Could Anyone Else in 2016's Crowded GOP Race Run for President Again?

January 04, 2018

WRITER

It seems like a long time ago now, but do you remember 2016’s packed field of GOP candidates vying for the presidential nomination?

On today’s show, Pat and Jeffy named off as many as they could remember and debated whether any of the former candidates still have viable presidential aspirations after now-President Donald Trump beat them in front of the nation.

Trump's Year in Review: Here Are His Biggest Accomplishments in 2017

Could Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich or the dozen or so other options in 2016 revamp their public image to run again? Pat and Jeffy asserted that moderates like Jeb Bush and John Kasich are done. They also thought Cruz and Rubio might have been too thoroughly branded with Trump’s monikers for voters to take them seriously.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

PAT: Looking back at the 2016 race of the people that he rightly claims he destroyed. It was a talented field. And he won. And Steve Bannon doesn't -- didn't understand that winning isn't as easy as he made it look.

And so --

JEFFY: And he called them the most talented field ever.

PAT: Most talented field ever assembled.

JEFFY: And I kind of believe that.

PAT: I do believe that. I do believe that. There were some great candidates, and not only did he beat them. He annihilated them.

He might have tainted them to the point where they can't even run again in 2020 for president.

JEFFY: Absolutely.

I honestly believe that. There's -- there's not one -- name one person -- you go through the list. Name one person who you think could run in 2020.

PAT: Jeb Bush. We just mentioned this. No, I don't think Jeb Bush can run again. Ben Carson, I think he's done. Chris Christie, he's certainly done. And it wasn't just this race.

JEFFY: No, but definitely -- it was the culmination of him -- yeah.

PAT: Ted Cruz, I think he's thoroughly tainted.

JEFFY: No way.

PAT: As far as presidentially speaking. As far as a presidential candidate. I think he'll be fine as a great senator.

JEFFY: He's a great senator from the state of Texas.

PAT: Great senator. I still support him a lot. I just don't think he has the chance to win the presidency anymore.

JEFFY: Specifically talking about the presidency. These guys should do exactly what they're doing now. But to run for president, my opinion, time and money wasted.

PAT: Can't do it. Yeah. I think so too.

Jim Gilmore. Now, I know you have a special place in your heart for him. He's done.

JEFFY: I forgot about him. Oh.

PAT: Lindsey Graham shouldn't have been in the race in the first place. He never had a chance, but he certainly doesn't now.

Mike Huckabee, completely destroyed. Completely.

JEFFY: Have a nice day.

PAT: Trump completely destroyed him.

JEFFY: Threw him a bone by hiring his daughter. I mean, that's what he does. I hired your daughter. Shut up.

(laughter)

PAT: Yes.

Bobby Jindal. I don't know that I feel the same way about Jindal. He could maybe run again.

JEFFY: Maybe. Maybe.

PAT: Maybe he dropped out at the right time. Didn't get involved in all the back and forth. Maybe Jindal is okay.

JEFFY: I don't know. Maybe.

PAT: But I think Kasich is done. Pataki never had a chance.

JEFFY: Oh, have a nice day.

PAT: I think Rand Paul is done as far as the presidency.

JEFFY: Yes. Yes. Who else? Still --

PAT: Marco Rubio.

He may have been too tainted. Trump did such a good job of destroying these guys.

JEFFY: Sure did.

PAT: That they all seem -- do they not seem kind of tainted? As far as the presidential run is concerned. You know, Rick Santorum I thought was tainted in the 2016 race. Now, I'm not even sure -- I can't even put my finger on what happened to Santorum because I was a big supporter in 2012. But I wouldn't want him to run again. I didn't want him to run last time.

JEFFY: He was with Lindsey at the kid's table from the debates, which was fine. Look, those guys are all smart men.

And they're in positions that they definitely worked hard to get. But after this campaign, this last campaign for president, Donald Trump --

PAT: It's tough.

JEFFY: There's a reason he won. He did scorched earth on those guys, man.

PAT: Yeah, I think he burned down the whole field. Maybe Scott Walker. Maybe Walker. He may have dropped out early enough to not have gotten the wrath of Trump.

He might have --

JEFFY: I don't know. Maybe.

You say Jindal. Walker.

PAT: I don't have the chance. I don't have the same feeling about Jindal and Walker, as I do the rest of the --

JEFFY: But I don't know that they're -- I don't know that they have enough panache to be president.

PAT: Maybe not. I don't know. We'll see. We'll see.

You know on the Democrat side, who has got a bright, bright future is Lincoln Chafee. Because he proposed the metric system. And America took to that like a duck to water. Man, did we respond.

JEFFY: I don't think it was reported enough.

PAT: It wasn't. It was downplayed by the media who doesn't want us to adopt that crappy system.

JEFFY: That's what I mean. I don't think it was reported enough. If we could get it out there, if we could get the word out there and explain it better.

PAT: He would have won by a landslide. But in reality, I think most of the G.O.P. field is done and tainted for 2020.

JEFFY: Yeah, oh, my gosh.

PAT: And if President Trump weren't to run again, the only person I could really think has a really good shot and has been untainted from any of this is Ben Sasse. I think Ben Sasse would be a great alternative.

JEFFY: I don't know if there's anyone else. I don't know that there's anyone else. Maybe I give you Walker and --

PAT: Maybe Walker and Jindal. But definitely Ben Sasse. Because he didn't run. Thank goodness for him. He didn't run. So he may have a future.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: And I don't know. Maybe we're completely wrong. That's just my impression. That's my feeling right now, is that, yes, Donald Trump burned down the rest of the field.

JEFFY: America looks at the rest of the -- barring a couple people that we mentioned. I think at least through my eyes, looking at that campaign field up on stage, I'm looking at all those guys on stage right now, thinking, not one of them I would vote for.

PAT: Yeah. President Trump, then candidate Trump did such an effective job with these guys, that I can't look at Marco Rubio anymore without thinking Little Marco. Isn't that amazing?

JEFFY: I know. I know.

PAT: Such a simple, but degrading term.

JEFFY: And listen, it's difficult --

PAT: And it stuck.

JEFFY: It's difficult for me, for me alone to see Ted Cruz who is a senator, who I voted for here in this great state of Texas, I will vote for again --

PAT: Yes. He's got an election coming up. I'll definitely be voting for.

JEFFY: Here, lying Ted.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: I know it's not true. But it's there.

PAT: But it was effective stuff. Yeah.

JEFFY: You're never going to get rid of it.

PAT: It's a strange and interesting phenomenon with Donald Trump.

JEFFY: It sure is. It sure is.

PAT: There is something about him --

JEFFY: I mean, that's -- nobody else is going to be that. Nobody else. Other people have tried it. They lose. And they get looked at like they're complete dirtbags.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Because they're not Trump.

PAT: Yeah.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep