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.

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.

The government is WAGING WAR against these 3 basic needs

NICHOLAS KAMM / Contributor | Getty Images

The government has launched a full-on assault against our basic needs, and people are starting to take notice.

As long-time followers of Glenn are probably aware, our right to food, water, and power is under siege. The government no longer cares about our general welfare. Instead, our money lines the pockets of our politicians, funds overseas wars, or goes towards some woke-ESG-climate-Great Reset bullcrap. And when they do care, it's not in a way that benefits the American people.

From cracking down on meat production to blocking affordable power, this is how the government is attacking your basic needs:

Food

Fiona Goodall / Stringer | Getty Images

Glenn had Rep. Thomas Massie on his show where he sounded the alarm about the attack on our food. The government has been waging war against our food since the thirties when Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. They started by setting strict limits on how many crops a farmer could grow in a season and punishing anyone who grew more—even if it was intended for personal use, not for sale on the market. This sort of autocratic behavior has continued into the modern day and has only gotten more draconian. Today, not only are you forced to buy meat that a USDA-approved facility has processed, but the elites want meat in general off the menu. Cow farts are too dangerous to the environment, so the WEF wants you to eat climate-friendly alternatives—like bugs.

Water

ALESSANDRO RAMPAZZO / Contributor | Getty Images

As Glenn discussed during a recent Glenn TV special, the government has been encroaching on our water for years. It all started when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, which gave the government the ability to regulate large bodies of water. As the name suggests, the act was primarily intended to keep large waterways clear of pollution, but over time it has allowed the feds to assume more and more control over the country's water supply. Most recently, the Biden administration attempted to expand the reach of the Clean Water Act to include even more water and was only stopped by the Supreme Court.

Electricity