Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

FLASHBACK: Paul Ryan explains his conservative values to Glenn in April 2010

August 11, 2012
Wilson

Writer

This morning, Mitt Romney announced he had selected Paul Ryan to be his running mate in the Presidential election. Below is video and a transcript of their first radio conversation from April 2010.

GLENN: 888‑727‑BECK. One name that I hear an awful lot about and, you know, it’s strange. I’m getting a lot of heat now from this article that was in Forbes magazine called Beck, Inc. It was on the cover. I think it’s ought on newsstands today, the cover. And it starts with the opening line of, I could give a flying crap about politics. I care about principles. I don’t care about the process at all. And there’s a followup story in Forbes now on that because so many people misunderstood it. Or they are using it to smear me. I don’t follow the people day to day in Washington, but when I hear names over and over again, I look into them. Paul Ryan is a name I keep hearing of just, you know, he’s a god among conservatives. So I asked Stu, I don’t know, about a week ago. I said, Stu, can you look into Paul Ryan, found out what you can about him. He found a speech that I read to you or portions of that he gave in Oklahoma, and it appeared to me that he was standing up for progressivism which doesn’t really sit well with me. We heard from Paul Ryan’s office as soon as the show was over and they said, no, you’ve got that all wrong. If I get it wrong, I don’t care what political party it’s in; I will correct the record. Heritage.org has corrected the record today and the guy who wrote the article is a guy who I know hates progressives because he’s one of our researchers on the progressive movement. And the best guy to do it is Paul Ryan. So he joins us now. Hello, congressman, how are you, sir?

PAUL RYAN: Hey, nice to meet you.

GLENN: Nice to meet you, sir. Tell me, tell me your thoughts on progressivism.

PAUL RYAN: Right. What I have been trying to do, and if you read the entire Oklahoma speech or read my speech to Hillsdale College that they put in there on Primus Magazine, you can get them on my Facebook page, what I’ve been trying to do is indict the entire vision of progressivism because I see progressivism as the source, the intellectual source for the big government problems that are plaguing us today and so to me it’s really important to flush progressives out into the field of open debate.

GLENN: I love you.

PAUL RYAN: So people can actually see what this ideology means and where it’s going to lead us and how it attacks the American idea.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. I ‑‑ did you see my speech at CPAC?

PAUL RYAN: I’ve read it. I didn’t see it. I’ve read it, a transcript of it.

GLENN: And I think we’re saying the same thing. I call it ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: We are saying the same thing.

GLENN: It’s a cancer.

PAUL RYAN: Exactly. Look, I come from ‑‑ I’m calling you from Janesville, Wisconsin where I’m born and raised.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAUL RYAN: Where we raise our family, 35 miles from Madison. I grew up hearing about this stuff. This stuff came from these German intellectuals to Madison‑University of Wisconsin and sort of out there from the beginning of the last century. So this is something we are familiar with where I come from. It never sat right with me. And as I grew up, I learned more about the founders and reading the Austrians and others that this is really a cancer because it basically takes the notion that our rights come from God and nature and turns it on its head and says, no, no, no, no, no, they come from government, and we here in government are here to give you your rights and therefore ration, redistribute and regulate your rights. It’s a complete affront of the whole idea of this country and that is to me what we as conservatives, or classical liberals if you want to get technical.

GLENN: Thank you.

PAUL RYAN: ‑‑ ought to be doing to flush this out. So what I was simply tying to do in that speech was simply saying those first versions, those first progressives, they tried to use populism and popular ideas as a means to getting ‑‑ detaching people from the Constitution and founding principles to pave the way for the centralized bureaucratic welfare state.

GLENN: Okay. So you and I have ‑‑ wait, wait, hang on just a second. You and I agree because ‑‑ the way it was worded.

PAUL RYAN: Yeah.

GLENN: It sounded like you thought that Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and their progressivism was good and that’s ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: Yeah. There was one blog which I think you cited that completely misinterpreted my remarks.

GLENN: Thank you.

PAUL RYAN: All the other blogs that wrote about my speech I think got it accurately. What I probably should have done was added a couple more sentences. I cut the thing back for time.

GLENN: No, no, that’s fine.

PAUL RYAN: I should have just added a couple more sentences. What I was basically saying is the progressives we have now who are the people we have run our government, they don’t even try to do that. They don’t even try to pretend to be advancing a popular agenda. They try to cram through their agenda as fast as they can while they have the power that they have in order to get this stuff in place. So that is basically what I was saying is the kinds of progressives we have today, you know, aren’t even pretending to do what people want for the country.

GLENN: Paul, how is it that you and I have never met?

PAUL RYAN: You know, I don’t ‑‑ it’s a really good question. You don’t go to Washington much, do you?

GLENN: No, I avoid it like the plague.

PAUL RYAN: I go to Washington and Wisconsin every week and I don’t really go anywhere in between, except for Oklahoma where my in‑laws live.

GLENN: Do you watch or ever listen to the show? Are you familiar with what I’ve been saying?

PAUL RYAN: I’m familiar with it but you are on at a time of day that I just can’t get to a television. You are on too early. So I just haven’t had a chance to watch. I’ve watched you on O’Reilly and you’ve been replayed on Greta. So obviously I’m familiar with you.

GLENN: I’m just ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: And I know you’ve been going after progressivism which is exactly what I’ve been trying to do as well.

GLENN: I mean, I’m just surprised that, I mean because it sounds like you’re on exactly the same ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: Yes.

GLENN: ‑‑ road that I’m on, and I have been feeling, and I imagine you are, too, feeling wildly alone on this because most people don’t even understand progressivism.

PAUL RYAN: Right.

GLENN: So many dopes out in America are just like, yeah, well, I’m for progress.

PAUL RYAN: That’s right.

GLENN: Jeez, it’s not about progress. It’s not even about the Constitution. I just gave a talk this weekend where we were talking about, you know, we’re fundamental ‑‑ the president of the United States is saying we’re going to fundamentally transform the country.

PAUL RYAN: Right.

GLENN: Into what? We’re going to make progress to where?

PAUL RYAN: Right.

GLENN: What are we progressing to?

PAUL RYAN: If you read the entire Oklahoma speech, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. That’s what I’m saying, here’s what this means ‑‑

GLENN: My fault, my fault.

PAUL RYAN: They are leading us to a social welfare state, cradle‑to‑grave society where they create a culture of dependency on the government, not on oneself. It is meant to replace the American idea. And the reason I’m doing a lot of these speeches ‑‑ the reason I’m talking about Hegel and Faber and Bismarck, you know, and what those people stood for and what they did and said and all their disciples, you know, in America is because I really believe we’ve got to have a debate and a political realignment fast because we will win the debate now. We are a center‑right country. But if they succeed in moving us faster down the tipping point where more Americans are dependent on the government than upon themselves, where a debt crisis sparked money entitlement explosion brings us to, you know, a really tough fiscal situation, then down the road we may not win that referendum and so that is why I’m trying to, you know, do what I can from my position in congress to sound the alarm bells on what this agenda really means, what this philosophy’s all about and how we need to have a referendum in America in real elections to untangle this mess they created and prevent us from reaching this tipping point where we are a social welfare state, cradle‑to‑grave society, dependent on the government that lulls us into lies of complicity and dependency versus the America idea of, you know, making the most of your life, equal opportunity, equal natural rights. You know, those are the things that got us where we are and that’s why I put this roadmap plan out there. I introduced it three years ago. I put a new version out in January. You can go to my website, Americanroadmap.org. It is a very specific economic and fiscal plan. It’s a piece of legislation that says there is an alternative to this progressivist vision for America. There is a way to reapply and reclaim the founding principles in America and still get America back and make this century another American Century appeared that’s why I’ve been, you know, speaking from the hilltop. It’s not popular and it’s ‑‑ and for my party, we can’t afford to screw up again. But we’ve got to get people to stop being worried or afraid of taking on this debate and that’s what I’m simply trying to do.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I mean, I don’t think I’ve heard a politician, really, I’m looking at my producers. Have we had a politician on this show since when, when we first met Santorum maybe, maybe. DeMint is really, really good but I don’t know anybody, not even Santorum, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody ‑‑ I need to find out more about you, Paul. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody ‑‑

PAT: Nobody’s articulated progressivism like that.

GLENN: ‑‑that is articulating the problem in this country and knows what the root is like you have.

