Tim Kaine Executed His Assignment: Get Sound Bites for New Hillary Campaign Ad

October 05, 2016

Writer

Leon Wolf, new Managing Editor for TheBlaze, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday for a post-VP debate analysis. Having watched Kaine for some time, Wolf said the Democratic vice presidential nominee didn't seem like himself, diplomatically calling him "grumpier" that usual and "very negative."

"He was a jerk," Glenn added, skipping the niceties.

More importantly, Wolf vocalized what he believed to be Kaine's primary objective during the debate --- and it wasn't to win.

RELATED: Did Kaine’s Debate Plan Include Being the Most Obnoxious Man on Earth?

"I think he was assigned a job going into the debate, right? It's not to win the debate because nobody cares who wins the VP debate. He was assigned the job to get commercial material to cut," Wolf proposed.

In fact, the day following the debate, the Clinton campaign released a new ad showing Pence making contradictory statements.

"So this is the ad that they just released and dumped online . . . you see Mike Pence just shaking his head and denying each one of those charges. And I think, Leon, that was his job, to get a good viral commercial out of it, period," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these soundbite-worthy questions:

• Was Tim Kaine playing a role?

• Who is winning the Bernie or bust people?

• Does Leon think Hillary or Trump will win?

• What does Jeffy do in cold, dark, lonely places?

• Are Republicans doomed?

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

GLENN: Leon Wolf is with us. He's joining us from RedState, where you helped build that thing along with Erick Erickson, for what? For the last 11 years in.

LEON: Eleven years.

GLENN: And he is now our editor and chief at TheBlaze. And we're excited to have you join us. What did you think of the debate last night?

LEON: Thank you, Glenn.

You know, it's interesting. I think a lot of people's impressions pretty much universally were -- that watched the debate -- were that Mike Pence won. I think he came off better during the course of the debate, just because Kaine -- and I've watched Tim Kaine for a long time -- didn't really seem like himself. He was much grumpier, seems like than he usually -- he was very negative.

GLENN: He was a jerk.

LEON: Yeah.

GLENN: He was a jerk. I mean, I've never seen him -- yeah, I've always heard that he was a nice guy and a gentle guy. You know, a quiet -- he was -- he was a jerk.

STU: He seems to be playing a character.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

STU: The same thing at the convention speech, which was weird, he was trying to be goofy and make all these jokes. And here, there was a lot of prepared lines. I don't know if that's just his role in the campaign or what. It's strange.

LEON: Well, I think -- yeah, I think he was assigned a job going into the debate. Right? It's not to win the debate. Because nobody cares who wins the VP debate. He was assigned the job -- was to get commercial material to cut. And that's what we talked about just before the show.

GLENN: So he walked in with a new commercial. And do we have this?

Hillary Clinton is the first on the air with a commercial from last night's debate. Listen. Here it says, Mike Pence realized he was running with Donald Trump last night.

TIM: Let's start with not praising Vladimir Putin as a great leader. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have said he's a great leader. And Donald Trump has --

MIKE: No, we haven't.

DONALD: Putin's been a very strong leader for Russia.

VOICE: Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.

TIM: Donald Trump, on the other hand, didn't know that Russia had invaded the Crimea.

MIKE: Oh, that's nonsense.

DONALD: He's not going to go into Ukraine. You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it any way you want.

VOICE: Well, he's already there, isn't he?

VOICE: Donald Trump has said it?

TIM: A deportation force -- they want to go house to house, school to school, business to business, and kick out 16 million people. And I cannot believe --

MIKE: It's nonsense.

DONALD: You're going to have a deportation force.

MIKE: Donald Trump and I would never support legislation that would punish women.

VOICE: Should the woman be punished?

PAT: Oh, man.

DONALD: There should be some form of punishment.

TIM: More nations should get nuclear weapons. Try to defend that.

MIKE: Well, he never said that.

DONALD: Wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons --

VOICE: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

DONALD: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

TIM: Donald Trump said, keep them out if they're Muslim. Mike Pence put a program in place to --

DONALD: Total and complete shutdown of Muslims --

TIM: He is asking everybody to vote for somebody that he cannot defend.

GLENN: Okay. So this is the ad that they just released and dumped online, and it's much more effective with the visuals because you see Mike Pence just shaking his head and denying each one of those charges. And I think, Leon, that was his job is get a good viral commercial out of it, period.

LEON: Right. I mean, I think every year, the VP sideshow is much more insignificant than the presidential sideshow. But I think this year, it's doubly so.

Because I think the central question of this election is, can you see Donald Trump sitting behind the desk at the Oval Office after something like 9/11 happens? Is that something you can even possibly conceive of in your mind?

I think that's what the gut check America is being asked to do right now, is. And I think that Tim Kaine, for however he came off in the debate and probably didn't do himself any favors, I think his job was to drive that point home. And he may have scored some effective points along that line.

GLENN: I don't think he changed anybody's mind. I think he hardened people in their own -- I mean, if you were a Trump supporter, you had no problem with Pence saying, "He never said any of those things."

LEON: Well, that's what Pence has to say, right? Because he's a reasonable person. He can't say, "I agree with all the crazy things that Donald Trump has said." His only recourse is to say, "No, he never said those things."

I think that was his only possible --

GLENN: It's our job as human beings to say, "Yeah, Mike. Yes, he did."

LEON: Right.

GLENN: That's the hard thing. These politicians are putting us in a no-win situation because they're in a so-called no-win situation. So they're putting us in that no-win situation. Where we're having to go, hmm, well, he's lying, and he's lying.

I mean, this whole thing about -- I mean, you could make another commercial for Donald Trump where he's saying, you know, the Israelis loved this idea, this deal with Iran, and they've completely stopped.

