New York Times reporter says Ted Cruz will be a ‘serious’ candidate for president

October 16, 2013

Writer

Journalist and author Mark Leibovich joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss his new book, This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral, and the current state of politics in America. Are we already a three-party system? And does Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) have a legitimate chance at the presidency in 2016? Glenn and Mark discussed this and much more.

“Mark Leibovich, he is a guy who was writing a story for the New York Times Magazine about me. And when they came to me and said, New York Times Magazine wants to write something on you, I said, you've got to stand in line. And I don't think so. And I was told, no, no, we researched this guy. And I said, you researched everybody, and it never works out well and why would I do an interview with the New York Times. And they gave me a bunch of his stuff to read and it was on just a myriad of different people, and he always seemed fair,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “And I don't know, I would blame it on being drunk at the time, but I was totally sober and I said, all right. And the thing came out and it was fair, and I liked him. And I liked him because he had natural curiosity. He was not going for the typical things. He was actually trying to understand me and understand my point of view and what we were trying to do. I don't ever see natural curiosity in a reporter. I should say rarely do I see it in a reporter. They came in, they know what they're going to write, what they're going to tell and then they just find those things and then it's already written before they ever sit down. Wasn't like that with Mark.”

Glenn is a big fan of Mark’s book because of the candor and fairness with which he wrote it. As an employee of the New York Times, it could have been seen as a dangerous career move to write a book that criticizes all aspects of the political system, but Mark did it anyway. In the aftermath of its publication, however, he has seen some backlash.

“Oh, I'm told that every day now. I've given away the secret handshake. I guess it's a tough book. And it's tough on Democrats, and it's tough on Republicans. And it's certainly tough on the media. And it's tough for me because, you know, I'm a member of the media and, you know, I live there and these are people I go to work with,” Mark explained. “But the tenor of the criticism has been, how dare he. How dare anyone on the inside speak critically of others on the inside. And look, I'm very transparent. I live there. I live there of my own volition for now. I cover politics. I, for some reason, like politics and, you know, my family and I have a good life there. But it's a very comfortable town. It's the last place in America that should be as comfortable as it is. So I wanted to shake things up and name some names. And that's what I did, and it's been a little strange this summer. But mostly I've been out of town and the response has been pretty amazing.”

Mark’s book exposes some of the dysfunction that populates our nation’s capital. He explained that one of Washington’s biggest problems is the political class it has created. Politicians move from the House to the Senate to the consulting firm down the street. It’s a club that basically guarantees access for life, once you gain entry.

“So how do we fix this,” Glenn asked.

“That's a great question. You know what I would do? I would say this. If I were sitting in Iowa talking to a presidential candidate or talking to a candidate for House or Senate or something, the first question I would ask them is: What are you going to do if you lose? And how long are you going to stick around? Or after you're done serving, what are you going to do then? Are you going to come back? And they'll probably mostly lie and say, ‘Oh, yes, I'm going to come back and I'm going to volunteer in the soup kitchen or something like that.’ But at least you get the notion out there that politics, that public service is, in fact, public service,” Mark said. “I mean George Washington spent the last part of his life – I think you might have told me this – living in fear that he was going to do something after his presidency that would disgrace himself. No one has that anxiety. I mean, you know, yes, you can, like, do a 180 on everything you've promised and then lobby for the exact other side like Richard Gephardt, you know, who's a classic example of this, does and so many other people do, and there's no punishment. I would just get the conversation going in the direction not so much of left versus right but inside versus outside.”

Glenn has been talking about the merits of a three party system for a few weeks now, but in This Town, Mark argues that we already live in a country with three parties.

“First of all, I think Washington itself is one big party. I mean I think the big party here, the uber party here, is what you see in Washington now – the party of the grownups, as they say. Everyone says, oh, well, the grownups will take over now and we'll kick this down the road again,” Mark explained. “I think you have a, sort of a centrist party and then you have the sort of far left and then you have a wing – I mean, you call it the TEA Party now, but a wing of the Republican Party that, you know, could very, very legitimately – I don't know if it would break off formally.”

The media may vilify the like of Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee (R-UT), but Mark said their potential should not be underestimated.

“I mean first of all, they are not alone. Look at Ted Cruz's poll numbers,” he said. “I mean if you look at early presidential polls, Ted Cruz is going to be a serious, serious candidate for president on the strength of what we're talking about here.”

“Hold on just a second,” Glenn interrupted. “This is an editor of the New York Times Magazine saying that. I don't hear that from anybody else in the mainstream media, what you just said.”

“That Cruz is a serious candidate? They should say it because it's true,” Mark continued. “Look at the crowds he drew. It's a very, very real energy that if you take any time outside of Washington you can see.”

Ultimately, Mark explained that he wrote this book because he wants the American people to be able to hate Washington D.C. with at least some degree of understanding and detail of how it works.

“People have an intuitive sense that, you know, Washington is a swamp because people, when they run for office, say, ‘I'm going to drain the swamp’ and then they settle in like a warm Whirlpool bath. They just become part of it,” Mark said. “What I hope this book does is allows people to hate Washington with a greater degree of detail and specificity and frankly – and maybe this is me hoping beyond hope – introducing a piece of shame into the system… Look, the book, I hope, is entertaining. People laugh and people are outraged, which I think is a good combination because if you don't laugh, you cry. But very, very few people leave [this town] better than they come in.”

“The name of the book is This Town," Glenn said. "I think this is a book that can bring the left and right together and will actually explain to you what's really going on, what the problems are, from a guy who is just letting the chips fall where they may.

Watch the entire interview below:

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.