They Can't Let Go of the Meryl Streep Thing

January 10, 2017

WRITER

We all know by now the brouhaha created by Meryl Streep's speech at the Golden Globes in which she bravely attacked Donald Trump in front of her like-minded peers. Then, shock of shocks, Donald Trump declared Meryl Streep overrated and irrelevant. The media, rather than letting it go, have become obsessed with debunking President-elect Trump's declaration. Equally unable to let it go were the host and co-hosts of The Glenn Beck Program, who made it their mission to debunk the debunking of Meryl Streep's mediocrity.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So I get in early today, and, Jeffy, you would know this because you do the Pat & Stu show. They haven't let go of the Meryl Streep thing.

JEFFY: It's tough to let go of. When you say they, I'm in there with them. It's still tough to let go of.

GLENN: It's tough to let go of.

JEFFY: She is agonizing.

GLENN: Here, this is what kills me is the fact that the media actually tried to do a -- a -- what do they call it? A debunking of that. And they went to see if indeed Meryl Streep was irrelevant and overrated.

JEFFY: I mean, it's --

GLENN: First of all, that's an opinion. That's not -- I mean, this is the thing they decide to spend their time on. Really?

PAT: Pretty weird.

GLENN: It's just so bizarre.

PAT: And, of course, she is overrated.

JEFFY: And irrelevant. I don't know about irrelevant.

GLENN: Make the case.

PAT: Unless you have a standard set of criteria.

GLENN: Because I look at her -- with the exception of that Abba nightmare that just won't leave me alone.

PAT: Mamma Mia! is a good example.

GLENN: Oh, oh.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: And that's one of the ones they feature prominently in that big --

JEFFY: Yeah. The only reason I know that show is because my parents loved that show.

GLENN: Oh, I hated that show. I hated every second of that show.

JEFFY: I know.

GLENN: I would have eaten off my arms, if I could -- if it would have meant I could be free from that --

PAT: And if you didn't like a musical, there must have been something wrong with you.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Mamma Mia! was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life, seeing that you made me go see it.

JEFFY: That's right.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I did. As a punishment.

STU: As a punishment for something. I don't remember what it was.

PAT: Let's talk Ricki and the Flash.

JEFFY: Another singing one.

STU: I think we can all agree Mamma Mia! was one of the worst things that's ever been created. It's also her highest grossing picture. In case you're worried --

GLENN: But that's not her.

STU: Yeah, I know it's not her. Success, it's not her. And that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Her entire career is filled with --

GLENN: Sophie's Choice, not good?

STU: '81 to '85, she has two movies in there: Cramer versus Cramer.

PAT: No, that was '79. But '79 to '85 was probably the highlight of her career. Cramer versus Cramer.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Excellent.

PAT: Sophie's Choice.

GLENN: Excellent.

PAT: And Out of Africa. Is that the other --

STU: You're going to give her out of Africa?

GLENN: I'll give her Out of Africa. What about Silkwood?

STU: Yeah, Silkwood.

PAT: Filmed in this studio on this stage, and that's what it is --

STU: However, I mean, okay. Let's just give her that for the fun of it. That gets you to 1985. So she's got a few movies pre-1985 that you could say are good. Then you have a good decade of nothing, unless you want to throw She-Devil in the mix for a good third.

GLENN: Oh, horrible.

PAT: Are you forgetting Iron Weed?

STU: Thank you very much. So a bunch of nothing until -- now, yes, she appeared -- for example, she was a supporting actress in Defending Your Life. Defending Your Life --

PAT: That's an Albert Brooks --

STU: That's an Albert Brooks movie though. It's not a a Meryl Streep movie.

GLENN: No, but she was good in it.

STU: She was okay in it.

JEFFY: She was okay.

GLENN: She wasn't bad. She was good in it.

STU: Is it a career-defining role? The answer to that is no. The next one of those you get --

PAT: You might say a lot of people liked that.

STU: The next one you get really is Bridges of Madison County.

GLENN: Oh, was agonizing.

PAT: Which was horrific.

STU: Horrible. Horrible.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

STU: Now, ten years --

GLENN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's have the discussion --

STU: Terrible.

GLENN: -- is it horrible -- wait a minute, is it horrible or is it horrible because we saw her and Clint Eastwood with his and her shirts off.

PAT: Yes. That was a big part of it.

GLENN: I was scarred.

STU: That was part of the movie, but it's still a bad movie.

GLENN: I don't have any recollection other than that.

STU: Let's get -- Pat, give the recollection quickly of what happened in the movie, Bridges of Madison County.

GLENN: I know this one.

PAT: Let's see, a hard-working loving considerate husband and father, protector of his wife and children, as kind of a favor -- a good thing for his children and a favor for his wife, takes the two kids to the state fair for a week.

STU: That's nice.

PAT: And while he is doing that loving act of kindness for his wife, she is inviting some stranger -- some drifter who showed up at the door in to do her for the week. I mean, it is a horrific premise.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: What a wonderful --

PAT: I mean, that's the thanks he gets for being a good man. Hideous movie. I hate that book. I hate that movie.

GLENN: I remember reading the book and liking it. I don't remember it framed that way.

PAT: I don't think the book framed itself that way, but that's what it is.

GLENN: Right.

