Pantsuits and Sniffles Aside, Glenn Points Out the Debate Crazy From Both Candidates

September 27, 2016

Writer

For the first time in election debate history, Glenn wasn't on pins and needles.

"I didn't have a horse in the race," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program. "I just wanted to hear which one was going to win, which one had something to say."

Depending on the network, the proclaimed winner fluctuated. According to CNN, Hillary was the clear victor. Over at Fox News, Trump owned the night. Glenn had his own perspective about the political do-si-do seen in the first presidential debate.

"I guess if you're tired of the game and knowing exactly what people are going to say, this is the show for you," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these debatable questions:

• Is trumped up trickle-down focus-group approved?

• Did Hillary come out as a full-fledged socialist?

• Who did Trump blame for everything?

• Are people who say "The Cyber" completely out of touch?

• Will Millennials prefer Hillary or Donald after the debate?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: On the surface, I don't think there was a clear winner last night. But we're not surface dwellers. On the deeper level, I think there was a clear winner last night. And it was Donald Trump.

And let me explain why. I thought -- no, no, hear me out. I thought Donald Trump did a couple of things. I tried to watch this last night as somebody who didn't have a horse in the race -- because I don't. And I tried to watch this as somebody who has been trying to keep their head above water, knows that the country is in trouble, but doesn't really have a horse in the race.

They -- they -- they're just looking for somebody to fix it because they're in pain. And they're in pain that nobody is listening to them. Washington is hopelessly broken. It's nothing but the Republicans and the Democrats arguing with each other. I'm sick and tired of it. My job is going away. I'm losing my job. I know the banking and Wall Street is corrupt. And I know we're in big trouble. I know -- I couldn't tell you why, but I know that this is all bogus and something is coming that's bad. I'm sick and tired of the wars. I'm sick and tired of being told one thing and then doing another, when it comes to the wars. I am sick of hearing that there has been another mass shooting by a guy with an Islamic name, but we don't even mention that he's Islamic. We're not mentioning those things.

However, any time that anybody else is shot, we have to go for -- we will make up categories. A Hispanic white guy. We'll make up things to blame things on race. And we'll do everything we can to not even mention Islam.

I went with that attitude. And then on the other side, I also went with a young person that knows -- because this is -- this is the future. Everybody says, "Oh, you can't -- you're destroying our future?" Really? Really? Because the future are our children. The future are the millennials. And the millennials hate both of these guys. They don't believe in the Republicans. They don't believe in the Democrats. They don't believe in Donald Trump. Look at Donald Trump's millennial numbers. Ghost town. They don't believe in Hillary Clinton. Not as much of a ghost town, but moving towards a ghost town.

They don't believe in the system at all. And why should they? Why should they?

They see their parents who have lived their lives the right way being screwed. They see their parents living this American dream that has gotten them massively in debt. They know the world is changing, but they see -- they see people on television debating cyber security and referring to it as "the cyber."

"I don't know if we can ever fix the cyber." What the hell is that? Completely out of touch. Completely out of touch.

So I tried to watch it as somebody who is more prone to the right but not a partisan. Who is worried about all the things, quite honestly, as I am. And then I tried to watch it as a millennial at the same time, who doesn't agree with the answers that a conservative would give. But both of them are sick of the process.

Because that really honestly is the bulk of America. Everything else is 30 percent. Those people who are still playing the political game, I'm sorry, gang, but you're 30 percent. Everybody thinks talk radio is so powerful. No -- no, we're not. We're not even that powerful in our own circle.

You know, we've believed the press so long that talk radio, oh, it's changing the world. No, it's not. No, it's not. We're talking -- we're preaching to the choir. We have our own culture and our own big click. And we preach to the choir. And very few people, especially now, are stumbling in to see it. It's the same group of people. And we're talking to the same group of people every day. And they go from one show to the other, and that is what's happening.

We're not part of the culture. We're a subset of the culture. So outside of this culture and outside of the deep progressive -- I don't even know, institutional culture of the left, they're 30 percent. Average Americans are doing their job. Average Americans are getting up every day, and they're throwing their hands up and going, "What the hell is wrong with us?"

So I tried to watch as those people. And Hillary Clinton was the most likable I've ever seen her. And she was not likable. She was the most likable I've ever seen her. But I think it's because he is so unlikable. If you would have put him against -- if you would have put her against even Kasich, Kasich would have won. If you would have put her against -- yeah, unlikable. Untrustworthy. Unlikable. She was wearing -- very interesting, she was wearing a red pantsuit. Why was she wearing the red pantsuit? Because she needed to look powerful. She needed to look like a powerful woman who wasn't sick.

And I can move. And don't take -- please take the camera off me at the end when I'm bowing down or I'm trying to lean down to kiss somebody on the cheek because I look like I'm 8,000 years old. Take the camera off me. I'm wearing a red power suit.

And because this is a play, Donald Trump: I need to look credible, I need to look kind, I need to look honorable. I don't need to look powerful. Everybody knows I'm powerful. I need to wear a soft blue tie because that says respectability, that says honor, that says trustworthiness. And the game started there.

Hillary Clinton comes out, full-fledged socialist. Full-fledged socialist. Stunning to me. I've never -- I mean, anybody who was hoping for triangulation, woo, that's not happening.

