With just 20 days to go before the Iowa caucuses, the Democrats faced off last night in Des Moines, Iowa, and everybody lost. That’s right, nobody won. Not Biden, not Bernie, not Warren, not Pete. Not the voters. Not the viewers. Every candidate did terribly. We will examine why and how that train wreck happened, and what it means for 2020. Then, House Democrats refuse to condemn Iran for attacking us, Vince Vaughn gets cancelled for shaking hands with the President, and Mike Bloomberg goes full Boomer.
If you like The Michael Knowles Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: KNOWLES and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at dailywire.com/Knowles
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
With just 20 days to go before the Iowa caucuses, the Democrats faced off last night in Des Moines, Iowa and everybody lost.
That's right, nobody won.
Not Biden, not Bernie, not Warren, not Pete.
Not the voters, not the viewers.
Every candidate did terribly.
We will examine why and how that train wreck happened and what it means for 2020.
Then, House Democrats refuse to condemn Iran for attacking us.
Vince Vaughn gets canceled for shaking hands with the president.
And Mike Bloomberg goes full boomer.
All that and more.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show.
You have to know that I love you.
You, my faithful listener, I love you so much that I sat through every single minute of that tedious, awful, boring, creepy, terrible, terrible, terrible debate for you so that I could bring you the moments.
We were only watching for one reason.
Those few of you who did watch and me.
We were watching for one reason and that was to see fireworks between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
In recent days, just the past three days or so, Warren leaked a story to CNN that Bernie Sanders, during a 2018 meeting, told her that a woman can't win the White House in 2020.
Bernie's camp denied this.
Then Warren's camp corroborated this.
I mean, they didn't really corroborate it.
They just backed her up and said, yeah, I heard her.
I heard him say this.
I was in the meeting.
And then Elizabeth Warren said it happened too.
Elizabeth Warren was asked about this by reporters.
She said, yeah, he thought that a woman couldn't win.
I thought a woman could win.
But anyway, we're moving on.
Now, the fact that the Warren campaign leaked this to CNN is important because CNN was hosting the debate.
So that's what we were all tuning in for, right?
Was to see, finally, these candidates are going to take the gloves off.
Warren and Sanders have had this kind of friendly relationship so far.
They've been teaming up to go after the other candidates.
Now they're going to go after one another.
Right?
Wrong.
CNN asks the question.
They finally bring it up.
First, the question goes to Bernie Sanders.
Bernie, did you say this thing in 2018?
Bernie Sanders gives an unequivocal no way.
CNN reported yesterday that, and Senator Sanders, Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election.
Why did you say that?
Well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it.
And I don't want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want.
Anybody knows me, knows that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be President of the United States.
Go to YouTube today.
There's a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become President of the United States.
In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren.
There was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president.
And you know what?
I stayed back.
Senator Warren decided not to run, and I did run afterwards.
Hillary Clinton won The popular vote by three million votes.
How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?
And let me be very clear.
If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination, I hope that's not the case.
I hope it's me.
But if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.
All right.
This is what I would expect.
This answer is exactly what I would expect.
I never believed Elizabeth Warren's story.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Why?
Because Bernie Sanders would have to be insane to make that comment to one of his competitors.
And Bernie might be many things.
He might be a wild ideologue.
He might be an old communist codger.
But he's not insane.
There is actually a sort of internal logic to his political ideology.
He has an insane ideology.
He has an ideology that one should not hold.
But he's not a political maniac.
The guy's been able to stay in office for a very long time.
It would be so profoundly politically foolish to make that sort of comment.
Second of all, Bernie is not, in any way, a sexist.
There's just no evidence of it.
You could say a lot of things about the guy, but there's no evidence that he would even hold that view that a woman couldn't become president.
The guy's a radical.
He's been a radical for a long time.
I'm not surprised he said in the 80s that a woman could become president.
Third, Elizabeth Warren is one of the most notorious liars in the country.
So if I got to choose who's being honest here, the woman who lied about her Native American ancestry, lied about where her kids went to school, lied about getting fired for being pregnant, or Bernie Sanders, who's an old coot but is pretty consistent, I'm going to go with Bernie Sanders.
Listen to how CNN, they phrased the question, they said, why did you say that to Elizabeth Warren?
Elizabeth Warren is alleging that you said that a woman can't become president.
You're saying you never said that.
Why did you say that?
And then, it gets so much worse when CNN turns the question to Elizabeth Warren.
We'll get to that in a second.
First, I've got to thank our friends over at Ebb.
Ebb Sleep.
I know that we've got a lot of insomniacs out there in the audience.
I know my friend Andrew Klavan.
Insomniac, he hasn't slept for probably 30-40 years, and I know that's true of many of you.
If you've tried everything with little success, it is time for you to try Ebb.
What is Ebb?
Ebb Sleep is a wearable solution.
It fits over the forehead and gently and precisely cools the forehead to reduce those racing thoughts, to allow people who are suffering from sleeplessness to drift more comfortably into deeper and more restorative sleep.
It's so simple, and yet it's medically backed up.
Ebb is clinically validated.
Four out of five users report falling asleep faster and improving overall sleep quality.
The science is simple.
The science is that when your mind is racing for insomniacs, When you put this kind of cooling mask over your forehead, it reduces those racing thoughts.
The mind's normal way of dealing with stress and challenge is to be on guard and to be vigilant.
You've got to be really aroused and ready to go.
And so to get a good night's sleep, you've got to reverse that.
Ebb's cooling, calming nature is designed to counteract the way that the mind and body reacts to stressful situations.
really, really innovative solution.
If you've tried everything to get to sleep, you've got to try this.
This is clinically backed.
Have the energy to do the things that you love again by getting the sleep that you need.
Eb's natural solution has no morning side effects and allows you to get back to your peak performance.
I wore it just last night and now I'm all ready and raring to go to do this show and it's very early here on the West Coast.
So you've got to try this thing out.
Our listeners can now try Eb risk-free for 60 nights to confirm it's the solution you've been looking for.
There's no reason not to try it.
Tryab.com slash Knowles.
That's T-R-Y-E-B-B.com slash Knowles.
Tryab.com slash Knowles.
Order it today to get the sleep you need and deserve.
CNN from the beginning is, is accepting the premise that Elizabeth Warren is telling the truth, which is always a bad premise to accept.
You should never assume that Elizabeth Warren is ever telling the truth.
They ask Bernie, why did you say this?
Bernie says, I never said this.
So then they turn to Elizabeth Warren, and they ask her, I kid you not, how did you feel when Bernie Sanders said this to you?
So, Senator Sanders, Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here.
You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election.
That is correct.
Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?
No.
I disagreed.
Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie.
Okay.
She's lying.
Right?
This is how you can tell she's lying.
Here's the proof.
She evaded the question.
When it was posed to her like that, she evaded the question.
How did you feel when he said this?
She goes, I disagreed, but I'm not here to fight with Bernie.
Of course you're here to fight with Bernie.
What are you talking about?
You're at a presidential debate.
By the way, you leaked this to CNN who's hosting the debate.
Now, if it were a true claim that she were making, she would have leaked it to CNN. She would have brought it up at the debate.
If she didn't bring it up, the moderator would have brought it up.
She would have pounced on it.
But it isn't true, and she doesn't want to have to defend it, so she evades the question.
Because the real reason she leaked it is she just wants this kind of muck out there.
She just wants this insinuation that Bernie Sanders is a sexist and a chauvinist and a misogynist.
But she doesn't want to have to defend it because she's got no evidence for it.
Just like she's got no evidence that she's Native American, even though she claimed to be Native American for decades to advance her law career.
She's got no evidence for the fact that her kids didn't go to public school.
She's got no evidence for the fact that she was fired for being pregnant from her job as a teacher.
She's got no evidence for any of that stuff.
Now, I asked myself when CNN was asking the question, why are they carrying water for her?
I think the corporate media generally would prefer Elizabeth Warren to Bernie Sanders.
I mean, the media and the Democratic Party stole the election from him in 2016, so they probably don't want him to win in 2020 either.
That's part of it.
I said, how are they being so flagrant about it?
How are they being so obvious that they're saying, Bernie Sanders, why did you say I didn't say this.
Elizabeth Warren, how did you feel when he said this?
How are they being so blatant about it?
And I think it's because of the Me Too movement.
The whole idea behind the Me Too movement is we have to believe all women.
That's the hashtag, right?
Hashtag believe all women.
Women can never lie.
Men can lie because the lying gene is on the Y chromosome.
But women, they can't lie.
Even though men can be women and women can be men and chromosomes don't matter at all.
Biology is nothing.
But it's very, very confusing in leftist ideology.
But the claim of the Me Too movement is we have to believe all women.
Men cannot get due process.
If a man and a woman are making contrasting claims, you've got to believe the woman.
This is the perfect example to show why that premise of the Me Too movement is so ridiculous.
Elizabeth Warren is a liar through and through, repeatedly, consistently, and she's doing it now.
And Bernie Sanders is a radical, and he's an old coot, and he's a communist, and he has terrible ideas.
He's really not a liar.
That's not what defines his political career.
So CNN takes Elizabeth Warren's side.
It was such journalistic malpractice.
They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
One of the top trends on Twitter nationwide after this debate, specifically because of this moment, was hashtag CNN is trash.
And then at the very end, you see the alliance break up.
I think the final nail in the coffin.
They avoided bringing up this feud between Warren and Bernie.
Then they bring it up and they both sort of move on.
Then at the very end, it's pretty clear this relationship is severed.
We'll get to that in a second.
We'll get to...
The rest of the debate, what it means for President Trump, what it means for 2020, and then we'll get to news that really matters because this debate was just so bad for the party.
But first, I've got to thank our friends over at Ashford University.
Make this the year you advance your career by earning your master's degree.
Get started today at Ashford University.
Look, going back to school, getting your master's degree, it can help you in your career.
It can help you in your own intellectual life.
It can help you move forward.
The trouble is, it's very difficult sometimes.
It's difficult to find the time.
It's very difficult to go somewhere.
It's very difficult to be near a university.
Fortunately, Ashford University's online master's degree programs allow you to learn at your own pace.
It's convenient.
It's flexible.
You can study wherever that you are the most comfortable learning.
We talk a lot on this show about how the old university model is crumbling.
It's falling apart.
Ashford University is leading the way in a new innovative model.
You take one course at a time.
Ashford University's six-week-long courses allow you to take one course at a time so you can go at your own pace, and it's easy to enroll.
The GRE, the GMAT, other standardized test scores are not required to enroll at Ashford University.
Check it out.
Get ready to grab new opportunities.
Ashford is fully accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission.
Start your master's degree today.
Enroll at ashford.edu slash Knowles.
That's ashford.edu slash Knowles to start your master's degree today.
Ashford.edu slash Knowles.
By the very end of the debate, all the candidates leave.
We're all so, thank you, merciful Lord, for ending this debate.
And Warren walks up to Bernie Sanders.
Now, you can see this on the clip.
Bernie offers his hand, extends his hand to shake it, and Elizabeth Warren doesn't quite shake it, and they engage in a kind of back and forth.
They seem to be pretty I think that this alliance or quasi-alliance is over.
And I think it's over because she lied about him.
She did him wrong.
And the reason she did him wrong is because he was rising too fast in the polls.
The reason she did him wrong is the same reason that the Democratic Party did him wrong in 2016.
He was rising in the polls unexpectedly.
They always like Bernie as a sideshow, but they don't like it when it looks like he could win the nomination.
It was a real deceitful move.
A real betrayal of her old pal Bernie Sanders.
And yet she wasn't the worst person on the stage.
Pete Buttigieg.
Pete Buttigieg, my least favorite candidate in the race, was probably the most ridiculous person on that entire stage last night.
Pete Buttigieg.
During the debate, actually managed to invent two new PC jargony, ridiculous leftist terms.
The first of which was climate security.
The next president is going to be confronted with national security challenges different in scope and in kind from anything we've seen before.
Not just conventional military challenges, not just stateless terrorism, but cyber security challenges, climate security challenges, foreign interference in our elections.
It's going to take a view to the future as well as the readiness to learn from the lessons of the past.
And for me, those lessons of the past are personal.
What did he just say?
Did anybody get any actual, tangible policy or philosophy from that soup of words that he just spouted out?
No.
It meant nothing.
This is the Buttigieg candidacy.
He's standing there and looking really earnest, like Alfred E. Newman in a necktie, and really serious, and speaking in a really measured way, and very articulate.
And he went to Harvard, you know, and he's a Rhodes Scholar and he served in the Navy for a time.
And he's just a really serious guy.
And he doesn't say anything that means anything.
And he holds opposite policy positions from what he held six months ago.
And maybe he's going to be the radical and maybe he's going to be the moderate, depending on how the polls look.
But he's really serious and he just sounds like a presidential candidate.
The trouble is, the tone of his voice Doesn't have anything underneath it.
Climate security.
What could that possibly mean?
Like the climate is going to come kill us?
I mean, I guess that's the claim of global warming.
Global warming alarmists, right, is that the sun monster is going to burn us all up and we're going to be dead in 12 years.
But he's not quite making that claim.
He's trying to tie national security to climate change.
The reason he's doing that is because Trump is doing a very good job on national security.
So he can't just talk about national security.
Because when the candidates talk about national security, the voters remember, We're not at war with North At another point,
he referred to a race-informed city.
He said, as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which is a race-informed city, we blah blah blah.
What is a race-informed city?
I asked a friend of mine this.
I said, what is a race-informed city?
And he said, it's where all the black people know who Pete Buttigieg is in South Bend and they don't like him.
And that would appear to be the case if you look at the protests at his town halls.
Maybe that's the kind of information.
I don't know why he's bragging about that at a CNN debate.
Race-informed doesn't mean anything.
It reminds me of Julian Castro.
When they were all early on in the debate, Julian Castro, my favorite candidate, realized that he was kind of falling away.
So he had to up the stakes on the jargon.
He didn't have any actual policies to offer.
So he just had to heighten the jargon, heighten the rhetoric.
Every candidate at that debate said, we support reproductive freedom.
And Castro leans into the microphone.
He says, I don't just support reproductive freedom.
I support reproductive justice.
I say, okay, I don't know what either of those things mean other than killing babies.
But let's assume that they have some discrete meaning.
What would be the difference between reproductive freedom and reproductive justice?
Nothing.
You're just using a different word and pretending that that's a more powerful word than the former one.
Justice!
I'm the mayor of a race-informed city.
We need to pay attention to climate security!
Like, okay, whatever.
That's fine.
It brings up an interesting point about this debate stage.
The now smaller, more compact, completely white, if not translucent debate stage.
The two most intelligent people up there are the worst.
Warren and Buttigieg.
Those two are by far the worst people on stage.
They're unlikable.
They're liars.
They're secret radicals in the way that they speak when it's convenient for them.
They're betraying their allies.
They're stabbing people in the backs.
I mean, they're really awful, awful candidates.
They're my least favorite up there.
Buttigieg is a Harvard guy.
He's a Rhodes Scholar.
He's got a degree from Oxford.
Elizabeth Warren, a Penn...
A Penn and Harvard Law professor.
And they're the most shameless liars, the most cynical, and the most radical.
It reminds me of this book that we're going to be doing on my PragerU show coming up in the next few months.
It's a book called Intellectuals by Paul Johnson.
And Paul Johnson is this British historian, and he writes a book about all of the intellectuals from Jean-Jacques Rousseau all the way up to the present.
And he describes the intellectual It's the kind of successor to priests and prophets and soothsayers, right?
In the modern era, once we got rid of the priests, once we got rid of God, you just had the intellectual, and those were the people that we really revered and admired.
And when you look at intellectuals, one thing that you notice about them is they're all terrible people.
They're cynical, they pursue their own self-interest, they put ideas over people, and they put themselves over ideas.
And ironically, they have the least regard for truth.
All of these people that we would consider the great intellectuals of the modern era.
They were so cynical.
I mean, they would just defend awful regimes when it was politically convenient.
They would deny truths that they had previously espoused when those truths became inconvenient.
And it's the same with Warren and Buttigieg.
The nearest thing to a reasonable candidate on that stage was Amy Klobuchar.
Which isn't saying very much.
It's damning with feigned praise, but it's true.
She was the closest thing to a reasonable candidate.
She's just such an awful retail politician.
She's so cringe-inducing.
The way she speaks is so lame that she's not going to go very far.
And Joe Biden, who's the putative frontrunner, barely spoke.
He was not the star of this debate.
I forgot he was there for much of it.
Terrible debate for Democrats.
Everybody lost.
Don't take my word for it.
Even Van Jones, who's a major left-wing commentator on CNN, came out after the debate and he said, if this is the best that the Democrats have, then President Trump is going to get re-elected.
That was a progressive.
To see those two have that level of vitriol was very dispiriting.
And I want to say that tonight for me was dispiriting.
Democrats have to do better than what we saw tonight.
There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out.
And I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible.
There was nothing tonight that if you're looking at this thing, you say any of these people are prepared for what Donald Trump is going to do to us.
And to see further division tonight is very dispiriting.
He's absolutely right.
Great analysis.
Van Jones is one of these guys who, he parrots the left-wing line and the Democratic talking points often, but occasionally he does have an independent thought, and when he does, he's very good.
He had this on Russiagate, you know, the whole Russia collusion narrative.
He was asked on a hot mic, on a hidden camera, what he thought about the Russian collusion line about Donald Trump, and he said, oh, Russia's a nothing burger.
We've got to move on to this and that.
And he was right.
I mean, he was right both on the substance of the matter.
Trump did not conspire with Russia, but he was right politically for Democrats as an advisor to Democrats.
It was stupid for Democrats to harp on the Russia thing.
It hurt them in the long run and they looked like fools when it turned out it was a hoax.
So a really bad night for Democrats and it got even more radical outside.
You know, in Des Moines, there was a protest of Joe Biden outside the debate.
It was a protest by a group called United We Dream.
And the protest was carried on by a group of illegal aliens who were upset that while Joe Biden was vice president, Barack Obama deported some illegal aliens.
They were using crazy hysterical language.
They said that Obama had concentration camps to detain illegal aliens.
They said, we cannot forget Under the Obama and Biden administration, this mass deportation machine was created.
Machine.
Mass deportation machine.
No.
Do you know when the deportation machine was created?
When the United States ratified its immigration laws.
Because illegal aliens have no right to be in this country.
And it's so outrageous that people who are in this country illegally...
Don't just kiss the ground and say, thank you.
Thank you, you wonderful, generous country for letting me in.
How wonderful you are.
I thank you so much for not deporting me.
I love this country.
I love freedom.
Let's make America great again.
They don't do that.
At least this group does not do that.
They go out and complain that there's the threat of deportation.
That there's the threat that the government might enforce the law, but probably won't.
How backwards is that?
How crazy has our political system gotten that foreign nationals who are in this country illegally, who we are choosing not to deport for some reason, feel empowered to stand outside, expose themselves, expose their crime, and complain that we're even threatening to enforce the law?
Absolutely outrageous.
And the majority of American people know this.
The majority of Hispanic voters, I suspect, know this.
Because, right, most Hispanic voters, the Democratic Party wants to pretend that Hispanic voters love illegal immigration.
And yet poll after poll after poll shows this is not true.
Why?
Because legal Hispanic immigrants hate that people are cutting the line.
Why did they have to follow the rules but another group of people didn't have to?
If Bernie Sanders or any of these Democratic candidates came out there and said, hey, all those illegal aliens that are outside, all those people who are flagrantly violating our laws, some very precious laws to us, and complaining about the fact that we might even have laws, they're all arrested.
They're all getting deported.
If one of those candidates did that, it might kill them in the primary, but they would have a much better shot at the general election.
Immigration is a top issue, even for Democrats, and nobody wants amnesty.
Very few people want amnesty.
But they can't because the party has become so radicalized.
And Biden wants to play it very safe because Biden is back on top in a new poll.
There was a previous poll that came out last week that showed that Bernie Sanders is on top in Iowa.
Now there's a new poll that shows Biden's on top.
And Biden's whole strategy here is the Romney 2020 strategy.
Be nothing.
Stay quiet.
Keep your mouth shut.
Get your way to the nomination simply because the other candidates are not that good.
And because you're the next one up and then probably lose the general election.
That's Biden's strategy so far.
We will see if that pays off.
Then, major new video from Project Veritas showing the radicalism of the Bernie Sanders campaign and what might happen at the Democratic Convention.
Then I give some advice to Democrats on an issue they actually could use if they wanted to.
And Vince Vaughn gets canceled.
Poor Vince Vaughn.
We will look at the hypocrisy of Vince Vaughn's cancellation.
But first, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
Head on over to dailywire.com.
What do you get?
me, that should be enough.
Isn't that enough for you?
You get me, you get the Andrew Klavan show, the Ben Shapiro show, the Matt Wall show.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag coming up tomorrow.
So get your questions in.
You get another kingdom, the final season.
We just recorded the final episode.
It's really, really moving stuff.
I can say this because I didn't write a word of it.
I just have to read what Andrew Klavan wrote.
It's really, really moving.
And important, obviously, for conservatives to be out there in the culture.
And you get the leftist-tears tumbler.
You need that for every single Democratic debate.
You're definitely going to need it on Iowa caucus night because that's going to be the first big test of all of these campaigns.
Head on over to dailywire.com.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
How did Biden get back on top in Iowa?
We're 20 days away from the Iowa caucuses.
And according to a new Monmouth University poll, those polls are usually pretty good.
Biden is ahead.
He's got 24%.
That's up five points from the same poll in November.
Bernie is in second at 18%.
Buttigieg is almost tied with him at 17%.
Warren is the lowest of those four, but still pretty close with 15%.
This is different than the Des Moines Register CNN Mediacom poll just a few days ago, which showed that Bernie was on top.
How could Biden, who is a really awful candidate, has no energy, constantly contradicts himself, says random things about his leg hair and corn pop.
I mean, how on earth is that guy on top in this poll?
Well, the reason is the alternative, Bernie Sanders, is too radical.
And James O'Keefe over at Project Veritas...
Just showed that recently.
I mean, Bernie Sanders showed it himself last night.
Last night at the debate in Des Moines, Bernie Sanders admitted that he's going to raise taxes on everybody, on virtually everybody, not just the millionaires and the billionaires.
He's going to raise taxes on everybody who makes more than $29,000 a year.
On the Medicare for All, one of the provisions we have to pay for it is a 4% tax on income exempting the first $29,000.
So the average family in America that today makes $60,000 would pay $1,200 a year.
Okay.
Bernie Sanders, again, give him credit where credit is due.
At least he's honest.
He's saying everybody who makes more than $29,000 a year Which is what?
Everybody with a full-time job?
Virtually everybody in this country is going to have their taxes hiked 4%.
By the way, if you're making $30,000 a year, 4% is a lot of money.
It hurts people who are on the lower end of the income scale more than it hurts people on the higher end.
Even though the people on the higher end obviously are going to pay more money in hard dollar terms.
That's a lot of money.
And he's saying, look, we're going to raise your taxes.
Yeah, of course we're going to raise.
And it's better than Elizabeth Warren who says, I'm just going to take two cents from people who have 50 million dollars.
Wait, two cents?
You mean two percent?
And not on their income.
You're going to take two percent of their actual wealth, so you're just going to go in and what?
Make them liquidate their assets?
You're going to take the shirt off their back?
That's Elizabeth Warren in her lying characteristic way.
Bernie is being honest with you, but he's being honest in a way that's simply too radical for even Democratic voters, I think.
Then Project Veritas caught up with Kyle Yurek, one of the field organizers for the Bernie Sanders campaign.
He took the radicalism even further.
Now, we know that Bernie Sanders has always had this bizarre fascination with and love of Soviet Russia.
Bernie Sanders had his honeymoon in Soviet Russia, communist, oppressive Russia.
He was filmed there with his shirt off and vodka in his hand, singing communist folk songs with the Ruskies.
And that appears to have trickled down to the rest of his campaign.
Kyle Jurek, this field organizer, was caught on camera explaining how we are going to need to be ready for the Democratic convention because if they don't give this to Bernie, if they steal it from him, you're going to see violence.
You're going to see craziness.
You are going to see something that makes 1968 look like a walk in the park.
They are going to fight it out at the convention.
Here he is.
Be ready to be in Milwaukee for the DNC convention.
We're going to make 1978 look like a f***ing Girl Scout f***er go.
The cops are going to be the ones that are getting f***ing beaten in Milwaukee.
Those are the cops being f***ing beaten.
What I love is he doesn't even know his own history, so he thought it was 1978 that was the crazy convention instead of 68, but that's fine.
That's sort of what I would expect.
They get even more radical.
So the Project Veritas journalist asks a field organizer for Bernie Sanders about his education policy.
And the question that the journalist asks is, do you think that some of these MAGA people, you know, should be re-educated?
I mean, should these people be...
How should we bring them over to our side?
Here's the Sanders campaign.
Do you think that some of these, like...
Megan people could even be re-educated.
I mean, we gotta try.
I mean, like, so, like, in Nazi Germany, after the fall of the Nazi party, there was a ton of the populace that was f***ing Nazi-fied.
And, like, Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating f***ing people to not be Nazis.
Like...
We're probably going to have to do the same thing here.
That's kind of what Bernie's like, hey, free education for everybody, because we're going to have to teach you not to be a Nazi.
There it is.
There it is.
An admission from the Sanders campaign about their education policy, which is exactly what I and many others have been saying for months.
The whole point of free education, the whole point of government-run education in college and even graduate school even, is to indoctrinate a whole generation of people in their ideology because they believe that America's Nazis, right, the Nazified Nazis, And so, what they need to do is re-educate us to be communists, I guess.
Or socialists.
That's the point of it.
Free education is a terrible, terrible idea.
Free higher education.
Because they're not going to be teaching you Dostoevsky.
They're not going to be teaching you the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Aeneid.
They're not going to be teaching you Latin and Ancient Greek.
They're not going to be teaching you classical education.
They're going to be teaching you radical leftist ideology.
And you and I are going to be on the hook to pay for it.
This is why Democrats have nothing.
And this is why they have to keep going back to global warming.
Elizabeth Warren kept going back.
Bernie Sanders, too.
All of them kept going back to global warming again and again last night.
Here's Warren.
Understand this.
We have known about this climate crisis for decades.
Back in the 1990s, we were calling it global warming, but we knew what it was.
Yes, we knew about it.
In the 90s, we were calling it global warming.
In the 70s, you were calling it global cooling.
Do you remember that?
And then after five decades of this crisis, everything is completely fine.
Crisis.
We've been in a crisis for five decades.
How long does a crisis need to go on without anything happening before you realize it's not a crisis?
Is 50 years enough?
I think that probably should be enough.
They all keep going back to global warming because all of the real political issues show that Trump is doing a good job.
If they talked about the economy, they would say, huh...
Well, there's not really much these Democratic candidates can offer because the economy is going gangbusters, hitting record highs.
If the candidates start talking about unemployment, they would say, huh, Trump has given us record low unemployment across demographics.
We probably don't need these Democratic candidates.
If they talk about national security, they'd say, huh, Donald Trump just killed the two most prolific terrorists in the world and reestablished deterrence.
Probably don't need these Democratic candidates.
If they talk about anything, the jobs coming back, the wages rising for the first time in 10 years, Anything.
It shows that the Democratic candidates are superfluous and frankly dangerous.
So they have to go back to the imaginary issue of the sun monster.
There is one exception here.
There is one issue that the Democrats could seize on.
They could easily exploit that Trump has failed on, that they could try to make a good case on, that is a real political issue that could maybe convince voters.
That issue is federal spending.
The federal government spent a record amount of money in the first three months of the fiscal year.
They spent one, I gotta count the zeros, million, billion, 1.163 trillion dollars in the first three months of the fiscal year 2020.
So that's October through December.
That's according to the monthly treasury statement.
That's too much money.
Way too much money.
Conservatives are supposed to conserve.
We're supposed to be fiscally responsible.
And we're not.
Now, am I really that concerned about that right now?
I'm not.
Because we're getting so many even more important wins.
We're getting wins on the judiciary.
We're getting wins in the economy.
So there's a lot of growth.
We're getting wins on trade.
We're getting wins on national security.
So I'm not going to let the perfect get in the way of the good.
And say I oppose Donald Trump because he's spending as much money as Democrats do.
Or maybe a little bit more.
However, this is a big issue.
It's a legitimate weakness of the Trump administration, and Democrats should exploit it if they want to have a real issue to run on, but they can't exploit it.
Because every one of those candidates, every single one, wants to make the spending issue worse.
All of them.
They've endorsed the Green New Deal, right?
Many of them co-sponsored it.
That's a $93 trillion plan that would outlaw all of American energy virtually.
That's not going to help the spending situation.
Elizabeth Warren's healthcare plan costs $52 trillion.
That's not going to help the fiscal situation.
So they can't exploit the one good issue they've got.
And because they can't exploit it, they move on to impeachment.
They're now moving...
Remember, they impeached the president.
You might have forgotten because it was nothing.
Then they let that stay for a month because they knew that the minute they delivered the impeachment to the Senate, the Senate would acquit him and then it's over and Pelosi loses all her leverage.
So they've now decided they got to go back to impeachment.
Why?
Because their candidates for president are terrible.
They've got no good issues and Trump just won World War III.
They said that he caused World War III.
I didn't say that.
That was their, their term.
And then he won it within like two days without any American casualties.
So now they got to go back to impeachment.
They've sent the articles of impeachment against the president.
Uh, they're, or rather they're set to vote on that today.
So unless something crazy goes wrong, they'll vote on that today.
Then it'll go up to the Senate.
Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Democrats can't even get it together to vote on a resolution condemning the Iranian mullahs and expressing support of the Iranian people.
Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader of the House, had a resolution Doing just that, saying the mullahs are awful, they shouldn't have attacked us, we don't like them and we support the people who are rising up.
And it failed by a vote of 226 to 191.
Democrats cannot bring themselves to vote for a resolution condemning the government of Iran for killing 1,500 Iranian citizens protesting their government.
They can't vote for a resolution condemning the Iranian government for shooting down a Ukrainian passenger aircraft that killed 176 people.
They can't do that because Trump did the good stuff.
And if Trump did it, they have to oppose it.
That's a very, very tight corner that they've boxed themselves into.
And you see it at every level, in the House, the local level, at the presidential level.
Really tough stuff.
And then in the popular culture, Vince Vaughn was trending top of Twitter all day yesterday, a little bit the day before, because he had the audacity to shake hands with the President of the United States.
They were at that football game.
A college football game the other night.
And they were sitting there and they had a little conversation and then they shook hands.
And then Vince Vaughn was the top trend.
And this was considered a scandal.
This was considered controversial.
It's not a fake scandal ginned up on the right.
This was considered truly scandalous.
ABC, CBS, the whole mainstream media were covering this as though it were some big deal that an actor shook hands with the President of the United States.
Let's put that in perspective.
Last week at the Golden Globes, the actress Michelle Williams bragged about killing her child for fame and fortune.
And Hollywood applauded her.
She said, in order to have this glamorous, glitzy career that I have in Hollywood, I had to murder my child.
And I'm really glad that I was able to do that, to kill my child.
Hollywood applauded her, so brave, so wonderful.
The mainstream media, not a peep.
How brave she was.
How important that speech was.
Yes, you go.
You go, girl.
I'm woman.
Hear me roar.
Then Vince Vaughn, an actor, shakes hands with the President of the United States.
That's a scandal.
That's a pretty messed up culture that we're in.
The majority of people don't consider it fine to kill your child, but terrible to shake hands with the President.
But I bet the majority of mainstream media journalists do, as you see in the headlines.
Speaking of that football game, I have to get to a story that's very important.
It's a story that has been looked over.
After the LSU game, some reporters went into the LSU locker room to interview some of the players.
And the players were so excited, they won the game, and they were smoking cigars.
They weren't even popping bottles of champagne, as you would expect they would.
just smoking cigars.
The reporters were furious.
This one reporter from ESPN, Heather Dinich, tweeted out, it was so unbelievably smoky in the LSU locker room from the players smoking cigars, I can taste it.
And no, I didn't have one.
It was suffocating.
Now, it actually was very rude of those players not to offer Heather a cigar.
They should have offered her one.
Come on, guys, chivalry is still around.
But what a culture we're living in that these players, biggest day of their professional lives or their scholastic lives, even though it'll go on to their professional lives, lives, they're not allowed to have a cigar in their locker room because female reporters in particular want to go into the men's locker room and interview them and they don't want to be around smoke.
My body, my choice, ladies.
That's very important.
You need to be able to celebrate things.
And this puritanical culture that we're getting into when it comes to harmless things like the occasional stogie is ridiculous.
It reminds us of this maxim, everybody's got to serve somebody.
Everybody's got to serve somebody.
And so...
We have a permissive society right now, right?
We treat sex as though it's nothing.
It's sort of like a handshake.
Hook up with whoever you want.
We treat recreational drugs.
No big deal.
Do it.
That's fine.
We treat everything.
Very loosey-goosey.
And yet, you do need structure.
You do need order.
You do control.
So every time we loosen up some law on drugs, we tighten up some law on speech.
Every time we loosen up some social more about sex, we tighten one up about cigars.
Because there must be some kind of There always will be.
And I got to tell you, looking around the culture at this crazy sexual decadence, drug decadence, a culture of selfishness, The stogies are looking pretty good.
They're pretty much a harmless little vice.
I don't even know if they are a vice, but in so much as they are, they're a good vice to have.
Nobody's ever died from smoking one cigar.
People have died from drinking one night.
People have died from doing drugs one night.
Let people have a little bit of fun.
Let people have a lesser vice or they're going to go and have a tougher one.
But of course, the leftist permissive society, they don't want the tobacco.
They want the harder drugs.
They don't want sort of sexual difference to be celebrated in the locker rooms.
They want total control over sex, even about redefining sex itself.
Men can be women.
Women can be men.
That's not permissive.
It's just they want the strictures in place.
They want the restraint in other places.
And this actually speaks to this trend that's going on.
Yahoo News just published it yesterday.
It was from AFP. But they're acknowledging a trend that's been going on in the cities for a long time.
The headline was, U.S. speakeasies are back in vogue in the echo of the Prohibition era.
Century after the U.S. clamped down on alcohol and ushered in the Prohibition era, speakeasies are once again popping up behind hidden doors, luring in revelers, seeking fancy cocktails with an illicit 1920s vibe.
This has been going on for a really long time now, probably seven, eight years in New York, in L.A., D.C., but now it's popping up in even smaller towns.
I go to a lot of small towns around the country to give college lectures, and I see this a lot.
Speakeasies.
Now, they're not really speakeasies because alcohol is legal, but they have the speakeasy vibe.
You need a password.
They serve old cocktails.
Why are they popping up?
For two reasons.
We long for a time gone by.
We realize something's wrong about the current era we're living in, and we want to regain something from the past.
Now, nostalgia is history after a few drinks.
The past wasn't all that glamorous, but we recognize there's something from our tradition we want to get back, and we don't totally love this era.
The other reason that specifically the prohibition era is coming back in the bar scene is because we're living through a very prohibitive time in our culture.
Where some kids who just won a big football game can't even smoke a cigar in their own locker room because the reporters are coughing, because the reporters don't like the smell of smoke.
You're not allowed to say this.
You're not allowed to do that.
You can't go here.
You can't go there.
Every romantic encounter requires you to get a notarized consent form.
We're living in a very prohibitive era and people are recognizing this.
And I think that's the underlying cultural reason why the speakeasies are cropping back up beyond the fancy drinks and nostalgia for the past.
Before we go, I've just got to make fun of Mike Bloomberg.
Mike Bloomberg posted this really dumb tweet the other day from his campaign account.
And the tweet said it was him standing in front of a table with some brisket on it.
And it said, find a man who looks at you the way Mike Bloomberg looks at ribs.
Which was creepy because there were no ribs in the picture other than human ribs.
The guy who posted the picture didn't know what brisket was and apparently didn't know what ribs were.
So it was just kind of lame.
It was like a...
Like, cringey candidate trying to seem cool and hip and young and meme-y, you know, internet-y.
So during the debate last night where Bloomberg was not invited, he posted a bunch of these.
They were so sad.
There was a picture of a plate of meatballs, and one of them kind of had Mike Bloomberg's face in it, and it said, Test your political knowledge.
Spot the meatball that looks like Mike!
That's not how memes are.
Another one.
Through Bloomberg Philanthropies, Mike has directed more than $50 million to combat Meatloaf's views on climate change.
Am I right?
Hashtag Bloomberg Facts.
Another one.
What is the best part of the body to get a Bloomberg 2020 tattoo?
Yeah, you kids like tattoos, right?
Hello, fellow kids.
How you doing?
Another one.
There's a picture of these bald eagles.
Which eagle looks more disgusted with Donald Trump, huh?
Huh, kids?
And final, this was the weirdest one.
They ended up deleting it.
When choosing your candidates, remember, Mike can fit 9D batteries in his mouth at one time.
What the hell does that mean?
What?
Yikes.
Then they deleted that one.
I say this to make fun of Mike Bloomberg.
I also say this to make a point about the candidates.
You can't force authenticity.
You can't force likability.
You can't force electability.
And you can't out-Trump Trump.
They're all trying to out-Trump Trump in their rhetoric, in their tweets, in their social media strategy.
You can't.
Voters can sniff out a fraud.
They can sniff out lies.
They can sniff out deception.
They've done it with all of the candidates so far up there.
If those candidates on stage are the best that they've got, as Van Jones said, the election held today, Trump would win, no question.
If the candidates waiting in the wings like Mike Bloomberg are somehow the best they've got, they're better than the ones on stage, Trump's getting reelected.
I mean, these candidates, even the backbench, even the ones who maybe they come into the next debate because these current crop are failing, they just don't have it.
They're just not ready for prime time.
Very good news for President Trump and conservatives.
Very bad news for the Democratic Party.
In the prime time of their political careers and in the prime time of that terrible, terrible debate last night.
That's our show.
Get your mailbag questions in for tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you then.
If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies.
Director, Mike Joyner.
Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
Supervising Producers, Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Technical Producer, Austin Stevens.
Assistant Director, Pavel Widowski.
Editor and Associate Producer, Danny D'Amico.
Audio Mixer, Robin Fenderson.
Hair and Makeup, Jesua Olvera.
Production Assistants, McKenna Waters and Ryan Love.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
I watched the Democrat debate last night, so you didn't have to, and in fact, no one else did.
But all these Democrats can promise is free stuff, And all that free stuff means more government And when you look at our government right now, it kind of reminds you of something.
