Uh oh! The Democrats don’t have anyone if Hillary blows up her candidacy

March 04, 2015

Writer

With Hillary Clinton caught up in a scandal over her use of a private email to conduct government business, who is left on the side of the Democrats to run for president in 2016 if she gets knocked out? Joe Biden? Elizabeth Warren? Al Gore? None of these see like strong candidates. Have the Dems lost before they've even begun? Pat and Stu had the story and analysis on radio this morning.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment. In this section, Pat and Stu analyze the article 'What if Hillary bows out' from Politico:

Pat: Hillary has got yet another scandal. Of course, she's been embroiled. As much as a democrat could be embroiled in any scandal lately -- in the Benghazi situation. So she already has that baggage. She -- she also now has this email situation where she broke the law by establishing not just her own email account but her own email server, which is just really weird. What is she trying to hide, you have to wonder. And --

STU: And we'll never know, because they make no attempts to save the emails that they were supposed to save.

PAT: Does that surprise anybody? Of course they didn't. So if she decides to bow out because of health or because of scandals or she's forced out or whatever the case may be, the Democrats really, really are in trouble.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Just great as far as I'm concerned. But it's kind of interesting when you stop and think, okay, well, legitimately, if you're trying to help them, who do they have in the bullpen? Okay, you lost your starter. Your starter has been knocked out in the first inning. He's given up -- she's given up seven runs and the bases are loaded and there's nobody out. So who do you bring in from the bullpen at that point to stop the bleeding? Are you going to bring in Elizabeth Warren? She's pretty wild. She's got a wild pitch. She'll walk in at least a couple of runs for you.

STU: Oh yeah. And that's kind of the point of the political article, they don't --

PAT: They don't have any confidence in Elizabeth Warren, do they.

STU: Quote, there isn't any enthusiasm for the nonHillary democrats already flirting with a run. Vice president Joe Biden.

PAT: Oh, Biden, can't. He's a buffoon. He doesn't have a chance. He could run and he probably will run if Hillary is out.

STU: I don't think he'll run if Hillary is in.

PAT: I don't think he has a chance.

STU: Bernie Sanders, Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, which everybody knows, but every once in a while those types of guys.

PAT: Client was that type of guy.

STU: Harry was very low in the polls as well early on. Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Then there's of course --

PAT: No way.

STU: Right. No, right?

PAT: No.

STU: Then you've got -- there are others who they considered talking about fighting a fire in their belly like Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York.

PAT: I think he wants to. I think he'd like to. But he doesn't have a chance.

JEFFY: No way.

STU: I don't think he has no chance. I --

PAT: Very little.

STU: Yeah. Governor Duval Patrick. Governor Brian Schweitzer. I don't think he has a chance.

PAT: The ex-governor from Montana?

STU: Yeah. Mark Warner. Kirsten Gillibrand.

PAT: Look at the base Montana has. He's got the 650,000 person base. Just loch him.

STU: And then the democratic expert they're talking to here says they believe pressure would build for a really big names who enter, such as Al Gore.

PAT: Yeah, has to be.

JEFFY: We talked about that months ago. That's a great plan. And Al might be the one. They might not have to pressure him for that.

PAT: He wants that.

STU: I don't think --

PAT: 15 years ago. Desperately wanted it. He's 66 now. He made a billions. I don't know if he still wants it but I don't think he'd mind.

STU: I think Al Gore would only do it if he felt it was being handed to him. Look, you're not going to have to go out there and shake hands like did you last time. You're going to cruise through this nomination. You're going to get all the funding. You're going to essentially the path right now envisioned for Hillary Clinton, which is a very easy primary, very little resistance. You're able to raise all the money while Republicans are fighting it out. People know you already. Back in day were you stodgy and robotic.

PAT: That's all changed. Now you're a rock star, Al.

STU: Yeah, you're a rock star.

PAT: You've won a Nobel Peace Prize. You've won a Grammy award.

JEFFY: Even when you were stiff, you were still -- for the presidency, Al.

STU: Let us make this right for you Al. I think there's a legitimate rich that will happen. Why I see surprised to see the odds are still 250 to one for him to become president.

PAT: That's a great belt.

STU: There's some money to be made there. Potential. I think the odds are better than 250 to one, because if Hillary drops out, he becomes --

PAT: He's the only one. I'm serious. Other than him, you're calling Richard Gephardt on the phone and saying, Dick, what have you been doing for the last 20 years? Would you consider -- would you consider a presidential run?

STU: I don't think they'd go to Dick Gephardt. I think maybe they'd put the vice president of the United States in probably first. But again, I don't think there's -- I think the answer to that is no.

PAT: I think it's no.

STU: And we have to remember this, because we look at Hillary Clinton and she leads by 60 points and the only time we ever talk to her, there's another little scandal here, another little scandal there. Remember her book tour. She is terrible at this.

PAT: Oh.

STU: She can't get out of her own way when people are focusing on her.

PAT: Remember this, every day it was something else. Every day. It was -- I'm dead broke when we left office, blah blah. Every day she stuck her foot in her mouth.

STU: Every day. And then she'd try to answer for those and she'd make it worse. Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate. For all the things you can say about Barack Obama, and he's a terrible president and the guy who's done a lot of things that have hurt this country. However, he's a good candidate. He gets out there and he's fairly disciplined on the campaign trail. He makes speeches that people tend to like. Especially in 2008 people were very excited over him. And he was able to beat Mitt Romney who again is not -- was not the greatest candidate and certainly not conservative enough for me. But again, he isn't a terrible candidate. John McCain was a terrible candidate. Literally, you know, a foot could have beaten John McCain. But Mitt Romney was, you know, much better. And while he did not run a great campaign, much better than John McCain. And really wasn't -- you know, I mean, Barack Obama won that fairly easily, too. The guy is -- he can't run a country but he can run a campaign. And so I don't know that Hillary Clinton can do either. I don't think she can -- she is not capable. Again, she went into the race with Barack Obama with essentially the same path we're talking about now. She was the overwhelming favorite. Everyone thought she was going to win the election. People thought her closest competition was going to be John Edwards.

PAT: And she was 50 points -- people forget this. She was 50 points ahead last time, too. She was 50 points ahead of Barack Obama when they started that campaign.

STU: Very early on.

PAT: And he overcame that.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That's how bad she is. That's how bad a campaigner she is.

JEFFY: You're making a case for Dick Gephardt.

PAT: I'm trying.

(overlapping speakers).

JEFFY: He's in solution, heart of the country.

PAT: Heartland guy. Come on, don't discount Richard Gephardt.

STU: He's not going to run.

PAT: Don't discount him.

JEFFY: No, don't.

PAT: He's terrific.

JEFFY: Mid 70 s . He's seasoned. He's good to go.

PAT: He's seasoned.

STU: I like that.

PAT: That's a good word for Dick.

STU: I like this rant by Politico, though. This is such -- such a typical way the media handles Barack Obama. Now, they go through a longer spiel will how Elizabeth Warren might be a little bit too leftist because she you know, it's hard to get corporate donors with her because she's so progressive, which is a legitimate problem with Elizabeth Warren.

PAT: What's interesting about her is she's honest about her Progressivism.

PAT: Wave.

PAT: Obama tries to hide it. Obama is I'm not an ideologue. That's all you are is an ideologue.

STU: And remember --

PAT: I think she is proud of her idealogy.

STU: Remember you didn't build that, that whole thing and Barack Obama spent a month trying to figure a way to parse it so people could accept it. That came from Elizabeth Warren.

PAT: She said it first.

STU: And she never backed off of it. That's her spiel. You need the roads that we built for you to build your business. That's the big factor there. So this is what they say about -- because they're saying, Clinton, meaning Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, are very similar, not like Elizabeth Warren. They're both -- look, they played both sides a lot. Listen to this. Argument from Politico. Clinton, Bill Clinton, raised taxes on the wealthy. But also pushed through financial deregulation.

Obama satisfied the progressive demand for universal health care bit bargained with the insurance companies and drug lobbies.

PAT: Wait. That's his giving something to the right credential?