PAUL RYAN: Look, I grew up in the orbit of Madison, Wisconsin. I know who these people are, I know what they think, I know what they believe. And so I would just encourage you, go to my roadmap website, read the roadmap.

GLENN: Give me the website.

PAUL RYAN: Americanroadmap.org. Read the full text of the Oklahoma speech, read my in Primus Hillsdale speech on progressivism and healthcare. Those three things right there, I mean, I could go on and on but those three things tell you what I’ve been trying to lay out and do just from my perch, you know, in congress.

GLENN: Paul, tonight and for the next five nights I am going to be softening the ground. I am laying out an idea of cutting the budget, doing what we did in 1920 after the first progressive ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: Yeah, Calvin Coolidge, sure.

GLENN: And I’m going to cut the ‑‑ show America that the budget can be cut by 50%. It’s going to cause pain, but it has to. It has to be cut or we die. And show a way that we can reduce taxes to be ‑‑ do what Georgia did to Russia. Just keep lowering the taxes.

PAUL RYAN: Right.

GLENN: So they could survive. We need to do that. And I’m telling you that it’s ‑‑ I’ve been telling the audience it’s going to be wildly unpopular. You are going to hate me by the end of the week because everybody will experience pain. But man, I’ve got to tell ya, I’m not running for anything. If you can get people in Washington to actually stand up and say, I mean, I’ll soften the ground and show people why it has to be cut, but we’ve got to cut this and we need somebody with a spine in Washington that will stand up. I’m ‑‑ boy, I hope I don’t find out ‑‑ you are not like a dirt bag, are you?

PAUL RYAN: Yeah, right.

GLENN: I just don’t want to find out, oh, jeez.

PAUL RYAN: Look, I ‑‑

GLENN: You don’t know Eliot Spitzer ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: No.

GLENN: Or anything like that, right?

PAUL RYAN: I’m not running for president. I’m not trying to be somebody else. I’m not trying to be somebody I’m not. I’m not running for president. I’m a ranking member of the budget committee. You know, my background is in economics. That’s my aptitude. If you read my roadmap, it is basically a plan that lays out how to relimit government, how to turn these entitlements into individual ownership programs where you are not dependent on the government for all these things, where you are more independent. And how you can basically reclaim the 21st century for the American idea instead of ‑‑ and we are very quickly approaching this tipping point in this country.

GLENN: I know.

CALLER: Where I mean, 60% of our fellow citizens right now get more benefits from the federal government in dollar value than they pay back in taxes. So we’re already very quickly going down this path. Throw healthcare on top and then cap and trade and implement this Obama budget and you are way down that path.

GLENN: Well, we won’t survive that.

PAUL RYAN: So and that’s what I lay out on my roadmap. I show you using Congressional Budget Office numbers just how we are going to implode. We have an economic implosion on the horizon. Everybody knows this but nobody’s doing anything about it. And that’s why I’ve decided to put this plan out there ‑‑

GLENN: God bless you.

PAUL RYAN: ‑‑ that has been certified by the CBO as doing what I say it does.

GLENN: Okay.

PAUL RYAN: So I encourage you to take a look at it.

GLENN: I will. Paul, and I would like to stay in touch with you. I appreciate your correcting my error and I apologize for that.

PAUL RYAN: Look, that one blog really misinterpreted what I was trying to say and you know, as you just mentioned in your lead‑in, you get misinterpreted sometimes.

GLENN: Well, I’m glad we’ve cleared it up and we’ll stay in touch. Paul Ryan, thank you very much, sir.

PAUL RYAN: Sounds good.

GLENN: Appreciate it. You bet. Bye‑bye. Oh, my gosh.

PAT: You weren’t already married, I think you would have proposed to him.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: I think you would have proposed to him then. I saw the look in your eye.

GLENN: You know what it is? You know what it is? Hope, why, because someone knows the truth and knows how to articulate it.

PAT: He really does and did. That was really good.

GLENN: Let me ask you something. Let me ask you something. I said that my time would be done when I found somebody else that would articulate it.

PAT: I think you are in the clear.

GLENN: Can I go home now? Can I go home?

