Glenn Beck: McCain pros & cons




GLENN: So I started to put together a pros and cons list but I don't even think, this isn't a good -- I mean, and this is how I make decisions. My dad taught me this when I was little: Make a pros and cons list. Dad, I don't want to -- "Make a pros and cons list." All right. So I just take a piece of paper and just line it down the center of pros and cons. But I don't -- I mean, I don't even know what the pros are. I don't know what the cons are. I mean, you know, I'm the con list. This is the kind of game I play. This is why I need outside help because the kind of game I play I'm like, on the con list he's old. On the pro list he's not as old as Senator Byrd. What?

STU: Him being old is not a pro or a con. That is just who he is. It doesn't --

GLENN: In four years, in four years from now he's going to be how old? 76?



STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Is he 72?

STU: He's 71 now.

GLENN: 71, okay, so he'll be 75, 76. And I'm not saying you can't be going strong. I just, I figured out why he had his mother on the campaign trail. Because his mom I think is like 150 years old and she's still going strong and just like, "What? So I was out picking up trucks yesterday. What!" You know, but does anybody remember, you know, Reagan in the last part. He started to get a little dicey there.

STU: I don't know. Man --

GLENN: I'll take dicey Reagan anytime, yes, I will. But he's not Reagan.

STU: But that has nothing to do with his age. It has nothing to do with his age. Reagan, you know, it comes down to what sort of President you're voting for. Reagan, whether he was old or young, would have been great.

GLENN: Could I just, can I make -- may I go through my pros and cons list? Do I go through my pro --

STU: Age in a bad con.

GLENN: Because it's on both sides.

STU: No, it's not.

GLENN: Yes, it is.

STU: You could say age and experience is a pro and a con.

GLENN: Fine, whatever. Gee, I was just trying to give an example of how you could balance it out on both sides. Fine, whatever, Stu.

Here's the actual pros and cons list. On the pros he -- and I believe him -- says that he will nominate conservative judges. But that's offset by, do you think he's going to have a chance of nominating a conservative judge and get it through the Senate? No. Not even. They're going to control the Senate, the Republicans won't even be able to filibuster. Nothing. There's nothing stopping this freight train to hell. So again, judges, pros and cons. He's going to nominate. But then he won't get that guy through. So he will have to compromise and get somebody that's, well, they're not really conservative. And we'll end up with, you know, some clown.

STU: Right. But that's in any Republican President right now. I don't think that's a legitimate con. That's a pro.

GLENN: He's consistently pro life. But I mean, does anybody think that we're going to, really, are we going to overturn Roe versus Wade? I don't see that as a campaign issue, you know? Maybe, you can tie that -- that becomes the judge issue. That becomes the judge issue. He's consistently pro Second Amendment. Amen to that. That one is a huge one for me. The Second Amendment -- you know what? I have to tell you this. I became a member of the NRA, a lifetime member, what, a year, year and a half ago? And I have to tell you, I don't think I've told you this yet. The NRA has had the opportunity to pull me aside several times. I've been -- you know, I've been with Wayne La Pierre and Chris Cox and all the people from the NRA, board members. You know, I've been in private conversations, I've been in, you know, smoke-filled rooms. It had all of these -- and not once have I heard the NRA say anything even close to, "We're really going to get those Democrats this time." Not even close. This organization, I have to tell you, is really truly about the Second Amendment. They don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat. They really don't care. Whoever is going to protect the Second Amendment. I think this is one of the only organizations that I have seen that understands parties change all the time. It's about the issue, not the party. And I don't care about who's getting in power, whatever, it's the issue.

You know, I've adopted the NRA as one of my personal -- I think, I'm trying to think. It is the only charity that I will give a large sum of money to that is a private charity, that is outside of my church or whatever. You know I've said -- what did you say, Stu? Huntsman Cancer, I have given, I have given a lot of money to the Huntsman Cancer Center. I'm willing to -- I believe in the Second Amendment so much and I believe it is so critical to our survival. It is the last line of defense, the Second Amendment, and I believe this organization absolutely believes in it full fledge and I will, ever time, give an extraordinary sum of money to the NRA.

STU: This is the only issue-related charity I would say that you --

GLENN: Yeah, the Huntsman Cancer Center I've given a lot of money to and will continue to give a lot of money to because I trust them. You know what I mean? And I believe in what they're doing. But I'm trying to think of the -- I don't think I've ever joined a group except my church. I've never joined a group.

STU: Hostess fan club.

GLENN: What did you say?

STU: The Hostess fan club.

GLENN: That's not really group. That is more of a church.

STU: I'm sorry.

GLENN: All right. Jon McCain is Second Amendment and that is one reason why I would. That one could be "Push me over the top" because Obama is a nightmare for guns. Let's see what happens with the Supreme Court. And then I got down to, well, I've got the war in Iraq. He's absolutely right on that one.

Do we have the audio of Barack Obama? Listen how wrong Barack Obama is on the war. Now we have some distance. And remember when the surge, "Oh, everybody was against the surge. John McCain was alone on the surge, you know what, except for Condoleezza Rice. I think he should go for Condoleezza Rice. Do we know anything about Condoleezza Rice's politics?

STU: Well, she just -- the only thing you ever hear about Condoleezza Rice running for vice president is, I'm not running for vice president, forget it. That's what she says over and over and over and over again. Now, I don't know. A lot of politicians say that, but I believe her. She's been very specific. She's been talking about plans that she's going to do as soon as she gets out of this job. She's over -- it's not happening.

GLENN: She would be great. She would be great. I mean, assuming that her politics are stable. It's the kind of -- you know, it's the kind of thing with Colin Powell. Colin Powell was great but then you start looking at his politics and you're like, I don't know about that. But besides Condoleezza Rice, it was John McCain on the surge.

Here's what Obama said about the surge. And when was this from?

DAN: I believe it was January of '07.

GLENN: January of '07. Listen to what he -- just listen how wrong he was.

SENATOR OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

GLENN: Holy cow. Really? Then you're talking to the wrong advisors. I mean, once again that shows not only how wrong he was on the war or on the surge but that he's surrounding himself with advisors that don't get it. You didn't talk to a single person that thinks that this would make a difference, not one? Wow, I don't trust his advisors, I don't trust his spiritual advisors, I don't trust his military advisors. John McCain gets that.

Okay. So we have pro life, but what difference does that make at this point. The judges, but what difference is that going to make with the Senate? I'm just -- Stu, I'm just playing -- this is -- may I just be me, the way I think?

STU: You can be you, but you being you is screwing up the whole concept of this. You're making excuses. Well, yes. I mean, pro life, are they going to overturn -- is he going to single-handedly overturn --

GLENN: What I'm doing here is -- what I'm doing here is asking for a pros and con list, convince me that I should vote for this guy. I don't think I should vote for this guy. I've never been a vote for this person because, at least he's not this person. I believe vote for something, not against something. I want to be for something. You know, this is what we talked about last night. We started rehearsing for the stage show that's in Atlanta and we changed the second half because the second half was really almost a parody of everything you've seen and I decided last night it's not going to be. It will have some comedy stuff in it, but I want you to finally hear the things that you've been dying to hear. I want you to finally -- I think everybody feels so alone. You know what the answers are. You know. You're questioning now why you're even a conservative. Because you don't even know what it stands for anymore. Because you have no example of what a conservative is. You, your friends. Nobody's articulating it. I want to be for something. And I don't have anybody I can be for. You don't win elections in America being against. You win for being for something. So convince me to be for him. So you got the Iraq -- you've got the -- he's not afraid to use force. In this climate he will use force. He's not going to be bullied around or conned by Ahmadinejad. 

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?

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.