Quote of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on September 21, 2009 by Allahpundit

Click the image to listen.

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

What Beck said was stupid and or not well thought out.

He should admit as much and move on.

Elizabetty on September 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Thanks A–APUNDIT,

For pulling a Charles Johnson(LGF) with pulling this story out to drive a wedge between us conservatives(you libertarians don’t count) while the nation burns.

b1jetmech on September 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Anyone who votes 3rd party throws their vote away.
I know this well after voting for Perot in 1992.
Never again.
I’m happy with the GOP anyway and pray every day that Sarah Palin will be our candidate.
Jenfidel on September 22, 2009

In this time and point of the country, I wish people were more open to the idea of a third party considering the lunacy and ineptness of our current government.

The Perot and Nader phenomenon was relevent when it actually mattered which party controlled the strings of power. Now the goal should be for the people….not the party, to reclaim their power from a two party, oppressive system that has gone off the rails. I think today way more people could support a third party and there is an anger and concern that is ripe for real grassroots movement. In fact it is already in place. It just needs a strong leader to give it direction.

I

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Bush tortured over 100 detainees to death. That was official policy to interrogate them to the extreme not just rogue acts like abu ghraib supposedly was.

That’s why we need official war crimes trials for Bush-Cheney and the Gonzo 6.

Holder seems to weak to move forward though.

Spathi on September 22, 2009 at 8:27 AM

Pretty stupid thing to say.

You are lumped in with the wacko libs.

b1jetmech on September 22, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Follow the leader, Mark Levin. Remember not all leaders have to have a title or be elected to a national or local government body.

Leaders are able to motivate people to innovate and implement ideas into action. Once implemented, they observe that which has been placed into motion and monitor it carefully and when the idea shows signs of faltering, a leader is quick to analyze what is going on and finds a solution and implements the appropriate corrective action.

MSGTAS on September 22, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Glenn Beck is not a conservative leader. He’s a talk show guy who’s more libertarian than conservative. He’s bringing in a lot of money and viewers to FOX. The end.

orlandocajun on September 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM

We have to stop eating our own.

Disagree, make your point and point out areas where we agree.

jpmn on September 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Glenn Beck is not a conservative leader.
orlandocajun on September 22, 2009

He is a conservative leader….conservative being the key word.

while he may lean towards, or call himself a libertarian, he is definitely a strong conservative voice. The rub with people like Rush and maybe Levin is for some reason he is ready to throw republicans under the bus. After the last five years so am I.

Illegal immigration
Astronomical spending sprees
huge government buildup
and more…

All issues where Republicans are no different than Democrats in theory. Yes, dems are better at big government but it doesn’t mean the Republicans aren’t trying.

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Deal with the here and now. The what is. Not what could have been.

James on September 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I think today way more people could support a third party and there is an anger and concern that is ripe for real grassroots movement. In fact it is already in place. It just needs a strong leader to give it direction.

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM

The only reason to support a third party is to dilute the Republican vote, so the dems can remain in power…unless you are advocating strengthening the Green Party.
I will not fall for that, I didn’t with Perot, and I won’t this time.
A third party to replace the Republican party is a party for the dems.

right2bright on September 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM

BTW….I’m a HUGE fan of both Levin and Rush. I just wish they weren’t so “loyal” to a party that has betrayed them and have apparently used them as stooges all along.

If things get much worse as the marxist continue their destruction of America and Republicans stand by and tepidly protest….and in some cases abet the fall of our country…they both may end up jumping ship.

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Love Levin. Love Beck.

Both are making huge contributions in different ways.

Can’t do without either of them.

Common guys.

Get along.

notagool on September 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM

A third party to replace the Republican party is a party for the dems.
right2bright on September 22, 2009

I hate to disagree with someone I usually say amen to but…..

your quote above shows to me more of a fear of third parties than a real reason to not pursue it.

We are living in a historical period and it will take a monumental movement to overcome this. I’m not going to be afraid of consequences or of being too radical. Just checking the same box over and over again at the polls is not going to change anything. We need to shake the tree of liberty, not water the weeds of destruction.

Having said that, I’m not about to pull the lever for a liberal….ever.

“These are the times that try men’s souls.”
~Thomas Paine

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 10:47 AM

I love Levin but he’s got this quite backwards and is really attacking the wrong person for the wrong reasons.

McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama in multiple ways. Not only would he have gone down roughly the same path Obama is treading now (though at least he would have been socially conservative thanks to his VP pick) but he would have taken the Republican party and conservatism down with him. That’s what Levin is missing here. McCain would have been the death of conservatism as we know it in America since that would have been essentially the “side” he represented. And since he’s so well known for his “crossing the aisle” with Democrats, they’d pretty well have his way with him since McCain is certainly well known for his expediency, politically.

At least with Obama, we know what we’re getting: a far left radical who wants to fundamentally reshape this country from its roots. He’s a Democrat and a leftist and as such it gives us not only as a party but as an ideology and as a country a chance to rally behind the conservative roots of this nation and bring those to the forefront against the ruinous policies of the left and the idiotic compliance (at worst) and/or spinelessness (at best) of the modern Republican party in Washington.

That’s what Glenn Beck was talking about. Levin really bent this one out of whack and should be reprimanded for doing such. Yeah, you fought against McCain, Levin… we get it. But at least Obama will take liberalism down with him… McCain would have taken US down with him.

Get it straight, Mark.

Jockolantern on September 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 10:47 AM

It is easier to change the Republican party from the inside then to elect a “third party” candidate…which has failed every time in the post WW era.
It is not fear, but reality, it will split the party, and if in the wildest chance, the most bizarre chance that the third party is elected, where is his power base? You need more then votes from the public to get things done in Washington…
but it won’t and can’t happen, a third party will only ensure dem rule.
And this will be the ploy that the dems will initiate, try to break up the conservatives from the party. I won’t fall for their propaganda.
The most you can hope for is 8%, maybe 10%, and that will come from other Republicans…it isn’t “fear”, it is math, simple plain math. One party split, can’t defeat the other party united…
When all it takes is less effort to change what we have.

right2bright on September 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM

I got the impression that which such an outrageous statement, it was tongue in cheek on Beck’s part. I’m not sure it’s worth getting this serious and agitated about it.

Like Mark said, he agrees with Beck on 80% of his domestic ideals and disagrees 100% with his Ron Paulesque style foreign policy. Talk about it or agree to disagree. There are enough wedge issues to go around.

RepubChica on September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

No way a McCain presidency would have been worse than Obama in the White House with a political trifecta. Now all we can look forward to is gridlock. While McCain may have been centrist, he is not liberal, and he still holds conservative principles. His cap and trade would not have been the same as Obama’s, etc. He has over 20 years in Congress, and I think he could have been pretty tough with the Dems, like an LBJ. No BS, just get things done. They have no leadership or discipline but Pelosi and Reid. Obama lets Congress write his policy, so he can blame it on them when it fails and vote present. This is all very entertaining, but our country may not survive this ineptitude, even abuse. McCain was preferable.

alliebobbitt on September 22, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Here is the much more important question, one that no one else has asked….
Is Beck replacing Palin as Allah’s favorite punching bag?

right2bright on September 22, 2009 at 11:09 AM

If McCain had won would there be any Tea Parties? Would the Democrats have overplayed their hand and exposed their ruinous policies? Would the possibility of finally breaking the leftist grip on the country exist?

Obama’s election and the lunatic governance of the Democrat Congress have brought matters to a head. The enemy has finally left their ramparts and sallied forth where we can smite them. Like a fever reaching a crisis point before breaking, the eight months since Obama’s election have seen millions of antibodies created that would not exist had McCain been elected.

We can get too comfortable with the status quo. Rather than the same old same old, we now have the opportunity to educate people about conservatism with some really horrible examples of what we have been warning about. Let’s take advantage of it. If all the Tea Partiers and those cheering from the sidelines attend their local GOP meetings, they will be a majority, and can show there is no need for a third party.

JackOkie on September 22, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Levin, Beck and Rush have a lot in common. The biggest difference seems to be Beck’s “pox on both your houses” thinking. Levin and Rush would prefer to get the most conservative folks elected, and then work on making them more conservative.

Beck, I think, may want a more radical transformation, or believes that’s the only way to get responsible politicians in place in DC. Maybe he’s been subtly affected by the leftist radical stuff that he reads for research?

Beck’s new call for 56 founders from among the existing legislators is a step in the right direction, and away from the radicalism he sometimes seems to espouse.

hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

JackOkie on September 22, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Good points all the way ’round.

hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 11:11 AM

it will split the party, and if in the wildest chance, the most bizarre chance that the third party is elected, where is his power base? You need more then votes from the public to get things done in Washington…
but it won’t and can’t happen, a third party will only ensure dem rule.
right2bright on September 22, 2009

So are you saying we are stuck with a two party system forever?
Yes there will be pain in a political revolution and yes if conservatives flock to a new party it will benefit the dems in the short term but I just happen to believe it is all on the line right now. The best time to make a move (just as in the corporate world when you restructure) is when you are down and out….but not dead…yet.

I am open to a third party, that does not mean I will not support republicans in 2010 and beyond, but it will not be blindly There are republicans I will not vote for (RHINOs and “careerists” or corrupt republicans).

We also need term limits badly!

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

I got the impression that which such an outrageous statement, it was tongue in cheek on Beck’s part. I’m not sure it’s worth getting this serious and agitated about it.

It’s the sort of thing that gets grabbed by the enemy, but it might have been to broaden his audience now that he’s making headlines and getting regularly attacked by the chattering class. It seemed like a conciliatory gesture, but one that many conservatives will disdain.

Like Mark said, he agrees with Beck on 80% of his domestic ideals and disagrees 100% with his Ron Paulesque style foreign policy. Talk about it or agree to disagree. There are enough wedge issues to go around.

RepubChica on September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

That’s good advice. It’s just politics, nothing to get too heated up about. Beck is nutty on the Ron Paul stuff, broadcasting from his hospital bed jacked up on painkillers and weeping copiously on national TV. The Vanity Fair piece Is Glenn Beck the Right Wing Steve Martin? seemed like a good approach to him.

alliebobbitt on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

It is easier to change the Republican party from the inside then to elect a “third party” candidate…which has failed every time in the post WW era.

right2bright on September 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Indeed. As I said earlier, Beck’s call for politicians to re-connect to the spirit of the Founders is a step in the right direction. Find some GOP candidates we can rally around.

On a local level, we need to push for conservative candidates in every political race. And let the GOP know we dont’ want them to prop up RINOs in the primaries.

hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 11:15 AM

The rub with people like Rush and maybe Levin is for some reason he is ready to throw republicans under the bus.

Beck doesn’t have a rub with Rush. I’ll be interested to see what Rush has to say about this.

Pablo on September 22, 2009 at 11:17 AM

So are you saying we are stuck with a two party system forever?

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

A third party needs to do the same work as the other parties and establish itself at the grassroots and municipal levels of government before going national. It’s just a vote splitter otherwise. Also, parliamentary systems seem to accommodate multiple small parties more. I think it would be more challenging in the US, but not impossible.

alliebobbitt on September 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

You notice Rush and O’Rilley are’nt stupid. They have embraced Glenn. Levin and Hannity on the other hand are going the other way. Has anyone noticed that Glenn now tops Hannity in TV ratings most nights? Hannity must have pulled rank last week to force them to let him break one of the ACORN tapes. Other than that all he ever does is have the same guests on over and over, and rail about the same things over and over and he NEVER changes is game. He is getting taken over by the 5 pm’er.

patriotparty1 on September 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Like Mark said, he agrees with Beck on 80% of his domestic ideals and disagrees 100% with his Ron Paulesque style foreign policy.

What Paulesque foreign policy is that? Beck on Afghanistan: Either let the troops fight to win and give them what they need to do it or get them out.

What’s wrong with that?

Pablo on September 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

The biggest difference seems to be Beck’s “pox on both your houses” thinking.

Beck’s new call for 56 founders from among the existing legislators is a step in the right direction, and away from the radicalism he sometimes seems to espouse.

hawksruleva on September 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Despite the naysayers, I tell my bf all the time that GB is the real deal in a sea of corporate hacks. Which is why I’m willing to overlook this faux pas and much more, cuz it’s Beck. I’m sold on him.

RepubChica on September 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM

If all the Tea Partiers and those cheering from the sidelines attend their local GOP meetings, they will be a majority, and can show there is no need for a third party.
JackOkie on September 22, 2009

Correct…but as a tea-party participant I can tell you there is a rift between the conservative constiuents and Republicans that is very real and will not heal UNTIL Republicans return to conservatism. Not just in words but deeds and spine. Just look at the wafflers Republicans have as leaders, McCain and Romney being at the forefront. Real conservatives are knocked down by Republicans (i.e. Palin).

If anyone is listening, the Republican’s message is conservatism dead…big government centrist good. It is very clear. We accuse libs of being sycophants and lemmings (which they are). Yet we are not willing to consider witholding support of our party when they morph into the opposition?

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

What Paulesque foreign policy is that? Beck on Afghanistan: Either let the troops fight to win and give them what they need to do it or get them out.

What’s wrong with that?

Pablo on September 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

My bat–I shoulda put ” on that. Indirectly quoting Levin from the audio clip. Personally, I’ve never noticed anything out of the ordinary with Beck’s take on foreign affairs except a willingness to admit some wrongdoing on America’s part for certain unspoken things. His love for this country is clear. I don’t see a need to question.

RepubChica on September 22, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Beck doesn’t have a rub with Rush. I’ll be interested to see what Rush has to say about this.
Pablo on September 22, 2009

I meant Rush has the rub…he disagrees with Beck and has said that government is not the problem, the war is with the far left (we should support repubs even when we disagree)

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Nalea on September 22, 2009 at 5:41 AM
That’s like saying let’s hire the murderer to be the gardener because it will force us to check our house security system.
Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 5:47 AM

Yes, Jeff…sometimes you need a really strong catalyst to make people see that which wouldn’t move their butts before. It’s a hard lesson, but most people need to hit bottom (in this case an Obama presidency) to change. It’s the way the universe works.

Nalea on September 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM

while he may lean towards, or call himself a libertarian, he is definitely a strong conservative voice. The rub with people like Rush and maybe Levin is for some reason he is ready to throw republicans under the bus. After the last five years so am I.

Illegal immigration
Astronomical spending sprees
huge government buildup
and more…

All issues where Republicans are no different than Democrats in theory. Yes, dems are better at big government but it doesn’t mean the Republicans aren’t trying.

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

I watch Beck once in awhile, and listen to Levin sometimes. I prefer Levin even though he gets a bit gruff sometimes, but Beck, despite seeming like a good person and a Conservative, acts pretty looney at times.

Levin, and Rush are true Conservatives, and rant about the things you listed above, and more, on a daily basis, and for good reason do not agree that the Republican party should be replaced by a new party. Starting a new party to run against Republicans in the 2012 election is just going to get us another “Ross Perot type” candidacy and Democrat President all over again. Conservatives can take hold of the party again, and I believe they are working towards that.

As for John McCain’s Presidential bid, both Rush and Levin railed against much of what he did and said during the election, but they certainly did not want Obama to be elected instead of him. McCain is a RINO, pure and simple, no debating that, but for Beck to even compare him to Obama is asinine, and to say he would have been worse for our Country is ludicrous! I believe he was just pandering to Couric on that comment.

Susanboo on September 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM

After owning and running a business for 30 years, I must say that I know Levin’s type, and it isn’t pretty. He would be an employer’s worst nightmare. At first, he would seem to be an asset to the company, but as time went on, he would be poison. There is more than one way and one style to confront a crisis, and Levin, who is obsessed with a tunnel vision mentality, needs to straigten up. He is feeding on strife and selfishness. What a darn shame!!!

mobydutch on September 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

When all it takes is less effort to change what we have.
right2bright on September 22, 2009

And what if we can’t change what we have? Are you willing to keep voting for McCain, versions 2, 3, 4, etc. while we continue to slouch towards fascism? I’m not. I’ve said many times, and say again, no more. I will gladly work with you to move the party back to conservatism, but that doesn’t obligate me to vote Republican “in the meantime”. My loyalty is to the Constitution and the founding principles, not to the party. That is my line in the sand.

SKYFOX on September 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM

I love Mark Levin, but Beck is right. Look what we let Bush get away with. If McCain would have been in office, he would be handing us over to the world in Global Warming treaties and widening our borders. At least OBama’s blatent Marxism has splashed cold water in the faces of sleeping Americans (myself included) and McCain’s election to the presidency would NOT have lead to what is going on now with the Tea Party protests.

Levin is brilliant, but his whiney Beck bashing is growing tiresome. He is going from must listen to radio, to ….if I miss a day or two…eh…

ihasurnominashun on September 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM

We had to go through 4 years Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan.

We will have to go through 4 years of Barack Obama to get the next real conservative president, whoever that is.

I think Beck’s point is that in the long run McCain winning the election would have done more harm than good to the conservative movement.

McCain is not a conservative and never was.

JohnBG on September 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

We had to go through 4 years Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan.

We will have to go through 4 years of Barack Obama to get the next real conservative president, whoever that is.

I think Beck’s point is that in the long run McCain winning the election would have done more harm than good to the conservative movement.

McCain is not a conservative and never was.

JohnBG on September 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

While I will get in the boat and start rowing with you in that I hope that this would be the case, please don’t think that just because it happened once it will happen again.

Reagan came along right when we needed him. That chances of lightening striking in the same place twice are what?

rollthedice on September 22, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Levin and Rush have been fighting for Conservative principles for a long damn time, their whole lives basically. Levin was talking trash to Liberal politicians since he was a young teenager. Where the hell was Beck just five short years ago?

Here’s why I am leery of Beck. He just seems to be the type that would take the stances he does because it is financially the right move for him (very much money before the movement). I think one reason is when he flat out made up the story about Barbara Walters and Whoopi and then they called him out on his lie and made the idiot look stupid when he came on The View…I mean really stupid. He then because he was humiliated, didn’t show up for his own show later on that day, but called in over the phone on air with this fake ass stuffy nose, and then shows up the next day without any symptoms. Between things like this and all his fake ass tears he squeezes out, It’s just not genuine. Conservatives don’t need an attention seeking clown face, funny voice guy.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate his work of late, but he has a LONG way to go to convince me he is solid. O’reilly is just as fraudulent in my opinion. I also agree that Levin is paying too much attention to Beck of late. He doesn’t need to, Beck is an intellectual gnat compared to Levin.

goldwaterpunk on September 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM

I can clearly see the points of Beck in regards to McAmnesty. McCain would clearly give the left a target in the next election. The economy would still be struggling and the GOP would get the blame. We all know this to be true.

Reagan only came to become President after the worst Presidential Administration in history that of Carter because of the policies of amateurs. America needed the lesson of giving the reigns of power to idealists centered in fantasy land. Furthermore, how can we as Americans teach the young and inexperienced voters that progressive policies are simply wrong for our nation without a pooint of reference. Carter was thirty four years ago and mostly forgotten. This is the only way to teach those that will not listen to reason, theys simply must learn it the hard way.

Alan Keyes has the best take on this 80/20% conservative divide at his blog:

larvcom on September 22, 2009 at 1:55 PM

larvcom on September 22, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Sorry this just aint working for me http://loyaltoliberty

larvcom on September 22, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Levin’s book is first class. But Beck has done a service to our country by exposing Jones and helping to expose ACORN. Reminds me of conservatives arguing here at HA and turning on each other instead of concentrating on the historic first Marxist President.

Christian Conservative on September 21, 2009 at 10:38 PM

If 0bama’s the first Marxist president, who the heck was that crippled guy who ran the country into the ground for three-plus terms during the 30s and 40s?

Sign of the Dollar on September 22, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Judging by the amount of ink in recent days even from Conservative circles. It seems the worm has turned against Glenn Beck. Or at least there’s a distancing away from Beck.

If Glenn Beck is seen as the spiritual leader of the 9/12 Rallies, Does that mean that people are starting to turn against the people of the ‘Tea Party movement’.

I know people have written about how the anger and erratic possibilities of such a movement and I guess now such a leader could bite conservatives in the back.