3 BIGGEST lies about Trump's plans for deportations

Rebecca Noble / Stringer | Getty Images

To the right, Trump's deportation plans seem like a reasonable step to secure the border. For the left, mass deportation represents an existential threat to democracy.

However, the left's main arguments against Trump's deportation plans are not only based on racially problematic lies and fabrications — they are outright hypocritical.

Here are the three BIGGEST lies about Trump's deportation plans:

1. Past Deportations

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The left acts like Donald Trump is the first president in history to oversee mass deportations, but nothing could be further from the truth. Deportations have been a crucial tool for enforcing immigration laws and securing the country from the beginning, and until recently, it was a fairly bipartisan issue.

Democrat superstar President Obama holds the record for most deportations during his tenure in office, clocking in at a whopping 3,066,457 people over his eight years in office. This compares to the 551,449 people removed during Trump's first term. Obama isn't an anomaly either, President Clinton deported 865,646 people during his eight years, still toping Trump's numbers by a considerable margin.

The left's sudden aversion to deportations is clearly reactionary propaganda aimed at villainizing Trump.

2. Exploitative Labor

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

Commentators on the left have insinuated that President Trump's deportation plan would endanger the agricultural industry due to the large portion of agricultural workers in the U.S. who are illegal aliens. If they are deported, food prices will skyrocket.

What the left is conveniently forgetting is the reason why many businesses choose to hire illegal immigrants (here's a hint: it's not because legal Americans aren't willing to do the work). It's because it is way easier to exploit people who are here illegally. Farmowners don't have to pay taxes on illegal aliens, pay minimum wage, offer benefits, sign contracts, or do any of the other typical requirements that protect the rights of the worker.

The left has shown their hand. This was never about some high-minded ideals of "diversity" and "inclusion." It's about cheap, expendable labor and a captive voter base to bolster their party in elections.

3."Undesirable" Jobs

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Another common talking point amid the left-wing anti-Trump hysteria is that illegal aliens take "undesirable" jobs that Americans will not do. The argument is that these people fill the "bottom tier" in the U.S. economy, jobs they consider "unfit" for American citizens.

By their logic, we should allow hordes of undocumented, unvetted immigrants into the country so they can work the jobs that the out-of-touch liberal talking heads consider beneath them. It's no wonder why they lost the election.

Did the Left lay the foundations for election denial?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Did Glenn predict the future?

Just a few days after the election and President Trump's historic victory, the New York Times published a noteworthy article titled "How Russia Openly Escalated Its Election Interference Efforts," in which they made some interesting suggestions. They brought up several examples of Russian election interference (stop me if you think you've heard this one before) that favored Trump. From there, they delicately approached the "election denial zone" with the following statement:

"What impact Russia’s information campaign had on the outcome of this year’s race, if any, remains uncertain"

Is anyone else getting 2016 flashbacks?

It doesn't end there. About two weeks before the election (October 23rd), Glenn and Justin Haskins, the co-author of Glenn's new book, Propaganda Wars, discuss a frightening pattern they were observing in the news cycle at the time, and it bears a striking similarity to this New York Times piece. To gain a full appreciation of this situation, let's go back to two weeks before the election when Glenn and Justin laid out this scene:

Bad Eggs in the Intelligence Community

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This story begins with a top-secret military intelligence leak. Over the October 19th weekend, someone within the U.S. Government's intelligence agencies leaked classified information regarding the Israeli military and their upcoming plans to Iran. The man responsible for this leak, Asif William Rahman, a CIA official with top security clearance, was arrested on Tuesday, November 12th.

Rahman is one of the known "bad eggs" within our intelligence community. Glenn and Justin highlighted another, a man named Robert Malley. Malley is an Iranian envoy who works at the State Department under the Biden/Harris administration and is under investigation by the FBI for mishandling classified information. While Malley was quietly placed on leave in June, he has yet to be fired and still holds security clearance.

Another suspicious figure is Ariane Tabatabai, a former aide of Mr. Malley and a confirmed Iranian agent. According to a leak by Semafor, Tabatabai was revealed to be a willing participant in an Iranian covert influence campaign run by Tehran's Foreign Ministry. Despite this shocking revelation that an Iranian agent was in the Pentagon with access to top-secret information, Tabatabai has not faced any charges or inquires, nor has she been stripped of her job or clearance.

If these are the bad actors we know about, imagine how many are unknown to the public or are flying under the radar. In short, our intelligence agencies are full of people whose goals do not align with American security.

Conspicuous Russian Misinformation

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The story continues with a video of a man accusing former VP candidate and Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz of sexual assault. The man alleged to be Matthew Metro, a former student of Walz claimed that he was assaulted by the Governor while in High School. The man in the video gave corroborating details that made the claim seem credible on the surface, and it quickly spread across the internet. But after some deeper investigation, it was revealed this man wasnot Matthew Metro and that the entire video was fake. This caught the attention of the Security Director of National Intelligence who claimed the video was a Russian hoax designed to wound the Harris/Walz campaign, and the rest of the intelligence community quickly agreed.

In the same vein, the State Department put out a $10 million bountyto find the identity of the head of the Russian-owned media company Rybar. According to the State Department, Rybar manages several social media channels that promote Russian governmental political interests targeted at Trump supporters. The content Rybar posts is directed into pro-Trump, and pro-Republican channels, and the content apparently has a pro-Trump spin, alongside its pro-Russia objectives.

Why Does the Intelligence Community Care?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

So what's the deal? Yes, Russia was trying to interfere with the election, but this is a well-known issue that has unfortunately become commonplace in our recent elections.

The real concern is the intelligence community's uncharacteristically enthusiastic and fast response. Where was this response in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and the Democrats spent months lying about Donald Trump's "collusion" with Russia? It has since been proven that the FIB knew the entire story was a Clinton campaign fabrication, and they not only kept quiet about it, but they even played along. Or what about in 2020 when the Left tried to shut down the Hunter Biden laptop story for months by calling it a Russian hoax, only for it to turn out to be true?

Between all the bad actors in the intelligence community and their demonstrated repeated trustworthiness, this sudden concern with "Russian disinformation" that happened to support Trump was just too convenient.

Laying the Foundations for Election Denial

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

This is when Glenn and Justin make a startling prediction: the Left was preparing for a potential Trump victory (remember, this was two weeks before the election) so they would have something to delegitimize him with. They were painting Trump as Putin's lapdog who was receiving election assistance in the form of misinformation from the Kremlin by sounding the alarm on these cherry-picked (and in the grand scheme of things, tame) examples of Russian propaganda. They were laying the foundation of the Left's effort to resist and delegitimize a President-elect Trump.

Glenn and Justin had no idea how right they were.

Trump's POWERFUL 10-point plan to TEAR DOWN the Deep State

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Since 2016 President Trump has promised to drain the swamp, but with Trump's new ten-point plan, do we finally have a solid roadmap to dismantle the deep state?

In March 2023, President Trump released a video detailing his plan to shatter the deep state. Now that he is the President-Elect, this plan is slated to launch in January 2025. Recently, Glenn reviewed Trump's plan and was optimistic about what he saw. In fact, he couldn't see how anyone could be against it (not that anything will stop the mainstream media from spinning it in a negative light).

But don't let Glenn tell you what to think! Check out Trump's FULL plan below:

1. Remove rouge bureaucrats

U.S. Air Force / Handout | Getty Images

Trump's first order of business will be to restore an executive order he issued in 2020 that allowed him to remove rouge bureaucrats. Trump promises to use this power aggressively eliminate corruption.

2. Clean and overhaul the intelligence apparatus

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Next, Trump promises to oust corrupt individuals from the national intelligence apparatus. This includes federal bureaucracies like the CIA, NSA, and other agencies that have been weaponized against the left's political opponents.

3. Reform FISA courts 

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump's next promise is to reform the FISA courts, which are courts tasked with reviewing and approving requests to gather foreign intelligence, typically through surveillance. These courts have been unaccountable to protections like the 4th Amendment that prohibits the government from unwarranted surveillance, resulting in severe government overreach on American citizens, both on US soil and abroad.

4. Expose the deep state. 

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Trump want to establish a "Truth and Reconciliation" commission that will be tasked with unmasking the deep state. This will be accomplished by publishing and declassifying all documents on deep state spying, corruption, and censorship.

5. Crackdown on government-media collusion

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Next, Trump will crack down on government "leakers" who collaborate with the mainstream media to spread misinformation. These collaborators purposefully interject false narratives that derail the democratic process within the country. The plan will also prohibit government actors from pressuring social media to censor content that goes against a particular political narrative, as was done, for example, in the case of the Biden administration pressuring Facebook to crack down on Hunter Biden laptop-related content.

6. Isolate inspector generals

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump promises to physically separate every inspector general from the department they are tasked with overseeing. This way, they don't become entangled with the department and end up protecting them instead of scrutinizing them.

7. Create a system to monitor the intelligence agencies

SAUL LOEB / Stringer | Getty Images

To ensure that the intelligence agencies are no longer spying on American citizens, Trump proposed to create an independent auditing system. This auditing system, created by Congress, would keep the intelligence agencies in check from spying on American citizens or political campaigns as they did on Trump's campaign.

8. Relocate the federal bureaucracy

SAUL LOEB / Staff | Getty Images

Relocating the federal bureaucracy, Trump argues, will keep the internal politics of the individual bureaucracies out of the influence of DC. He says he will begin by relocating the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado.

9. Ban federal bureaucrats from taking corporate jobs

J. David Ake / Contributor | Getty Images

To keep money ties out of politics, Trump proposes that federal bureaucrats should be banned from working at the companies that they are regulating. American taxpayer dollars should not go to agencies run by bureaucrats who cut special deals for corporations, who will later offer them a cushy role and a huge paycheck.

10. Push for congressional term limits

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Finally, Trump wants to make a constitutional amendment placing term limits on members of Congress. This proposal has been popular on both sides of the political aisle for a while, preventing members of Congress from becoming swamp creatures like Nancy Pelosi who was just re-elected for her 19th term.

The Democrats are turning on Biden

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

The election is over, Kamala Harris has officially conceded, and now the Democrats are doing some serious soul-searching.

After reflecting long and hard (approximately 24 hours), the Democrats have discovered the real reason Harris lost the election. Was it Trump's excellent campaign that resonated with voters? Was it Harris's off-putting personality? Or was it her failure to distinguish herself from the Biden administration's failed policies?

No, it was Joe Biden. All the blame lies on President Biden's shoulders. The Left sees no need to take any real responsibility for the landslide defeat the Democrats suffered earlier this week; just pass the blame on to 'ole Joe.

Here are the leading excuses the Left is spinning up to explain Harris's crushing defeat:

"Biden should have dropped out sooner."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is the crux of the left-wing media's argument against Biden. They claim that if Joe Biden had dropped out earlier, Harris would have had more time to campaign and would not have had to carry around the baggage of Biden's abysmal debate performance. This could make sense, but what these commentators are conveniently forgetting are the years of propaganda these very same people promoted arguing that Biden's declining mental acuity was nothing more than a right-wing conspiracy theory. If Biden had been as sharp as they had told us, why would he have dropped out?

Also, if a lack of time was Harris's biggest issue this election, she sure didn't act like it. She was practically in hiding for the first several weeks of her campaign and she took plenty of days off, including during the last few crucial weeks. More time wouldn't have helped her case.

"Harris failed to distance herself from Biden."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is media gaslighting at its finest. Yes, Harris failed to distance herself from Biden. However, that's because she, along with the rest of the Left, publically went on record defending Biden's policies and his mental acuity. By the time Harris became the nominee, she had already said too much in favor of Biden. Don't forget Harris's infamous “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” quote after being asked on The View if she would do anything differently than Biden. In a way, Harris couldn't separate herself from Biden without drawing attention to the greatest flaw in her campaign: if she knew how to fix the country, why hasn't she?

"Harris did the best anyone could have done in that situation."

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

But did she really? As mentioned earlier, she was noticeably absent for much of the campaign. While Trump was busy jumping into interviews, events, and rallies non-stop, Harris was MIA. Whenever Harris did manage to make an appearance, it almost always did more harm than good by highlighting her lack of a robust policy platform and her inability to string together a coherent sentence. Notable examples include her aforementioned appearance on The View and her disastrous interview on Fox News with Bret Baier. The point is, even considering the limited time to campaign she had, Kamala Harris wasnot the best person for the job and there are undoubtedly many other Democrats who would have run a much more successful campaign.