Will Christians show up this time? Glenn interviews David Barton

November 05, 2012

Writer

David Barton is perhaps in tune with the Christian community as much if not more than any faith leader out there, so Glenn asked him about the expected turnout for tomorrow. Will it be similar to 2008? Will there be fewer? Will there be more? Glenn talks with David on radio today and explains how the Christian vote could sway the election.

Full transcript of interview is below:

GLENN: Let's go right to David Barton who, we know David as a historian, but David also is instrumental in helping people get out the vote and really you've been in politics for how long, David?

DAVID BARTON: Oh, gracious. Goes back to actively being on the, I don't mean the inside but actually being more than a voter back to '88.

GLENN: I mean, I don't think you needed to swear, you know, a swear word for David. Gracious.

PAT: Gracious.

GLENN: Golly goodness, gracious me, let me think.

DAVID BARTON: That's hardcore stuff, man.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: It is.

PAT: That was awful.

GLENN: Okay. So David, I met a lot of people over the weekend, and the people who I felt were spiritually attuned may not know why or anything else, but they are the ones who came up to me this weekend, because I was in three different cities. We probably met, or were around 20,000 people and people would come up to me and they would say, "Really what do you think? I mean, just, are we going to be okay?" And the ones who would come up and they would have some spiritual aspect of their life, they would all come up and say, "I can't tell you why because, man, the press is saying this or that but, boy, I sure feel good about this. I just feel like it's fine." Are you finding that with your friends?

DAVID BARTON: Yeah, we are. And some of that is not only from those who just are spiritually attuned but those who are also spiritually attuned and on the ground. A lot of those folks are very intimately involved and have been for a number of years in running organizations that really get grassroots out and so they're spiritually attuned but they are also very politically astute. And the people that are right in the middle of the trenches on this thing, not the pollsters, not the people making the calls or answering the calls but the people who are actually doing the groundwork, same thing. I mean, they feel really good. I was just checking this morning with several more of what are called the battleground states, and the folks on the ground in those places that are also good friends, that are also very spiritually attuned, same report from every single one of them.

GLENN: So David, what are you seeing? You told me something, I think it was in Missouri about the value voter guides?

DAVID BARTON: Right.

GLENN: Can you tell me that?

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. In Missouri at the height of back in the decade ago when Christian Coalition was really strong and I guess they are really the first ones to start using voters guides for conservatives, particularly social conservatives, and at the height of that movement, the most they ever distributed was 100,000 in Missouri.

GLENN: 100,000?

DAVID BARTON: And there was about 1.5 million distributed in the last couple of weeks in Missouri. I was in Ohio and just talking to their guys. They personally hand‑delivered to 9,000 churches 2.2 million voter guides, hand‑delivered to 9,000 churches who put those guides out. In 2004, the election in 2004, 28% of churches either put out a voters guide or told parishioners to go vote, whatever. In 2008, last election that was down to 14%. I don't know what it will be this election, but it's already blown the top off. And so those are the folks that are hardest to measure. Those are the folks who were the key of the 2010, they and the TEA Party. And they tend to be a lot the same. Like Brody said, they're TEAvangelicals. So that group in 2010 instead of being the normal 24% of the vote that it is, it rose to 30% of the vote because they were so energized. And we're seeing even greater energy in this election than we saw in 2010. So, you know, we won't know until after tomorrow night to see how the numbers turn out. But at this point it's blown through the roof. I talked to Pennsylvania this morning. They've put out more than a million social conservative voters guides in that state. I mean, all these numbers are just, they blow all other previous records apart.

GLENN: Okay. So let's talk about a couple of states in particular. Do you think that it really is in play in Pennsylvania?

DAVID BARTON: I think it is in play in Pennsylvania. Just talking even to Catholics, some key Catholics last night and then some key evangelicals this morning, they think it's down to the wire, but they are really feeling good of what they are seeing and they think it's definitely in play. Could be a couple of points either way but they don't think it's a blowout for Obama by a long shot.

GLENN: I am ‑‑ I talked to you I think on Saturday. The New York Times did a piece on Sunday about me and my evil influence with evangelicals, which I think is laughable, especially since all the New York Times did was say that and then they talked to all of these so‑called evangelicals who proved the story wrong.

DAVID BARTON: Well, exactly.

GLENN: It was amazing.

DAVID BARTON: Don't try to get logical with the New York Times.

GLENN: I mean, it was unbelievable.

DAVID BARTON: You can't do it.

GLENN: I know. They were like, "Glenn Beck and his secret cabal has been working voodoo magic on the evangelicals." And then they quoted evangelicals who were like, "Mormons are dogs and we should have them licensed and tagged." What is ‑‑ I mean, who are these people in the first place.

But there is something that is ‑‑ I mean, David, when we first met and you went with me to that meeting with the evangelicals, that was, what, four or five years ago. It had nothing to do with politics, had everything to do with the march on Washington. And we talked about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I talked about Martin Luther King, and the spirit of all of us standing together and not trying to baptize each other or anything else, just standing where God is telling us to stand, there was a change that night just in that room. And I think that change has continued, not ‑‑ I'm not saying, I'm not claiming anything. It just is, I think is God's will. It's changed. People are standing together. And the media now is confused because they're like, "Well, evangelicals, I thought you thought they were all dogs, the Mormons, and we should have them tagged, put down to sleep."

DAVID BARTON: Yeah, this is a lot like the Whitefield stuff that was going on before the American Revolution.

GLENN: Yes.

DAVID BARTON: Where the groups that were not supposed to be working together were working together. And they had common visions, common goals, they were out to save the country and suddenly all the barriers for which they had killed each other in previous he ‑‑ and I mean literally killed each other ‑‑

GLENN: Killed each other.

DAVID BARTON: ‑‑ previous years, suddenly they are now side by side, shoulder to shoulder in the trenches and they finally recognize the enemy's a whole lot bigger than shooting at each other. And I think that's where we are right now.

GLENN: Right. The king didn't understand it then and I don't think the king understands it today.

DAVID BARTON: I agree. I agree. And he underestimated it as well.

GLENN: Big time.

DAVID BARTON: He's used to dealing with all these separate constituencies who don't like each other and always fighting and bickering and suddenly when they all get pulled together, it doesn't take ‑‑ it doesn't take a majority to do that. It takes a dedicated minority working together. And I don't know where the majority in this election I think will probably have the majority influence and folks will come our direction, but as far as folks working together, you have the similar folks working together in ways that again remind me of the first great awakening and literally the Second Great Awakening where the issue then was saving the country from the slavery culture and what was going with racism. So both revivals we've had in America were very dissimilar groups working toward common goals for the country and I think that's where we are.

GLENN: I have to tell you, David, over the summer we've witnessed the Third Great Awakening.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ at Cowboys Stadium. And I agree with you. I think it is absolutely happening and nobody in the media or in Washington will even understand what that even means, but it is gigantic. But I was standing on the stage with Freedom Works on Friday in a show that we're going to air tonight at 8:00 on TheBlaze and I was giving a speech and it struck me about halfway through, the similarities of what is being done right now to the beginning of our country. We are repeating, and we're at the very beginning of it, but we are repeating all of the steps that it took for us to be free in ‑‑ around the time of the Declaration of Independence, don't you think?

DAVID BARTON: I agree. And I look ‑‑

GLENN: It's starting to happen.

DAVID BARTON: And I look at the TEA Parties, I look at other even churches and it's like the Committees of Correspondence. These guys talk to each other, and every one of them's a local independent committee, nobody's over them, but they all communicate, they all cooperate. And that's unusual. I mean, I haven't seen that in my lifetime where we have so many small groups. And the networking that's occurring, I mean, that's the same thing. I haven't seen networking like this. We've always had, even on the social conservative side with evangelical side, there has to be some spokesman somewhere. There's not a spokesman. There's about 5,000 of them. And so the networking that's out there, the Committees of Correspondence concept, what we're doing with transmitting information through social media, et cetera, I was just talking to some of the guys on the ground this morning, six of the battleground states and they say hands down that on our side, social conservatives and TEA Party folks, our technology's so much better than what Obama has. The media keeps saying how great all you this technology is. What we've been able to do with microtargeting, what we've been able to do with voter registration and turnout, it is so much more sophisticated than what they are doing on their side. And that's exactly what was going on in the First and Second Great Awakenings. Everybody underestimated how organized and how dedicated small groups could be.

GLENN: Mmm‑hmmm.

DAVID BARTON: And that's exactly where we are now.

GLENN: Mmm‑hmmm. So what is your prediction?

DAVID BARTON: I predict that tomorrow night it not going to go nearly as long as everybody thinks it will. I don't think it's going to be nearly as tight. We'll certainly know within the first couple of hours when we ‑‑

GLENN: Just give me an electoral college number for Romney. You know, ballpark it.

DAVID BARTON: You know, 270 to win, and I think it's easy over that. I think it could be 320, 330. I just you ‑‑

GLENN: I agree.

DAVID BARTON: I think it could be ‑‑ I think Barone could be right on this thing. And I'm in that category.

GLENN: Barone, I said what Barone said, I mean, two weeks ago and you're not quoting me. Why are you quoting Barone?

DAVID BARTON: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Now if he's wrong, quote him.

STU: Yeah, it was Michael Barone then. It was his fault.

GLENN: Yeah, if he's right, it's me. I'm just sayin'.

DAVID BARTON: That's right.

GLENN: All right, David, we'll see you ‑‑ are you going to be on tonight?

DAVID BARTON: Yes, sir.

GLENN: Are you in town? Where are you?

DAVID BARTON: Yes, sir, I'm with you tonight and you're stuck with me tomorrow night.

GLENN: Okay. Good. I'm glad to have ya. And bring some of the information on the organizing technology for tomorrow night's show, will you?

DAVID BARTON: I will have it.

GLENN: Thanks a lot.

DAVID BARTON: Absolutely. See you, bro.

GLENN: David has quite a network that we'll be getting information that the other networks won't have tomorrow.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Will Christians show up this time? Glenn interviews David Barton

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?