Glenn Beck: McCain would have been worse for America than Obama

posted at 7:22 pm on September 21, 2009 by Allahpundit

Looking forward to the 1,000-rpm spinning in the comments for this remark, which (a) is buttressed by his admission that he might have voted for Hillary over McCain/Palin and (b) would earn most any other righty torrents of acidic grassroots abuse for daring to utter it. His point, essentially, is that McCain’s no conservative, but then, per Peter Wehner, neither is Glenn Beck:

I say that because he seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements—for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”–are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger—the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.

I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality.

The clip cuts off before Beck has a chance to explain himself but presumably his argument is that there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats these days and therefore we’re better off with a president whom the right doesn’t feel pressure to apologize for and whose tendencies towards big government it can oppose in earnest. If you believe that — that there’s no difference between the parties — then you haven’t been paying attention to Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Honduras, Poland, and Czechoslovakia the Czech Republic lately. Epic fail.


Watch CBS Videos Online


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10

Beck is doing great things in his helping to expose these cronies however that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything he says.I have a choice to turn the channel or turn off the radio.In my eyes mccain,yes a war hero,but he is a moderate going more left than right on issues that are very iMportant to this country.There are some republicans coming out against o however they have been slow doing that up to this point so yes,the line is blurred between the 2 parties.THERE IS NO DEFINITE LEADER SPEAKING UP FOR US (YET)

ohiobabe on September 22, 2009 at 8:45 AM

peeps who think MAC wouldve been like TOTUS must have slept thru the Georgia crisis when Russia invaded. MAC is very good friends with Saakashvili and would NEVER EVER abandon Eastern Europe

ginaswo on September 22, 2009 at 8:28 AM

Let’s remember that McCain also engaged in a pissing contest with the White House over Rumsfeld. He did little to support the Bush Administration and constantly undercut that administration’s agenda because he lost the South Carolina primary (and GOP nomination). His positions on foreign affairs are marginally better than the filthy liars but his domestic agenda has much the same intent as the current administration.

On balance, he’d be driving the nation to much the same place as it is going.

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 8:46 AM

McCain supported major changes in health care and cap and trade.

With him in the White House, many Republicans would have felt pressured into supporting the president, just because he is there president. The Democrats would have supported him because he was pushing their agenda.

So the likelihood of both those programs passing is greater with McCain in the White House than Obama.

MarkTheGreat on September 22, 2009 at 8:48 AM

neocon= nation builder, globalist, etc.

Spathi on September 22, 2009 at 8:44 AM

I knew it was something off the wall to you and lo and behold, it was!

Neocons are neither.
It’s obvious you’ve never read any of the writings of Irving Kristol or Norman Podhoretz, but I suggest you do so.
Or do you just hate Jews?
(I’m surprised you were canny enough to leave out the usual neocons=Zionists/Jews label.)

Jenfidel on September 22, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Context, people. It’s all about context.

McCain would have been worse for conservatism that Obama. That does not mean he would have been worse for the country on each and every issue. Nor would he have been better on each and every issue.

McCain is emblematic of most of what is wrong with the GOP today. That does not speak to conservatism; only to the GOP. The bottom line is that the GOP allowed the left to control the entire game going into the 2008 cycle; including allowing them to determine who would be the GOP candidate. They did that by trying to appear less conservative, or maybe by actually being less conservative. McCain rode to through the primary on the GOP weaknesses, not it strengths. He could only do that as a result of Bush having lost the momentum or the Regan Revolution.

If McCain had been elected it would have likely sealed the fate of conservatism for decades. He didn’t and now Obama is probably the single best reason for people to start wondering aloud if maybe we are going to far left.

If you want to fear something now, fear the pendulum. The real trick we must pull off starting in 2010 is how to get things back to the right without going too far that direction. The stored energy in the pendulum now being so high on the left is going to make that difficult.

MikeA on September 22, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Speculation…opinion..(but a good reason, I guess for people to bash Beck some more.geez)… Both candidates for POTUS were horrible. Palin would have been a plus, if McCain had listened to her, ever. Does Obama listen to ANYBODY besides his wife and Van Jones??

Obama is the President. And he is in way over his pay grade, and is surrounded by amateurs.

Scary times.
Actually, I wish Hillary had a little more power than she has right now. This Honduras thing is just pathetic.

bridgetown on September 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Jenfidel ,

What war?

The occupations you mean?

Ya those should be defunded.

