Should TheBlaze host their own GOP debate?

November 02, 2015

Editor

On radio Monday morning, Glenn and his co-hosts expressed their disappointment with the way the GOP presidential debates have been handled thus far.

Stu shared an innovative idea from presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, who Tweeted, "I'll debate any one, any time, any place. And how about letting some conservative networks host debates as well?"

I’ll debate any one, any time, any place. And how about letting some conservative networks host debates as well? Cc: @oann @theblaze
— Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) November 2, 2015

Instead of playing "gotcha" with candidates, Glenn called for fair treatment to allow the American people to hear what the candidates have to say and choose for themselves.

"If they're lying, the American people will sense it. And once they really hear the differences between the candidates, then they can make their choice," Glenn said.

In an open letter to Reince Priebus, Chairman of the National Republican Committee, Glenn proposed a new kind of debate, "in both substance and distribution." See the letter, complete with Glenn's handwritten notes below.

Listen to the full exchange from radio or read the transcript below.

Watch tonight's episode of the Glenn Beck Program on TheBlaze TV to hear more of what Glenn has to say about this. Tune in for FREE here.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

STU: What you need, Glenn, is innovative thinking from candidates. Like, for example, this latest tweet from Carly Fiorina who tweets, "I'll debate anyone, any time, anyplace. And how about letting some conservative networks host debates as well, including TheBlaze."

PAT: Yes.

STU: She points out. That's an interesting question.

GLENN: That wouldn't suck.

STU: That's an -- I would like to see it. I mean, we are capable of doing a fair debate as much as I have my own personal biases. I think that would be an interesting debate. Look at the way you've treated these candidates. I think some of the best interviews that have happened --

GLENN: I hear from each of the candidates, each the candidates -- I would say almost all of them have said, fairest interview that they've had -- at least what they say to me when they're leaving.

Fairest interview that they've had. And it's because I'm not trying to play gotcha. I really, truly believe that when the American people see them for who they really are and they're allowed to actually speak their mind on what they really believe --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- if they're lying, the American people will sense it. And once they really hear the differences between the candidates, then they can make their choice. Why -- I just -- because I despise gotcha politics myself, where I've gone in interviews and said, we can really make a difference here, if somebody will just treat me fairly. I'm not asking you to treat me with kid gloves. Just treat me fairly and let me make my points in a fair manner because then we can really make -- then people can decide.

And so because I hate it so much, that's the way I've been trying to conduct these interviews. I'm not going to do a gotcha. I'm going to ask you tough questions, but I'm not going to do a gotcha.

STU: Yeah. It goes back to the Ben Carson clip you played, which I pretty much agree with, although with a slight modification. Because he said something like, "What we need are people that are interested in getting the candidates to be able to disseminate information -- or disseminate information about the candidates." And I don't know if that's exactly the focus I want. I don't want them just being people who can disseminate information about the candidates. I like tough questions. But it's someone who is interested in the answers. Not interested in promoting themselves. Not interested in getting some big moment that can go viral. We're talking about people who are actually interested in the differences between these people.

GLENN: The first thing that has to happen, you have to actually believe the country is in trouble. On our side. On the left, they don't necessarily think the country is in trouble. On our side, the majority think that our country is in real, deep trouble. So you have to -- more than self, your country love, the first thing.

And then actually ask the questions that are honest that reveal the candidate for who they really are. That's what has to happen.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Nobody has to have a shouting match with Donald Trump. Why have a shouting match with Donald Trump? Mr. Trump, can you tell me the difference between a constitutional and a progressive president? Yes or no? And what is that difference? Would you consider yourself a constitutional or a progressive Republican?

There's no gotcha in that at all. He'll have to define them. And by how he defines them and then how he describes himself, you'll know because you'll be able to compare. Is that true, or is that not true? There's no gotcha there. Because I don't think that there's -- you know, the Republicans are running away from progressivism, just as the Democrats ran away from socialism.

Well, people are wanting the truth. They just want the truth. They know the truth. They know that the Democrats and that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. They know that Hillary Clinton is a socialist. They know that.

So they're capable of handling the truth on who you really are. They want somebody to say who they really are. Even if they don't agree with it. They want them to say who they really are and what they really, truly believe.

And so, I mean, I think just putting the candidates in a place to where they're comfortable enough to where it's not hostile fire the whole time because --

PAT: And you're asking the right questions that conservatives care about. You got to ask the right questions. You're not asking them, "Well, how are you going to stop the evil richest 1 percent from earning another dollar?" That's not a Republican principle.

GLENN: And this is for us to decide. This isn't the general debate. This is for us to decide.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: When it comes to the general election debate, you kind of expect those questions, but there's no point in doing that now. You're trying to find out who is -- I think there is a point in looking at a candidate's weakness. You know, if you want to look at Ted Cruz and ask Ted Cruz about, "Well, you're too divisive in Washington." Or ask Donald Trump about his issues with, you know, things he's said in the past. Those are fair. But when you're talking about these income inequality questions about --

GLENN: Why do you hate women?

STU: Why do you hate women?

GLENN: I mean, that's just ridiculous. That's just ridiculous. That's a general election question. And, by the way, the -- the mainstream media should have a balance to it that it should have something like Carly suggested, TheBlaze to where when it comes to the mainstream media, to the general election, that the -- the Democrats' feet are put to the fire. If you're going to ask those questions about, why do you hate women? Well, I think I should be able to say, you know, look at the stats of Philadelphia. Look at the stats of Detroit. Look at the stats of St. Louis. Those are all democratically controlled since the 1960s. Your progressivism doesn't seem to be working. With the level of increase of homelessness and joblessness for African-Americans and Hispanics, how can you say this works to help the underprivileged and the poor?

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep