Defending President McCain from Glenn Beck

posted at 12:50 pm on September 23, 2009 by Doctor Zero

TV and radio host Glenn Beck recently sat for an interview with Katie Couric, in which he asserted that John McCain would have been “worse for the country than Barack Obama.” Beck’s remarks were deliberately provocative – he was laughing in a “try this one on for size” spirit when he repeated them. He might have been looking to stake out some unique, independent ground, in the manner of his Fox associate Bill O’Reilly, who awakens every morning to discover the center of the political universe is planted squarely between his toes. I’ll take Beck at his word, however, and strenuously disagree with him.

John McCain was not my choice for the GOP nomination. He ran a perfectly appalling campaign, all the more heartbreaking because he squandered the only exciting opportunity he managed to create: the selection of Sarah Palin. McCain’s greatest mistake, which America has not finished paying dearly for, was allowing the Democrat crooks behind the subprime crisis to skate away without penalty. The miscarriage of justice involved in leaving Barney Frank to happily count the money he looted from American taxpayers pales beside the damage he continues to inflict on the economy. In fact, the Washington Examiner just ran a story about the return of the very same policies that produced the subprime crash. McCain is accountable for every bit of the damage people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd cause in the future, an accessory through his silence. He spent far too much of his campaign dreaming of a big, old-fashioned wedding with The Media, flanked by honored Senate colleagues in tuxedos and bridesmaid gowns… while the object of his affections staggered out of a tattoo parlor with Obama’s name written all over her, fell into the back seat of the Lightworker’s muscle car, and roared off in a shower of empty beer cans.

He was an awful candidate… but McCain would not have bitten his tongue while Iran murdered its citizens, leaving their Fourth of July picnic invitation on the table. He would not be working to install a Chavez puppet as dictator of Honduras. He wouldn’t have tried to sacrifice American intelligence agents in a show trial for political gain. He wouldn’t shower America’s adversaries with concessions while gaining nothing in return. McCain would have plenty of opponents, but he wouldn’t spend an unseemly amount of time designating groups of his constituents as enemies. He would know better than to casually accuse a cop of racism on national television.

I don’t see McCain setting up an Orwellian email address to rat out political enemies to the White House, or dispatching a horde of thugs to beat up demonstrators at town hall meetings. I doubt he would greet the disappearance of billions in “stimulus” money by shrugging and demanding another trillion. He wasn’t lying when he said he wanted victory in Afghanistan. He would have fewer unelected, unconfirmed “czars,” and none of them would be a Truther, a supporter of cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal, or a communist… let alone all three. His Supreme Court nominations would not have to defend their racial theories of judicial supremacy at their confirmation hearings. Enemies of America wouldn’t have to test John McCain to find out what he was made of – they could just ask the North Vietnamese. I always thought “The Straight Talk Express” was a silly name for his campaign bus, but at least it wasn’t splattered with the political blood of people thrown beneath it.

This is not to say that President McCain’s domestic policies would have been superb. It’s impossible to predict exactly what anyone would have done in the Oval Office. The butterfly effect from swapping out presidents is so huge that it comes with pair of tiny Japanese girls, who speak in unison when they warn of its approach. However, nothing McCain said during the campaign made me anticipate a presidency of bold conservative reform. I suspect we would have gotten something like the lazy Bush slide to the left in most areas, sprinkled with the occasional conservative policy, and the unmitigated disaster of amnesty for illegal aliens.

During the campaign, disgruntled Republicans often said it would be better to have Obama in office, showing everyone just how horrible Democrat policies are, than tolerate a RINO like McCain pushing the same policies in low gear, with bipartisan fingerprints. Glenn Beck’s slap at McCain is a retroactive expression of the idea that conservatism is just one crushing defeat away from total victory. Anyone who thought it was worth putting Obama in office, as some kind of object lesson for the American voter, gravely underestimated the amount of damage he could do. Look at how far we’ve sailed past the edge of fiscal sanity, in only nine months. It would take decades of careful, moderate reform just to get us back to where George Bush left us… and that wasn’t exactly an enviable position. Freedom is an endless voyage, while tyranny has far too many points of no return. The course we steered away from President McCain has taken us perilously close to those terminal waters.

The Obama presidency has been a flash forward to where the post-Reagan glide path might have taken us, in ten or twenty years. It is not the same thing to arrive at this moment in 2009 instead of 2029, any more than spending the night drinking a bottle of whiskey is the same thing as draining it all in one gulp. Toxicity increases with dosage. Many things might have occurred over the next few decades, to help us cope with the coming crash. Instead, the time bomb of Social Security begins detonating next year. Even if Obama left office tomorrow, it would take dramatic reforms to pull us out of our nose dive… and the American voter hates dramatic reforms.

I’ve got a lot of bones to pick with George Bush’s domestic policies, and I doubt President McCain’s would have been much better, but if either of them replaced Obama tomorrow, the economy would begin improving immediately… not because they would do anything particularly brilliant, but because they wouldn’t pummel us with the insane crap Obama serves up as daily fare. At least the markets would have less reason to be terrified of the White House. Simply refraining from the dramatic transformation of our economy and culture would be a huge improvement at this point.

McCain wouldn’t be a worse president than Obama. He would be more politically inconvenient for the conservative movement. Speaking for myself, I’d pay that price in a heartbeat… to spare my country what it has already endured, and what is yet to come.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 2 3 4

Freedom is earned. Deserves got nothin’ to do with it.

joshlbetts on September 23, 2009 at 1:26 PM

An excellent post Doctor Zero.

I was guilty of thinking along the lines that Obama really couldn’t do too much damage in 4 years. Got that one wrong – how wrong remains to be seen.

Not looking forward to finding out.

Anders on September 23, 2009 at 1:27 PM

I understand your point but don’t share your optimism: I think Obama will do so much real and lasting damage that the ‘awakening’ that you and I hope for will be too late to undo the Gigantic Crap-bag left behind.

Either way we were going to wind up holding a bag of crap. The only question is how big it’s going to be. McCain with a Dem Congress…it wasn’t going to be a lot smaller than the one we’ve got now. And people wouldn’t be screaming about it like they are now, because the generational theft would have been nice and bipartisan, just the way Maverick likes to do things.

Lotsa people prefer being given Stuff to the hard work and risks that come with earning Stuff yourself. Obama is creating more of these people each day.

Yeah, but it doesn’t work, Janos. And the more people actually start paying attention, the less the compassion/shame charade is going to work.

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM

BECK’S POINT IS:

That with McCain not only would we be on a *slower* boat, certainly not slow… but we wouldn’t have the TEA PARTY movement… Conservatives would still be sitting on their collective apathetic butts shrugging their shoulders and complaining.

With Obama, we are now ENERGIZED, ORGANIZED and FIGHTING like HECK to save our REPUBLIC!

ACORN has been taken down. The MSM is almost totally irrelevant and soon will be done for. WE now control the conversation! It’s WORKING.

Now we are faced with a choice and we are choosing to ACT. And if people follow Beck’s advice, we can take back our country peacefully, without having to use our guns.

With McCain we’d still lumps of jello, amnesty would have already been passed and our country would be DEAD from it. DEAD………………

Much of what Obama has done so far can be undone. Most of the stimulus money hasn’t been spent. We can still save our Republic in time. Listen to BECK… he’s SPOT… ON…

Joy on September 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM

The problem I have with these posts, this defense of McCain, that he would not be ‘worse’ than Obama is the foundation upon which the line of reasoning is constructed.

It is the business man’s foundation that we can make a deal, we can find common ground, we can work with those who disagree, we can negotiate.

Most of us from the political right side agree that Obama takes this country down a path we do not want to take. Many of us make the argument that McCain would also take us down that same path but at a slower pace. Ultimately we end up in the same circumstance.

So the reasonable businessman presumes that under a McCain administration tactics can be used to obstruct the advancement of the leftist agenda, that McCain would be more amiable, while ignoring McCain’s obvious contempt for conservatives.

It is the faint hope that in the third reel of the movie, some lucky happenstance, some mistake by the villain, some heroic effort will turn defeat into victory.

In the real world when you play defense, you will ultimately lose. If you want to win the struggle between the political left and the right, you have to get the whole team in the game. You have to play offense. In politics, this means you have to present an alternative policy that can be shown to work, that people will believe in.

Right now the left believes they have capitalists by the throat, that victory is in their hands, all they have to do is squeeze a little harder. How would McCain respond? He’d probably say, ‘Please don’t break my arms again. We can make a deal.’

