Screwed On a Technicality: John Kasich's Underhanded Strategy

March 18, 2016

Writer

Steven Crowder, comedian and founder of LouderWithCrowder.com, brought a little levity to The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday. While Glenn apologized for his choice words about John Kasich the previous day, Steven enlightened the guys with just how underhanded the presidential candidate actually is.

"What really bothered me is the phoniness. He says, 'I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land,'" Crowder said. "What? Your only possible path to victory is to screw somebody on a technicality. There couldn't be a more greasy, underhanded low road, and he plays the nice guy card."

Now that he told us how he really feels, does Crowder think Kasich stands much of a chance the rest of the way?

"No, nobody wants John Kasich. You know, you get past the ad hominem. We've talked about this, with the haircut and the kind of hunch. He looks like a baby seal caught in a BP oil spill. He's just very off-putting, but he's dishonest," Crowder said.

Guess not.

Check out the rest of the interview below to get your daily dose of laughter. After all, in this sickening election, laughter might not just be the best medicine --- it could be the only medicine.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Steven Crowder from LouderwithCrowder.com is on with us now.

Steven, how are you, sir?

STEVEN: Thanks for having me. You know, you've seen this week. We're all doing the same.

(chuckling)

GLENN: I can't -- I can't figure out if John Kasich is -- has done a deal with someone, if he's just delusional. I watched him win, and I think he really actually thought he won something big on Tuesday.

STEVEN: John Kasich, he's like party guest who just never leaves, only he wasn't invited. Nobody invited John Kasich. You're cleaning up. You're trying to wrap it up. And he's like, all right (inaudible) with you guys. Of course, John Kasich would. No one wants him around.

What really bothers me about him Glenn is the phoniness. So it was one thing to say, well, maybe he's a good guy, and he's delusional. His winning Ohio with the confetti and the fireworks and the rockettes came up. I mean, it was like winning the cup in Mario Kart. I couldn't believe how big of a celebration this guy had. What really bothered me is the phoniness. He says, "I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land."

What? Your only possible path to victory is to screw somebody on a technicality. There couldn't be a more greasy, underhanded low road, and he plays the nice guy card.

(laughter)

GLENN: I haven't looked at it that way, but you're exactly right. There is no way for him to take the upper hand and the high road and win. He's got to knife somebody in the back.

STEVEN: Exactly. There's no way -- I know we push the common format. That's the obvious joke. But it's mathematically impossible for him to win. The only way is if he gets to some kind of a brokered convention, and people screw the voters.

No, nobody wants John Kasich. You know, you get past the ad hominem. We've talked about this, with the haircut and the kind of hunch. He looks like a baby seal caught in a BP oil spill. He's just very offputting, but he's dishonest.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Do you think he cut a deal with Donald Trump or anybody? Because I've heard -- have you guys heard those conspiracies that he's only in it -- he's got a deal with Donald Trump?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You think he cut a deal like Ben Carson did?

STEVEN: I don't even think Ben Carson cut a deal. I really don't. And I know I sound naive. And I really like Ben Carson as a good guy. And I still want to believe he's a good guy. I think he's somebody who is very bright. But he's not necessarily politically savvy. And I think if you read his book, and I've read his book, he wants to believe the best in people and he's very forgiving. And I think he just bought it. I think he probably sat Donald Trump down and said, "You know, just not be so decisive. And I need to know that you won't, for example, call another candidate a pedophile."

And Donald Trump just said, "I won't do it." And he said, "Good enough for me." And he just endorsed him.

(laughter)

STU: Where was that treatment with Cruz though? He thinks Cruz is Satan, and Cruz didn't even do anything.

STEVEN: Did he say that about Cruz? I didn't read that. I know John Boehner did.

STU: He didn't actually call him Satan. But, you know, he came out and was calling him a liar. He said that he was doing all these dirty tricks. Then Cruz apologized to him. He -- he then -- Cruz offered to meet with him.

GLENN: Yeah, he apologized twice.

STU: He would not --

GLENN: Wouldn't forgive him. Wouldn't forgive him.

STEVEN: Well, okay. Then that obviously changes the game.

I mean, if you're Ben Carson, it's kind of like when you have a guy who you know who is just in this marriage and his kids don't respect him. Everybody has that dad in the flock. And he's just miserable when he sinks back into his chair.

You kind of get that sense with Ben Carson. He openly said, "If there were another scenario, I would endorse someone else. But there wasn't, so I'm picking Donald Trump." It doesn't really make sense as far as the leap. I didn't know that about -- I know obviously John Boehner literally called Ted Cruz Lucifer. So I wanted to make sure that Ben Carson didn't hop on that train. He might.

I think the guy is just a nice kind of go-along guy. And he might have been in the room, and John Boehner says, "Hey, Ted Cruz is Lucifer." And Ben Carson could just say, "Okay. I'll go with that."

GLENN: Let me ask you this: I was watching a speech with Bernie Sanders. And I get the fact that Bernie Sanders is talking about, you know, socialism and it's a totally new track and, you know, it's exciting and everything else.

But I'm watching the crowd that's standing behind him. And I'm thinking to myself, the whole time I'm watching, the guy could drop dead of a heart attack in the middle of his speech, and I don't know if anyone thinks that he could live long enough for the four years that he would be in office. And I don't know what people see in him as a person, other than he's got this socialist thing going for him.

Who are the people that are voting for Bernie Sanders? Really?

STEVEN: It's funny that you bring that up, though. Because remember Matt Damon talking about the actuary tables, as it related to John McCain. And here you have Bernie Sanders -- true story, you know, I did that video at the rally. We actually have like a Christmas roll that we just figure we'll roll out sometime. It's about two and a half minutes of Bernie Sanders mid-speech going -- just coughing and making bizarre noises. Like you think he'll just want to keel over. Kind of like with Hillary Clinton, they whittled down the line to 13 minutes. We just couldn't whittle it down. Every couple of minutes, Bernie was (coughing). All the time. I mean, I swear to you. I have the footage. And we couldn't fit it in, it was too much.

You know, we wrote about this on the site. And I have a writer, Courtney, who is my main editor. So I've written about this from a male perspective. And as a woman, she wrote a great piece on it. I would highly recommend people read it. She's getting a lot of flak about how, if you are a Bernie Sanders voter, if you believe it's the government's job to provide for you, if you don't believe you can do it on your own, you're not a man. You're not a man I can respect.

And that's something I've always felt. It really is hard in 2016 to be a male. And when I say be a man, I don't mean drinking beer and burping. There are people who do that, and they abuse their wives. There are people who are macho, and they're horrible men. I'm talking about a man who can lead his family, a man who believes that he can provide for his kids.

That's what makes someone a man: Their families, their communities, people under their tutelage are flourishing. People voting for Bernie Sanders don't believe they can do it. They'll tell you it's out of their control. The system is rigged against them. And it's someone else's job to pay for it.

So we wrote about that on the site. Got a big reaction. It really is -- you know, men have been shamed because of just who they are. Right? Your male privilege. Well, Bernie Sanders exemplifies the antithesis of that. It is radically anti-rugged individualism to believe that you have no control over your destiny, but the 72-year-old Jewish socialist is going to fix it to you. That's not happening.

GLENN: So you're saying you cannot be a man if you're standing on the stage or if you're voting for him; even if you have the correct genitalia, you're not really a man?

STEVEN: I don't know now. The new rules and Caitlin Jenner still carrying around the equipment but is a woman, so your guess is as good as mine. But the spirit is that. Yeah.

GLENN: Tell me about the Buzzfeed thing. Because you did -- you went around -- you wrote about a black guy dressed as a preppie for a week to prove microaggressions. Tell me about this.

STEVEN: Buzzfeed. I can hear Stu. Did Stu or Pat make a reference article? It seems that not many conservatives saw it.

STU: Maybe I didn't.

STEVEN: It's huge. It's all over Buzzfeed. It's this black guy. And he writes microaggression. Black lives matter. He talks about dressing nicely and sort of dressing down. You know, in sweatpants and a hoodie. And talking about how people treat him differently. So the big examples of discrimination are when he was dressed in a suit and tie, you know, the bus drivers were nicer to him. The people at the cleaners were nice to him. People lent him some change; whereas, when he was dressed in sweatpants and a baggy hoodie, they didn't treat him very well.

Now, he writes this, and his conclusion is racism. And so I read, and I just said, "This proves the opposite." Listen, if someone hates black people, you're not tricking them out with a skinny tie. Okay? Like, isn't this wonderful? You're a black guy, you put on a blazer, and nobody cares.

But apparently he thought this was proof that if you treat someone who dresses nicely, well, you're a racist. And I don't go into Banana Republic in sweatpants. They look at me funny. So I just don't go into Banana Republic anymore because I only wear sweatpants.

STU: But you're right, it actually proves the exact opposite.

GLENN: The exact opposite.

STU: If you are a person who walks around -- if you're intimidated by a black person in a suit, for example, and you are not intimidated by a white person in a gang attire, then you're racist.

STEVEN: Right.

STU: But that's different. That's a totally different story.

STEVEN: Right.

STU: It's based on the dress. It's based on -- if you're going down and you have a bunch of people coming at you, looking like Eminem in their prime, you might very well be intimidated. That doesn't make you racist against whites.

STEVEN: Eminem. At least Eminem had a prime. What about my prime?

Listen. You could take Glenn, right? Take off the cardigan. Okay. Get rid of the scruff there that he has going. And if you put him in no-belted prison pants and, you know, a giant red hoodie that looks like he's not staying neutral. He's in the Bloods. And you walk him down the streets of Inglewood, I'm going to walk on the other side of the street. So that gives you some context. And that's exactly what this guy proved.

GLENN: I think there's a slam in there someplace. I'm just not sure exactly where it is.

STU: Yeah. He's using you as the least threatening --

GLENN: I know. Steven Crowder. LouderwithCrowder.com. LouderwithCrowder.com. Thanks, Steven. We'll talk to you again.

Featured Image: Screenshot from YouTube

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