A Caller Shares a ‘Liberal’ Perspective on Roy Moore vs. Al Franken

November 21, 2017

WRITER

Each of us brings a different set of biases to the table, and sometimes it’s just best to be honest about it.

While Doc sat in for Glenn on today’s show, a caller named Kevin shared his perspective on the sexual misconduct allegations that are disrupting Washington. Listen to his chat with Doc (above) for some blunt commentary from a Democrat voter.

Here’s How Roy Moore Should Respond to These Allegations

He acknowledged that Republicans are more likely to overlook accusations that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to seduce a 14-year-old girl and Democrats are prone to make excuses for Sen. Al Franken after a photo was released showing him groping a woman.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: It's Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. You can join the program. 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. Or online. Join me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonshow. By the way, Facebook is Facebook.com/DocThompsonShow. We're talking about the latest allegations. I spent a lot of time on it today. But a little bit of sexual improprieties. And the big one last night was Charlie Rose. It's pretty awful if true. There's a lot of salacious stuff. Some of the other ones have been less significant. You know, people like Ben Affleck. He may have touched me inappropriately as we passed, you know, on the set, or something. Charlie seems systematically, again, if proven true.

Then we also heard that John Conyers may have settled a case for $27,000, when he was a sitting congressman in Michigan. John Conyers, you remember, they say you got to pass the bill. They say, vote for -- what was it? Study the bill? Research the bill. Read the bill.

KRIS: Read the bill.

DOC: How are we going to read the bill? That was John Conyers back in the day. Served for 200 years or whatever it was. John Conyers accused of settling for $27,000. The interesting thing, Conyers' settlement came out of his budget, his office budget in DC. Unlike the other 264 allegations for sitting members of Congress over the last 24 years -- or, 20 years. Over 20 years, Congress has paid off 264 people, from a special slush fund that they've created.

KRIS: Can I correct you on that?

DOC: Yes.

KRIS: Because it wasn't Congress. We paid for that. We paid for that.

DOC: Thank you. Thank you, Kris Cruz. We have paid into this slush fund, where Congressmen get to act -- in many cases, it's probably going to be true -- inappropriate. People challenge them on it. And we have paid $17 million to 264 cases.

That averages about $64,000 every four weeks. Every four weeks for the last 20 years, we have paid 64 thousands dollars because congressmen acted inappropriately or were accused of it.

Just another perk they get. Let me go to the phone lines now in Illinois. Kevin, thanks for holding here on the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: Hey, I'm doing pretty good. How are you?

DOC: Doing well, sir. Thank you.

CALLER: Well, let me first state in full disclosure that I am a liberal.

DOC: Oh, my gosh.

CALLER: I'm a liberal.

DOC: I appreciate the disclosure, sir.

CALLER: That's fine.

So everybody is going to see this through the lens of me being a liberal, which is fine. Because I see things through the lens of you being a conservative. So...

DOC: Real quick, side note, Kevin, that's how it's supposed to be. Because my frustration is when Fox and MSNBC and whoever else doesn't admit and lead with their biases, because it's like they're trying to trick people. Whereas, you know, just lead with your bias. Just tell me who you are, you know.

CALLER: Which is exactly what I did. So I'm going to tell you that my liberal bias says that Al Franken's infracture (sic) is not so bad that he should be kicked out of Congress. Because I want him in, because I'm a liberal.

Now, my liberal bias says that Ray (sic) Moore's infractions are severe.

DOC: Because you don't want him in.

CALLER: And should not be in Congress. Now -- now, we have to weigh these things, about how bad the infractions are. If it were found out that Ray Moore were a Jeffrey Dahmer, well, clearly that about trumps all political efforts, right?

DOC: Sure, mass murderer, absolutely.

CALLER: But Kellyanne Moore (sic) implied that it's sort of okay to assume he might be because we need his vote.

DOC: Uh-huh.

CALLER: She did that just a couple days ago.

DOC: Uh-huh.

CALLER: And I would say with Al Franken, it's sort of okay that he did these little jokes. You know, faux groping and maybe kissing, because I need his vote.

DOC: Yep.

CALLER: So we really have to see that through this lens.

