Uh oh! The Democrats don’t have anyone if Hillary blows up her candidacy

With Hillary Clinton caught up in a scandal over her use of a private email to conduct government business, who is left on the side of the Democrats to run for president in 2016 if she gets knocked out? Joe Biden? Elizabeth Warren? Al Gore? None of these see like strong candidates. Have the Dems lost before they've even begun? Pat and Stu had the story and analysis on radio this morning.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment. In this section, Pat and Stu analyze the article 'What if Hillary bows out' from Politico:

Pat: Hillary has got yet another scandal. Of course, she's been embroiled. As much as a democrat could be embroiled in any scandal lately -- in the Benghazi situation. So she already has that baggage. She -- she also now has this email situation where she broke the law by establishing not just her own email account but her own email server, which is just really weird. What is she trying to hide, you have to wonder. And --

STU: And we'll never know, because they make no attempts to save the emails that they were supposed to save.

PAT: Does that surprise anybody? Of course they didn't. So if she decides to bow out because of health or because of scandals or she's forced out or whatever the case may be, the Democrats really, really are in trouble.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Just great as far as I'm concerned. But it's kind of interesting when you stop and think, okay, well, legitimately, if you're trying to help them, who do they have in the bullpen? Okay, you lost your starter. Your starter has been knocked out in the first inning. He's given up -- she's given up seven runs and the bases are loaded and there's nobody out. So who do you bring in from the bullpen at that point to stop the bleeding? Are you going to bring in Elizabeth Warren? She's pretty wild. She's got a wild pitch. She'll walk in at least a couple of runs for you.

STU: Oh yeah. And that's kind of the point of the political article, they don't --

PAT: They don't have any confidence in Elizabeth Warren, do they.

STU: Quote, there isn't any enthusiasm for the nonHillary democrats already flirting with a run. Vice president Joe Biden.

PAT: Oh, Biden, can't. He's a buffoon. He doesn't have a chance. He could run and he probably will run if Hillary is out.

STU: I don't think he'll run if Hillary is in.

PAT: I don't think he has a chance.

STU: Bernie Sanders, Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, which everybody knows, but every once in a while those types of guys.

PAT: Client was that type of guy.

STU: Harry was very low in the polls as well early on. Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Then there's of course --

PAT: No way.

STU: Right. No, right?

PAT: No.

STU: Then you've got -- there are others who they considered talking about fighting a fire in their belly like Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York.

PAT: I think he wants to. I think he'd like to. But he doesn't have a chance.

JEFFY: No way.

STU: I don't think he has no chance. I --

PAT: Very little.

STU: Yeah. Governor Duval Patrick. Governor Brian Schweitzer. I don't think he has a chance.

PAT: The ex-governor from Montana?

STU: Yeah. Mark Warner. Kirsten Gillibrand.

PAT: Look at the base Montana has. He's got the 650,000 person base. Just loch him.

STU: And then the democratic expert they're talking to here says they believe pressure would build for a really big names who enter, such as Al Gore.

PAT: Yeah, has to be.

JEFFY: We talked about that months ago. That's a great plan. And Al might be the one. They might not have to pressure him for that.

PAT: He wants that.

STU: I don't think --

PAT: 15 years ago. Desperately wanted it. He's 66 now. He made a billions. I don't know if he still wants it but I don't think he'd mind.

STU: I think Al Gore would only do it if he felt it was being handed to him. Look, you're not going to have to go out there and shake hands like did you last time. You're going to cruise through this nomination. You're going to get all the funding. You're going to essentially the path right now envisioned for Hillary Clinton, which is a very easy primary, very little resistance. You're able to raise all the money while Republicans are fighting it out. People know you already. Back in day were you stodgy and robotic.

PAT: That's all changed. Now you're a rock star, Al.

STU: Yeah, you're a rock star.

PAT: You've won a Nobel Peace Prize. You've won a Grammy award.

JEFFY: Even when you were stiff, you were still -- for the presidency, Al.

STU: Let us make this right for you Al. I think there's a legitimate rich that will happen. Why I see surprised to see the odds are still 250 to one for him to become president.

PAT: That's a great belt.

STU: There's some money to be made there. Potential. I think the odds are better than 250 to one, because if Hillary drops out, he becomes --

PAT: He's the only one. I'm serious. Other than him, you're calling Richard Gephardt on the phone and saying, Dick, what have you been doing for the last 20 years? Would you consider -- would you consider a presidential run?

STU: I don't think they'd go to Dick Gephardt. I think maybe they'd put the vice president of the United States in probably first. But again, I don't think there's -- I think the answer to that is no.

PAT: I think it's no.

STU: And we have to remember this, because we look at Hillary Clinton and she leads by 60 points and the only time we ever talk to her, there's another little scandal here, another little scandal there. Remember her book tour. She is terrible at this.

PAT: Oh.

STU: She can't get out of her own way when people are focusing on her.

PAT: Remember this, every day it was something else. Every day. It was -- I'm dead broke when we left office, blah blah. Every day she stuck her foot in her mouth.

STU: Every day. And then she'd try to answer for those and she'd make it worse. Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate. For all the things you can say about Barack Obama, and he's a terrible president and the guy who's done a lot of things that have hurt this country. However, he's a good candidate. He gets out there and he's fairly disciplined on the campaign trail. He makes speeches that people tend to like. Especially in 2008 people were very excited over him. And he was able to beat Mitt Romney who again is not -- was not the greatest candidate and certainly not conservative enough for me. But again, he isn't a terrible candidate. John McCain was a terrible candidate. Literally, you know, a foot could have beaten John McCain. But Mitt Romney was, you know, much better. And while he did not run a great campaign, much better than John McCain. And really wasn't -- you know, I mean, Barack Obama won that fairly easily, too. The guy is -- he can't run a country but he can run a campaign. And so I don't know that Hillary Clinton can do either. I don't think she can -- she is not capable. Again, she went into the race with Barack Obama with essentially the same path we're talking about now. She was the overwhelming favorite. Everyone thought she was going to win the election. People thought her closest competition was going to be John Edwards.

PAT: And she was 50 points -- people forget this. She was 50 points ahead last time, too. She was 50 points ahead of Barack Obama when they started that campaign.

STU: Very early on.

PAT: And he overcame that.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That's how bad she is. That's how bad a campaigner she is.

JEFFY: You're making a case for Dick Gephardt.

PAT: I'm trying.

(overlapping speakers).

JEFFY: He's in solution, heart of the country.

PAT: Heartland guy. Come on, don't discount Richard Gephardt.

STU: He's not going to run.

PAT: Don't discount him.

JEFFY: No, don't.

PAT: He's terrific.

JEFFY: Mid 70 s . He's seasoned. He's good to go.

PAT: He's seasoned.

STU: I like that.

PAT: That's a good word for Dick.

STU: I like this rant by Politico, though. This is such -- such a typical way the media handles Barack Obama. Now, they go through a longer spiel will how Elizabeth Warren might be a little bit too leftist because she you know, it's hard to get corporate donors with her because she's so progressive, which is a legitimate problem with Elizabeth Warren.

PAT: What's interesting about her is she's honest about her Progressivism.

PAT: Wave.

PAT: Obama tries to hide it. Obama is I'm not an ideologue. That's all you are is an ideologue.

STU: And remember --

PAT: I think she is proud of her idealogy.

STU: Remember you didn't build that, that whole thing and Barack Obama spent a month trying to figure a way to parse it so people could accept it. That came from Elizabeth Warren.

PAT: She said it first.

STU: And she never backed off of it. That's her spiel. You need the roads that we built for you to build your business. That's the big factor there. So this is what they say about -- because they're saying, Clinton, meaning Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, are very similar, not like Elizabeth Warren. They're both -- look, they played both sides a lot. Listen to this. Argument from Politico. Clinton, Bill Clinton, raised taxes on the wealthy. But also pushed through financial deregulation.

Obama satisfied the progressive demand for universal health care bit bargained with the insurance companies and drug lobbies.

PAT: Wait. That's his giving something to the right credential?

STU: So he --

PAT: Bargained with insurance companies?

STU: Right. Wait. We didn't ask you to bargain with insurance companies.

PAT: To bring us universal health care? No, I didn't ask for that. Not, but it's on the way to that.

STU: Now Clinton was obviously very progressive. But he did actually do things that Conservatives liked at the time. Welfare reform is another one. Financial deregulation.

PAT: Defense of Marriage Act.

STU: Defense of Marriage Act is another. You know, where Obama has no examples of this. Listen to what they -- they struggled to try to find something. First they stay he implemented universal health care but he negotiated with insurance companies. How the hell else was he going to do it?

PAT: Remember when Barry Goldwater was like, I will negotiate with insurance companies. Yeah.

STU: Yeah. A big Ronald Reagan speech as well.

PAT: That's our conservative guy.

STU: Remember when Ronald Reagan did this tear down this wall speech and the I will negotiate with the drug lobby speech.

PAT: That's when everybody said he's my man.

STU: Both sought to move the country left ward on social issues but championed international trade agreements.

PAT: There's another hot issue for me.

STU: His big movement to the right are international trade agreements. Wow. And then it goes -- again, ends with both campaign on hope and change but tempered with flashes of pragmatism. You forgot to include an example for Barack Obama. You still haven't -- there's nothing here. We have trade agreements.

PAT: And --

STU: Nothing specific but just international trade agreements and then it ends with --

PAT: And it was tempered with pragmatism, though.

STU: What pragmatism?

PAT: That's what I'd like to know.

STU: He gets to do whatever he wants when they wants to do it, his pragmatism is ObamaCare. He said he wanted single payor and instead he went down the road of universal health care where the government controls every aspect essentially of what you get in your coverage but it goes through a private company.

PAT: Thank you for admitting finally admitting how pragmatic Barack Obama is.

STU: It's so frustrating.

PAT: It is. But they're in real trouble F. it's not Hillary, they're in serious trouble. Even if it's Hillary, because there's so much baggage, they're in real trouble.

STU: What does it feel like four months after she's announced her run? I think it's considerably different. Remember, they didn't have anything in 2008 either. I mean, Hillary Clinton would have been in big trouble in the -- you know, I guess if John McCain, she probably still would have won, but she would have had a tougher time. John Edwards, I know how that thing turned out. Imagine if he got the nomination. He finished two points behind Barack Obama in Iowa?

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: He was close. He was in it. So if that hadn't worked out, where they didn't get this guy out of nowhere who no one knew in 2004 to come out in the ranks and win, they don't have anything back in 2008. And I see what happened when Barack Obama wasn't running, what you had was 2010 and 2014 two wave of elections for Republicans. As bad as the last eight years or six years have felt for Republicans and Conservative at times, when you kind of step back and you look past just one person, Barack Obama, what else do they have? I mean, it is -- there is not a strong bench for the Democrats and when they haven't had Barack Obama to rely on, they've been destroyed in two out of two elections.

PAT: Gives you a little bit of hope. It does. And we've got a strong field of potential candidates. I just don't know if the strongest among them is even going to run. You know, Ted Cruz. Is he even going to run? It's kind of interesting because we talked to Mike Opelco on Glenn's show last night on the roundtable. And Michael went to CPAC and he said had Ted Cruz was underwhelming in his speech. And that's disappointing.

STU: That's why he's 50 to one. Right now Ted Cruz is in the same category as Rick Santorum, Joe Biden, and -- I mean, and Elizabeth Warren. Again, who you have Hillary Clinton up 50 points, I mean, you'd think Ted Cruz had a better chance than that.

PAT: You would think so.

STU: Jeb Bush is the favorite for Republicans, by the way. He's at six to one.

PAT: There's no way he's the favorite.

STU: He's the only --

PAT: I don't think he's top five with the American people.

STU: You might be right on that, but he is the only one who's also really announced. I mean, Santorum has announced but Jeb has been even more overt about wanting to run. And he's doing commercials.

PAT: And Cruz has said nothing.

STU: Not a word.

PAT: 888-727-Beck. For Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program coming up.

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


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.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

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.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.