Glenn Beck talks with Senator DeMint


Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America and Senator Jim DeMint. How did you stop your head from exploding last night, Senator?

SENATOR DeMINT: It was a frustrating time and I know the other senators were doing what they believed was right.

GLENN: I don't believe that.

SENATOR DeMINT: But -- 

GLENN: Hang on. Please help me because I'm holding onto any faith in people not being just entirely weasels in Washington. So help me out on this. How do you vote for a giant bailout and say, no, I can't do it, unless you put in my wool research pork. How do you do that? And sleep?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, you've got me on that one because they have added a number of things mostly designed to get House votes because I honestly believe if you took the name off the top, the Senate could pass the Communist Manifesto. But it's not that their intentions are bad. It's the fact that their good intentions are misguided and they believe that we can do things through government that we shouldn't do and that's really what takes us down the road to socialism.

GLENN: How -- honestly is there any outrage in Washington, any number of people like you that are outraged and says, guys, if you want to pass a bailout bill, then pass one that is clean. I mean, I know you're against it, but if you want to pass one, how do you sleep at night when you've loaded it up with pork? I mean, you're selling your country, you're selling your vote for pork, on something that is supposed to be the biggest thing you've ever done in your life.

SENATOR DeMINT: I really did think it was shameless. I mean, votes on these tax cuts that I have supported and already voted on, they brought it back and made me vote on it again as part of this bill to try to pressure me to support the bailout. And we threw away all our freedom principles and free enterprise principles, we threw away all the principles of traditional legislation with no hearings and no debate and no amendments. We threw all this out and did something in a hurry and I tell you, I never in my life have I seen something big done in a hurry that was the right thing to do.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: So -- 

GLENN: Did you even have time to, people have time to read 453 pages of this bill and be able to make heads or tails of it before they voted?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I didn't have time personally to read it all. I had six staff members working on it and we produced a lot of materials that we disseminated to colleagues because a lot of them didn't know the junk that had been added into it. But it's hard at the pace they try to get these things done. The whole idea is to get it passed before people read it, and we loaded it on the Internet as soon as we got it and a lot of talk shows and bloggers start taking it apart and pointing it out, what was in it. But it's not a good legislative process and if it was the right thing to do, we would not have to do all these shortcuts.

GLENN: You are exactly right. What is the -- what are the phones like in congress today?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I'm getting a lot of positive response for holding firm, the speech I made, but actually we were looked at like scum as far as, you know, being in the Senate for not supporting the team and doing what we came here to do and take tough votes and so -- 

GLENN: Oh, wait a minute. You mean internal pressure?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, yeah. I mean, it's just internal disdain really for those of us who are not willing to, you know, tow the line here in this great bipartisan victory.



GLENN: Now, is that disdain in your own party or disdain -- 

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, certainly it was. I mean, you know, our leadership supported it and, you know, again I believe they think they are doing the right thing in avoiding a catastrophe. So don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning their motives. I just believe that your principles are permanent. You don't throw them out when you have a crisis.

GLENN: Yes.

SENATOR DeMINT: Our default position should always be how do we make freedom work and keep government limited, but we threw that out and our first knee jerk reaction was to expand government and to ignore a lot of free enterprise principles that I know would work, and that's the biggest frustration of all here. We didn't give freedom a chance to work in this process and we continue the stranglehold of bad policies and laws on our free enterprise system and then we blame it when it doesn't work.

GLENN: Do you think that anybody is going to be able to stop this in the house?

SENATOR DeMINT: I don't think so, Glenn. At this point they have so intimidated and beat up the Republicans who held firm.

GLENN: Who did that? Who did that?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, the national media. You know, even media normally that we would count on like Fox, it looks like Murdock got to those guys because they were looking in the camera and saying, you won't get your paycheck if these guys don't change their vote.

GLENN: Well, you know what? I mean, here's the thing. Senator, you may not get your paycheck. The markets may freeze up, the commercial paper market may freeze up, but you know what? There are principles here at stake as well, and nobody's talking -- everybody wants to scare monger on your paycheck. Okay, well, let's have that conversation and then let's have the conversation of, what are you doing to make sure that doesn't happen. I happen to believe that the commercial market, the commercial paper market is frozen and I don't think that is, you know, a bogus thing. But this doesn't mean that this is what you do. It doesn't mean that you sell your soul to the devil. And I really, truly believe that if you do this, if this passes, it is not -- look at the market today. The market is down almost 300 points. It should be up, shouldn't it? Shouldn't everybody be celebrating? This is not going to do anything. And then you guys are in real trouble and so are we.

SENATOR DeMINT: Our job in congress shouldn't be to make the market go up or down, but I just want to kind of amplify a point you were just making because it's not right to tell a soldier to go fight for freedom that you may lose your life when at home we're afraid to fight for freedom because we could lose a paycheck and we're just not thinking long term here because no one, even Paulson is saying this is more than just a short-term fix, a Band-Aid. This doesn't do anything to actually encourage our economy to get back on track by cutting some taxes and taking the regulations off. So I just think we're all mixed up in Washington. We don't know, as I said before, we don't know where freedom ends and socialism begins and where good intentions run into bad policy.

GLENN: So Senator, help me out on this. You just said -- and if you would repeat that for me, make sure I have it right. You just said that Paulson has not said that this is anything but a short-term fix, that -- I mean, is anyone telling you that this will work?

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, they're saying that it will loosen up the credit market some, but structurally it doesn't do anything to actually encourage more economic activity, although if credit is there, obviously the economy works better. But they are still saying there are other things we're going to have to do. But, you know, it's been hard to get the good information out of the administration and this creating a panic tells me that they don't know what they're doing. They're hoping this will work, you know, and almost anything would work a little better with $700 billion running around, but I think the long-term implications, and I mean long-term, may be only a few months as the world markets are going to see the size of the American debt and our inability to pay it and that's going to begin to really erode the whole foundation of our economics.

GLENN: Senator, I have somebody who is working with the Paulson team, in the room with the Paulson team. I may have better information than you have.

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, I'm sure you do because I hadn't been in the room. Once I said this was not the way to go, I was uninvited back.

GLENN: Well, I have people who are contacting me who are in that room and they are all saying -- the message is the same that they hope this works to slow it down. Nobody thinks that this thing is going to stop anything. It's just going to slow down what they believe is a collapse.

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, we have to have a correction.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: And that's what -- you know, Richard Shelby, who's the ranking guy on banking, you wouldn't have thought he would come out on opposed leadership but until you let the market correct itself, we're not going to be able to rebuild it. And by artificially trying to hold up the values of homes once they've been overpriced and values of securities once they've been overpriced, we're just putting it off and we're spending a lot of money putting it off and so I just think we've got to realize that the government can't run the markets, we've got to let this correction take place. It's going to be painful. People will -- we've already lost value, anybody who's tried to work and save has lost something in this process and they should be angry at the government because it was the government that basically caused this. But we can't stop this from happening. But you're right. All we can do is maybe soften the fall so that when we hit bottom, it's not as painful. But I think all we do is stretch out the pain.

GLENN: Well, that's what -- we're doing the same thing that we did in 1933 and this is why the Depression was over in three years in the rest of the world and it took us ten to get out.

SENATOR DeMINT: Yeah.

GLENN: Because the government did this.

SENATOR DeMINT: Yeah, I'm just afraid that, you know, the Fed's policy and the congressional policy got us into this and it's the same type of thinking that's taking us deeper.

GLENN: But what kind of leadership did John McCain show on this? I mean, here's a guy who is against all kinds of earmarks and in the most important bill, we're told, of what could be in any senator's career, it's loaded with pork. It was intentionally loaded with pork and yet he votes for it. And he doesn't take a stand and say this is totally dishonorable.

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, don't get me wrong. I'm going to support McCain because the choice is really between socialism and a hope for freedom here, but I think John missed an opportunity to separate himself -- 

GLENN: Big time.

SENATOR DeMINT:  -- from Bush on this and actually played into the Democrats' hand where Obama looked like he was above the fray and McCain looked like he was part of the Bush team.

GLENN: So do phone calls make any difference at this point? Should people be calling their House members?

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, gosh yeah. I think there are going to be some who are still on the fence. I don't think we have much chance to stop it, but I didn't think we could stop it earlier in the week. But I think if people just call and they say, listen, I know we're going to have some pain but let's not put it off. Let's do it now and instead of spend all this money. You know, the government is now one of the biggest businesses in our country in buying and selling assets based on what the Senate passed. But so, yeah, I think the e-mails, the anger phone calls, letters could make a difference at this point because one of the aces in the hole we have is there are some Democrats who don't like the tax stuff that's been put in to get Republicans and they've thrown in some earmarks for the Democrats, but this thing could come unglued if a few of the Republicans hold firm because Nancy Pelosi is still saying Republicans have to deliver, you know, more votes than they did before and if we don't, she's not going to make her people walk the plank. I think she's going to work this hard because she was embarrassed last time.

GLENN: Oh, they can't introduce it again and have it fail, can they?

SENATOR DeMINT: No, they can't. But I would just encourage people to call more than ever, e-mail more than ever, tell those Republicans who I think were heroic earlier in the week to hold firm.

GLENN: And the Democrats as well that didn't vote for it.

SENATOR DeMINT: Yeah. And there are some Blue Dog Democrats who just -- 

GLENN: There were 96 Democrats that didn't vote for it in the House.

SENATOR DeMINT: Right.

GLENN: I mean, that's an astounding number.

SENATOR DeMINT: But if people in congress think the people outside are mad with November right around the corner, it could make a difference because courage is not exactly the hallmark of congressional service.

GLENN: I'm going to do a fundraiser. I'm going to raise spines for all these weasels in Washington. I really am. I think we just need to have spine transplants left and right, either that or send Petraeus up on the hill. Senator -- 

SENATOR DeMINT: It is an interesting situation where you have 90% of the American people, or at least those who are calling saying don't do this, don't do this but then you've got, you know, 90% of the people inside congress and the media and the Wall Street guys saying we have to do it or the world's coming to an end. So it's a real interesting decision by members of congress.

GLENN: What do you say to the idea that this is just payback for all of the election money that everybody has received and all of the votes that have been purchased, you know, through these hedge funds and banks and everything else over the years?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I don't think any -- very few members of congress are going to vote because they've gotten a campaign contribution one way or another. I just, that's hardly ever a factor. But, you know, friendships and networks do make a difference and if I have a group of bankers call me from South Carolina and say, DeMint, you've got to do something, I mean, that does have an impact on me. And you know, I agree we have to do something, but I don't like the idea we have to do something even if it's wrong.

GLENN: Are you getting calls from friends and bankers saying, Jim, what are you doing to me? You're killing me?

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, yeah, I've gotten those calls, but I've also gotten calls from banks and Realtors that have said, "Jim, you are doing the right thing, hold on." But most of our calls just from, you know, average people in South Carolina, and we've gotten hundreds if not thousands by now from around the country just saying you're doing the right thing, just keep fighting.

GLENN: Do you think that the average person understands what's in the balance here? Do you think that the average person who is just like, "No bailout," or do you think the average person is saying "No bailout" or "This isn't the right bailout" or "This isn't the right way to do it and I understand how bad things really could be"?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I think the average American and probably most members of congress do not know the severity of the problem that the government has gotten us into. Most of that goes back to our huge national debt and the implications long term that are much bigger than what we've been talking about. But I think the Americans instinctively know that something stinks here.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: And that we can't solve it with the government who tried to clean up after Katrina. They just don't trust this government to be able to do what they say they're going to do and so even if they thought what they said was right, they wouldn't believe the government could do it.

GLENN: You are exactly right. You are exactly right. Is there anyone on the Hill that is talking at all about if we do this and we lose our credit rating, if we lose our credit rating and we can't get loans or we have to really increase our interest rate, we're doomed. I mean, you don't pull out of that one.

SENATOR DeMINT: I think it's a Catch-22 in effect because some -- I believe if we don't do this and our credit rating's going to go down because then China and other countries aren't going to lend us any money.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: The problem is if we do it and borrow all this money to do it, our credit rating's going to go down anyway.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: So it's like are we going to pay the price of our mistakes now or are we going to amplify them and kick it down the road and pay it later.

GLENN: Unfortunately usually in Washington they kick it down the road. Senator Jim DeMint, thank you so much, sir, and keep up the fight.

SENATOR DeMINT: We will. Same to you.

GLENN: Appreciate it. Bye-bye. Please call your House member today and write them and tell all of your friends call and be informed. One way or another, you agree or disagree, call them. Call them.

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.