Glenn responds to The View debacle




Related Video


Glenn ambushed on 'The View'


GLENN: And so anyway, so I was just a little uncomfortable. I get home and I'm just sick as a dog. I'm running a fever. I get home. My wife tucks me in, we talk about the day, I tell my kids a story, I get up and I ride and I say, I just can't, I just can't go in to TV today or radio. I'm just, I'm too sick, but I'll honor the commitment to The View. Ooh, what a mistake that was . What a mistake that was.

STU: They seemed to be ‑‑ look, they seemed to have a warm reception for you.

GLENN: Yes, like hell?

STU: That is, that's a warm place.

GLENN: That's a very warm place.

STU: That's a very warm place. They seemed to not have, like, an agenda or anything. They didn't seem to ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, I didn't sense an agenda there, did you?

STU: They seemed to, like, want to let you get your side of the story out.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: They seemed to be open to anyone disagreeing.

GLENN: Liar! No, you know what? You know what, I will tell you this about Whoopi Goldberg. In the end Whoopi Goldberg came up to me and I said, you know, Whoopi, I was actually coming out to compliment you on what you said in the previous break. Because I don't remember what it was, and God forbid I misquote anybody on The View. But it was something along the lines of, you know, the Republicans and the Democrats, we just have to start telling the truth. We just all have to, you know, we have to put our differences aside. And I said, I was actually coming out to compliment you to say, you know, I couldn't believe that. That's great. That's going to ‑‑ and she said ‑‑ now see, again I don't know if I said that first or if she said what she said first.

STU: Uh‑oh.

GLENN: I don't want to mix up ‑‑

STU: Liar!

GLENN: ‑‑ who said something first. But she said, you know, I would just ‑‑ this is in the past. I would just appreciate it if you would call me, you know, in advance before you would say something about me. And I said, okay, sure. And she said because, you know, we could disagree with things but we can be friendly and we can be friends. And she was actually very, she was actually very nice afterwards. After my head was in the basket, she was very nice.

STU: This is after on national television she called you a lying sack of dog mess.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You would say this is the ‑‑

GLENN: Yes.

STU: This is afterwards.

GLENN: Uh‑huh, uh‑huh.

STU: There was that moment on television.

GLENN: She was very upset. I'm not sure ‑‑

STU: Then you're saying off air she was kind enough to say something like that.


More Proof?


Email records show Glenn wondering who would be on the train in the 'reserved seats'...


GLENN: Call me. Which I still don't have her number. So I don't know how to call her, but I'm sure people know how to call her people.

STU: Yes. In all honesty, you look at someone like a Whoopi Goldberg, she probably ‑‑ maybe she, you know, feels like, you know, you had a ‑‑ you met her on the train, it was nice and then she thinks you're trashing her for whatever reason.

GLENN: I think that's what it was. I think with Whoopi Goldberg, I think that it was that she thought maybe we had a nice moment.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, maybe.

STU: And then, you know, she sees this clip of you. She gets essentially like out of nowhere someone sends her a clip and you're talking about her.

GLENN: Right.

STU: I don't know what she thought exactly.

GLENN: I don't know what Whoopi Goldberg believes and I wasn't afforded the time to ask what exactly I was lying about or reply or defend myself or anything. But so I don't know exactly what her deal is. I told the TV staff, call her, invite her on the show. I'd love to talk to her on the show.

STU: But she seemed like a normal person afterwards, at least.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: Cool. That's good.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And you are not going to ruin Elisabeth for me, are you? Because you know I love her.

GLENN: Elisabeth, I don't know what the deal was with Elisabeth. She was very nice but she wasn't ‑‑ she wasn't helpful but she wasn't hurting at all.

STU: She wasn't allowed to talk.

GLENN: I think she was just ‑‑ I notice, I watched it last night and I noticed that she was ‑‑ it really was, it was the two ends, it was Whoopi and Barbara Walters.

STU: I saw Elisabeth a couple of times trying to say stuff.

DAN: What's she going to do? It was a he said/she said situation that she wasn't in.

GLENN: I'm not saying that she wasn't helpful intentionally. She was just ‑‑ but what is she going to do? She's not going to stop that train wreck. It was an absolute ‑‑ it was a setup. It was an ambush. I walked off the set and the producer ‑‑ and I'll tell you later, but the producer was getting an earful from Adam who I've never seen Adam ever upset. And my wife was giving an earful to somebody else as well. My wife wasn't even on the set. She was giving an earful to somebody else because Adam and my wife and Adam's wife were all there. And I walked off the ‑‑ because the green room is actually on ‑‑ this is enormous stage and so right behind the set of The View is the makeup room but it's not a separate room. It's, they're fake walls. And then right behind that is another fake living room kind of set and that is the green room. And everybody sits in the green room. And apparently Adam said the temperature dropped ‑‑ you know, he said it's like in the cartoons where you can just hear everything freeze and just, the ice go (crackling noises). He said, it got very cold and very, very quiet in the green room and at one point when I was walking out, Adam was at that walkout curtain. You know where the curtain is? He said, "I almost came out there myself." And I believed him. I've never seen him like that. I've never been treated more poorly than I was treated ever. And I've been treated poorly before. I'm used to going into places and being treated poorly.

STU: Yes, it's a hostile environment most times when you go on shows.

GLENN: Yes, yes. I mean, I have done hostile shows before. I've worked in hostile environments before. I have never been treated in a more unprofessional, 4‑year‑old sort of way than I was treated at The View. And I tried to be ‑‑ I tried to be very nice. I tried to be a gentleman. I don't believe in going on into somebody's house and peeing all over their furniture. I've had other people do that on my set. You don't do that.

STU: There was a point there I was ‑‑ I should have just whipped it out.

GLENN: I considered it. I considered it. I'm glad I didn't because I think ‑‑ I mean, well, I don't know. I don't have any intention of making enemies, but I'm not going to also hold my tongue. I will say what I believe. This is what I do.

You know, I mean, Barbara Walters, "So you call yourself an investigative journalist." No. Don't you ever do your own homework, Barbara? Don't you check your facts? No, I don't call myself an investigative journalist. I'm nothing of the kind.

STU: In fact, in five million interviews you can read that exact quote, that you are not a journalist.

GLENN: Right. And I'm not a journalist as a badge of honor quite frankly.

STU: Even more after that interview.

GLENN: I am a ‑‑ exactly right. I'm more of what Whoopi Goldberg does.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I'm a storyteller. I'm somebody who just kind of reflects on what happens in life. I tell you my point of view on what's going on.

STU: Right. And she tried to get ‑‑ like it's typical media self‑congratulations as she says to you, "Oh, you are not a journalist?"

GLENN: Don't use a voice on Barbara Walters.

STU: You're not a journalist?

GLENN: See, this isn't going to go well.

STU: And you say no. And she says, well, then you don't check any facts? No. See, people who aren't journalists care about the facts, too. In fact, as I've learned over the years, sometimes a lot more than the actual journalists.

GLENN: I wonder if the journalists like Barbara Walters called my office to check on my facts because I have four witnesses. No, no. No, she didn't. She didn't call to get my side of the story before she put me on national television and called me a liar.

STU: That's so... that's so ‑‑

GLENN: But it's not ‑‑ see, this isn't ‑‑ but you know what? It's okay for her not to check her facts but to the apparently for me. And I'm sorry, and I apologize. And Whoopi, I told her at the end, she said, you know, if you have a ‑‑ if something like this happens again ‑‑ and I'm thinking to myself, I don't think this is going to happen again. "But if something like this happens again," she said, "You just call me. Just call me." And I wanted to ‑‑

STU: That's a rational response.

GLENN: It is. And I wanted to say, "Okay, I don't have your number." And I didn't know ‑‑ I mean, it doesn't occur to me. These people who are in this ‑‑ I was thinking about it last night as, you know, Mary said, "My gosh, they just tore into..." Mary's my daughter, my 20‑year‑old. And I walked out of the room and I'm like, I've just been torn to shreds by a person that was in the movie "Ghost." You know what I mean?

STU: Jumping Jack Flash was much better.

DAN: Sister Act, too.

GLENN: No, but what I'm saying is these guys are ‑‑ they are in those circles. I don't consider myself in those circles. I don't call Whoopi Goldberg up. You don't even consider that.

STU: Just to follow Whoopi's logic here for a moment and again, you know, it's nice that she said something good to you off the air afterwards, after the interview but the ‑‑

GLENN: See, I think she was genuine. I could be wrong but I think she was genuine.

STU: I'm legitimately serious because at least you can have disagreements on the air about something, you can scream at each other. You get off the air and you are actually civil, I think that's respectable. But to follow her logic, she could have called you before putting you on the air and accusing you of a liar. You know, she says ‑‑

GLENN: Right, exactly right.

STU: She says call me next time. How about you call me? I'm the schlub here. You're the person who everybody knows.

GLENN: How about Barbara Walters? Barbara Walters. I don't even know if they were accusing me of lying about who walked up to whom first. This is how stupid and ridiculous this is.

STU: Oh, my god.

GLENN: I mean, this is national television time. The dollar is falling through the ground. You know, we're talking about Gitmo and torture and everything else. I would have rather talked about American Idol who, by the way, the producer asked me prior to who's going to win, and I got it right. But we could have, we could have talked about that. Instead we talk about a stupid train on who approached who first.

STU: I mean, and in all honesty, I mean, we can talk about how ridiculous it was the way they treated you, but there has never been a more pointless seven minutes of television.

GLENN: No. It was ridiculous.

STU: I'm talking you can include every Japanese game show and you'd still not come up with seven minutes of more pointless television.

GLENN: And you don't even speak Japanese, yeah.

STU: No. I still learn more. You are talking seven minutes about whether you properly characterized ‑‑

GLENN: Can I tell you something?

STU: ‑‑ the order of introductions on a train trip.

GLENN: Here's the thing. And you know, I don't really even ‑‑ I don't care because Barbara Walters made it very clear that I was not to make fun of her.

STU: What did she say? Did she say that?

GLENN: Stop.

STU: But I wanted to ‑‑

GLENN: Stop. So I'm not making fun ‑‑ so I'm not going to make fun of her. Look, she is a woman who accomplished an awful lot in her life, in the many, many, many storied years of her life. She has accomplished an awful lot. She broke ground for women way, way, way, way back.

STU: Yep, especially the wife of a particular senator she ‑‑

GLENN: So I'm not going to make fun of her. I am going to say this. I did have the feeling she was Norma Desmond. Now, if you don't know who Norma Desmond is, just remember this one line: I'm ready for my close‑up, Mr. DeMille. It was almost ‑‑ because it was creepy. It was creepy. She was extraordinarily hostile. When she asked me ‑‑ and we'll play this back. She was doing a stare‑down. Like she was like 8 years old. She was doing a stare‑down with me. And I thought to myself, what are you doing. And I felt, I actually ‑‑ in the end I feel bad because I feel like she ‑‑ maybe is she sensing that she's ‑‑ you know, I felt like Jerry Seinfeld: Do you even know who I am? You know what I mean? You know that moment with Larry King where you're like, hmmm, wow, are you ‑‑ hello?

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.