The 'ALL NEW! BIGGER! NICER!' Glenn Beck?!?! You've been missing out mainstream media

The media has had a lot to say about Glenn's recent interview with Megyn Kelly. Piers Morgan and Joe Scarborough praised Glenn for being introspective and took it as a moment to do a little self-reflection of their own on the heated rhetoric that takes place on cable news. Others, like a CNN panel on Thursday, were left wondering where this "new" Glenn Beck was coming from and why he was suddenly standing up for gay rights (or to use a better term, human rights) and uniting principles.

Well, clearly the media hasn't really been paying attention as this "ALL NEW! BIGGER! NICER!" Glenn Beck has been around for a while now (although Glenn has managed to redefine the term bigger through the growth of TheBlaze...and his waistline). Glenn hasn't really changed, he's just been living by the principles and values he's been espousing for years, people are just now paying attention.

Glenn opened the TV show today catching the media up on what they may have missed over the past few years:

The below is based off the transcript to the opening monologue of 1.23.2013 episode of The Glenn Beck Program

Hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and to TheBlaze.  This is the network that you are building, and I want to start with something that is referred to as the seven national crimes.  And here they are:  I don’t think, I don’t know, I don’t care, I am too busy, I leave well enough alone, I have no time to read and think of these things, I’m not interested.

Okay, these are the seven national crimes.  This was written by a guy from Germany around the turn of the century, and if these are true, and I think they are, this is what’s gotten us here.  If these are true, then the opposite of these must be virtues – thinking, knowing, taking the time to read, become interested, right?  Speaking out, becoming interested, educating yourself, and then speaking out, those should be treasured.  Okay?

This really is not a new concept.  This is just one of those uniting principles.  We should be able to agree that all of those are national crimes because if the entire country says those things, bad.  Not new thinking, 2,500 years ago, you go to Euripides, and he said this: “This is slavery, not to speak one’s thought.”  That’s pretty good.  That’s slavery.  You’re a slave if you can’t say what you’re thinking.

Fast-forward, 1700s, Voltaire said, really important phrase, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”  That one I think I have quoted over and over again.  I don’t have to agree with you, but you have a right to say it.  This is really, because of this kind of language where you really meant I’ll fight till the end for your right to say something, this is where tenure came from.

You can’t have people who are talking about science or they’re talking about God or they’re talking about politics or anything, they cannot be afraid that you’re going to kill them or fire them, right?  And it goes against everything that is in our makeup, our DNA, as a country.  The founders made this really, really clear in their commitment to free speech.  That’s why it’s amendment number one.

You have a right to believe in God or not believe in God.  You have a right to speak and not fear that you’re going to be thrown in jail.  And the implications of a society without free speech, well, it’s clear, it’s North Korea.  Okay, so now let me do a health check on our freedom of speech and if we’re even thinking anymore.  Let me give you a few stories.

Actress Maria Conchita Alonso, she was fired just this last week because she openly supported a Tea Party candidate.  I know, crazy.  Now, first of all, she’s going to be on Dana’s show tomorrow night, but I find that astounding.  Is that not Hollywood blacklisting, except it’s not with Communists; it’s with small government people?

Andrew Cuomo said Conservatives are not welcome in New York.  I said earlier this week isn’t that what they said to Martin Luther King and the freedom riders, you’re not welcome in this state, go read a book?  That was the quote from the governor.  Well, Bob Beckel called me names, I guess yesterday, because I called Cuomo out on this and compared him to the governors of the South in the 60s.

Bob Beckel:  That may be the most foolish, ridiculous, disgraceful…no wonder the son of a bitch is off the TV. 

Q:  Why?

Bob Beckel:  Because he equates Andrew Cuomo with one of the most racist governors there were who allowed black people to be lynched in his state, who never put together a jury, never allowed any blacks on a jury, and he, Glenn Beck, is equating him with Cuomo, Governor Cuomo.  It’s ridiculous.  He ought to leave the state.

I don’t know why people even would think about putting him on television or want to be around him.  Bob, life does not have to be so angry all the time.  It’s not surprising that somebody like Bob Beckel would resort to name calling because, not anything to do with Bob Beckel, but because of Cuomo’s position.  It is absolutely indefensible to say if you’re pro-life you’re not welcome in this state.

