Did Dick Morris really deliberately mislead voters on the potential Romney victory?

I was wrong about the election big‑time, big‑time wrong about the election. I'm always wrong on politics. You shouldn't listen to me on politics.  I don't get it. Quite honestly that's Rush's bag, that's Sean's bag. I can't tell you what to do on politics. I don't know why. I always feel good about my predictions and they're always wrong. And as I said last hour, I know about as much on politics as I do on salads. Not a lot. However, revolutionaries and things that are over the horizon I'm pretty darn good on. Knowing dirtbags, pretty good. I'm a trusting guy, believe it or not. I generally look for the good in people and that's what I generally see first, the good in people. And then I'm disappointed.

I want to talk to you about the truth and if it even matters in America anymore. For a lot of people it doesn't matter. They will say it matters but they don't want to look into it. They've lost their ability to think critically and to weigh things themselves. They will just be spoon‑fed something. That's the thing that anybody who's ‑‑ you know, I would like to invite members of the media to go ahead and do my job for a day. You do talk radio. I don't ‑‑ television, please. Television you sit in a big empty box by yourself surrounded by people who are producers who may agree or disagree with you but that's pretty much it. Talk radio, you have to face the music. Talk radio you're one on one: I'm talking to you, you're talking to me. You call me, write me, and I have to face the music. And I have to do it for three hours a day and I have to defend myself for three hours a day. I have to talk off the top of my head. I'm not reading a TelePrompTer. I'm telling you what I think. It's, this is the hardest job in all of media. Bar none. Quite honestly if I wanted to make my life a lot easier, I would quit radio. Because this is the hardest job. And I believe this is the hardest job not just that I do but in all of media. It's very difficult.

And the reason why it's difficult is because you cannot lie for three hours a day. You are who you are. And people see it. People see it. But you can lie in sound bites. But do people care about the truth? Or are we just spoon‑fed things?

For instance, do I just spoon‑feed you your opinions? If I do, please don't ever call yourself a fan of mine. I want you to think for yourself. I want you to see what I see and then say, "Well, I agree with that or I "I disagree with that" or "I don't know if that's even true. That can't be true." And you go and you research it yourself.

When I miss, I miss honestly. Now, I want you to listen to this whole monologue because I want you to understand what I'm saying about Dick Morris. Dick Morris as you probably know, he predicted pretty much the same thing that I predicted, but he was wrong. I was wrong. But I was wrong, and I believed it.

Last night I read a story on Politico that when Morris was asked about this, he told, he told the truth about why he predicted a Romney landslide. And I read it yesterday afternoon on the way home and I was ‑‑ it was disturbing. Stu and I were on the phone immediately, look at this. Look at this. And I gave him a long list of things that I said, I have to ‑‑ we have to talk to the American people about this. Moore said according to Politico that he only predicted a landslide because he wanted to help Romney.

There was a period of time when the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was a chance of victory, and I felt that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said... - Dick Morris

Got it?  That's shocking.  He thought it was his duty to go out and say what he said because people didn't believe that Romney could win.  I'm reading the story from Politico and I cannot believe it.  He just wanted to help Romney?  It's one thing to be wrong.  It's another thing to knowingly lie to your audience.  It's another thing ‑‑ that is the opposite of TheBlaze.  The truth has no agenda.  I thought it was my duty to say these things.  Stay with me to the end of this monologue.

Now this is not the first time that I've seen major media figures admit that they will not tell the truth to their own audiences. I was told by a very well known and respected financial expert that he would not talk to me about financial collapse because, quote, it would make it more likely, even though he believed much of the stuff that I said was going to happen, he said we had a responsibility to never have that conversation on the air. I said, well, what happens if it does? You're telling people that it's okay, that everything's going to be all right, they won't be prepared. "Yes, but if we have that conversation, because we have credibility, then it's more likely that it will happen." Well, what are you talking about? Are you preparing? Are you bat nipping down the hatches? Are you being more cautious? Well, of course. Oh, but you want to go on the air and tell everybody, don't worry. We've seen this before.

I had another executive tell me that despite the fact that we all knew that what I was saying was true, quote: We have a responsibility to not tell the American people the truth. A responsibility to not tell the truth? Man, I'm ‑‑ I'm sorry. I seem to recall, I was told by somebody else that I have a responsibility to not lie. How was that worded to me? I think it was ‑‑ oh, yeah. Quote: Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not lie. I don't care how big of an executive you are. I can guarantee the guy who wrote those ten safety tips has a bigger title than you do. Another big media mogul said to me, "Glenn, please. Let's stop playing this game. We both love the Constitution but we both know that sometimes you have to do what you have to do, end quote. No. What you have to do at all times is tell the truth. Trust your audience. Trust the American people to have some intelligence. Stop treating them like imbiciles because you're creating imbiciles. And loving the Constitution means always working to strengthen and honor the Constitution. Look, we all honor our marriage certificate, but sometimes guys do what they have to do. It strengthens the marriage." No, it doesn't.

So when I'm ‑‑ I'm thinking about all these things when I'm first reading the Politico. The latest example from Dick Morris, I read that quote and I thought to myself, "We're all wrong sometimes," and I can handle him being wrong. But what he's telling me here is that he knowingly lied to make me feel better and to help Romney. Thank God this guy's not an oncologist. We'd all be dead of cancer. We cannot tolerate this anymore. We must be able to trust the news, which brings me to my last point. Where I really stand on Dick Morris.

Again, here's the clip from Politico that we played a minute ago.

There was a period of time when the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was a chance of victory.  And I felt that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said. 

That's what the Politico ran.  But listen to what the Politico didn't run immediately before and immediately after when we started to do our homework, we didn't take it from the Politico, just like you shouldn't take it just from me.  You should go back and look because apparently you can't trust anybody.  Listen to what Dick Morris actually said.

I called it as I saw it from the polling, and I did the best I could - and I also worked very hard for Romney. ... I spoke about what I believed, and I think that there was a period of time when the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was a chance of victory. And I felt that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said. And at the time that I said it, I believe I was right. - Dick Morris, full quote

And at the time I said it, I believed I was right. There is no scandal here. Dick Morris is not lying to you. Dick Morris does not need, nor probably does he want me depending him. But what Politico did is absolutely inexcusable. You didn't have to take homework, you didn't have to stitch three speeches together. He said it before and he said it immediately after. You had to intentionally go in and try to -  you literally razor blade everything else out. You had to go in and tightly edit to be able to make him sound like he was saying something he wasn't saying.

Yesterday I called my business partner Chris Balfe who works for me and he runs ‑‑ he's my Roy Disney. He's the guy who is building the company. Walt had the ideas, but it was Roy that knew how to build the company. And I called him up and I said, how are you doing? He's up in New York. And he said, Glenn, I'm pushing the biggest damn rock up a hill I've ever tried to pull ‑‑ push. I said, we'll make it. He said, I know. What you've given me a task to do is you've said take a five‑year plan and collapse it to a one‑year plan. I don't know how to do that, Glenn. I know we could make it in five years and we're going to get to the end of this next year and we're going to say, damn it, we did it again. He said, but right now it's a heavy rock. I know. I know.

The reason why I've asked him to push that rock up, the reason why I've been asking you for your help and your tolerance and quite honestly the tolerance of talk radio stations is I believe this country is in real trouble and we're in trouble because the truth is not being reported. It's important. What you do every day is important. Your word is important. What you look into yourself is important.

You know there's a lot of ‑‑ there's a lot of program directors and a lot of people in the media and all over that think, "Oh, well, you know what? It's entertainment and we're here for ratings, we're here for money." The hell we are. The hell we are. If there isn't a reason for us to live at this time right now, if you don't understand what's happening to freedom right now, if you don't know what's happening in our country, "Oh, well, it's always been this way," I'm sorry. It hasn't been. I'm sorry. It hasn't been. Tonight I'm going to show you how it all ends. Tonight at 5:00 on TheBlaze I'll show you how it all ends and I'll show it to you with history in an episode you won't soon forget. 5:00 tonight.

We do these things because we believe in them. If you don't, that's fine. You can listen to us for the laughs or entertainment or whatever. That's fine. But we believe in it. And there are too many people in this industry that don't believe in it. They don't care. They're lazy, they're jaded. I don't know what it is. I'll just tell you this: TheBlaze wouldn't have half the success it's had so far if the media didn't hand‑deliver so many opportunities to show how easy it is to win when the truth is told. It's not that hard. The media is destroying itself and they are destroying our country and our children's future at the same time. You cannot exist as a free people if you cannot reason for yourself. You cannot exist as a free people if you don't know how to critically think. You cannot exist as a free people if you have a corrupt press. You cannot. It doesn't work.

The media is destroying itself on all fronts. It's on fire. But that's why this is called TheBlaze. It's a purifying fire. Stand in the flames of the truth. It will purify. And what is real will stand. What is not will burn itself out. We're happy to pick up the smoldering pieces and dust them off, after they've been purified and put them all back together. I know I'm wrong on politics. I'm not wrong on the direction of many things.

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

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picking up his torch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two turning points, decades apart

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

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

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

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

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

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

A time for courage

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Muhammad to Marx

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

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

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

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

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?