Senate Campaigns Were Never Intended to Be National Elections

After reports about his alleged predilection for teenagers, Roy Moore’s Alabama campaign is becoming a national issue. But ultimately, his Senate race is about persuading voters in his own state.

“It doesn’t matter what we think,” Glenn said on today’s show. “It only matters what the people of Alabama think.”

Glenn and Stu also talked about the basic principles of conservatism that Republicans are leaving behind because they simply want to “win.” When it comes to governing, Republicans have so far failed to keep their promises to repeal Obamacare, pass tax reform and fight for the average American. Where is their credibility now?

“I want to win elections … but I’m not going to pay any price to win elections,” Stu said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: You know, Stu just said to me, you know he's going to end up winning. I think he's going to.

STU: He probably will.

GLENN: I think he will. I think the people of -- of Alabama -- I mean, think of this, this is the reason why -- one of the reasons why our Founders made sure in the Constitution that all of the senators were -- were picked by the people in their state. And each senator was picked by the --

STU: The state legislature.

GLENN: Yeah. The state legislature. So we reversed that. With progressives, we reversed that. Why? To make every Senate campaign a national election.

Well, that's not what it was for. They were to make sure that they defend the state. It's changed everything. But also, it has involved all of us in something that we have nothing to do with it. We have -- we can sit here -- I can sit here in Texas. You can sit in Utah or California or New York, and we can all talk about this all day long. It doesn't matter what we think. It only matters what the people of Alabama think.

And I think the people -- I just have this feeling that -- remember how the Democrats dumped all of that money into the Georgia election?

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. And they dumped it all and said, "This is going to be a big deal and everything." And what happened? The local people were like, you know what, screw all you people. Don't come into our town and tell us what to do.

I think that might happen in Alabama.

STU: Yeah. Sean Trende is an elections analysis, and we've had him on before. Really smart guy. Over at RealClearPolitics. He said this -- tell me this isn't exactly what's happening, not only now, but in past elections as well. And I think it's a really understandable response.

He says: I don't think you can underestimate the degree to which many conservatives have this attitude. A, we fought a battle over whether character counts, and we got our asses handed to us. And, B, liberal leaders always circle the wagons around their guys, and ours always cave.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Both of those things I think individually are true. But to me, it adds up to something that we should try to resist.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

STU: An instinct we should try to fight against.

GLENN: We don't want to be -- we don't want to be them. Otherwise, you have no -- otherwise, you have no credibility. They don't have any credibility with us. They can't ever make any inroads with us because they have no credibility. You can't talk to me about, oh, how much you care about women, Hollywood, when you're -- when you're defending all of these monsters and hiding them. You can't do it. You can't preach to me about ethics and how women are, you know -- have powerful males over them. And even if it's consensual, it's not really consensual, and then defend Bill Clinton. You can't do it. But they do.

I don't want to be that person. I don't want to be that. I don't want to defend people who are doing things that, you know, are slimy. I don't want to -- I don't want to be that person.

STU: And I think the battle there is, people will say, well, look at what that gets you. It means you lose.

If that's what it gets me, that's what it gets me. I want to win elections. I want to -- sure, yes. That's all true. But I'm not going to pay any price to win elections.

GLENN: Let me ask you this: That's what it gets you. Okay. If we don't stand by our principles, if we don't stand by and say, "No, I don't care if this guy can win, he's got to have principles," where does that get you? First of all, we have no credibility. We now as Republicans -- and I'm not a Republican, thank God. But now the Republicans -- and I'm afraid too many churchgoers and too many religious people and just blanket conservatives, now have lost all credibility to be able to stand up and say, "Hey, this is wrong. Morally, this is wrong. What are we teaching our children?" You can't say that anymore.

You not only have lost that. But you also have -- well, let's talk about Texas. We're for small government, right? Did we get that? Are we getting a giant tax cut?

No. Because the guy -- the guy who we elected doesn't really believe in that stuff. He's not a champion of that stuff. He just wins.

Well, he'll take a win. But it's not really a win. Not for conservatives. Not for small government. Not for low tax people. That's not a win.

How about -- give me the audio of the guy from the Pentagon? This is the new guy representing the DOD.

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah. This is the Trump nominee for the DOD.

GLENN: Okay. So here's a guy that Trump is putting in, at the DOD -- now, he's talking about guns. This is our champion. Listen.

VOICE: I'd also like to -- and I may get in trouble with other members of the committee, to say, you know, how insane it is that the United States of America, a civilian can go out and buy a fully semiautomatic assault rifle, like an AR-15, which apparently was the weapon that was used. I think that's an issue, not so much for this committee, but elsewhere.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Huh. Wait. What?

GLENN: This is the guy that Trump is appointing? What? That's not good.

And if you don't think that we are not entering a time where there is massacre after massacre, and instead of going after, one, the laws that have loopholes and closing all of those loopholes, two, making sure that the law is actually enforced every time, three, we go and examine the message health in this country, and four, we look at domestic violence. That's what's happening in our country.

Now, we're doing the same thing with guns that we are doing now with radicalized Islam. We are looking for any other reason, other than their religious belief. We're looking for, what did we do? What can we do? Maybe we should have grandma go through an anal cavity search at the airport. Instead of saying, no, it is the religious belief of these crazy people, that believe they have a right to enslave people that don't agree with them and kill people that they deem infidels. That's the problem.