Spathi on September 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM

They aren’t war theaters just to achieve occupation, but to defend and protect us here at home.
As such, this represents federal funds properly expended.
To protect and defend us from “enemies, foreign and domestic,” is one of the very few legitimate roles of federal government that our Founders recognized.

Jenfidel on September 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM

I like Glenn Beck for his persistence in exposing Obama Administration corruption but his egregious statement that McCain would have been worse than Obama is true only if certain contingencies occur, viz: 1. An increasingly government dependent population actually turns on Obama-both in the mid-term elections next year and in the general election 2 years later. (Remember that Dick Morris has warned that we are approaching a welfare-dependent voting majority that will always lean socialistic.) 2. If Obama’s reckless spending and socialistic programs can indeed be reversed by counter-legislation. Remember it is always easier to break Humpty Dumpty that to put him back together again.

Thus IF a majority welfare constituency has been permanently established and/or Obama’s policies cannot be reversed, then MCCAIN WOULD HAVE BEEN A MUCH BETTER CHOICE. A half loaf is always better than none.

MaiDee on September 22, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Would be nice if we could hire two Presidents.
McCain could have run International Relations.
Palin could have run all domestic policy.

bridgetown on September 22, 2009 at 8:54 AM

he is illuminating many of the ills of this administration. that is all i care about now.

the fight we fight TODAY is so enormous & we are so outnumbered, we must focus on today’s horrors & not what might have been.

Beck is helping us focus on today. and he is doing a helluva job at it.

kelley in virginia on September 22, 2009 at 9:01 AM

McCain worse than Obama?

Yes.

He would have for generations “redefine” the party to the left of what Bush is allegedly said.

Amnesty.
“League of Democracies”
Palin neutered.
GOP for years to come forced to walk “across the aisle”
Bailouts Bailouts Bailouts
Media hatred and silence from the McCain people (just like Bush)
Supreme Court questionable picks (maybe like John Paul Stevens…..boy that was a winner for Conservatives).

Maybe not as Radical as Obama but just as big a Globalist but just without the selling skills that BHO comes with?

I’d rather have Palin fighting on the outside than inside the Beltway taking orders from the likes of Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt and other McCain advisers (like Megs?).

1-20-13………..bring it on!!!

PappyD61 on September 22, 2009 at 9:04 AM

The elitists in the Republican party have the same regards for their party as the elitists who own the democrats. McCain is apart of that group. The members of the democratic party are tools to be used to move this country to the exteme left. The members of the Republican party still have the opportunity to purge these arrogant condescending mouthpieces and bring the party back to the people they are supposed to represent. Beck is pointing this out and, although not perfect, he is highlighting the serious defects in the leadership of both parties.

volsense on September 22, 2009 at 9:11 AM

PappyD61 on September 22, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Pappy: concur all!

Khun Joe on September 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM

McCain would have been worse for conservatism that Obama.

Again Beck is not a conservative. He doesn’t care about the conservative movement.

terryannonline on September 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Glenn does occasionally go off the rails a bit but I believe he’s sincere and he’s doing an amazing job of exposing Obama’s radical connections and the corruption in his administration and his connections.

Having said that, AP goes off the rails quite a bit himself — imagine if he were on radio/tv four hours a day?

I have heard a lot of compelling arguments making the case that McCain would have been worse than Obama, so to me it’s not a crazy thing to say. And “both parties suck?” Well, they do.

rcw on September 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM

If Obama passes Obamacare, he is far worse for Conservatism than McCain would ever be. and McCain did have a 80 ACU rating.

Once we are forced into National Healthcare, conservatism is dead. It means the GOP will be forced into taking a soft-stance on it for ever, as everyone becomes dependent upon it. i.e. like the Tories in the U.K.

jp on September 22, 2009 at 9:21 AM

OT for a sec: Where is Doctor Zero?

publiuspen on September 22, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Again Beck is not a conservative. He doesn’t care about the conservative movement.

terryannonline on September 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM

You’ve been saying that same drivel for 800 posts. Enlighten us all on what Beck IS????
It’s for your own credibility…

katy on September 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM

You’ve been saying that same drivel for 800 posts.

You’re being kind. Or can’t count above 800. ;-)

Marcus on September 22, 2009 at 9:32 AM

You’ve been saying that same drivel for 800 posts. Enlighten us all on what Beck IS????
It’s for your own credibility…

katy on September 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Well people keep repeating the drivel that he’s saying it because he cares about conservatives. He’s a libertarian, not a conservative.

terryannonline on September 22, 2009 at 9:36 AM

there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats

There’s no difference between mcNumbNuts and a democrat, which is why 10% of the GOP stayed home last election rather than vote for him.

dogsoldier on September 22, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Hm. Spathi is still here mixing Bush-hating rhetoric with aspirations of being the next Jules Bonnot?

Dude…get some sleep.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Again Beck is not a conservative. He doesn’t care about the conservative movement.

terryannonline on September 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM

What movement?

bridgetown on September 22, 2009 at 9:38 AM

McCain did have a 80 ACU rating.

Then that rating system is seriously fubar. Amnesty, Global Warming, ending the Bush tax cuts etc? Conservative judges?

Kerry running mate?

He’s a RINO.

dogsoldier on September 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I_C on September 22, 2009 at 2:40 AM
Something personal, perhaps?

Diane on September 22, 2009 at 8:03 AM

Sayeth the girl who begs him for a follow. You are almost as tiresome as TerryAnn.

I_C on September 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Well people keep repeating the drivel that he’s saying it because he cares about conservatives. He’s a libertarian, not a conservative.

terryannonline on September 22, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Actually, if memory serves, he used to say he was a conservative not a Republican. That was back when he was on Headline News and busting the balls of Republicans over illegal immigration and reckless fiscal policies. I believe his ideology has always leaned towards libertarianism, but he hasn’t been using that label all along.

Stickeehands on September 22, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Sayeth the girl who begs him for a follow. You are almost as tiresome as TerryAnn.

I_C on September 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM

You are about as tiresome as The Dean. Wait, who are you again?

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Beck sure knows how to grab the limelight.

I wonder what he thinks of Newt?

dingbat on September 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM

terryannonline on September 22, 2009 at 9:36 AM

He is a conservative libertarian. Got it! It’s the core principles in conservatism that makes us working towards the same goal…Yes that’s right. He wants to preserve the core principles of the founders.
Why do you insist on throwing libertarians out into the wilderness?

katy on September 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM

What movement?

bridgetown on September 22, 2009 at 9:38 AM

+

katy on September 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM

OT: Just read a long thread at another site where most of ‘em were bashing HA because of this post. It made me realize just how much I like this place. Rock on!

ElectricPhase on September 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Marcus on September 22, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Trying to be kind…. trying

katy on September 22, 2009 at 9:50 AM

OT: Just read a long thread at another site where most of ‘em were bashing HA because of this post. It made me realize just how much I like this place. Rock on!

ElectricPhase on September 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Right-wing or left-wing?

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM

McCain worse than Obama from a politcal perspective?

I think this argument is something George W Bush considered when he pulled the trigger on the economy last September. George W Bush is a political animal – who now is getting burned by the down turn in the economy – not the Republicans but the Democrats. They are occupying two branches of the Government. The Democrats appear to do what Democrats do no matter what state the Country is in – Tax and Spend. Something George W Bush knew he could count on. The big question to me was George W Bush looking toward the horizon, and a political backlash to catapult the Republicans back into the driver seat? Answer: Probably.

So far the domestic policies of the Progressives have been dismal and Internationally they are behaving submissively. We are a Super Power, we should not be rolling over on our back, and showing our tummy to any other country.

Dr Evil on September 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Beck seems to be … the antithesis of Ronald Reagan. –Peter Wehner

Can’t argue that.

Morons need not assume that I dislike Beck personally or politically. Public image is Wehner’s point. But Wehner’s point applies further, as there are many political distinctions separating Beck from Reagan.

As with too much of a good thing, Wehner goes so far as to say that an overload of over the top Beck is bad for the conservative American movement. Beck is not alone in the media personality cult business. Every blogger and radio host is in the same business as Obama, whether politics align or collide. Time will tell if Beck takes his force into the radical reaches he entertains as self professed “rodeo clown”. It’s one thing for the trained, experienced clown to engage in dangerous antics; quite another for the clown’s admiring crowd to follow with passion prevailing over reason, playing follow the leader.

Like crying wolf, anyone who consistently screams at the top of their lungs in order to get and maintain attention does the public an injustice. There is a time and season for all things, including quiet reflection and quiet research to ascertain the validity of one point when there are many contrasts to consider for context.

$.02

Beck was not the only one on the Van Jones story, nor even the first. He deserves respect for doing his significant loudly persistent part, no more, no less. And people are free to admire him to their hearts’ desire, or turn down the volume, or turn the channel.

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Well, if McCain had won, we wouldn’t be arguing about socialized medicine. We would be welcoming all of the new citizens.

Vashta.Nerada on September 22, 2009 at 10:02 AM

I know there are lots of dictators that could have been worse than Uhhhbama, but they weren’t running for president. I couldn’t disagree with GB more.