Okay, there’s some bad news.  Let me give you some good news.  Bill Nye the Science Guy, I think he’s really offensive on the way he treats people of religion because he doesn’t believe in creationism.  He believes in evolution.  And that’s fine, whatever, to each his own, but now, here’s the good news, he is willing to actually have a debate with Ken Ham and debate their positions, the merits of evolution versus creation.  That’s fantastic.  This is the way we’re supposed to be.

But as I’m reading the article today, here’s what caught my attention, Richard Dawkins and other atheists are begging Nye not to do the debate.  Why?  Because they say it gives the idea of creation credibility and, I want to quote, “creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and Nye is about to treat it as an equal, debatable controversy.”  Now, this is Richard Dawkins.

Now, that’s quite a claim, because nobody can prove how the world began, right?  We know that.  So how does Richard Dawkins think the world began?  Because if you’re saying look, to treat, you know, there is a God, and he created people through intelligent design as equal, debatable, it’s ridiculous.  But what does he believe?  How does he say the world began?  Look at this clip from Ben Stein’s Expelled, an interview with Richard Dawkins.

It’s amazing because remember, uneducated and worthless opinion to say God did it.  It has no credibility, but what is the possibility that Dawkins is entertaining as the origin of life?

Stein:  So you have no idea how it started?

Dawkins:  No, nor has anybody.

Stein:  Nor has anyone else.  What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

Dawkins:  Well, it could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.

Now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Come here.  Okay, let me ask you a question, what did he just say?  He said God, it’s ridiculous, God created things.  There’s no evidence of God at all.  It’s ridiculous.  You have no place in even a debate in real conversation, you know?  If you want to have an intelligent conversation about who created life here on this planet, I mean, aliens, we could go to the aliens.  Really?  Do you have any evidence of aliens?  Do you have the evidence of anything?  No, we don’t know.

The point is here, I believe in God.  I believe he created the heavens and the earth.  I got it.  That’s where I am.  Now, I may die and wake up in a void of blackness or not wake up as the case may be, and I may go crap, the whole time there’s been no God.  Oh well, that belief in God made me a better person.  I don’t have any idea how God creates.  I’ve no idea.

This is the most ridiculous argument because we’re not going to figure it out, but to act like you do know that that’s ridiculous, and you’re saying well, the alien thing makes a lot of sense – come on, man.  Come on, really?  Can’t we just be comfortable enough to say I don’t know the answer?  You don’t know the answer either.  He said it there.  He was there.  Nobody knows.  Good, so why can’t we hear out each other’s opinions?

Why can’t we…why is it so surprising to say hey, gay people shouldn’t be put into the ovens like that fascist in Russia says?  Why is that surprising to say, hey, I think we should all get together and stand against that one?  Why is it wrong to say hey, if gay couples want to get married, cool, dude, whatever, but don’t tell me that I have to change my church?  If I want to marry you in my church, cool.  If I don’t, cool.  Can’t we just get along?

Apparently no.  Why?  Because we have a growing ruling class.  Let me give you the story from the IRS.  The IRS is harassing a low profile conservative group called the Friends of Abe.  Who are the Friends of Abe?  These are Hollywood actors and writers and producers.  I met with them, and I’m telling you, when I met with them, you go through all kinds…I had to go through the back of a restaurant, through the kitchen, in by the bathroom to this other holding room while other like six or seven of them started to slowly walk into one room.  And then I walked in at the end.  It’s crazy.  It’s crazy.  It’s an underground meeting.

Now, for two years they’ve been trying to get 501(c)(3) status for the Friends of Abe, but the IRS said nope, we need your list of members.  Listen to this, the government is saying we want the names.  Gee, have I heard that someplace before, we want the names, Hollywood?  Well, they’re not going to release the names because they’re afraid of blacklisting.  Now, I know that sounds crazy, but remember what happened to Maria?  Remember, Maria?

She was fired because she was for the Tea Party guy, and every time this stuff happens, it ends in exactly the same way.  And the parallels to the 1950s, we are seeing them right now.  You just heard me tell you a story, the Friends of Abe, the government is saying give us the names of people who are in the Tea Party or are against this government.  Watch this.

VIDEO

Narrator:  Calling the House Un-American Activities Committee to order, Chairman J. Parnell Thomas of New Jersey opens an inquiry into possible Communist penetration of the Hollywood film industry.  The committee is seeking to determine if Red Party members have reached the screen with subversive propaganda.

A long list of prominent motion picture witnesses appear before the committee.  Speaking for the films, Eric Johnston, President of the Motion Picture Association, talks frankly concerning the attitude of the producers.

Johnston:  We are accused of having Communists and Communist sympathizers in our employ.  Undoubtedly there are such persons in Hollywood as you will find elsewhere in America, but we neither shield nor defend them.  We want them exposed.  We’re not responsible for the political or economic ideas of any individual.

Okay, stop.  This is one of the worst times in American history.  Everybody knows this, worst time.  I hate the idea of Communism, but if I target and blacklist people because of their Communism, am I any better than the brutal communist dictator?  The answer is no.  If you hate Fascism, but you’re willing to go after people and demand a list of names, I’m sorry, that makes you a, say it with me, Fascist.

When I went after Van Jones to expose who he was, if you remember right, if you watched the show back then, I said don’t fire him, don’t fire him, what are you doing firing him?  I was the only one standing up, the White House shouldn’t be firing this dude.  I just wanted people to know who he really was and who the president had working around him.

The same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies to Communists.  Van Jones has a right to get a job.  That’s fine, but it also applies to me and you.  My position on this has been clear and consistent from the very beginning, and my position on things has not really changed.  In fact, it has gotten deeper; however, the methods might have changed a little bit because I think, I hope, I’m smarter.

I hope I’m a better person than I was, and I’m really quite baffled because the press today is, like, it’s crazy.  It’s crazy.  They are still talking about what I said to Megyn Kelly earlier this week, reminder.

VIDEO

Kelly:  How do you remember it now?

Beck:  I remember it as an awful lot of fun, and that I made an awful lot of mistakes.  And I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language because I think I played a role unfortunately in helping tear the country apart.

Stop.  Now, the media is all over this today because they really, truly cannot understand why the always angry, always crazy Glenn Beck is now suddenly introspective and calm.  What is happening to him?  How is he changing?  He’s changing his views now, you know?  Well, no, I’m not.  I haven’t changed any of my views.  You’re discovering some of my views.  CNN had a panel segment today talking about this, and the banner said Beck changes his tone on gays.  I looked at that, and I went, “I have?  When?”

Hey CNN researchers, show your audience the times when I was harsh on gays.  I’ll spare you the research which you’re never going to do, it doesn’t exist.  The funny thing is the media acts as if they’re always the enlightened one.  Glenn Beck has evolved, and evolution is a good thing.  I caught that one today.  I thought that was great.  I was divisive.  I didn’t mean to be.  I tried not to be, but it’s the system that just pits people apart.

And he’s divisive, and he’s finally admitting it.  No, I’m willing to take responsibility for my part and yet, their warped view of me proves that they have been perpetuating this problem all along.  They are shocked today because they think I’m some anti-gay, racist nut job, and they think the same thing about you.  Now, why do they think that?  Because the only time they ever reported on me or on you was when some leftist with an agenda at Media Matters sent them some ridiculous out-of-context Glenn Beck alert.

And that’s the only thing that’s ever been newsworthy to them.  That’s it.  They didn’t see the CNN or MSNBC report on the Restoring Love event in Dallas.  Oh, that’s right, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, nobody did a report on that.  Do you remember that?  And we had truckloads of relief.  In fact, it was one of the biggest armies of volunteers that America has seen – not a peep from the media.

I haven’t changed.  They’re just seeing it.  I didn’t see them report on Mercury One’s donations and the work in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy or any of the other numerous tornadoes and other tragedies that you have done.  Because of you, Mercury One has been able to give $14 million to victims of tragedy in under two years, $250,000 to the NYPD.  I think it was like their union or something because they didn’t have any money to be able to help on their emergency relief for their families.

The union guys were like what, I don’t know what to…because that’s who we are, dude.  You just didn’t think so.  Five hundred thousand dollars we gave to a struggling hospital in New York City.  Joe, was it 500?  Yeah, $500,000 to New York City so they could help continue to treat people in New York City that are not welcome in any place, and it’s great that we’re helping them because I got news for you, apparently I’m not welcome in New York either.

I don’t think they even saw the beginning let alone the end of Man in the Moon.

VIDEO

And the Man in the Moon was woken from his deep slumber by a faint and gentle tapping, one that he had not felt ever before.  It was his beasts, and when he looked closer, he saw them.  He saw them dancing and jumping up on his face.  They were dancing together in the glow of the great lights.  They had done it.  They had found their way.  They had used their machines to reach toward him, and now they were one.

Hello?  How about the reaction from the crowd of 25,000 people who saw that?  How about just one reaction of somebody who sure doesn’t look like she should be a fan of Glenn Beck’s?

VIDEO

I would love to tell Glenn Beck thank you very much.  I heard something today that I didn’t know I needed to hear until I heard it, and so it hit very close to home with me.  And now I know that every day the sun will rise, and I can look up to see the moon to remind me that I know the sun will come up.

That’s our job.  That’s what we’ve been trying to do, but they never covered it.  They didn’t report on the 9/12 Project that brought people together on principles and values.  They mocked it.  They didn’t look at it.  They didn’t believe it.  They were cynical.  They didn’t report on any of this and what you’ve done.  They’ve just selectively decided to paint all of us in a certain way.

May I humbly suggest that the media stop gawking at my introspection and start maybe doing a little introspection of their own?  Piers Morgan, now this is a record, Piers Morgan had a response I have to commend.  Watch.

VIDEO

Morgan:  Let’s talk seriously about the polarization of political debate in America, because Glenn Beck was quite brave I thought to say what he said.  And if I’m being self-reflective, doesn’t happen very often, but I may as well throw it out there.  You know, we mentioned guns there.  When I’ve done the guns debate, I can tell that when I get over angry and get a little bit abusive to the gun people, that it actually doesn’t help the debate, that actually all it does is intensify the polarization.

How fantastic is that?  How fantastic is that?  Okay?  He took this as an opportunity to look inward and upward, not just at you.  Kudos, Piers.  Joe Scarborough, not a friend of this program, responded this way on MSNBC today:

VIDEO

Scarborough:  You know, he came out this past week and also said if you are anti-gay, if you don’t like a person because they’re gay, you have no place in this country, and don’t call yourself a fan of mine.  I think what’s so fascinating about this is that if Glenn Beck were saying all of this from a position of weakness, that would be one thing. 

Glenn Beck from what I saw made like $90 million last year.  He has done on the Internet what the largest corporations in America have tried to do on the Internet.  I mean, he has somehow brought together TV and Internet, and he’s had an extraordinary year financially.  So I think that’s what’s even more telling about this is that he’s making these admissions from a position of strength.

Okay, stop.  I just want to show you that because Joe Scarborough is not a friend of this not work.  In fact, let me show you what Joe Scarborough said when I left FOX.

VIDEO

Scarborough:  I’m just saying it outright that Roger Ailes was right that all of those people that showed up at Glenn Beck’s rally were FOX people, were Roger Ailes people, and not Glenn Beck’s people.  And Glenn Beck will find that out in the coming years.  Roger Ailes has built a remarkable platform for conservative speakers, and Glenn Beck got plugged in at five o’clock and did better than anybody else at five o’clock, but he also did better than he will for the rest of his career.

Here is a guy who had that opinion and now was able to realize that he was wrong.  And I would like to take this moment and ask the media aren’t we all a little wrong about something?  Haven’t we all done things that we are saying oh man, if I just would’ve known then?  Really?  Haven’t we all just made mistakes?  I mean, none of us are perfect.  What is that he without sin cast the first stone thing?

Unfortunately, that’s not how the media is set up.  I’ve asked Tiffany to run as a documentary maybe the Christmas meeting that we had as a company and show you who we are on the inside.  They won’t understand.  They won’t even get it.  I think you’ll even be shocked at a lot of the stuff, probably not, the way we run our company and what we think we are and we stand for and what we strive to be.

In the rest of the media, admitting a mistake, oh, that’s horrible.  I’ve always told you I lead with my mistakes, and I’ve always told you we can disagree, but I will defend you.  I will defend.  And I’m not going to defend a mistake because I’m afraid I’ll lose an argument.  Don’t be afraid, and don’t fall into the trap of the seven crimes.  Don’t be afraid to think, to know, to care.

 

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.