clinton loss

has told this party they should just be honest about it.

It's exactly what Glenn said all those years.

You know, to take the mask off, be honest about it.

These people have done that.

I cannot believe they're admitting that they want these policies.

I mean, Elizabeth Warren last night on stage saying we should decriminalize border crossings.

Yeah, and she was asked point blank, are you saying you would decriminalize illegal border crossings?

Yes.

It was just a flat yes.

Yes.

And she went to battle something else afterwards, but she did say yes.

Oh, that's

incredible.

Yeah.

And I love this as it combines to their gun policies because it's like, you say what you want to do is have an assault weapons ban.

Okay.

You want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens here in the United States.

But at the same time, you want to open up the borders.

And we have no idea who's coming in.

Right.

What do you think's going to happen?

You You know how drugs come across the border?

Yeah, do you think some guns might also come across that border when you open it up?

Possible a terrorist or two could come across a border, it seems like it.

Isn't that such a strange combination of policies?

It's asinine, it is asinine.

I don't think they care, though.

At this point, I think they're just resting this whole thing on, well, we think we can beat Trump, and uh, it's got to be a fascinating thing to watch.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

What we remember is Bernie Sanders yelling,

I wrote the damn bill.

Oh, shut up, Bernie.

I mean, another moment.

Another moment.

He probably prepared for, and they probably planned that out before the debate even happened.

Oh, he's awful.

Oh, he's terrible.

I mean, and could there be

a more miserable human being?

No, he

cannot have had an experience in his life a moment of life.

Where he was happy.

Yeah.

Yeah.

There's never been a time where he like woke up and said, Wow, look at the sun, the sky.

It's sunny and there's not a cloud out there, and this is a great day.

There's never been a moment like that for Bernie Sanders in his entire life.

No,

even when he's singing, he sounds miserable.

As I went walking

that rivet of highway.

Oh, God, I love this.

I saw above me.

I saw above me.

Again, no R in the word saw, Bernie.

Are you sure?

Doesn't he sound miserable even when he sings?

As I went walking

down that highway.

What are you so mad about?

It's a song.

What has happened to you?

What in your life has happened?

I think he had like...

He asked a girl out in like eighth grade and she berated him and mocked him and did like I maybe he did like a carry thing.

Like at one point he was standing in front of his high school and someone dropped pig blood out of a bucket onto his head.

And then this is his revenge.

He just

at one point he stood up during the debate and he waved his arms around and all the doors closed in the back of the auditorium.

Like, what is happening with him?

He is constantly furious.

Yeah.

Constantly.

And there's no

modulation.

You know, there's not a moment where he's like calm and introspective.

It's just nonstop anger.

Which is why I can't understand for the life of me why he's popular with millennials.

I don't understand it.

He's a miserable curmudgeon.

Yeah.

Why do you like him?

What is it about him?

You just want free stuff, I guess.

I guess that's the only appeal.

There is that appeal of, I think, the unrelenting ideology that is appealing to you when you're young.

And it's honestly appealing to me, too.

I just don't like his ideology.

I think a lot of that happened with

Ron Paul.

When Ron Paul was running, there was the same sort of energy.

That's true.

You know, Ron was not nearly as angry as Bernie is, but he wasn't a happy guy.

But he was unrelenting, right?

He'd be the guy on stage.

You know, the libertarian philosophy is basically we don't go to war.

He's the guy on stage next to Rudy Giuliani.

sticking to it, being like, yeah, now we shouldn't have done anything about 9-11.

We should have just ignored it.

I mean, mean, I'm totally exaggerating there for all the Ron Paul fans out there who will now email me, but you know what I'm saying.

That exchange was like,

it's a tough thing in a Republican debate to stand up and say, Yeah, the whole 9-11 response was not good.

And he stuck by it.

And I think I like that.

I know I liked it when Cruz was running.

And he would stand up in Iowa and say, you know what?

You know, the whole ethanol thing?

No.

Like,

I like that.

And I think most, I think if you're an ideological person or

at some level,

when you're young, you have that sort of aspirational thing going on where you like the fact that people aren't apologizing.

They're unrelenting in what they believe.

And I think Bernie has that going on for him.

I think Elizabeth Warren has that going on for her at some level.

And it's why some of the energy of the party is there.

But I mean,

you have to look at this, if you are a Democrat, and I'm glad they don't look at it this way, as

can you actually win this election?

And you throw out a Bernie Sanders,

how on earth can you expect to win?

An Elizabeth Warren, how on earth can you expect to win with these candidates?

And I guess that's why Joe Biden is still winning.

You know, I mean, Kamala Harris, I think, will try to walk the middle ground.

Maybe Buttigieg is trying to do that.

But I mean, these candidates are not good.

You can't, it's hard to imagine a person who is a...

An old school Democrat.

You saw Tim Ryan on the stage last night.

I mean, he's hard to notice, but he was there.

And he's he's from Ohio.

And he sounded like a Democrat.

He sounded like, what's the guy you always bring up when we talk about presidential candidates that he's going to play with any time?

Richard Gephardt.

Richard Gephardt.

He sounded like Richard Gephardt, right?

He did.

He sounded like...

You remember when Democrats used to be awful 20 years ago?

He sounded more like that awful Democrat than the awful Democrat of today.

And those people exist in places like Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

They're the reason why Donald Trump is president because they voted for Obama and then Trump.

And those people are going to look at Elizabeth Warren like she's as insane as she is.

And I just, I mean, if you're trying to win this election, I don't know how you go down that road if you're a Democrat.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and I want to tell you about something that you should either end your day with or start your morning with, and that is the news and why it matters.

If you like this show, you're going to love the news and why it matters.

It's a bunch of us that all get together at the end of the day and just talk about the stories that matter to you and your life.

The news and why it matters.

Look for it now wherever you download your favorite podcast.

What did you think of Buddhaj

and his performance last night?

So, I don't think he did anything impressive.

I don't think he stood out.

I think he has

a massive problem

that he is not recognizing, and somebody on his staff is

a good idea.

Dude.

And he's got to stop it, or

he has no chance of being president of the United States, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

I know it was a good idea.

It's a great thing, actually.

But this is him talking about standing up for the right policy.

Here's what he said.

Cut six.

Pete Budajudge.

So let's just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it.

That's the policy I'm putting forward.

Not because I think it's the right triangulation between Republicans here and Democrats here, because I think it's the right answer.

People like my mother-in-law, who is here, whose life was saved by the ACA, but who is still far too vulnerable to the fact that the insurance industry does not care about,

but a good one for a democratic debate, right?

To say that basically they're going to call us socialists no matter what we say.

We might as well just come out and go for the things that we want.

And of course, that should always be true, right?

That shouldn't be something you need to clap for.

You should always be.

promoting the policies you think are best.

But, you know, in debates, this is the way you work it, I guess.

Here he is invoking scripture, cut 15, Buddha judge invoking scripture because we're oppressing the poor.

Some of this is low-tech, too.

Like, the minimum wage is just too low.

And so-called conservative Christian senators right now in the Senate are blocking a bill to raise the minimum wage when scripture says that whoever oppresses the poor taunts their maker.

Oh, my.

Mayor, thank you very much.

Yeah, see, that's what you should.

You can't be doing that.

He's gay.

You can't play it both ways.

Seriously.

Is that what you really want to do is invoke scripture?

Because

there, you know, it's incredible.

If you want to play that game, people can play that game all of a sudden, right?

I mean, it's fair game.

If you're going to start casting aspersions at Christians in the Republican Party, can they not cast aspersions back at you?

They could.

I don't know if they will, but you really should stop using scripture for your points.

It comes off terrible.

Horribly.

I mean, I don't know who he's trying to please with it.

I think it's the media because the media looks at Christianity as a political tool to hurt your opponent.

Yeah.

Right.

Like this.

So they think, okay, well, look, this is a great point by Budajic because he's using their rhetoric against them.

You know, they say they're so Christian.

Well, they don't want this government policy for minimum wage.

And we can nail them with their Christianity.

That is not how Christians look at Christianity.

And I don't know if you know this.

This is a majority Christian country.

This is a country that if you get into the general election and want to win any of the states that are anywhere near the Midwest where you are supposedly from and you represent those values, if you want to do that, trying to

weaponize Christianity against

the moderates who might actually put you in the White House is not a good idea.

Really not.

I know that feels good in that room.

I know afterwards when John King is interviewing on CNN.

You nailed nailed him.

Yo, you got this great point.

That is not going to win you any elections.

No, it's not.

Now, look, it's also completely wrong.

And it's a force.

There's nothing wrong with it.

There's one tenant of Christianity

where the government is called on to do anything for the poor or anybody else.

What they don't want.

Jesus never said, hey, Rome needs to take care of people.

I'm tired of the Romans not taking care of people.

Right.

What they don't want you to do is what everyone on that stage did last night, which is worship government.

Yeah.

They had another idea about who you should worship.

It's not government.

It's not Pete Buttigieg.

And the fact that Pete Budigej is going to be this preacher who's going to come at us and tell us how to be Christians is utterly,

let's put it this way, utterly a very poor,

a very poor plan politically, at the very least.

Especially when he's trying to have it both ways because he's also calling out Mike Pants for taking the Bible literally against him.

And

that's a great point.

And I will say that it's very possible what he's trying to do is goad right-wing, you know,

the wings of the far right and the right-wing to come out and start saying bad things about him personally and trying to goad him into being a victim.

He's trying to make himself a victim, essentially inviting these attacks.

But again,

I don't know that he can understand how insulting it is to hear.

to hear that from him, especially when it's such a basic argument.

The guy's a smart guy.

And the fact that you come with a fourth-grade argument about Christianity, the idea that any Christian understands is a BS argument.

I almost said the whole word there.

Not very Christian of me.

That is just not the right move for him.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

The head of the

is he the head, Tom Perez?

Yeah, he is.

He is the head of the DNC, right?

He kind of set the stage for the whole thing before the debate got underway last night.

Yeah, and no one watched this, of course, because you'd be insane to do it.

Sadly,

it's at least peripheral to my job.

Because I only did it by mistake, to be honest with you.

I tuned in a few minutes early, so I was getting dinner ready.

I didn't realize I would see Tom Perez.

If I knew it, I would not have done this because I just it immediately set me off before the debate even started, Pat.

I mean,

that's tough.

That is.

You don't want to go through a situation where you're angry.

Something that's going to make you even angrier.

Yeah,

that's a bad situation.

But let me give you this.

This is Perez

talking about Medicare,

an amazing accomplishment by the Democrats, and the legacy of Medicare and what it can teach us today.

Here's Tom Perez from right before the debate yesterday.

Democrats dreamed of putting a man on the moon and we did just that.

We dreamed of a great society and we built it.

We dreamed that that seniors and people with disabilities and people who are poor could get access to health care.

And 54 years ago today, President Johnson signed Medicaid and Medicare into law.

Votes.

Now those are terrible programs.

And I will note parenthetically, what did Republicans who opposed it call those laws?

Socialism.

Yes, this is a class exercise.

Socialism.

Ronald Reagan said, and I quote, Medicare will lead to socialized medicine.

Medicare will lead to socialism in America.

That's what he says.

He was full of it then, and these folks are full of it now when they try to distract you.

What?

It is leading to exactly that.

It was legitimately a perfect.

I mean, that's like an

a spooky prophecy from Ronald Reagan.

It would lead to socialism, and now what are we talking about?

Socialized medicine.

He is on the stage.

Literally

standing in front of a podium in the center of the stage in which the person leading the field of this debate is an announced socialist.

And he makes that point.

The person standing next to him is

all intents and purposes.

A socialist as well.

They have the identical policies.

So Warren and Sanders are leading the field that's about to stand behind him, him, and he has the balls to mock a prediction that Medicare would lead to socialism.

Wow.

And you know what?

Medicare's leading to socialism.

And this is not something that a lot of people like to hear because Medicare is a very popular program.

And yet, it in and of itself is a form of socialism.

It's a big government program.

It is.

It's virtually socialism.

Yeah.

I mean,

it is.

It's what it is.

I mean, look, it is something that you might like.

You might think it's a good idea.

You've come to rely on it.

Exactly.

And a lot of people do.

Yep.

But it is absolutely a socialist program.

And because of it,

it has cleared the path for many more programs like it.

And it's part of a long run from going back to FDR.

But Medicare in particular is a massive driver of our debt.

It is a complete and utter disaster.

Let me give you the stat.

In the next 30 years,

the CBO projects we are going to get an additional $80 trillion of debt.