PunditFight on September 22, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Nice to see someone bashing Ron Paul, at the very least. Levin’s right about him–blaming your own country for the actions of the psychopaths in al Qaeda doesn’t help us in any way, although I could have sworn Mr. Paul was cozying up to the 9/11 Truthers.

Guess that’s just another case of the “Troof” movement having it both ways, huh?

R. Waher on September 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM

JohnBG:

What makes you think Beck would like Reagan any better? Because he ran some tape of Reagan dissing socialized medicine in 61, about the time he left the Democrats?

Please, Beck would probably call for Reagan’s impeachment over amnesty alone.

The truth is Beck is not the guy who brought down ACORN, the folks at Biggovernment did that. He was not the guy who exposed Van Jones, Gateway Pundit did that. He was not the guy responsible for hundreds of thousands of people going to Washington either…he is the using those things to increase his ratings and push his own agenda. He is out for money and influence..that is all.

Terrye on September 22, 2009 at 2:55 PM

I like Beck and I like Levin. Somehow, I’m not torn. If I agreed with either one of them 100% of the time, then there would be no room for tolerance.

TwilightStruggler on September 22, 2009 at 3:11 PM

In the long run, Obama is better. McCain would’ve allowed for more continued decay of the Republican party (a road it’s pretty far along anyway), and would’ve rolled over on all liberal domestic policies.

He would’ve set the stage for an Obama presidency in 2012. 4 years worth of Tina Fey mocking his veep (remember Dan Quayle, anyone?) would’ve obliterated her ability to function as a public figure.

Conservatives would’ve been horribly demoralized at McCain’s “my friends” BS – he’d “reach across the aisle” and those reach-arounds would show everyone he really had no principles at all. Libertarians would’ve been further alienated from conservatives who stand for neither fiscal nor constitutional conservatism.

Obama’s swaggering hubris in instituting Marxist policies is what we needed.

It has awakened the silent majority.

CPL 310 on September 21, 2009 at 10:58 PM

I gotta agree with this post, its quotes & all of the others like it. Have thought about this many times myself & come to the same conclusion. That has to be what Beck meant, he’s not stupid.

kg598301 on September 22, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I think the infighting amongst Republicans of various views isn’t especially helpful but it’s important to be able to debate issues civilly and craft policies. I believe the key effort should be to return the core of the Republican Party to conservative principles and solutions. Too often the debates are on issues that aren’t as important as winning back majorities nationally and on the state levels so there will be a party powerful enough to start rolling back the political mistakes of the past 60 years. It will take time and resolve to do that.
A third party effort would most likely end in the Democrats gaining even more power. If Conservatives can win Republican primaries, they’ll be able to gradually replace the liberal and moderate Republicans who don;t stand or govern on the basic principles of Conservatism.

Red State State of Mind on September 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Folks, Beck hates Republicans. He does not want to fix the party or make it stronger or anything else. He wants to wreck it. He is not a conservative, he never has been.

The idea that if McCain had won that somehow that would have been worse is insanely selfish and short sighted. Obama is doing damage every day that he is in there and all Beck and his weird little fan club can think to do is complain about everyone.

Terrye on September 22, 2009 at 3:28 PM

I think Beck wants to make sure that Obama wins a second term because he is making lots of money off all this. This guy is a gold mine to Beck.

Terrye on September 22, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Anyone who agrees with anyone 100% of the time is a fool.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM

O’reilly is just as fraudulent in my opinion.
goldwaterpunk on September 22, 2009

Don’t get me started on that crybaby pervert whose show is 50% of him bragging about his ratings. I used to watch everyday, now I watch the first 5-minutes (talking points memo) and the rest isn’t worth watching.

What really turned me away though was his sudden flip from conservative to him going out of his way to be “independent” and him slamming conservatives constantly.

Goodeye_Closed on September 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Hmmm…. Seems Beck really is rethinking Ron Paul in a lot of ways:

http://www.examiner.com/x-23963-Salt-Lake-City-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d20-Glenn-Beck-wants-a-time-machine-to-rethink-Ron-Paul

Firefly_76 on September 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM

It is easier to change the Republican party from the inside then to elect a “third party” candidate…

How can you change a party that has such disdain for you? I’m being serious. Bush has it. McCain has it. MANY Republicans have it. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but they really have the same view as the Democrats:

“We Know Best.”