But we're looking at every other place. And we're going to do the same thing with guns. A battle is coming -- and I'm telling you, if Donald Trump can appoint that guy in the Department of Defense, he thinks that's okay to have a guy who says, "Semiautomatics, I mean, how can you possibly have a semiautomatic?"

STU: It's insane that a regular person could go buy -- how could we let regulars go into stores and buy things like that?

GLENN: What is that? What is that? So did you really win? Because you've lost all credibility. All credibility. You can no longer say, we have the high moral ground. We're America in the Middle East. That's what -- that's what conservatives are now. We're America in the Middle East. We talk a good game. But we don't actually stand for anything.

We get in, our guys, we'll just accept everything.

STU: And, look, there are costs to some of these things. Sometimes standing on these values does have costs. You could lose elections. You know, there's -- a very defensible with Roy Moore is if you don't believe these people. If you go through this and say, I don't believe any of them, and here's my reasons why, that's a defensible position. If you believe them, but eh, I just want to win, that's not a defensible position to me. But, I mean, you make your own decisions. I think if you look at it though -- we talked to Johnnie Moore yesterday, you brought up the Middle East. We talked to Johnnie Moore yesterday. Look at what people will sacrifice for their principles around the world. He told the story about a family who had a letter sent to him by a terrorist, that basically threatened their lives.

GLENN: Didn't basically. Said, we will behead you, unless you convert.

STU: And they wrote back --

GLENN: I'm sorry. Crucify you.

STU: Wrote back to the terrorist -- now, I can't imagine wanting to respond to that mail. And said, you know what, we're never going to convert. And actually, you can come kill us, but please don't kill us through crucifixion, because we're not worthy of that punishment, because that's really about Jesus and it's a little bit above us. So please don't kill us that way. But kill us any way you need to. Come on over whenever you need to. Because they were so dedicated to their faith. They were willing to give up that cost. And were like, eh. I don't know. An Alabama Senate seat. I can't -- it's too much. It's too much.

Has anybody else noticed how politicized sports have gotten? The NFL is practically three berets away from a socialist revolution. They seem more concerned with dismantling social norms and protesting than with playing football. The Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday they will host a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.

According to LifeSiteNews, the LGBTQ inclusion summit will "include speeches, interviews, and panel discussions with a variety of athletes, coaches, and activists who are homosexual or transgender" and "will be hosted at the team's recently-completed TCO Performance Center."

The summit marks the latest in the NFL's continued advocacy for LGBTQ rights and initiatives. Last year, the league launched NFL Pride, in a bid to "heighten sensitivity to the LGBTQ community" and reinforce "commitment to an inclusive environment in which all employees are welcome."

RELATED: New NFL policy will punish players who protest the national anthem

Fair enough. No one should be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, but is that really what this is about? Because it kind of seems like there's more going on here. Kind of seems like there's a political, ideological slant to it. At the very least, it's virtue signaling.

The summit is "part of a settlement agreement the Vikings made after [former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe], who is straight, filed a lawsuit against the team in 2014 for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for homosexual and transgender people."

So, yeah, virtue signaling.

Ultimately, the NFL is a private business and, as we saw with the National Anthem kneelers, they can conduct their business however they like, and in turn the consumers can decide whether or not to keep giving them their money.

Mostly, the situation is just strange. Can you imagine how well this partnership would have gone over in the 1970s? Moreover, at what point does being LGBTQ come up during sports? How have we landed in this strange place, where politics and gender and race must be represented within every single interaction?

It's also worth mentioning that most people don't care if an athlete is gay — with the possible exception of transgender athletes, but that's another topic entirely. This tolerance has actually been confirmed by studies and surveys throughout all kinds of sports, in various countries throughout the world. Even countries with, shall we say, a far less tolerant view of the LGBTQ community than we have here in the USA — even people in those countries believe that it doesn't matter. People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

Overwhelmingly, regardless of the sport, people do not care about the athletes' sexuality — in fact, most of us would rather not know. We don't watch golf to muse the social significance of gender norms and sexuality. We don't go to a baseball game to meditate on the evils of the patriarchy and the terrors of cultural appropriation. If an athlete is good, who cares what their orientation is? It's certainly not a new idea that LGBTQ can perform in sports. Typically, what sports fans care about is talent. Is the athlete good?

I guarantee that if Liberace rose from the dead tomorrow morning and was suddenly able to play basketball as well as 90s-era Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls fans would not complain if he joined the team. I think it's fair to say that most people like sports better when they aren't swamped with politics. Keep the politics elsewhere, especially these days, when it's nearly impossible to escape the increasingly intolerant politics of the Left.

Perhaps they could learn a lesson from our friends, the Ancient Greeks. It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks indulged in, well, LGBTQ activities. They were quite fond of the various activities. But they also built a civilization of tremendous importance to humanity as a whole. Philosophy, art and, yes, sports. When they were charged off to war, they didn't slap a Rainbow flag bumper sticker on the back of their chariot. Their sexuality did not define their identity. They were multifaceted human beings, able to go to war or to the theater or to the town hall as a citizen, because citizenry was what mattered, personhood and selfhood. More importantly, they lived in a time when people cared about self and tribe over sexuality and gender. Identity was selfhood, not sexuality.

At the end of the day, who cares if the Minnesota Vikings want to host an LGBTQ event? But they should expect to see an increase in shoulder-padded men traipsing across the stage on Broadway.

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

Most people like sports better when politics aren't involved

Breaking down the announcement that the Minnesota Vikings will be hosting a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.


Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

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

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.