$80 trillion of debt in the next 30 years is what they're predicting right now.

Now, you know, not including unfunded liabilities.

No, this is just, this is just what we're going to actually get in the next 30 years.

Now, that does, of course, not include any of the plans you heard talked about on stage last night.

It doesn't include any of the other crazy crap they're going to actually pass in the meantime.

We know it's going to be more than that, but 80 trillion is what they project right now.

The way they get to that number is Social Security and Medicare are projected to be $103 trillion in debt.

And the rest of the budget is supposed to be $23 trillion in surplus.

So to get to $80 trillion, it's $103 trillion of Medicare and Social Security.

And it actually backs off from that back to 80 trillion because of

other parts of the budget.

That's how bad these programs are.

They're destroying our nation when it comes to debt.

Now, they may be important.

They are incredibly incredibly popular when you pull them.

I mean, 70% of Republicans approve of these programs.

But

that is the issue.

That is what Reagan was talking about.

Because now it's natural.

Now that dependence is part of your life as an American.

It's locked in.

It's yours.

No one fights about it.

When people come out and say, I'm going to change the year you're eligible by one year, they get voted out of office.

We now have both parties who run candidates who say, I will not touch one little tiny part of Medicare or Social Security.

Now, look, if you paid into the system,

under an agreement,

you deserve what you should get, right?

I mean, like, you've paid into it.

That's not the situation.

None of these programs ever touch people who've already paid into it.

They always grandfather people in because of that, because of that argument.

But I think conservatives a lot of times will look at these big government programs and say, you know what is a bad one?

The Obama phone, right?

You know what's a bad one Is welfare.

You know what the bad one is, is

even Obamacare, right?

Where so someone who is theoretically in need of something, the government gives them handouts, and sometimes those things get abused.

Those things are bad in a lot of ways, but much worse is the universal program, Social Security and Medicare, because Bill freaking Gates can get Medicare.

Bill freaking Gates can get Social Security.

Why?

Delaney made a great point last night where he said, you know, why are we going to get rid of private insurance for everyone?

That would be like when we passed Social Security, we should have made pensions illegal.

That is a good point.

And it's true.

That's a good point.

This is all it is.

It's the government forcing you into this long-term scam, right?

Because we know the money isn't actually going to your health care.

But in theory, you pay a tax your whole life.

So later on, they give you, it's a government-forced savings program where you get basically no interest on your money.

It is insanity, but now it is so locked into the character of this country because you know what?

These things work.

Socialism works.

When it comes down to manipulating public opinion, it works.

This is why when Obamacare was at 38% approval, they forced it through anyway because they knew if they let it stick in there long enough, people would get used to it, would get dependent on it, and it would become popular.

Yep.

More coming up in a minute.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

It's Patton Stew for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

The good news is, if you missed the debate last night,

you're in luck.

There's night two tonight.

And

the two main players in this one will be Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

That should be interesting because, as Biden described it, Kamala Harris took a two by four to him last time.

So I don't think he's going to be quite as pleasant this time.

Oh, no.

Oh, no.

It's going to be messy.

I think there's a lot of interest in this might be fun.

There's a lot of dynamics in this one.

Obviously, the number one dynamic is, how does Joe Biden respond to being destroyed last time?

He has had time to prepare, no excuses.

He needs to be massively ready, and he needs to be able to do a good job tonight.

Not his typical middling performance in a debate.

He needs to do a good job.

He needs to show that he's not slipping because it looked last time like he was slipping.

Did.

Yeah, it did.

And so I'm going to be interested to see that, I think, as the number one takeaway from what we're going to see tonight.

And Will Harris go after him again.

And I think Harris, and by the way, you can get, I did the, there's a new edition of the power rankings, the Democratic power rankings, out.

And, you know, we re-ranked from 25 to 1 all the candidates and how they're doing.

And it's worth checking out for a little pre-debate prep if you want to look at how they're doing and also make fun of them a little bit.

But Kamala Harris is an interesting one.

She actually finished second behind Biden overall in the field in this addition to the power rankings.

But I think there's stuff to worry about there because more than anyone else, Kamala Harris's run here is based on one spectacular moment.

And you can win a lot of basketball games by shooting 60% from three-point range, but you can't depend on that every game.

If her path to the presidency is a perfect debate performance every time, she's not going to win.

She needs to be able to do more.

She needs to be more consistent in between these debates.

And if she has a bad performance tonight, you can see her support going away quickly.

It's amazing how that moment is perceived to be so great, too, because what was it?

She was talking about, she didn't even tell the story well.

There was a person on a bus.

That person was me.

I was five years old at the time.

I made it.

I needed to create a little thing where you get drawn into it.

And then at the end, oh, by the way, I was that five-year-old girl.

She didn't even do it like that.

She didn't even do it.

It was pretty.

She didn't do it well.

I thought she did okay with it.

Plus, it's a story that is irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

And it's substance-free.

I mean, we find out later that basically she agrees with him on busing, which is even more ridiculous.

But again, she had several good moments in that debate.

Overall, she had a good performance.

I mean, I think she had,

when it comes down to a large field debate, I don't know that I've ever seen anyone have a better night.

But that being said,

that is not a, you don't win elections.

As she's seeing, right, she had a nice burst up to about 15, but she's down to about 12 again.

Yeah.

You know, Biden.

Everything settled kind of back to where it was before the debate.

I mean, she definitely took a step up.

She was probably about five or six, maybe 7% before that.

She jumped up to about 15 and has held on to about 12%.

So she's held maybe two-thirds of the bump.

Where Biden lost about 10 points and has regained probably two-thirds of the loss.

So it was not a devastating thing.

But at some point, Democrats are going to look at Biden if if he continually turns in poor performances and said, Wow, if Kamala Harris is doing this to him,

what's Trump going to do to him?

So, I think that that's going to be interesting.

Another thing I did to draw your attention to, if you happen to be watching this disaster tonight, is Tulsi Gabbard.

Now, Gabbard, since the Kamala Harris or Kamala Harris debate, has

run large amounts of interference for Joe Biden.

She has criticized

loudly

Kamala Harris' stance on busing and defended Joe Biden.

She has said Kamala Harris is not qualified to be president of the United States.

Probably the most

aggressive attacks in this entire primary so far have been in the past month from Tulsi Gabbard at Kamala Harris.

And it signals to me very strongly that Gabbard wants in on a Biden administration, whether it's VP or Secretary of Defense, something like that.

I mean, defense is her big thing.

Very well might be Secretary of Defense.

But

Kamala Harris needs to be prepared because Gabbard is pretty smart and she's a good debater.

And

if she's ganging up essentially on Harris with Biden, Harris better be

prepared for that because it's one thing to attack some old white guy.

You know, Tulsi Gabbard's not going to go away so easily.

So that's, I think, an interesting thing to watch as you go through this tonight.

Another amazing part of this is when you look at the field, the way they set up this field is the two people who are leading the polls are in the middle, right?

Biden and Harris.

Two people who are

the worst in the polls, de Blasio and Michael Bennett, are on the ends, and it goes in from there.

Who's standing next to Kamala Harris?

Think about this field for a second.

Who would you think?

You know, Corey Booker, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jay Inslee, right?

Andrew Yang.

Andrew Yang Yang is,

you would say, I guess, his third place in this field right now.

And he had almost no time to talk in the first debate.

They wouldn't let him say much of anything, and he was not aggressive enough.

He just did not have a good night.

But, you know, it's the first one of these things.

It would be interesting to see if he can do anything tonight.

He also called last night's debate,

he likened it to a boring football game.

That's kind of interesting.

Yeah, because Democrats criticizing Democrat debates, that doesn't happen all that often.

It does not happen much.

Yeah.

Triple 8727 BECK, more Patent Stupor Glenn coming up.

Will there be anyone tonight who will continue the rich tradition of Democrat debate yodeling?

That's the one question.

Will we have a yodeler as we did last year?

Normally, way over there with Bern Hanelnett.

Normally, way over there with Bernhan Elizabeth.

Normally, way over there with Bernhan Elizabeth.

My hope is that, yes, there will be yodeling again tonight.

I hope it's in Spanish, though.

I heard no Spanish last night.

Oh, that's just, but it's hateful is what it is.

Yeah.

It's hateful.

What about those people?

I think in America who speak Spanish.

My requirement for every candidate is that they at least say one sentence in every debate in each language available to them.

Wouldn't that be the inclusive thing to do?

I think Klingon should be included in that.