DOC: No, I agree. And we have to be consistent with this. And that's the reason I break down each case. And, I mean, Al Franken's, half of his have been proven because of the photo. Half of them, the kiss is be the not proven. That's still just an allegation. Roy Moore's have not been proven, although it's looking real sketchy for the guy. And I think he probably did based on the, well, I always asked their mom.

CALLER: Come on, man. Come on, man. You know that Ray Moore is guilty. You know it. Everybody knows it.

DOC: Well, no, Kevin, this is what I'm saying, I believe he is. Although it's still allegations. Half of Al Franken's -- I just admitted, I believe he probably kissed her. But that's still just an allegation. The only difference with the picture is we have proof of that. Now, Kevin Spacey, still an allegation. Much of Harvey Weinstein, still allegations.

CALLER: Proven or not?

DOC: Most of those are still allegations. I don't know if there's any proof of his. And, by the way, I would even accept proof in a court of law. So if Harvey Weinstein gets convicted of something, I go, that's proof. If Roy Moore does too --

CALLER: We don't have time to deal with that with Ray Moore. The election is coming in three weeks. There's no chance for a court of law at that point. We have to decide that right now.

DOC: Right. I know. It's frustrating.

It's likely going -- I mean, he's -- his competitor, Doug Jones is leading by a pretty good margin by most polls.

CALLER: Look, Roy Moore is guilty. This is clear. Look at the handwriting. All these handwriting experts. Give me a break. He wrote that in the yearbook. That's obvious. Okay? Maybe the woman added a line about where it was exactly. But this is just a red herring. And you know it. And everybody --

DOC: Well, wait a minute. You still have to admit, it's still an allegation.

CALLER: Okay. It is. It can't be proven. I don't know why Gloria Allred doesn't submit that to a handwriting expert because it's obvious to me that it's true. Just give it up and let an independent handwriting expert verify that he wrote that.

DOC: Now, do you say the same thing -- are you holding -- and I'm fine, as long as there's consistency. If somebody says, Roy Moore is guilty and therefore should not serve. That's fine. You're entitled to my opinion. My frustration is when you wouldn't also include Al in it. I believe both of them -- both of them are just allegations at this point. With that extra caveat that part of Al Franken's have been proven true. You say that about Roy Moore. You would support someone who did that. Do you still support Al Franken serving?

CALLER: Well, it depends on the severity of his offense.

DOC: Okay. Yeah.

CALLER: Now, I'm pro-liberal. So if this offense is not too severe, if he did a little joke, this is an SNL joke, you know, it's bad, but not disqualifying.

DOC: The allegations against Roy Moore seem more severe because the allegations --

CALLER: A 14-year-old. Underage.

DOC: Exactly. Right. Right.

CALLER: Way more severe.

DOC: Right. Right. However, based on what so many progressives and liberals lead with, when it comes to allegations about, you know, the whole Me Too campaign and how women are second class citizens and need the extra attention and whatever, I would say that based on your philosophies, Al Franken needs to be held accountable even for the joke.

CALLER: He does need to be held accountable even for the joke. Absolutely. Look, I am not so partisan that I don't think a wrong is a wrong, when it's a wrong. Okay? But should he be kicked out? I don't think so. I don't think so. If that were true, then half the Congress would be kicked out. Okay?

DOC: Yeah. And, listen, I'm fine with jokes like that. Again, Kevin, I'm just looking for the consistency person to person. So if you lead with your philosophy --

CALLER: It's just not the consistency. It's the severity of the --

DOC: Well, there's consistency within the severity of all that.

CALLER: If what Bill Clinton did was true, then he should be kicked out. And I'm a Democrat. I'm the first to admit that if someone did something seriously wrong --

DOC: Right.

CALLER: -- even if it was my party, they have no business in my government. Even if it means that I lose the vote to what I want to happen. Now, that's what bothers me about Kellyanne.

DOC: You know, and, Kevin, you're the type of person that I -- that I want to deal with. You're the type of person that I want to have those discussions with. And we can find common ground. If you're willing to hold your own people accountable and parties that you would normally support with as little as bias as possible and be consistent like that, that's -- that's what's missing right now. You're the type of person I want to talk to. You're my fellow American.

