Rand Paul vs. Ted Cruz: Who is the better 2016 candidate?

During an appearance on ABC News’ This Week on Sunday, Jon Karl told the panel that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is so hated by fellow Republicans these days that he will “need a food taster” at weekly Senate lunches. George Stephanopoulos replied that Sen. Cruz “does have a high tolerance for personal pain inside of his caucus.”

Below is the clip via MRC TV:

On radio this morning, Glenn, Pat, and Stu used the clip as a jumping off point to examine the potential 2016 GOP field. Glenn decided to narrow the debate to Sen. Cruz and his compatriot Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Who has the better chance of winning?

“Look, they're making this into a bad thing. You know, he has a high tolerance for personal pain. That's a good thing! That's a good thing,” Glenn said. “Now, the question is: Can you win? In a straight-up Rand Paul/Ted Cruz, had to elect today, which one has the best shot of winning?”

Stu picked Sen. Cruz in a hypothetic election against Democrat Hillary Clinton because he believes libertarianism will be painted as an extremist ideology.

I think when it comes down to a general election, there's a chance they will attempt to paint libertarianism as completely insane. So I think I'll go Ted Cruz,” Stu explained. “I think they are both great, and I'd be happy with both of them.”

While Glenn agrees that Sen. Paul’s libertarian background could be used against him, he actually believes Sen. Paul is better positioned within the Republican Party than Sen. Cruz.

“Here's what's interesting: Rand Paul is actually positioning himself within the party as more of a GOP guy. But he has this view because of his dad and because [of] who he is as a libertarian,” Glenn said. “Where you have Ted Cruz actually positioning himself against the GOP, but he is viewed as the establishment, or closer to the establishment GOP… You look at him and he is white shirt, red tie, blue suit. He seems like the GOP guy, if you put them side-by-side, compared to Rand Paul. But Rand Paul is behaving more like a GOP guy than Ted Cruz is. It's fascinating.”

Sen. Cruz will most likely be painted as a religious zealot who is part of the ‘war on women,’ while Sen. Paul will be seen as racists for his position on the Civil Rights Act. Stu believes Sen. Paul will struggle more in the primary because he will find himself surrounded by a group of conservatives that have dramatically different positions on certain issues.

“It's interesting because I feel like with Rand Paul you have a different government philosophy than we've had in either of the two major parties for a long time. Rand Paul is legitimately a libertarian for the most part and that's different than what we've had. And he will be able to talk a game that might connect with some people on war and stuff that I think will be successful with some,” Stu said. “I think he's going to have a tough time with that in the primary. When you have five conservatives going after him on issues of defense, it's going to be tough for him to get out of that. He's good, so I think he'll have a chance. But it's a tough argument. You saw what Ron Paul did in that argument.”

“I think he'll connect because he has not played that game,” Glenn interjected. “That's not who he is. He isn't his father. He will be able to connect with the universities and the university students in a completely different way.”

Ultimately, the guys agreed that it is necessary to avoid another 2008 or 2012 where a weak candidate emerges from a belabored primary fight.

“I can tell you: TheBlaze is going to go through enormous growth in the next two years, enormous growth. We won't be alone in this, but I think we will be able to really impact culture and what's going on in the country,” Glenn concluded. “Everybody keeps saying: If we don't win the Hispanics, or if we don't win this, or if we don't win that. How about winning the truth… because they can't hide anymore.”

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.