STU: So he --

PAT: Bargained with insurance companies?

STU: Right. Wait. We didn't ask you to bargain with insurance companies.

PAT: To bring us universal health care? No, I didn't ask for that. Not, but it's on the way to that.

STU: Now Clinton was obviously very progressive. But he did actually do things that Conservatives liked at the time. Welfare reform is another one. Financial deregulation.

PAT: Defense of Marriage Act.

STU: Defense of Marriage Act is another. You know, where Obama has no examples of this. Listen to what they -- they struggled to try to find something. First they stay he implemented universal health care but he negotiated with insurance companies. How the hell else was he going to do it?

PAT: Remember when Barry Goldwater was like, I will negotiate with insurance companies. Yeah.

STU: Yeah. A big Ronald Reagan speech as well.

PAT: That's our conservative guy.

STU: Remember when Ronald Reagan did this tear down this wall speech and the I will negotiate with the drug lobby speech.

PAT: That's when everybody said he's my man.

STU: Both sought to move the country left ward on social issues but championed international trade agreements.

PAT: There's another hot issue for me.

STU: His big movement to the right are international trade agreements. Wow. And then it goes -- again, ends with both campaign on hope and change but tempered with flashes of pragmatism. You forgot to include an example for Barack Obama. You still haven't -- there's nothing here. We have trade agreements.

PAT: And --

STU: Nothing specific but just international trade agreements and then it ends with --

PAT: And it was tempered with pragmatism, though.

STU: What pragmatism?

PAT: That's what I'd like to know.

STU: He gets to do whatever he wants when they wants to do it, his pragmatism is ObamaCare. He said he wanted single payor and instead he went down the road of universal health care where the government controls every aspect essentially of what you get in your coverage but it goes through a private company.

PAT: Thank you for admitting finally admitting how pragmatic Barack Obama is.

STU: It's so frustrating.

PAT: It is. But they're in real trouble F. it's not Hillary, they're in serious trouble. Even if it's Hillary, because there's so much baggage, they're in real trouble.

STU: What does it feel like four months after she's announced her run? I think it's considerably different. Remember, they didn't have anything in 2008 either. I mean, Hillary Clinton would have been in big trouble in the -- you know, I guess if John McCain, she probably still would have won, but she would have had a tougher time. John Edwards, I know how that thing turned out. Imagine if he got the nomination. He finished two points behind Barack Obama in Iowa?

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: He was close. He was in it. So if that hadn't worked out, where they didn't get this guy out of nowhere who no one knew in 2004 to come out in the ranks and win, they don't have anything back in 2008. And I see what happened when Barack Obama wasn't running, what you had was 2010 and 2014 two wave of elections for Republicans. As bad as the last eight years or six years have felt for Republicans and Conservative at times, when you kind of step back and you look past just one person, Barack Obama, what else do they have? I mean, it is -- there is not a strong bench for the Democrats and when they haven't had Barack Obama to rely on, they've been destroyed in two out of two elections.

PAT: Gives you a little bit of hope. It does. And we've got a strong field of potential candidates. I just don't know if the strongest among them is even going to run. You know, Ted Cruz. Is he even going to run? It's kind of interesting because we talked to Mike Opelco on Glenn's show last night on the roundtable. And Michael went to CPAC and he said had Ted Cruz was underwhelming in his speech. And that's disappointing.

STU: That's why he's 50 to one. Right now Ted Cruz is in the same category as Rick Santorum, Joe Biden, and -- I mean, and Elizabeth Warren. Again, who you have Hillary Clinton up 50 points, I mean, you'd think Ted Cruz had a better chance than that.

PAT: You would think so.

STU: Jeb Bush is the favorite for Republicans, by the way. He's at six to one.

PAT: There's no way he's the favorite.

STU: He's the only --

PAT: I don't think he's top five with the American people.

STU: You might be right on that, but he is the only one who's also really announced. I mean, Santorum has announced but Jeb has been even more overt about wanting to run. And he's doing commercials.

PAT: And Cruz has said nothing.

STU: Not a word.

PAT: 888-727-Beck. For Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program coming up.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep