Glenn’s debate preview with Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum has participated in countless debates over the course of his career, most recently during the GOP primary race. What does he think are the biggest problems caused by the format? How will Mitt Romney do tonight? Check out the conversation from radio today in the clip above.

Rough transcript of interview is below:

GLENN:  I have on the phone Rick Santorum.  Let talk about the debate.

VOICE:  I would say that this is going to be the an important debate that and I'm hopeful that they give the opportunity to have a real engagement.  I mean one of the big problems I have with the debates the 20 debates I was involved in that the media decided they were the story, and not the candidates.  They didn't allow the type of interaction that is really important to get a sense of who these candidates really are.  I'm hoping they try to get these guys engage each other.

GLENN:  President Obama has not been questioned except by Univision in four years.  Nobody has really pushed him up against the wall, and questioned him.  Romney I believe the goal should be if I'm a strategist, and I'm not saying Romney he's got to be very careful.  Through the power of prayer should be to get the President to reveal who he really is.  He's not a likable person and he's an arrogant, arrogant guy.  And you know when we were thinking about this.  There's only two candidates that ran on the right that Barack Obama absolutely 100% despises, and that is you, and Mitt Romney.  You're Christians.  You're good practicing Christians.  You're white males.  You might as be wearing a pilgrim outfit, and bringing a turkey.  You are Mr. Colonialist in his mind.  Mitt Romney is a big businessman.  He's got to despise Mitt Romney.  His faith, anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood helped with the proposition 8 in California.  There's nobody he hates more.  Do you think.

VOICE:  It gets to why.  I think you sort of laid it out.  Barack Obama is a fundamentally different vision for America.  He wants to transform America.  But what he's not been clear about.  He's been clear on the policy but is his vision for America he sort of hides the ball.  What his real vision.  His vision he'd like us to be the French -- the culmination if you will of the French Republic as opposed to the American Republic.  One of the reasons I wrote this book.  I do I'm sort feeling I'm pro-Glenn Beck, and teaching us American history.  But I thought it's just really important for us to get out there, and lay out who we are.  Our founder's vision versus Obama's vision, and Obama's vision is the French Revolution now in its current iteration versus the American Revolution which is the founding principle as you mentioned God given rights, you know people being responsible for the problems they have, and their families and their communities.  And government is there to provide an atmosphere for these great treasures of family and faith and community to be able to knit a society as opposed to the French vision which is not liberty from the beginning.  But liberty in the end and the folks who're going to craft that liberty and equality is the government.  That's European socialism which has adopted the French model is all about.  That's what we mean.  That's Obama's vision.  Romney vision my vision your vision hopefully your listener's vision is something that is more akin to the American one that made us the greatest country in the world.

GLENN:  The heroes by Rick.

VOICE:  Disappeared.

GLENN:  They're erased.

VOICE:  Again, again, I feel like I'm repeating the words you say all the time on the radio.  They've erased it because this is the elites in our culture who're trying to transform America and you can't do it with one President.  You've got to do with it education system, and with entertainment, and Hollywood and news media.  So I tip to my hat to you, and to be out there and be willing to provide a place for the truth about who we are, and what America is, and what's going on in the world today.

GLENN:  I will tell you Rick that I look for books that I can read to my son that will get him involved in the American movement, and you know so many times you'll pick up a history book and they're boring as snot and they go and on and on and on and he just loses interest.  Great, great book.  Short, sweet.  To the point.  Well done.

VOICE:  Thank you.  Well, look again I don't want to be sucking up to you here.  One of the things I do learn in looking at you, and how you've effectively communicated is I thought some of your most powerful books from some of the little books that did that short sweet, delivered a message did it clearly and had the biggest impact.  Trying to follow in the footsteps of great steps of great fuss.

GLENN:  It's available everyone but you can get it Patriotic voices. The name of the book is Patriotic voices answering the call to freedom.  What is the one thing that Mitt Romney has got to do tonight.

VOICE:  You know, I really do believe this, and I saw it in me and my debates.  The debates I did well I was comfortable.  I was confident.  I wasn't arrogant but you conveyed a message by how you handled yourself.  And I think that is really important for -- how Obama is able to pull it off in so many cases is that he can pull it off he just -- he looks the part.  And I think Romney -- as much as you think people know Mitt Romney they don't.  And a lot of people for the first time are going to size him up in this kind of intense atmosphere, and see what is this guy made of, and I think it's really important for Romney just to relax, to be as natural as he possibly can.

GLENN:  Let ask you this.  How hard to relax.  Mitt Romney has to know if he blows it tonight he's blown it.  He's worked eight years.  As much as you say you want him to relax.  How hard to do that moment.

VOICE:  It's really hard.  In that moment for me I did particularly well.  I had a debate where that was sort of I thought one of the key points for me we had just done very, very well.  We were starting to gain momentum and I didn't come across well.  I didn't connect and communicate well.  I think it cost me a lot.  And I'll be honest with you.  It was the same thing for Mitt Romney, and he did.  He did very, very well.  It was my first moment to be in the kind of spotlight, and be under that kind of intensity.  I did okay.  I didn't do well as I could have.  I didn't do as well he could have.  I think it's hard but he's been through this.  He's done it with the debate with me.  But he did it in other debates with other folks at other times and Obama hasn't had that.  He hasn't been in the situation for four years.  Even when he was he has been so cobbled by the media that if Mitt Romney can have that AURA I think you're going to see the real people come out in this debate.

GLENN:  You're the President.  Let's say you're Mitt Romney, and you're standing against the President of the United States.  Mr. Romney you said 47%.  It appears that you don't care about 47% of this nation.  How would you respond.

VOICE:  You respond from the truth which is truth is that Mitt Romney is dedicated his career in creating opportunities and serving the public not and trying to help people experience a part of the American dream.  Mr. President you're the guy that's caused highest level of poverty in history.  You're your policies.  My career has been about successfully taking on and giving opportunities for those to get off the programs you want to put people on.  I think you've got to paint the positive vision what he's done, and what he's about.  Don't run away from dependency. It's not that people want to be dependency.  They make short-term economic decisions that where the government has come in with such largesse it makes the economic choices very, very difficult to go out and work, and sacrifice things in the short-term that which may end up long-term.

PAT:  How hard is that to turn the thing around in a positive light.  You went through the debates in the Republican debates.  First of all they never went to you.  Because you had two% support.  And then at the end when you were actually leading the race, then it was all spun in a negative way you had the war on women.  Is it hard to turn it around, and get your message out there and push forward your agenda.

VOICE:  It is.  But governor Romney has been prepping for this, and the lines of attack are going to be pretty obvious, and he has to be comfortable with again -- it's not just not what he says.  Does he come across Asner /SRUS and off balance when he's answering.  Or does he come across as Reagan would do.  He's not Ronald Reagan.  To slough it off, and take it seriously but sort of turn it into something that.

GLENN:  Make sure you have a twinkle in your eye.

VOICE:  Those are important.  It's hard to do.  That's what you've got to do.  If you want to be President of United States.

GLENN:  Rick Santorum.  A book that everyone should read.  Thanks Rick.  We'll talk again.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?