DanaSmiles on September 22, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Glenn Beck is correct in his instinct that “Corruption” in D.C. is now considered “The way they do business” Perhaps this critic needs to address that, when he interprets Beck’s statement, that there isn’t any difference between Republicans and Democrats. They have both proven, alternately, depending on who is in power, to be corrupt…the old axiom, Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. Peter Wehner- missing the tree for the forest.

Dr Evil on September 22, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Well, if McCain had won, we wouldn’t be arguing about socialized medicine. We would be welcoming all of the new citizens.

Vashta.Nerada on September 22, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Patience my dear, patience.

DanaSmiles on September 22, 2009 at 10:05 AM

AP, I worry that you’re still looking for validation from the liberal media (as Rush would say), worrying about how Beck will be perceived. Beck, libertarians and other conservatives, like the one running this site, are like many different instruments in a symphony. All with different voices, all going where the rhythm takes them. Contrast this to the GOP, as a whole, which is more like a room full of conductors all waiting for someone to start playing. Beck’s right: we don’t need political parties. At least not today. What we need is nature to take its course. Even you play your part in this, as a kind of fulcrum upon which ideas emerge. Just look at the polls: nobody trusts political parties, nobody trusts anyone in Congress or Government. If anyone ran as a conservative independent in this environment they’d win by a landslide (so long as they weren’t damaged goods, of course).

jeffthevoter on September 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Hey, for all those defending McCain vis-a-vis the filthy liar in the White House, a simple question.

John McCain spent most of GWB’s administration second-guessing the people in the administration, engaging in a personal vendetta against the SECDEF and otherwise playing the contrarian. Where is that John McCain these days? Seems as if he is 100% in approval of everything the filthy liar is doing which only goes to prove that he was the wrong guy for the GOP to nominate.

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Or do you just hate Jews?
(I’m surprised you were canny enough to leave out the usual neocons=Zionists/Jews label.)

Jenfidel on September 22, 2009 at 8:49 AM

One can’t criticize neo-cons without being anti-Semitic? NeoCons are very much beyond the mainstream in their war-hawkiness, as evidenced by many of their pipe dreams not coming to fruition, as well as the backlash to those pipe dreams that did. No need to hide behind jew hatred as the sole means of defending them.

ernesto on September 22, 2009 at 10:07 AM

One can’t criticize neo-cons without being anti-Semitic?

ernesto on September 22, 2009 at 10:07 AM

When one starts bemoaning neocons, praising Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, and talking about how the Jews direct foreign policy…it comes to the point where one starts thinking “water” while being rained on.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM

The most disturbing element is that he would sit down with Couric. I guess he enjoys arguing with idiots, except that’s not quite his forte. Anyone observing Beck closely enough realizes there’s a bit of Icarus in him. He needs to keep it under control, but I don’t think it’s in his personality.

Western_Civ on September 22, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Glenn Beck never said we have nothing to fear from an Obama administration. He never tried to shut down the investigation into Obama’s past associations, he never argued for amnesty for illegal aliens, and he never ran for public office. His prediction of the Perfect Storm was right on and he may be right or wrong about McCain so what.

fourdeucer on September 22, 2009 at 10:11 AM

fourdeucer on September 22, 2009 at 10:11 AM

+1

katy on September 22, 2009 at 10:13 AM

When one starts bemoaning neocons, praising Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, and talking about how the Jews direct foreign policy…it comes to the point where one starts thinking “water” while being rained on.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Again, what your saying is that criticizing neocons for taking things too far implies some ulterior motive…be it paulnuttery or straight up jew hatred. In reality, many of foreign policy stances proposed by the neocon commentariat can be argued against and refused without endorsing some wacked out world view. Like, Georgia, for instance. Some people surely feel that they were worth sticking our neck out as far as possible, international repercussions be damned. Others may have felt that while the situation was regrettable, it did not warrant our putting ourselves in a precarious position vis a vis russia. That sort of criticism cannot be relegated entirely to the realm of paulnuttery.

ernesto on September 22, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Stickeehands on September 22, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Nailed it, as usual.

I_C on September 22, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Again, what your saying is that criticizing neocons for taking things too far implies some ulterior motive…be it paulnuttery or straight up jew hatred.

ernesto on September 22, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Read more carefully. A number of posters here openly stated that they were Paulnuts, followers of idiots like Buchanan and Rockwell, and made the typical remarks about Israel that you usually hear out of the mouths of Iran, Gaza, etc.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 10:18 AM

I have heard a lot of compelling arguments making the case that McCain would have been worse than Obama, so to me it’s not a crazy thing to say. And “both parties suck?” Well, they do.

rcw on September 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Strike compelling and hold those arguments on merit. /yes, emphasis mine.

