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

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.

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.

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.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?