#Blazin8: The 8 midterm races that could change the face of Congress

Glenn is not the only member of TheBlaze team who is looking to highlight up-and-coming talent in the conservative movement. Doc Thompson, host of The Morning Blaze with Doc Thompson on TheBlaze Radio Network, and his producer Skip LaCombe have been scouring the country looking for key races that could really have an impact this November.

Doc and Skip introduced Glenn to strong candidates like Matt Bevin in Kentucky and Greg Bannon in North Carolina. And as guest hosts of the Glenn Beck Radio Program this morning, Doc and Skip broke down their #Blazin8 – the eight candidates they believe can make the biggest impact.

“We decided leading up to the midterm elections we're going to use the term ‘Blazin8.’ And what I want is the eight good candidates that can get elected – not just by what the polls say – but based on them being good enough…the Ted Cruz and Mike Lee types,” Doc explained. “And if you could manage to pull off, by some miracle, all eight of them… the sum would be greater than the parts [and] they would be able to turn things around. I've got my eight.”

Doc laid out his top eight candidates and explained why they provide the best opportunity to change the status quo:

1. Greg Brannon, North Carolina

The first one I will give you is a guy who is going to get elected. Unless something happens, he is going to get elected. You heard him on the Glenn Beck Program. I was so happy that I met him along with Skip months ago. Glenn got him on. The guys love him: Greg Brannon, North Carolina. Dr. Greg Brannon is the guy, and he is likely going to get elected. He's a OB/GYN. He's rock solid. First of all, he's likely to win the primary… And he will defeat Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC). What you get there is a Republican who takes out a Democrat and someone who is not just a Republican but a solid one, a Mike Lee Ted Cruz type.

2. Tom Cotton, Arkansas

Second, this is going to come to no shock to anybody. Tom Cotton out of [Arkansas]. He's on my Blazin8 list. He has a very good shot of taking out Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR). Once you get there he’s a solid conservative who's going to vote the right way then you take out a Democrat who's been an extremist.

3. Sam Clovis, Iowa

The next one is the first person we interviewed when we were looking for non-establishment candidates. Sam Clovis from Iowa… Sam Clovis is going to be a rock star from Iowa. He's running for the seat being vacated by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). There's no reason for Tom Harkin to be representing Iowa for so long. Iowans don't believe what Tom Harkin believes in, but he continues to get elected because incumbents get elected. You put somebody like Sam Clovis in there, you really turn things around. You replace Tom Harkin, who has done the most despicable things… with his votes.

4. Shak Hill, Virginia

One more senator that is off the chart a little bit. I'm admitting his election is going to be more difficult. But it's really important for two reasons. And that is Shak Hill from Virginia. Shak Hill is running in the primary against Ed Gillespie. Remember that name? Worked for George W. Bush; is a lobbyist now. Is that really somebody you want to go to the Senate, to represent you in the commonwealth of Virginia? Somebody who worked for George W. Bush? Did you not get enough of that guy? He was an adviser and you want him to represent you? Check out Shak Hill.

Defeat him in the primary and consider Shak Hill because you know who they'll go against in the fall? In the general? Senator Mark Warner (D-VA). Mark Warner who has one of the richest members of Congress. That wouldn't dissuade me from voting for somebody. But when they're one of the richest members of Congress and telling you that you should give up more of your tax dollars in Congress to fund more food stamps for people who won't work, I find that little a bit more conflicting. You will see Mark Warner, that dirt bag, use this in his campaign because this is what the Democrats are going to use throughout the summer: Income inequality. Do you know who has an income inequality? Me and Mark Warner. The guy is worth $300 million and he's telling me about income inequality? Fine, make your money, Mark Warner. Get rich. Fine. But how about leaving me alone so I can as well.

5. Lee Bright, South Carolina

Going up against Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) in South Carolina, Lee Bright. Consider Lee Bright, please… It doesn't give you another Republican. It gives you a Republican upgrade. See, the first four were all people that will defeat Democrats. The next four are all people that would defeat progressive Republicans. Consider Lee Bright out of South Carolina to defeat Lindsay Graham.

6. Matt Bevin, Kentucky

Matt Bevin to take out Mitch McConnell. You've heard him on Glenn Beck’s show. You know about Matt Bevin. He also would be a substantial upgrade. Trust me, the Lindsay Grahams and the Mitch McConnells aren't any better than the Tom Harkins. They're not. They're not any better than the Mark Pryors. They're not any better than the Mark Warners. So Matt Bevin and Lee Bright. Kentucky and South Carolina for upgrades.

7. Chris McDaniel, Mississippi

Out of Mississippi, Chris McDaniel to defeat Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS). He's been there 400 years. Track his voting record over the years and you will see it's gotten progressively worse. Defeat Thad in Cochran in the primary. Put Chris McDaniel there. Both Chris McDaniel and Matt Bevin are in a similar situation. They will likely lose to the Democrat in the fall. Even though their states want conservative people. People are so sick of them. If you don't get Chris McDaniel or Matt Bevin in through the primary and have them win and go against the Democrat, you may be lost anyway.

8. Dave Brat, Virginia

Finally, the lone member of the House of Representatives that you must take out: Eric Cantor. He is in leadership, and as I told Glenn, if you think John Boehner is bad, when Eric Cantor gets in, you will pray for the days of John Boehner. You will beg to have John Boehner back. Eric Cantor has one of the worst records in Congress when you actually know about him… You must defeat Eric Cantor one way or another… Dave Brat is an economics professor at Old Dominion University.

“The candidates I've laid out, if people know about them, will likely get elected,” Doc concluded. “So vet them if you like them. Tell people about them. And then we can turn this thing around. Use that hashtag: #Blazin8. And tell me yours.”

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.