I think some of the.

There are people who speak it.

Are you saying that they're wrong?

That they identify incorrectly?

Is that what you're saying?

Democratic candidates?

I hope not.

I am saying that somebody should speak it.

There you go.

I like that.

That should be interesting.

Yes.

I will be interested to see, too,

if the two people on stage who have a long-standing immunity to shame and embarrassment, Corey Booker and Bill de Blasio,

I expect fireworks out of both of them, particularly de Blasio, because he's got nothing to lose.

I mean, he's basically at 0 or 1%.

He's going to, he will get to the left as literally on stage.

Begging for money, for donations because he's trying to get to that 130,000 mark now.

Right.

And he's nowhere near that.

No.

So he is, just please, a dollar.

Just send me a dollar.

Send me anything.

Yeah.

And that's a fascinating part.

The one thing I thought Bill de Blasio would be good at would be getting money.

The guy is running a city, which is the financial center of the world, which is filled.

The entire city is filled with rich Democrats.

How is he not, how does he not have more money than everybody else?

Because everyone hates him.

That's the answer.

He hasn't made a lot of friends.

Everyone hates him.

But he will try really hard.

First of all, he'll try to get to the left of everyone on stage.

And secondly,

I would be stunned if he does not go after Biden in particular because he wants the viral moments.

He's all about trying to get these viral moments to get attention.

Corey Booker, to a lesser extent, I think, will try the same thing.

Booker's pissed because Booker was actually criticizing Biden before Kamala was.

And then Kamala got the big moment out of it because Booker's terrible.

Like, Kamala, say what you say about her,

can at least perform a little bit.

You know, where Booker is just awful in every way.

He's just not good at this thing he's trying to do.

You know, a lot of people try a lot of different things.

Sometimes you're successful, sometimes you're not.

When you're not, and you realize you're bad at this thing you're trying to do, sometimes it's better to try something else.

You're not doing it.

Stop.

He is like the guy who comes in in the first episode of American Idol and tries out for singing.

Right.

And he thinks he's fantastic.

And he thinks he's good.

He's nailed it.

And his family's been telling him he's great for years.

Yeah.

And he goes in and he nails it.

And then Simon just disassembles him.

That is Corey Booker.

And he's going to try something tonight, I'm sure, to get himself on the highlights.

He's got

some Spartacus-esque line that he's going to try to roll out there tonight.

And that's going to be an embarrassment.

Because that's what he does.

It's pitchy, dog.

It's just super pitchy.

It is pitchy, dog.

For me, it's a no for me.

It's a no.

It's a no.

It's a no for me.

And that's what he's going to get from all the judges.

Yes.

I don't even think Democrats like Corey Booker.

Otherwise, he'd be, you know, in the teens at least right now.

Where is he?

2%?

Two or three.

At best.

He's still behind Betto, and Betto has virtually imploded.

The Betto thing is really rough.

That's an amazing.

You almost feel sorry for him.

Yeah.

But not quite.

Betto crossed an interesting line for me last night, which which is my expectations have now become so low he actually exceeded them.

Did he?

Yes.

I thought he was just only bad.

Was it the 10-year thing on the climate change that swayed you?

No.

Listen to that again, and maybe it will sway you this time.

Here's Betto talking about

how desperate the climate change situation is.

Congressman O'Rourke.

I've listened to scientists on this, and they're very clear.

We don't have more than 10 years in the country.

So they're not clear on that.

Right.

And we won't meet that challenge with half steps or half measures or only half the country.

We've got to bring everyone in.

The people of Detroit and those that I listened to in Flint last week want the challenge.

They want those jobs.

They want to create the future for this country and the world.

Those community college students that I met in Tucum Carre, New Mexico, understand that wind and solar jobs are the fastest-growing jobs in the country.

And those farmers in Iowa say, pay me for the environmental services of planting cover crops and keeping more land in conservation easements.

That's how we meet the challenge.

So, 10 years to climate catastrophe, according to Betto O'Rourke.

And he said he wanted to listen to the scientists.

I will tell you that the actual scientist who did the report he's talking about said specifically he was wrong on it in a fact check on Betto saying this.

But yet, he's still saying it on stage at a debate.

It's amazing.

That's

no shame.

Yeah.

Absolutely no shame.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.