McCain would not have injured the Honduran Constitutional Government as Obama has and is, promoting Zelaya and cutting funds until Zelaya is made dictator.

McCain would not have injured the alliances between the USA and our allies.

NO WAY would McCain ever pull out from the Bush treaty with Poland and the Czech Republic over missile defense, and use the tragic day remembering the Russian invasion to make the announcement.

McCain would not have accepted the UN Security Council Chairmanship while POTUS. He’d have relegated the offer to someone he’d like to work with in the UN Security Council.

McCain would not have waited, and still be waiting, to determine what the US strategy is in Afghanistan. Nor would McCain ignore reports he requested.

The contrasts between how bad McCain would have been domestically and how bad Obama already is (let alone how much worse Obama is becoming) repudiate any logical assessment that McCain would have been worse for America than Obama.

That sort of bs is a low down cheap shot to attract an audience for a thrill. And that sort of thing discredits one’s credibility, the point that Peter Wehner made against Beck pro/con “conservative” America.

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 10:20 AM

istration, engaging in a personal vendetta against the SECDEF and otherwise playing the contrarian. Where is that John McCain these days? Seems as if he is 100% in approval of everything the filthy liar is doing…

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

And that would be why people like me voted 3rd party; Obama = McSame. End of story. Besides not having a deck of race cards to play on opponents, there wouldn’t have been any real difference in the end.

Dark-Star on September 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM

[McCain] was the wrong guy for the GOP to nominate.

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

hh was born yesterday.

Whether McCain was the right guy for the GOP ticket was not the question, nor the answer.

Compared to Obama, McCain would have done right by America on the international scene.

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM

John McCain spent most of GWB’s administration second-guessing the people in the administration, engaging in a personal vendetta against the SECDEF and otherwise playing the contrarian. Where is that John McCain these days?

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Good question.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM

I can understand the flames being thrown at faux conservatives like Michael Weiner (Savage) and Ron Paul, but this fratricide by Allahpundit is pretty sickening. This forum deserves MUCH better.

Bleed_thelizard on September 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM

I agree 100% with beck.If McCain had been elected things would about as bad and the Lib would control congress for the next 20 years.After all McCain big selling point in the campaign was elect me i can cross to the other side and work with the Dems and i also believe in global warming.

thmcbb on September 22, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Right-wing or left-wing?

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Right. They were bemoaning the lack of conformity on the part of the bloggers. The main reason I love this place is that every sacred cow is tasered without mercy.

ElectricPhase on September 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM

he may be right or wrong about McCain so what.

Yeah, so what. Are we really so blind to the irony in this asinine debate about Beck? McCain is not president and God forbid he ever will be. The point we all seem to be missing is that Obama IS president and for far too many people, the thought of Obama being left of horrible is foreign to them. They’re out there wearing dresses with his face on them! I’m sure Katie Couric thought Beck was a fool, not for the McCain comment, but because he thinks Obama is not a good president.

It’s like a thief robbing our home while we stand out on the lawn arguing with our spouse about who we’d rather have robbing our home.

Aaargh, people! Really… aaaargh!

somewhatconcerned on September 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Here’s the answer:

“This decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic, and has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe,” Senator McCain said in a statement. “Given the serious and growing threats posed by Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, now is the time when we should look to strengthen our defenses, and those of our allies.”

McCain also said the change in US direction is “seriously misguided” and a “victory for [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin.”

Oooh. Misguided. Harsh.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM

McCain sucked.

Obama sucks more.

We have to fight the sucker we got.

Beck needs to focus.

The past ~and what it might have caused~ is H.G. Wells’ beat.

I voted for McShamnesty to get Palin as a leavening of his statist Obama-lite agenda.

He would probably have lulled the Republicans into far worse damage than Obama will be able to accomplish.

So, in a sense, Beck is right, but Obama is the radical in change, and he needs to be opposed, not the fantasy of a non-existent President McCain.

Focus, Glenn.

Katie Couric is no longer that perky.

profitsbeard on September 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Oooh. Misguided. Harsh.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM

That’s what you get for bringing a butter-McCain to a gunfight.

ElectricPhase on September 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM

If you want to fear something now, fear the pendulum.

MikeA on September 22, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Fear it? No way, I’m cheering, chanting, and doing the wave!

without going too far that direction.

Define TOO far. I’d like it to swing far enough that the balls on the left fall off (as if they had any to begin with)

The stored energy in the pendulum now being so high on the left

Ah ha so you do understand. Coolness.

FREEDOM!

Blacksmith8 on September 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM

ChickaBOOMer — Katie and Glenn: The Oscar and Felix of TV News
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/09/katie-and-glenn-oscar-and-felix-of-tv.html

StewartIII on September 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Allahpundit is shrieking about Beck being a “Paulnut” on Twitter, conviniently using Levin’s hateful remarks, which he has made for YEARS now, out of pure personal jealousy, in order to accuse a Beck of something he is not.

Beck has slammed Paul and Paulnuts for their anti-war rethoric time and time again on his cable show – for which he was attacked by the Paulnuts.

Beck has supported WoT time and time again on his radio show.

Beck has supported Israel time and time again.

The fact he uses less-than-honest populism in the interview, persumably to gain the trust of partisanship-tired independents, does not make him a “Paulnut”, and does not erase what he has said and done in support of WoT.

Allahpundit energes out of this ordeal a smear merchant ,a liar and as someone who cynically uses WoT for hacking at people he personally dislikes. Not unlike his Atheist comrade, Charles Johnson.

Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM

While we’re on the topic of the Greatest President of ALL TIME! How many of you supposed Reaganites are abusing the eleventh commandment?
It doesn’t matter how squishy McCain(RINO) gets. I’m thinking he may have misspoken about the Bamster not lying or the absence of “Death Panels” in HR3200. We need to STOP the badmouthing and get with the program. (You may remember, there are BIGGER fish to fry)

Conservatism is like mouthwash. It’s easy and you’ll thank me later.

Blacksmith8 on September 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM

I like profitsbeard. Sensible dude.

jeffthevoter on September 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Obama sucks more. …he needs to be opposed, not the fantasy of a non-existent President McCain.

We have to fight the sucker we got.

profitsbeard on September 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Agreed, focus on target, not distractions.

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Beck had a segment on last weeks radio about how to win in the sandpit of your choice. It involved scaring the ‘BAT-SNOT’ out of someone and coming home. I sprayed coffee on the screen and had to clean it up. That was almost the best day last week.

Blacksmith8 on September 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM

You are about as tiresome as The Dean. Wait, who are you again?

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM

You know as well as I do. :o)

Diane on September 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I think Beck believes that corrupt politicians need to be removed, regardless of party, and that honest politicians would be worth keeping, regardless of party. And I agree with that position, though I’d vote for the more conservative candidate every time.

He’s right that there don’t seem to be any good options to vote for in many cases. So many established politicians seem to be sellouts that it’s hard to find someone worth supporting. I support the GOP because they’re more content to line their pockets without expanding government. But most GOP politicians will still pass a social welfare bone in order to get re-elected, and that’s hurting the country.

hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM

So, in a sense, Beck is right, but Obama is the radical in change, and he needs to be opposed, not the fantasy of a non-existent President McCain.

Focus, Glenn.

Katie Couric is no longer that perky.

profitsbeard on September 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

100% right.

hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Not unlike his Atheist comrade, Charles Johnson.

Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM

I’m hardly AP’s champion. But by over extension, you end up way off base concluding your argument. You condemn your credibility by using the very tactic you charge AP with using as “proof”.

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

We need to STOP the badmouthing and get with the program. (You may remember, there are BIGGER fish to fry)

Blacksmith8 on September 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM

I disagree. While we watch the Democrats implode over healthcare reform, it is very easy to forget that the GOP is hardly unified. Many of us who are social and/or Christian conservatives first and Republicans second have been abused and smeared by the McCain/RINO wing of the party since the 2000 election. McCain didn’t even make any pretense that my type of conservative was welcome in his bitter little world. His strategy in 2000 and 2008 was to appeal to cross-over voters- Democrats not quite as liberal as Pelosi or the filthy liar in the White House.

Well, enough is enough. If the GOP wants to win national elections, it needs to go back to its traditional views on social issues, the role of government, and fiscal conservatism. It needs to find a leader who can appeal to the GOP base. That means a move away from country club RINOs like McCain and until that debate is over with, there isn’t going to be unity within the GOP.

I’m very bitter with the GOP leadership that engineered McCain’s victory, sought to disenfranchise the social conservatives, and continue to prop up political traitors like McCain, Collins, and Specter before he jumped ship.

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM

hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

He’s a mover and a shaker, and does his part showing just how far out there things do run. But it isn’t as if Beck is running for office. /has he yet made a similar announcement as Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham have?

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Sayeth the girl who begs him for a follow. You are almost as tiresome as TerryAnn.

I_C on September 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM

You know as well as I know that I am joking…I’m not seriously invested in it except admiration like everyone else. If you are who I think you are, then I am actually struggling to understand what I’ve done to offend you other than disagree from time to time about Glenn Beck. Perspective, please.

Diane on September 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM

I’m hardly AP’s champion. But by over extension, you end up way off base concluding your argument. You condemn your credibility by using the very tactic you charge AP with using as “proof”.

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

What’s exactly “off base” in this statement?

AP and Chalrles Johnson are similar in the way they rutinely smear Beck, though AP’s accusation of him being a “Paulnut” on WoT, is much crazier than anything CJ has ever thrown at him, considering the fact Beck vocally supported WoT from day one, more so than Levin or even Michelle Malkin herself.

This is a disgraceful smear, and AP’s credibility is down to zero, thanks to his feelings clouding his judgement and knowledge of facts.

Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM

You know as well as I do. :o)

Diane on September 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Say it isn’t so.

Christ…now I have to relegate myself to the sidelines to watch the catfight play out.

With pleasure.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

AP and Chalrles Johnson are similar in the way they rutinely smear Beck, though AP’s accusation of him being a “Paulnut” on WoT, is much crazier than anything CJ has ever thrown at him, considering the fact Beck vocally supported WoT from day one, more so than Levin or even Michelle Malkin herself.

This is a disgraceful smear, and AP’s credibility is down to zero, thanks to his feelings clouding his judgement and knowledge of facts.

Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM

…except that Beck himself had Ron Paul on his show, back when he was on Headline News, and slobbered over him.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Has Beck replaced Palin as Allah’s punching bag?

right2bright on September 22, 2009 at 11:07 AM

I agree. The revolution that is going to take place with conservatives would have never happened if McCain would have won. In face another comment was correct in stating we would have been far worse off because republicans would have felt they needed to vote for McCains wishes with amnesty, health care, and cap and tax, and of course democrats would have flocked to it. So everything would have passed.
With what we have now, although it is terrible right now, and could get worse before we gain control. At least we have a re-awakening of the real center of this country to once again stand up, wake up and make themselves heard. The whole reason the left is so out of control, and think their way is the way everyone thinks is because the center of the country has been letting the coasts run things for far too long. They actually believe that everyone thinks the same way they do.
Glenn, by the way has stated he is a libertarian several times. He never has said he is republican, nor has he said he is conservative. He is like Ron Paul in that he thinks that the constitution, and values is all we need to run the country. Not the parties.

patriotparty1 on September 22, 2009 at 11:08 AM

I disagree with Beck on this one (and I’m a Beck fan) but I think I can see where he’s coming from. Beck seems to me to be an optimist – he thinks we’re on the brink but that we can pull back from it. He sees the Obama administration (and Democrat control of Congress) as a catalyst that has awakened large swaths of people to the reality of massive corruption in government and that this awakening is the kernel of removing this corruption. I’d imagine that Beck believes that many of the far left policies of Obama/Pelosi/Reid won’t actually get enacted because of popular outrage at them – so in this regard McCain would likely have been worse on the domestic front than Obama is (e.g., he would have compromised with Democrats). So, the awakening of many many Americans to what DC is like and the corruption in government is worth the cost of having hard core liberals in charge of things.

I’m not sure how Beck squares this with Obama’s horrific foreign policy – maybe Beck feels that 4 years of Obama screwing up foreign affairs is worth a perceived long term conservative/libertarian resurgence and purging of corruption.

gwelf on September 22, 2009 at 11:08 AM

…except that Beck himself had Ron Paul on his show, back when he was on Headline News, and slobbered over him.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 11:07 AM

You mean this?

:rolleyes:

Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Not sure…YouTube blocked at work.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM

The liberal narrative demands the fiction that we never questioned Bush’s prodigious spending and blindly loved McCain despite his many faults. Neither has ever been true. In fact 2006 and 2008 were largely protest sit outs by angry right wing voters, a trend that the Palace Guard Media is as careful to avoid noticing as the ACORN story. Glenn is just saying it like it is. He’s saying what a lot of Republicans are thinking here. If McCain had gotten in, he’d be ‘reaching across the aisle’ to work with the most left wing congress we’ve ever had. And the Republicans would be given 100% of the blame for the goofy failure that would have resulted.

Dark Eden on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

This should be the one.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

He’s an entertainer first and foremost and an iconoclast. He regularly says things that are ‘edgy’ like a shock jock.

Not my cup of tea but he certainly has an audience.

Anders on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

He’s talking about this right now on the radio show. It’s worth a listen, AP.

hoosiermama on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Listen up AP….

rcw on September 22, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Beck is talking about it now… Stu just said… “there would be no tea party movement if John McCain were President”!

Exactly!!!

katy on September 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Beck is making a useful qualification on his show now: McCain may have been worse, in the long term, if we survive Obama without serious damage.

His point is that McCain, while better than Obama for 4-8 years, would have diluted conservatism over the longer term into oblivion. Obama, on the other hand, is bringing the left out of the closet into public scrutiny, so that the core issues are in sharp focus and up for a vote at last.

petefrt on September 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

This should be the one.

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

This should be the one. Apparently, AP is just recycling a David Frum’s lie, trying to make it go viral.

Actual radio quote, two year after the Ron Paul interview on CNN: “I still act like’s he [RP] is a crazy cooky guy“. Case closed.

Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM

petefrt on September 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Exactly! Well put.

TXMomof3 on September 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM

McCain was a poor choice for our nominee and would have been a mediocre president at best. But he sure as hell wouldn’t be worse than Obama.

t.ferg on September 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM

What’s exactly “off base” in this statement?
Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Not unlike his Atheist comrade, Charles Johnson.

Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM

I am not a Beck follower; we don’t do cable and he doesn’t radio broadcast here. I do take your point,

AP’s accusation of him [Beck] being a “Paulnut” on WoT, is much crazier

and I, too, note Allahpundit’s fancy with Alinsky methods used against conservatives with differing viewpoints.

Whether “birther” that he participated in ramping up by promoting disinformation for the less educated to hear about second hand, while actively disregarding every Constitutional element DURING THE PRIMARY as well as now that leaves Obama illegitimate to hold the POTUS office; or “truther” that again, Allahpundit spreads too easily to besmirch those who would note government policies that enabled terrorists not only with flight training, but the specific mechanical aeronautical training to accurately aim those planes to hit on pinpoint target while on decline @ Pentagon and on the angle/arc of turn at WTC Twin Towers.

However, there is but one CJ in this universe. And I would not compare AP to CJ on the issue of open dialogue. Nor would I compare AP to CJ on any level of malice. It’s one thing to be a potent imp. Another all together to be a blackhole. So I don’t see the two as “comrades” particularly since AP, though a progressive, does not wittingly endorse Marxism, IMHO. Not yet, at any rate.

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM

I haven’t read the thread, and I won’t read it. These get crazy which is why AP starts them. I’m only going to say one thing (and it probably has already been posted)- why put the RINO tag on Beck. He by no means claims he is a republican so the tag is incorrect.

cibolo on September 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Actual radio quote, two year after the Ron Paul interview on CNN: “I still act like’s he [RP] is a crazy cooky guy“. Case closed.

Aristotle on September 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Beck also says the same about himself. What does that tell you?

“Case closed.”

MadisonConservative on September 22, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Glenn Beck stands tall as an American. Let’s show some respect for all this man has done to Team Marxist Obana.

Cinday Blackburn on September 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Domestically, McCain would have been another Bush, except that McCain would have made it a policy of doing the Democrats’ bidding. In the interest of bipartisanship, of course. In that sense, McCain would have been worse for America and the Republican party. Cap and trade? Already would have passed. A Romney-care style health care bill? Already on its way. Stimulus? Already passed.

Tea parties? Never would have happened. Certainly not to the extent they have.

Foreign policy-wise, Beck is dead wrong, but then, Beck isn’t concerned about foreign policy right now.

Beck is aiming at the mythical independent block. He’s going to fail.

spmat on September 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Beck is talking about it now… Stu just said… “there would be no tea party movement if John McCain were President”!

Exactly!!!

katy on September 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM

BS.

That’s ignoring the massive conservative response against McCain’s comprehensive immigration reform legislation, and the outrage from the Right over Bush’s progressive engineering of government.

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM

I think that the tea party movement would have occurred under McCain but it wouldn’t be as big because while McCain would have been as bad as Bush neither of them are nearly as bad as Obama. I also think the tea party movement is fueled by 2 branches of government being in the hands of 1 party and what this means for fiscal responsibility etc.

gwelf on September 22, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Tea parties? Never would have happened. Certainly not to the extent they have.

spmat on September 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

BS

11:29 Encore

maverick muse on September 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10