How did Reagan win the debate against Carter?

The media was hammering him as stupid and old and he didn’t do a very good job in the first debate with President Carter. So how was Reagan able to turn things around? Glenn explained on radio this morning.

"I want to tell you the story of Ronald Reagan and how he won the debate against Jimmy Carter. You know, we were living in a time very similar. People didn't think that Ronald Reagan could handle it and the media was hammering Ronald Reagan. Now the media was also hammering Jimmy Carter. You know, they had ‑‑ that's why Ted Koppel, we even went on the air because Ted Koppel started "Nightline" and it was just ‑‑ it was just about the hostage crisis. That's all it was. But Jimmy Carter was winning. And Jimmy Carter was very good at the first debate and at that first debate he made Ronald Reagan look like he didn't know what he was talking about. Because Jimmy Carter was a bureaucrat. Ronald Reagan was an idea guy, which is much more in line with the American people, the ideas, not the policy wonk stuff," Glenn explained.

"This is again one of the differences between the election then and the election now because Barack Obama is definitely not a wonk. He can't even tell you that the debt is at $16 trillion, not 10. He is just about an idea, and his idea happens to be out of step with the American people. His idea is about redistribution of wealth and socialism and that the buck stops with you. But he is so good at being the big picture idea guy that Americans just kind of go along with it. Romney needs to inspire. He needs to inspire and he needs to quickly explain things to the American people. He needs to find ways to explain how he's going to create jobs. That shouldn't be too hard, but you're going to need a good storyteller, a good ‑‑ somebody who knows how to package things," Glenn said.

"Back in 1980 that man was Roger Ailes. Roger Ailes was a guy who was at the time a political guy. I mean, he went in and he was the one who helped Nixon in the 1960s. He was a producer on the Mike Douglas Show and he was I think the youngest producer and that was the first talk show and there was a guy sitting in the makeup chair and he was putting on makeup, they were putting the makeup on and he was talking about how much he hated television and television was just this passing fad. And Mr. Ailes was standing behind him and I don't even know how young he was. He was young at this point. And he was standing behind him and he said, I'm sorry, Mr. Vice President, but television will either make you or break you. And if you ever want to have a future in politics again, you're going to need to learn how to do television."

"Well, about a year or so later, Nixon decided he was going to run for president and he called Roger Ailes and said, 'Will you help me? You teach me how to do television.' And that's what he did. And he became a political consultant. Now comes to 1980 and Reagan is losing and he lost the first debate because Carter could talk about all of these policies. He could talk about, you know, the farm subsidy bills and everything else. And Reagan was like, I don't even know what he's talking about. I don't know all these subsidies and these programs. And Roger came in to him and said, Mr. President ‑‑ or Mr. Reagan, you have ‑‑ you have good news and bad news. The bad news is you just got your butt kicked. But here's the good news. You can win. You can win. Reagan said how. He said, I don't mean this to be a slam. This is why the American people like you and this is why you're going to be so effective. You really, everything that you talk about really can all be summed up in about five things, and I don't remember what those five things were but they were basically, you know, communism is evil and we have to have a strong military. The government and its overregulation is the problem, and the solution is the people."

"So he gave him those five things, whatever they were, and he said all you have to do is just talk about those five things because no matter what is brought up, you can answer that question with one of those five things and those are the things the American people want to hear and what they like about you. And he said, you can articulate, you don't need anybody to help you on that. You already know those. And so he role played with Reagan. And Reagan said farm subsidy bill. He said, I believe government is the problem. I believe in the farmers and the American people. And if we would just get out of the way of the American people, the farmers will be fine because the farm he is know how to plant. The farmers know how to do it. The government doesn't. How do they know in Washington? I imagine that meeting ended with smiles all around and the next debate, 'Well, there he goes again.' And Reagan crushed him and that was the end."

"The reason I bring up this story is Pat and I were talking the other day about what Romney needs to do in the election and I'm like, "I don't think he can politically consult or would politically consult anybody anymore, but I wish he would." If there was a way that you could just say, 'Hey, magic fairy dust, resign for about four hours from Fox and then resign up, you know, later that afternoon, consult.' Or if Romney would just read the stories of what this man said. Roger Ailes is one of the smartest guys. He knows the American people. He knows the American people unlike I think anybody else does. He knows them and he can boil things down and I don't know who that guy is now that can do that. That's what Roger used to do, still does at Fox."

"Who is that guy? Who can boil them down for the American people and teach that to Romney? Because Romney, he's got to appeal to the regular person. I mean, how many people do you talk to and you're like, I don't know, I don't know if there's a difference. There is a huge difference."

"So what does that tell you? That tells you the American people are not really paying attention. They don't know who this guy is. 'I don't know, there's no difference.' They don't know who Barack Obama is because if they think Barack Obama is just like their beer buddy that they have beers with, they couldn't be more wrong. I contend most Americans, if you got to know the real Barack Obama and you were in his inner circle and you heard his friends and how they talk and what they say about America and the military and everything else, I contend the vast majority of Americans would despise Barack Obama as a friend."

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.