Ted Cruz Has No Swag—And That's a Good Thing

February 05, 2016

Writer

Following the Iowa Caucus, Matt Walsh, contributing editor at TheBlaze, wrote a spectacular piece titled, "Ted Cruz Has No Style And No Personality. That’s Why It’s A Good Sign He’s Winning."

Walsh made the case that voters responded to Cruz's constitutional principles and small government ideas rather than an over-the-top personality (which, according to Walsh, Cruz has in short supply).

"As for his personality, I admit it leaves plenty to be desired. It’s even kind of off-putting at times. He has no style," Walsh wrote. "He’s not much of a charmer. He tells bad jokes. He has a weird face. He’s not entertaining at all. He’s not the type of dude you’d necessarily want to get a beer with. I bet he’d order a Stella Artois and spend the whole time giving his list of the most outrageous 20th century Supreme Court decisions, which I actually think would be pretty interesting, but I’m guessing a lot of people would find it lame and head over to the other end of the bar where Chris Christie is shotgunning Miller Lite."

The article also outlined Walsh's view on Trump, the campaign's the larger-than-life personality and Cruz's main competition: "He is not a conservative, he has no principles, he has no integrity, he has no moral courage, and he lacks the judgment and wisdom to govern this country at such a volatile time, or at any time. But, up until now, he was a winner. He wins. He makes deals. He wins. He always wins. He never loses. He should win because he wins, we were told."

Glenn commented on Walsh's article this week on The Glenn Beck Program.

"He's really a great writer," Glenn said. "If you don't know Matt Walsh, he writes for TheBlaze. And he's just one of the best editorialists of the conservative movement, I think."

Walsh applauded Iowa caucus goers for voting on substance over style, calling it a healthy indicator.

"It would be a sign of national health if a wonkish nerd with no swag won the presidency."

Read Matt Walsh's full article at TheBlaze.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: All right. Hello, America. Coming up, we'll tell you a little about an article that Matt Walsh that I think is fantastic. It says basically that Ted Cruz has no personality. And that's a good thing. And it explains why he's winning and why he should win.

GLENN: So Matt Walsh wrote something, and he said, there's a few things that I just couldn't be happier about. He said, be nice to get a reprieve from a politician pretending to care about the state of Iowa. They can now move on to pretending they care about New Hampshire, then South Carolina, then Nevada for a few minutes.

As a Maryland resident, considering our primary isn't until late April, when the nomination is already decided, politicians never pretend to care about me. And I couldn't be happier about it.

Anyway, a few thoughts on the race. One, Ted Cruz won in an impressive fashion. Not only did he beat Donald Trump by four points, he outperformed the polls by five points and won more votes in an Iowa caucus than any G.O.P. candidate ever.

Everyone thought Trump was energized, but it turns out the folks in Iowa were much more excited about Ted Cruz. This is particularly impressive when you consider the fact that Cruz is running as a small government, issue-oriented conservative. For God's sake, he vigorously opposed ethanol subsidies in Iowa and still won. Not only that, he won Iowa's heaviest corn-producing counties. In an election cycle dominated by pandering, big government circus clowns, Cruz staying boring, stayed on message and managed the most massive Republican win in the history of the state.

What does that tell you?

Well, as pessimistic as I tend to be, it tells us there may be a reason for optimism. Whether you support Cruz or not, you should be encouraged that someone like Cruz can win so handily, even when the media does everything in its power to hand the election to the guy from The Apprentice.

Whatever else you might say about him, Cruz is radically conservative. He is, quote, so extreme. He's extreme, as Viagra pitchman Bob Dole puts it. And he runs on his own ideas and principles, not personality.

As for his personality, I admit, it leaves plenty to be desired. It's even kind of offputting at times. The man has no style. He's not much of a charmer. He tells bad jokes. He has a weird face. He's not entertaining at all. He's not the type of dude you want to go have a beer with. I'd bet he'd order a Stella Artois. I don't know. What is that? Is that a beer?

STU: Yeah, it's a beer.

GLENN: And spend the whole time giving his list of the most outrageous 20th-century Supreme Court decisions, which actually I think would be kind of interesting. But I'm guessing a lot of people would find it lame and head over to the other end of the bar, where Chris Christie is shotgunning Miller Lite.

The point is, people who support Ted Cruz support him because they like his ideas. They think he's competent. They trust him to stick to his principles once he's in office. You might think there's someone else in the race who better fits this bill: Rand Paul at least equals Cruz in this regard, but unfortunately he's not going to win. But you should still be happy that so many G.O.P. voters are voting based on the right things for the right reasons. It would be a sign of national health, if a wonkish nerd with no swag won the presidency.

It really would.

PAT: He's dead-on as always.

GLENN: He's really a great writer.

PAT: He really is. He is.

GLENN: If you don't know Matt Walsh, he writes for TheBlaze. And he's just one of the best editorialists of the conservative movement, I think.

Cruz is a long way from winning. But last night was a good start for anyone who values substance over style.

Second thing he's happy about: This should be the end of Trump's campaign. It won't be, sadly. But it should be because Trump's one single, solitary selling point was just destroyed. As we've covered ad nauseam, Trump is not a conservative. He has no principles. He has no integrity. He has no moral courage. He lacks the judgment and wisdom to govern this country at such a volatile time or any time. But up until now, hey, at least he was a winner. He wins. He makes deals. He wins. He always wins. He never loses. He should win because he wins, we were told.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: That's always bunk, considering the great winner bankrupted four businesses --

PAT: Right!

GLENN: -- destroyed two marriages, and failed spectacularly in many other ventures, sometimes so badly that he's being investigated for fraud. But that was all in the past. And now after a lifetime of failures, he's been reborn as a perpetual winner. And winners win, until they don't. Like this week.

JEFFY: That's right.

PAT: That's so good. That's so good.

JEFFY: And then he leads you to believe that he was planning on losing so it was still a win.

PAT: The Trump University lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General is for $40 million for fraud.

GLENN: Trump lost to Cruz and almost lost to Rubio, despite being a billionaire celebrity who had gotten more media coverage than every other candidate in the history of the party combined and despite ringing endorsements from supposed conservative stars like Sarah Palin and despite desperate shilling done on his behalf by the likes of conservative media powerhouses like Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Breitbart.com, and a variety of ridiculous personalities on Fox News.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: The media has spent this whole race talking about Trump's shocking political success. But, first of all, he hasn't had any actual success. Second, it's not shocking. He has all the attention, all the money, all the name recognition, and the enthusiastic or tactic endorsements of a bevy of conservative influencers.

Give an illiterate ex-con meth addict a few billion dollars and 8,000 hours of nonstop media coverage, and I bet he even leads the polls for a while. That's not winning. That's accepting a gift you've been handed. When it came time to actually win, he lost. Maybe he'll win in New Hampshire, next, but we've now all seen that the king bleeds. And that's a problem for a guy whose entire platform is, he never bleeds.

Fascinating. There's more to this article that you should read. It's up on TheBlaze.com. From Matt Walsh.

You deserve the truth, and it is just that simple. But some companies mislead you with come-ons, free stuff, and contracts. And lock you into a bad deal. Do you want to do business with a bad company that is not transparent? Or one that is fair, transparent, or honest?

STU: Bad company, I think.

GLENN: No, we're not voting for president.

STU: Okay. We'll do the good company then.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks at the Emmanuel Baptist Church on February 4, 2016 in Hooksett, New Hampshire. Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates are stumping for votes throughout New Hampshire leading up to the Presidential Primary on February 9th. (Photo by Matthew Cavanaugh/Getty Images)

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep