Will Cain, S.E. Cupp talk brokered convention and the GOP race

March 14, 2012

Writer

What would a brokered convention look like? And why does it favor Santorum and even Gingrich, but not Mitt Romney? Will Cain and S.E. Cupp joined Glenn on radio today to discuss the increasingly likely outcome to the GOP nomination race.

Full Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: You know, let me bring on Will and S. E. I mean, you see the people that have our point of view over at CNN. They are all dead inside, aren't they?

CAIN: No comment.

GLENN: Well, S. E. ‑‑

CAIN: At the promised land this morning.

GLENN: You were at the promised land this morning?

CAIN: No, you're in the promised land ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, we are.

CAIN: This morning. You're down there in God's country every day. I'm still up here.

GLENN: I'm telling you, come on down here. We have studios here. Just a lot more people that make sense down here. Is S. E. On the phone?

CUPP: I'm here, boss.

GLENN: Hi, how are you doing, S. E.?

CUPP: I'm great. How are you?

GLENN: Good. Now everybody at MSNBC, there's not even a ‑‑ there's not even a moderate conservative over there, is there?

CUPP: I mean, it's not an easy ‑‑ it's not an easy gig.

GLENN: Yeah.

CUPP: But someone has to do it, right?

GLENN: I know. I know.

CUPP: I feel like a brave soldier going in there every day.

GLENN: I want to talk to both of you about what happened last night. First, Will, what is ‑‑ what are the ramifications of a brokered convention and do you think this is what we're headed towards?

CAIN: I think it's a possibility. The ramifications of a brokered convention, though, I don't think really turn out that differently than the kind of course we're seeing paved here for this election which is I think the most likely outcome of a brokered convention is, also, that Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee for president.

GLENN: Why?

CAIN: Well, let me ‑‑ look, let's do this, Glenn, and I hope I'm not, you know, speaking to something that everybody already knows here but what is a brokered convention and how does it, how does it work? You know, as we have all these primary elections in these states, we see the popular vote come out and, for example, last night, you know, Rick Santorum wins the vote in Mississippi and Alabama but that translates into delegates that each of these states send to the convention and raise their hands and vote for one of these guys according to how the vote in their state and their district went. And most of these guys are bound for at least one vote at that convention to vote in reflection of how their state voted. But in succession of votes, should no one have the majority of the delegates at which the number is 1,144, these delegates become progressively unbound and then they can be persuaded, they can be horse‑traded, they can be arm‑bent to switching their votes to other guys. But if we go to a brokered convention and Mitt Romney has let's say 1,000 or 900 or 1100 and Rick Santorum has, I don't know, five or 600, I don't see the scenario where you can talk 500 or 600 delegates into switching to Rick Santorum. It's possible, it's just improbable.

PAT: But there's no path really here. Do you see any path, Will, for Newt Gingrich to win this thing because he seems to be counting on a brokered convention.

CAIN: He's 100% counting on it. I was on with one of his surrogates this morning, and he admits it, this is what we're doing. Our sole strategy left is to deny Mitt Romney his path to nomination. By the way, Santorum camp is being candid now. They realize they have a very probable path to getting 1,144 delegates. They have to have something like 70% of delegates from hereon out.

PAT: Santorum does? That's almost impossible.

CAIN: Deny Romney getting the 1,144 and push this thing to a convention and see what happens on the floor.

PAT: So you're saying that's pretty much everybody's goal?

GLENN: So then wait. So why would you ‑‑

CAIN: Except for Romney.

GLENN: Except for Romney? Well, you got that one.

PAT: Who's your guy, right? You're a Romney guy?

CAIN: Me?

PAT: Yeah.

CAIN: I'm ‑‑ I don't know. I don't have guys. I don't do this guys thing. What I do is I look at each one of these guys and say ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, stop it, stop it. Stop it.

CAIN: I'm a conservative ‑‑

GLENN: Tell me who you'd vote for ‑‑ don't. Don't. I have the power to terminate you right now. Don't. Don't do it. Just tell me who you're voting for if you have a gun to your head and you had to vote today.

CAIN: Romney.

GLENN: Romney is your guy? Okay, good.

STU: Don't you love how we get treated here? Will's trying to answer this question honestly.

GLENN: We all are like that. Look, I don't think anybody ‑‑ I don't know anybody.

GLENN: Who's for Romney that's really, it was like, "Oh, my gosh, Romney's my guy." I get it. I get it.

STU: Romney mania hasn't taken over you're saying.

GLENN: It hasn't. It hasn't. So I get it. But, you know, you think ‑‑ and I've watched you enough. You think that he's the best guy for the economy, et cetera, et cetera.

CAIN: Exactly.

GLENN: S. E., let me go to you for a second. Is Santorum your guy?

CUPP: Yeah, if I had to vote today, I would vote for Santorum.

GLENN: Thank you for answering that question.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Now let me ‑‑ now let me ask you this. I think ‑‑

CUPP: My only goal, boss, my only goal at this job is to make you like me more than you like Will Cain.

GLENN: Oh, that's done.

CAIN: You got that covered, S.E.

GLENN: That was done before we hired Will. That was done before we hired Will. But I want you to know I could turn on you like that and be on Will's side at any moment.

CUPP: Don't worry. I am on my toes. I am on my toes.

GLENN: So the ‑‑ the Santorum strategy, I mean, he said yesterday ‑‑ and he really talked me right back into the ‑‑ onto the bandwagon and that is every time we've gone with a mushy moderate, we lose. Bob Dole ‑‑

CUPP: John McCain.

PAT: John McCain.

GLENN: Gerald Ford. We lose. You need somebody who is really standing up. So what is his strategy if ‑‑ the way Will explained the, you know, the convention, he's not going to be able to pull that off.

CUPP: Well, like Will said, it's improbable but not impossible. And I think, I think you're right that every year we buy into a largely media‑driven narrative that, you know, the far right is dead, social issues don't matter, we're all going to come to the center and we need moderates. It's just not the way we vote. We don't vote ‑‑ we don't elect moderates in this party. We want someone who is a visceral. We want someone who when we leave the voting booth we feel good about ourselves. We feel like we stood up for something, you know, bigger than a guy, stood up for a cause, and Mitt Romney's problem right now is that he has yet to define for us what that cause it. Santorum's cause is clear. He is a social conservative, he is a staunch social conservative, he is a Christian and so we get his message. And he is hoping certainly that that message over the next, you know, few months before the convention really resonates with the rest of the country.

GLENN: So ‑‑

CUPP: And this idea of inevitability and moderation sort of falls by the wayside.

GLENN: So Will, what is it that the pound of flesh that they are expecting to get from Romney, tell me what you think Gingrich and Santorum, if they don't think that they can win it, what is it that they would be trying to trade Romney for?

CAIN: That's a great question. I think for Gingrich, answering on his behalf, I don't think there's any answer beyond he has a personal animus to Mitt Romney at this point. For Santorum I think he does, I think he ‑‑

GLENN: So wait. Wait, wait. So couldn't Santorum, if that really is his motivation, couldn't Gingrich say I'm giving all my delegates to Santorum and close that gap for Santorum?

CAIN: You can't give your delegates. What he could do is he could drop out of the race.

STU: Yeah, yeah.

CAIN: Thus unbinding his delegates and then persuade them to go Santorum's way, which I'm not convinced, you know, he would be, he would be sending 100% of his delegates over to Santorum. But there is just no logical outcome for Newt Gingrich.

GLENN: Well, you're just saying that because you're in the bag for Newt Gingrich.

CAIN: Exactly. Exactly. I'm almost like a paid speaker for him at this point, all right? No, for Santorum, though, I think he thinks he can win.

GLENN: I think he does, too.

CAIN: I think he still, however improbable the chance is, a possibility he comes out of that convention with the win. What does he hope to get out of it? You know, I don't know. Does he think there's a vice presidential ticket there for him? I think that's doubtful. You know, I don't know what he sees in it. I think he thinks he can win.

GLENN: Okay. One last question, S. E. or Will, whoever knows this. Have you heard the tale now that Romney is looking at, you know, his people are looking at a possible vice presidential running mate of the governor of Puerto Rico.

CUPP: You know, I did hear that. We actually did deep stakes last night on the Real News and, you know, Governor Fortuno I've met a bunch of times, he's a fantastic guy, by the way, he did endorse Romney. And I have heard that that is a consideration but I've heard, you know, six months ago, boss, you and I shared an elevator and we talked about how Rubio was locked up and then three months ago Chris Christie was locked up. I mean, these kinds of rumors trickle out and ‑‑

GLENN: But I will tell you this, I will tell you this: The governor of Puerto Rico, does anybody even know if that's constitutional, but the governor of Puerto Rico would be a game‑changer. I think.

CUPP: Absolutely. Absolutely. He's smart, he is Republican, he's young, he's revitalized that territory in many ways. I mean, if you want to talk about how great Puerto Rico is, bring in Governor Pataki. He's got a house there and loves it, loves it there. He will tell you all about the things that Governor Fortuno has done.

GLENN: Yeah. The unfortunate part of that is you have to talk to governor Pataki.

STU: Do you want ‑‑ no one ever is going to like you. You realize that?

GLENN: I realize that. They don't already. Especially Will. Yes, Will.

CAIN: Yeah, I'd give you this one historical parallel of the game‑changing ability of your VP pick. I know nothing but the governor of Puerto Rico. S.E. knows about him. That's good somebody does here. But I will say this, in '76 the last time there was talk of a brokered convention when Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan approached the convention with neither having the number of delegates needed to win the nomination, Ford had a slight lead in both, Reagan picked the senator from Pennsylvania, I think his name was Schweiker or something who was seen as a moderate or liberal. He did that to balance out his ticket because he was seen as a staunch conservative, and it made some of his supporters defect from him, thus giving the nomination to Ford. So last time we had one of these, you know, these airtight conventions, possibly brokered, the VP pick carried a lot of weight.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Yeah, Gingrich is apparently tossing around the idea of Rick Perry as a VP, just trying to get that out there so hopefully he can lock up that ‑‑

GLENN: Not going to happen. It's just not going to happen.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. Thanks, guys, appreciate it.

CUPP: Thanks.

CAIN: Thank you.

GLENN: Tonight Real News on GBTV.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.