She comes out and she talks with the old -- what was she? Trumped up trickle-down. Let me come up with a cute thing that we ran through some focus groups, okay? Because we got that 30 percent of the population that just are going to vote for me anyway, and I ran through a focus group, and we found out it would be funny to say, "Trumped up trickle-down economics, and it doesn't work."

So I'm going to tell you something new. Something very, very new. It's called socialism. And it hasn't worked anywhere in the world. And, okay, it's 170 years old now, but it's brand-new because it hasn't been tried by us. And this trumped up trickle-down economics just won't work.

How's the dial test doing? How's the dial testing doing?

Same old stuff over and over again. And, by the way, my dad is better than your dad because my dad had a squeegee, your dad had a checkbook.

STU: And by the way, the trumped up trickle-down thing was interesting because that's not even the correct liberal argument as to what caused the financial crisis. Like, we're supposed to believe that a cut from 39.6 percent to 35 percent for the upper echelon of taxpayers was the thing that caused the financial housing crisis. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

GLENN: So Hillary Clinton goes full-fledged socialist on one of the most incredible things I've ever seen. And that is, you know what -- you know what the problem is, it's a new day. It's a new day, and we have some new ideas that we're going to implement.

For instance, we think companies should share the wealth. Should share the profits. That's the most important thing. In my first ten minutes because the first ten minutes of any debate is the most important thing. So what do I have on my list? I'm going to force companies to share the wealth.

Wow, don't know where we find that one in the Constitution, but don't worry, we have the constitutional expert running to the aid of the Constitution to make sure that that's not the solution. The solution is keeping these companies here. And I will make them stay here. And I will make them do these things. And I will make them stay here.

Okay. So I could go on and on in this kind of mode because that's what it was. I love the people who were saying, "Oh, it was so clear last night." To whom? To whom? To whom was it so clear?

I'll tell you who it was clear to: Donald Trump -- whoever did this. And I got to believe this is Roger Ailes. Because this is the most brilliant thing I've ever heard. Did you hear who he blamed everything on last night? Hillary Clinton said, I'm going to be here, and you're going to blame everything on me by the end of the night.

But who did he actually blame everything on? Everything? Everything?

He didn't blame it on the Democrats. He didn't even mention the Republicans. He is a totally new animal. He blamed it on the politicians.

PAT: Politicians. Every time, politicians.

GLENN: The independents. The millennials and any independent -- anybody who doesn't have a team -- and I got news for you, guys, everyone who is playing teams, you think you're going to save the country, but you are playing the short game. The long game is to think 2020, 2024, 2028. Is there a country left, you will say? No, probably not. But the reason why there will not be a country left is because we have cannibalized each other. And we have ripped each other apart because nobody is looking at the long-term game.

And that is: What's worth saving?

Donald Trump is going to look like a genius on a couple of things. These quotes -- if she wins, the quotes that he gave last night on a couple of things are going to absolutely come to pass. And they're going to come to pass if he becomes president too. But he will forget it, and his solutions will only make it worse, as will hers.

He said, "We're in a bubble. We're in a bubble, and it's going to pop. And it's going to be the worst disaster ever." Yeah, he's absolutely right. Absolutely right.

But here's what happened: Because he -- because he targeted politicians, he wasn't doing the same old, same old.

While he was -- while he was -- I can't even say proposing ideas because I didn't hear any real ideas proposed last night.

I barely heard them from her. But I didn't hear any new ideas proposed. I heard the same thing: We're going to force these companies to stay. We're going to force China to pay their fair share. Hey, who doesn't love Russia?

I mean, I didn't hear any solutions. Even when he got specific and asked for specifics -- how do you repatriot $5 trillion? Now, listen to the logic. We have to have tariffs. Smoot-Hawley, that's what's caused the Great Depression. We have to have tariffs and taxes, and we have to repatriot $5 trillion in cash. Why?

Because his logic was that money is going to come back, flooding into the system, and it's going to circulate in the economy, and people are going to start spending that money.

What that will mean is if you put $5 trillion of US currency back into the system overnight and it actually does circulate in the economy, you will have hyperinflation -- you will have a crash and hyperinflation.

So neither of them -- neither of them -- at least he was recognizing the problems. But if I was watching this as a millennial, he said enough to me -- you know what, I agree with her. I agree with universal health care. I agree with taking the guns. Forget the Constitution. Taking the guns -- if you're on a No Fly List, you shouldn't have a gun. And I agree with you on that. I agree with you on some of the --

PAT: He agreed with her on that.

GLENN: Yeah, the child welfare. The child home day care stuff. I agree with you on all of that. There's lots of things we agree on.

So if I'm hearing that, I'm hearing, he's not for the two-party system.

Now, I don't know if he appealed to the millennials, but he absolutely pealed to me if I worked for Carrier and my job was at stake and all I want is an end to this two-party nonsense and an end to all of the stuff I've seen and heard under George Bush and Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. I want an end.

I think he won last night. And I think he won actually -- because it's a new world, I think he won in a big way.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton shakes hands with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as Moderator Lester Holt looks on during the Presidential Debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016 in Hempstead, New York. The first of four debates for the 2016 Election, three Presidential and one Vice Presidential, is moderated by NBC's Lester Holt. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Pantsuits and Sniffles Aside, Glenn Points Out the Debate Crazy From Both Candidates

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?