At this point, I DO NOT care about McCain, Obama, the Repubs or the Dems, just give me someone who will actually listen to Americans and defend THEIR country. OUR country. Now Republicans say they have a history of that, but I only know of ONE major guy. Most of them have been duds voting for the same stuff and tossing their supporters some bones to keep them busy. Why should I, or anyone care? Honestly, given the past 20 years, what’s been the difference besides campaign promises?

F**** the parties. I’m done.

xax on September 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM

I happen to agree with Glenn. During the campaign I always felt that Hillary was to the right of McCain. But when you read deeper into what Glenn had to say about a McCain presidency, conservatives would have been more supportive of cap and trade, amnesty, healthcare reform, etc. just to keep a rep in the WH. I doubt very much whether conservatives would’ve even shown up for tea parties and townhall meetings to go against someone they thought was on ‘their’ side. Obama represents the ‘other’ side and so conservatives felt compelled to reject the lefts ideology. When the RINO Bush was in we griped and complained, and though we did stand up against Gramnesty, we didn’t fight him on ridiculous spending bills such as the medicare bill he passed. Opposition to Obama has been considerable and noticeable and is actually turning the heads of Dems and indies as well. A McCain presidency would have caused further rejection of conservatism and drove it further into the grave. At this point in time, conservatives are actually looking at gaining a tremendous amount of seats in the House and Senate and gaining momentum for a 2012 run for the WH. I’m disappointed Levin didn’t look further into Glenns comments. I like them both. One final thought, I’d like to see the guv from indiana run for prez in 2012.

ranzofola on September 22, 2009 at 6:48 PM

McCain would still do some changes toward progressive just slowly without any one knowing. Obama is doing it fast and in the open. It is easier to oppose Obama when it is in the open. It would be hard to oppose the slow changes McCain would put in as no one would know what changed until it was to late. Obama is doing his changes in front of the camera for all to see and oppose.

tjexcite on September 22, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Yeah, that’s right, elect a Marxist who will send the country down the toilet faster than Jiffy Lube, then set in stone laws that take decades to repeal!

Beck is a clown, period. He makes about as much sense as O’Reilly, and O’Reilly lost it years ago.

Joe Pyne on September 22, 2009 at 11:34 PM

Jockolantern on September 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

My sentiments, exactly. Talk about an even more frustrated Sarah than on the campaign.-shudder-

ProudPalinFan on September 23, 2009 at 7:12 AM

It is easier to change the Republican party from the inside then to elect a “third party” candidate…

How can you change a party that has such disdain for you? I’m being serious. Bush has it. McCain has it. MANY Republicans have it. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but they really have the same view as the Democrats:

“We Know Best.”

At this point, I DO NOT care about McCain, Obama, the Repubs or the Dems, just give me someone who will actually listen to Americans and defend THEIR country. OUR country. Now Republicans say they have a history of that, but I only know of ONE major guygal. Most of them have been duds voting for the same stuff and tossing their supporters some bones to keep them busy. Why should I, or anyone care? Honestly, given the past 20 years, what’s been the difference besides campaign promises?

F**** the parties. I’m done.

xax on September 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM

FIFY.

ProudPalinFan on September 23, 2009 at 7:16 AM

Levin is a bitter, angry little man. I suppose he’s just jealous of Beck’s success. Talk about pathetic.

mom2girls on September 23, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Levin is a bitter, angry little man. I suppose he’s just jealous of Beck’s success. Talk about pathetic.

mom2girls on September 23, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Mark Levin’s book, Liberty and Tyranny, just SOLD OVER 1 MILLION COPIES, hardly lacking success. Levin criticizes Beck for taking Levin’s radio show and rehashing it the next day on Beck’s radio show aka “the back bencher”. Just listen to Levin and Beck and you will note the familiarity of Beck’s show the to Levin’s. Levin is original and Beck copies.

dthorny on September 23, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9