STU: So that's the breakup. From '83 to '95, we find the good piece of work, which is Bridges of Madison County, which as Pat I think just described was not as good as maybe some others say. Then you're taking some more time off from her wonderful success as a magical actress, and you clear -- I mean, you could go to adaptation, which I didn't particularly like, but it was a critical darling --

PAT: I didn't see it, to know what that is.

STU: Then you're going all the way, I would say, to probably Devil Wears Prada.

PAT: Which is a good movie.

STU: Now, Devil Wears Prada is a career-defining movie. I think you could put it that way. However, is it really, be honest, a role that any other somewhat similarly aged actress could do?

PAT: Glenn Close could do it easily.

STU: Oh, absolutely. Sigourney Weaver. Absolutely. There's a dozen people that you could think of at the top of your head.

PAT: Julia Roberts would have had no problem.

GLENN: Yes, yes, yes.

STU: You had to be old and mean. And that was essentially it. And it's not that big of a deal.

GLENN: Betty White could have done it.

STU: Absolutely. She would have been fantastic in that role. But because it was Meryl Streep, it was some amazing thing that she did. In reality, it was just another movie.

And she, again, wasn't the star of the movie. She was the secondary character.

GLENN: So where did she develop this --

STU: Right.

GLENN: Where did she develop --

JEFFY: Yes. This is the question.

GLENN: I was actually not on your side, until you started presenting the case.

STU: Because there's a lot of stuff in here.

PAT: Julie versus Julia.

STU: Okay. Julie versus Julia is a pretty good movie.

PAT: Where she did a pretty serviceable imitation of Julia Childs. But so did Dan Aykroyd. He could have played that part.

JEFFY: Thank you. Thank you.

GLENN: No, that's not true. That's not true.

STU: No, he's right. Aykroyd was better.

No. She did a good impression of that.

But, for example, Jim Carrey did a much better impression of Andy Kaufman. No one is throwing him into the freaking Hall of Fame for it.

PAT: Oh, yeah. That was genius.

GLENN: That was genius.

PAT: Yeah, that was genius.

STU: He was genius in that role. And everybody was like, oh, well, it was just an impression. That's what she did.

And, by the way, she wasn't even the main character in the movie. She was in the movie for like ten minutes.

Okay. So where are we here? Then we're Mamma Mia! Okay? Which we've all discussed as a disaster.

PAT: But you're right. 144 million. That's her biggest box office.

STU: Biggest box office of all time. Inflation adjusted is a problem, but still.

PAT: Of all time.

GLENN: Literally, that could have been done by muppets. It's the music that carried that.

PAT: Right. Right.

GLENN: That's all that was, was a music video.

STU: Again, if you put a different person who was a better singer in that role, it would have been better. It wasn't that she nailed the part above and beyond anybody else.

GLENN: But, again, I think the muppets would have been better.

STU: Exactly.

PAT: Then you get some roles where she was actually terrible in.

And Into the Woods is one of them.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Into the Woods, she was absolutely bad in that movie.

STU: It was a fairytale. Right?

PAT: Yeah. It was a Disney -- she was terrible.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, yeah. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

JEFFY: Terrible.

PAT: Surprisingly bad. Because I was under the impression, still, buying into the three Oscars and eight Golden Globes, she's a great actress. And I'm thinking, "She is terrible in this. What happened?"

GLENN: Right.

STU: And then Ricki and the Flash is the ultimate exclamation point in this conversation. She plays the aging rock star. A complete disaster. And, yeah, yeah, she has three Oscars. She's had 19 nominations. How about winning occasionally? How about that?

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

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

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

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

Rachel Maddow chokes up and cries on air as she struggles to deliver news that migrant babies and toddlers have been sent to "tender age" shelters pic.twitter.com/O6crm8cvyR
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) June 20, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

She goes on throughout the week.

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

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

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

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

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

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

Obama's tribute center in Chicago will cost taxpayers $200 million

Scott Olson/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

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

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

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

'The fool builds walls': China blasts Trump over tariffs

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

I can picture it now: Thousands of years ago, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, standing before hordes of his followers, in the Qin Dynasty, with a bright red bamboo hat on, and chanting, "Build that wall!"

It took a couple centuries to build the thing, but it got built. And it has been carefully maintained over the last 2,000 years, but, today, the Great Wall of China is so massive that astronauts can see it during good weather conditions from the lower part of low Earth orbit. The wall boasts over 3,000 miles of towers and brick embankments, with over 1,200 miles of natural defensive barriers. It's worth mentioning that the Chinese government is also exceptionally good at imposing digital walls, so much so that China ranks worst in the world for internet freedom.

So it's a little strange to hear an editorial run by a major news network in China criticized President Trump for his proposal to build a large wall along the southern border of America.

"Following the path of expanding and opening up is China's best response to the trade dispute between China and the United States, and is also the responsibility that major countries should have to the world," the author wrote. "The wise man builds bridges, the fool builds walls."

Similarly, the Pope told reporters in 2016, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel."

Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

If you've been to the Vatican, you know that it is surrounded by enormous walls. The same goes for all the celebrities who live in heavily walled compounds—a safety measure—but who have also vehemently criticized President Trump's plans to build a wall.

You know the adage: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses." Perhaps the phrase needs an update: Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

Pope Francis compares abortion for birth defects to Nazi eugenics

TIZIANA FABI/AFP/Getty Images

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.

And:

I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.

Glenn's Show Prep