No, they didn't. No, they didn't. And the Israelis don't love that idea. You know, you could make the same kind of commercial. They're both liars.

LEON: Yeah. In order to win the debate last night, Mike Pence had to prepare to lose the post debate fact-check. That was the position he was in.

GLENN: Yes.

LEON: That's probably the best-case scenario. I think he accomplished that.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree. You know, the blue tie said it all: He had to look stable. And like somebody you could go, I could see him -- as long as he's in the room with him, I would be okay with that.

STU: It's sort of a central thing that's been raised from this election too, is what do you want with people? People you interact with politically. People you interact with in the media. Do you want someone who is going to say that a candidate has lied even if you want that candidate to win? Do you want to go to someone and have a conversation and then they say, "Well, no, actually, let me give you a justification, or I will deny that he said those things," do you want that? Or do you want someone who is going to say, "Look, I want that guy to win, however, he's lying here." That --

GLENN: I want that.

STU: I want that. 100 percent, I want that. That is -- we may be in the minority on that particular point.

PAT: We may be? We absolutely are.

GLENN: We absolutely are.

PAT: We absolutely are.

GLENN: I think there's about 10 percent of the country that wants that.

PAT: They don't care. They don't care how much he lies. And neither do Hillary Clinton supporters.

STU: It's both sides, I think.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: Oh, it is.

STU: Do you think Democrats want to go turn on a media source and hear actually Donald Trump is way worse and Hillary Clinton is telling the truth about her emails, or do they want somebody saying, "Look, Donald Trump is crazy, but, you know what, Hillary Clinton is really bad on these emails. She's handling herself terribly and she's corrupt." I as a Democrat would love that.

GLENN: Right. And it's amazing because we for the last ten years have been saying, is there no one -- is there no one on the left who will say the emperor has no clothes? Is there not one honest journalist? One honest person who says, look, I'm part -- I'm not going to vote for your side, but our side is despicable here.

The answer has been no. No. We've gotten a few journalists who are at least asking some tough questions during the Obama administration, but not really. Not really taking them to task.

There hasn't been anybody on that side. And yet, when you find them -- you worked with Erick Erickson.

STU: Right.

GLENN: RedState's pretty Never Trump. I mean, Erick is taking a bludgeoning for it. A bludgeoning for it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Our side at least has had a few stand up and go, "I can't play this game. I want my side to win. I think my side is right, but not on this. Because they're lying."

LEON: Yeah, you know, I definitely haven't seen -- and we were told that this was going to be the year that we have all the Bernie or bust people, right? They were like, we're going to stand by these principles, and we'll go vote for, you know, Jill Stein or whoever it is.

I think those people have much more assimilated into the Hillary Clinton machine than a lot of the Never Trump people have --

GLENN: It's interesting.

LEON: Despite what the media would have you believe. Because a lot of them say, well, this movement is dead. It's totally insignificant. And it's not true. A lot of the polls that you show -- that you see, show that one of the fundamental differences in this race is that Hillary Clinton is pulling over 90 percent of registered Democrats, which you would expect. But Donald Trump is pulling between 80 and 85 registered Republicans, and that's a major difference.

GLENN: Yeah. I saw in North Carolina because she is pulling -- she's pulling every black. She's pulling every black in North Carolina. And he is pulling, what? 60 percent, or somewhere in that area of whites.

He's -- they say, it's -- unless he picks up eight points of whites or eight points of blacks or eight points of Hispanics or a little of each, he's not going to make it. That's the analysis I saw last night.

LEON: And he's -- I saw the New York Times -- Sienna did a poll a couple weeks ago. Mitt Romney kind of eked out North Carolina because he won Mecklenburg County and suburban Charlotte white voters by over 21 points. And Hillary Clinton is running even with those voters, with the suburban, kind of wealthy Charlotte area voters.

GLENN: Wow.

LEON: They want nothing to do with Trump. And I live in a very wealthy county myself in Tennessee. And back in 2012, I saw Romney/Ryan signs everywhere. I see maybe two in my entire area --

GLENN: Okay. So but what -- how much -- Jeffy and I were having this conversation earlier today.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: How many people are actually secretly for Trump?

JEFFY: In the cold, dark, lonely place of that voting booth. When it comes down to --

LEON: Right.

GLENN: You know what, I'll never tell a friend that I did it, but I'm voting for Trump because I can't take her.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: They'll never put a sign up, but they can vote for him.

LEON: Oh, I have no doubt, he'll win Tennessee, he'll win my county. But the enthusiasm is definitely way down between kind of your core Republican voters, you know.

GLENN: How do you see this? You see her winning or him winning at this point if it was held today?

LEON: I see her winning.

GLENN: You see her winning?

LEON: I see her winning probably by more than what the polls are predicting.

GLENN: And anything that could happen that would change that?

LEON: I think it's difficult. So all the polls basically work on assumptions, right? It's supposedly science. But it's basically an assumption by every pollster on what the electorate will look like. And one of the things that I don't think anybody knows is to what extent kind of Trump's rhetoric about Hispanics is going to affect the makeup of the electorate.

Whites and blacks in this country vote at a rate of 62-63 percent. Hispanics who are legally vote at a rate of about 51 percent. So they are drastic undervoters in this country.

GLENN: Yeah.

LEON: If -- so even though they represent -- Hispanics who are here legally represent about 17 percent of the United States population right now. They tend to pull in nine to 11 percent of the electorate. If they actually become 17 percent of the electorate, this could be a ten or 11-point whitewashing by Hillary Clinton that nobody --

GLENN: I will tell you this, if that turns out like that, the Republicans are doomed from here on out. Because that is the election that has made them Democrat for the rest of their -- for the rest of their life. The rest of their life.

Featured Image: Screenshot from Hillary's new, post-VP debate campaign ad.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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.