CALLER: We are all Americans. And I believe there's more commonality between us than most people would like to believe.

DOC: I mean, Kevin, we can both admit Glenn Beck is overweight, right?

(laughter)

DOC: I'll take that as a yes. Kevin, thanks for the call. Have a happy Thanksgiving, buddy.

What was that?

KRIS: Really?

DOC: I'm trying to find common ground here.

KRIS: And you find it on saying that our boss is fat?

DOC: I didn't say fat. I said overweight. He's big-boned.

KRIS: Okay.

DOC: He's big-boned. He's husky. He may have a medical condition. I don't know. I'm just saying overweight, for his own concern. You know, for his own health. I'm concerned about this.

KRIS: Wow.

DOC: Well, I couldn't start with one of the more nuanced things. You have to go to the obvious things, right? Look, we can all admit that the fourth Indian Jones should not exist and is reprehensible. Kal, am I right?

KAL: I don't even speak of it. I don't know --

DOC: Exactly. See that's what I'm saying. You got to go with those big ones, then you get closer and closer to the more difficult ones.

KAL: I disagree with your last statement completely.

KRIS: Yes. Our boss is not fat.

KAL: Not fat at all. He's not overweight at all.

KRIS: He's fantastic. He's awesome. He's good.

DOC: Just letting you go here. Just letting you go. Just letting you go. All right.

KAL: His hands are very, very slender as he writes my paycheck.

KRIS: Yes. Yes. And when he gives me a hug, I literally can get all around him. He can't get around me.

KAL: I don't know about that.

KRIS: Oh, really?

DOC: Okay. All right. All right. So you're saying Glenn Beck is thin then?

KRIS: Yes, he's thin.

DOC: Kal, do you say he's thin?

KAL: I'm sorry, what? These headphones are not working.

DOC: All right. Move on. Well, I was trying to start with something that was more obvious. Perhaps I made a mistake there. All right. Let's go to line 11. Bill in the great state of Florida, thanks for calling the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: I'm doing fine. I have a question, do they realize how much power they gave women? Anyone can hit the lotto or have a successful business and someone can come from the past and say, "Hey, he did this," just to make money, and nothing really happened.

DOC: Yeah. We've given women way too much power. I mean, that whole suffrage thing, that started the ball rolling, Bill. That was the whole -- no, I know what you mean. If you go back 30, 40 years or whatever, women and many people have a legitimate beef when they say women were never believed. You know, that they automatically didn't believe them. And that's the reason now they keep saying, every woman deserves to be heard. The problem is now the pendulum has swung completely the other way, where as long as you accuse somebody, you're believed, and it's believed to be true. And that's a bigger problem.

CALLER: Yep. That's all I had. You guys are doing a great job. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

DOC: Thanks, buddy. Appreciate it. Happy Thanksgiving.

You understand what I'm saying there? It's a bigger problem to accuse people and have that accusation be believed with no proof, no rule of law, no justice system. Now, a lot of this stuff is just tried in the court of opinion.

But that's a bigger problem. The idea of --

KAL: The court of opinion matters almost as much.

DOC: Matters. Because we live on social media, Kal. Everything. You can't even have a restaurant without having it rated by four different apps.

KAL: Yep.

DOC: Everything is judged like that. And we share this information. The court of public opinion is now as valuable and important and powerful as it ever has been. Yes, I recognize, as Mitt Romney said, that, you know, innocent until proven guilty is for the justice system. The legal system.

But shouldn't it also apply in the court of public opinion?

Shouldn't it? So while women were not believed and they were victimized, some men were not believed and victimized over the years. And they said, oh, well, I'm not even going to entertain what you're saying about so-and-so touching you inappropriately, because I like that guy and just go away, and that was horrible. That person who was guilty of something got away with it. That's horrible. But worse, to convict somebody -- even the court of public opinion, when they're innocent, I would rather when we're dealing with the justice system, set free 100 guilty people than send one innocent person to jail. Maybe you disagree. I think that's a pretty good system. So that's the reason we discussed this.

Please, keep recognizing which claims are segregations which ones are proven. Half of Al Franken's are proven. She said he kissed her without permission. Forcibly, whatever. And then number two, he groped her. The groping is on film. That part is proven.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep