Glenn's interview with Jay Severin

GLENN: Jay Severin, a friend of mine from Boston, was apparently in the room with Scott Brown last night while he took the call from Barack Obama. Jay Severin, welcome to the program, sir.

SEVERIN: Thank you, Glenn. It's great to be back.

GLENN: So you are like I mean, we just starred to become friends here recently.

SEVERIN: Yeah.

GLENN: Are you a slimy political guy?

SEVERIN: Well, I was for

GLENN: That's enough. I think we've heard enough.

SEVERIN: I made my living traveling the world running campaigns for 25 years and now I took an either step up or step down in radio. I'll let you be the judge.

GLENN: That's a tough choice. I'm not sure which direction that is.

SEVERIN: I don't know, prize fighting or radio.

GLENN: All right. So are you I mean, that's weird because this just puts a whole different spin on everything that we've talked about in the past because you're a guy that I have grown to really respect on, you are an independent thinker, et cetera, et cetera. Am I wrong on that?

SEVERIN: No.

GLENN: I just don't trust anybody in politics anymore.

SEVERIN: Well, look. I was in the room because I noticed ask the Brown when he first got in the race. I knew of him prior to the race. He's a state senator. He's a guy who's been up there standing up for what I thought were good ideas when there were only six Republicans in the entire legislature in Massachusetts. So I took notice of him. He decided to run. I thought it was a courageous thing for him to do. No one thought he had a chance. I didn't think he had a chance. But I said as long as you are willing to do this, then certainly I'd like to make sure people hear your ideas and we used my show, my afternoon show in Boston as a continuing platform for him for those ideas and, of course, discussion of those ideas with the citizens of Boston and Massachusetts after our discussions with Scott Brown. He became a regular guest and

GLENN: Can we trust him?

SEVERIN: I think so.

GLENN: Now, I have to be serious. This is

SEVERIN: Of the candidates I have seen and been around and, you know, I've been in those rooms on election night for 25 years with candidates in, you know, 30 states and a few foreign countries. I would say this is, this guy is the most natural, honest guy in that position, in that room I think I've ever seen.

GLENN: Wow, that's really good.

SEVERIN: Now, I don't know but that's my very real sense of it.

GLENN: You know, everybody has to do that now. Everybody will say, hey, I just think he's a really good guy. Of course, I don't know, I don't know, I have no idea because

SEVERIN: Oh, I feel a sacred trust here because it's you and your audience. I want to be careful what I'm guaranteeing. I can only say that, look, my name, my work, my family is on the line, too, when I connect it to something or someone. And when I decided to invest in him this way and look, you know, all I can do is talk about it. It's the people who listen to the program who will go out and do all the work, including making the decisions for whom to vote and whom they trust. And this guy looks like the real thing.

GLENN: I hope so.

SEVERIN: And I just happened to be there because he was gracious enough to invite me and say, look, love for you to join us on election night.

GLENN: Okay.

SEVERIN: And it was just an amazing thing that I was there standing next to him literally when Coakley called to concede and then he announced to the room that that was, put away cellphones. Said, that was Martha, we won, she's conceded. And a moment later the president called and he had the cheek to say to Barack Obama, yeah, do you mind if I bring my truck. And, of course, this is the truck that the president flew to Boston to mock, the truck that this candidate has been roaming the state in. And so it was like a little bit of a twist to the president. I thought it was very, very cheeky.

GLENN: I have to ask you, the idea that the president I mean, it goes back to arugula. The president says, "Don't pay any attention to his truck." Downplaying the truck and taking, I think, himself out of the common mankind of area, goes back to arugula. Barack Obama doesn't even begin to understand the average man.

SEVERIN: I couldn't agree more. Can you imagine? He singled out, there are so many felonies here. This is the president of all of us. This president flew into Boston and got on stage and mocked and ridiculed by name a candidate who's a state senator in Massachusetts, made fun of the fact that he drives a pickup truck. By the way, and PS: Scott Brown is lieutenant commander in the National Guard. He is 30 years in the uniform of this country, and this was his commander in chief mocking him in front of his family and the citizens of his state by name. I just thought the debasing of the office, the lowering, the portioning of the office of president of the United States that was represented by this, plus the disconnect that he thought that making fun of someone driving a small pickup truck would resonate with people and win votes. Glenn, I don't, I don't get what people are telling him.

GLENN: Okay, I have to just ask you one more question here. Pat and I noticed the same thing. So you were there in the room. Where were were you on the stage?

SEVERIN: Yes.

GLENN: So you saw the acceptance speech and everything else?

SEVERIN: I accompanied him from the suite down onto the stage and was on the stage during the entire ceremony, such as it is. Mitt Romney was in the room as well.

GLENN: How many, how many children do you have, Jay?

SEVERIN: You know, I'm not going to talk about my family, if you don't mind.

GLENN: Okay.

SEVERIN: For security reasons.

GLENN: I understand that. But you can relate to children.

SEVERIN: Absolutely.

GLENN: Yes.

SEVERIN: Oh, I'm a dad. Oh, absolutely.

GLENN: Got it, got it.

SEVERIN: They are the number one thing in my life.

GLENN: That's all I want to know. And who had been a guy hold on, I'm just laying out a case here. You are a guy you are a dad.

SEVERIN: Yep.

GLENN: You are a guy who can relate to I mean, you are married. You have a wife.

SEVERIN: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah. You've been a guy around politicians for a very long time.

SEVERIN: Yes.

GLENN: You know smart moves and dumb moves.

SEVERIN: Yes.

GLENN: What the hell was he thinking when he said, by the way, anybody want a slice of my daughters here, huh? What was that?

SEVERIN: I actually think that that tells you, that goes more that is testimony more to the point that you were drilling at earlier than anything else. He is guileless. He is such a family guy that he wanted to include them and it was the kind of thing that your uncle might say around the table at Thanksgiving. Like, hey, when are you going to get married, you know? And I thought it was a very it struck me as a very natural moment. And she was mortified. One of the daughters said, oh, Dad and was, like, mortified. However odd it may seem under the circumstances, it just struck me as a very natural moment. The guy is a totally guileless, what you see, what you get guy. And I

GLENN: So I just thought that maybe, I just thought it was because as not only a dad, I would never do that to my daughters because they would never speak to me again. But also my wife, I would have gotten home and she would have collected parts of my body and put them in drawers all around the house for doing that to my daughters.

SEVERIN: I can only tell you under the circumstances it seemed, if a gaffe, an innocent and loving one.

GLENN: Because I said earlier that maybe we should put an ankle bracelet on and just keep tabs on him and monitor him at all times. This wasn't a warning flag?

SEVERIN: Maybe he is trying to create an innovative way to retire his campaign debt.

GLENN: Okay, that's even more I need an ankle bracelet now for you. Jay Severin, thank you very much. I appreciate it. And thanks for sharing.

SEVERIN: Thanks, Glenn.

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?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

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

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

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

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.