At this moment in time the United States, as it was founded, and as we commonly think of it as a nation, would be wiped out, replaced by yet another tyranny of the few over the many. Until the uncaring, fearful, indifferent 40% in the muddled middle of the spectrum reach this conclusion, we conservatives continue to lose.

When the fat police, the green police, carbon police, the speech police, the multicultural police, the thought police show up on your doorstep not one of you will accept blame. You will be too busy mounting yet another attempt at a negotiated defense, another deal with the devil. One more attempt to delay assimilation.

[redacted]

Skandia Recluse on September 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Sometimes you need a “jimmy carter” moment to revitalize conservatism. we pay a short-term price but we get a new generation educated on why they should not vote for progressives.

jdpaz on September 23, 2009 at 12:59 PM

While I agree that we’re definitely in a prolonged and painful “Jimmy Carter” moment that has strengthened conservatism, I don’t think the price we’ll pay will only be short-term.

I’ve thought for some time that the sweeping fascist changes that team Barry has begun to enact will produce long term damage. The echo of that damage may last long after Republicans take back control. To untangle and heal the ganglia will be an arduous process.

The difference between a destructive McCain presidency and Barry’s is the scale of repair required.

anXdem on September 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Maybe Beck was thinking of this re 2008 elections:

McCain wins: GOP is destroyed
Obama wins: Democratic party is destroyed

faraway on September 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

McCain would not have brought this to a head. Instead, his mushy left leanings would have furthered the progressives plans, entrenching socialist fascism even farther into this country.

Spiritk9 on September 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM

As devil’s advocate, perhaps this is what Beck meant? I don’t know that, or even think it really. Just an observation. Disclaimer, I have not watched the Couric interview. I refuse to give hits to her, Olbie, or Mathews. That’s just me.

drocity on September 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

no its better to have a full-liberal than a liberal-wanna-be like mccain
/////
At least o has made no secret of his agenda,on the other hand,mccain would come out of nowhere with some moderate piece of crap that just would make conservatives cringe.
O is the only way conservatism is awakening.After his speech today,we have to work that much harder to replace him!

ohiobabe on September 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM

If you look at the entire picture, McCain could have been worse. Forget Palin. She would have been VP which is a meaningless position(just ask Joe Biden).

McCain supported crap-and-betrayed. Maybe a less intrusive and destructive version than Obama’s, but the same principle. He supported amnesty. Hell, his name was on the bill. He at one point early in Bush’s first term hated the idea of tax cuts. He wanted to bail out people who were behind on their mortgages. All of these things would’ve passed given the massive Democrat majorities in Congress. And to make matters worse, at least some Republicans would’ve gone along with it since the President being from the same party gave them cover. Oh, and let’s not forget he voted for TARP.

We’d be in most of the same mess we’re in now, only with both parties being the culprits. Instead, the GOP has rededicated itself to its fiscal conservative principles. The conservative movement has been galvanized in this country. And the American people(most anyway) are awakened to the corruption and out-of-control spending going on in DC. Hell, the GOP could retake the House in a year. There’s no way that would’ve come close to happening under a McCain Presidency.

Doughboy on September 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM

If your house’s wall is crumbling, it doesn’t make sense to ignore it and help someone in a town in the next state fix his roof.

Harpazo on September 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM

In 1976, we had a bumbling RINO ( unelected ) President who was challenged by Ronald Reagan and Reagan nearly won the nomination. If McCain was Less Worse than Obama but still bad, he could have been effectively challenged from the right by someone like Palin ( sweet revenge / irony )

Meanwhile, for the past year and the next three years, we have a RINO instead of a Maoist as President. No ACORN or any of the other Crap going on that Doc Zero noted and you’re already aware of

and there’s more than three years of Obama to go: He’s just getting warmed up………

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM

I only read your first and last paragraphs, you use too many words to convey a simple thought.
But I agree with your last paragraph. I have to assume all the words prior is just supporting this contention.
Not the best, but not the worst…and certainly not have the “Marxist” leanings of Obama.

right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Maybe if you would read the whole piece, not just the first and last paragraphs, you would not have to assume anything. Perhaps you should run for Congress, you would fit in well there, as they don’t like to read all of their bills either.
Doc Zero’s full blogs are worth reading, despite being somewhat lengthy at times. Try it sometime, you might like it.

Susanboo on September 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM

They both would have done 99% the same, though it is interesting that people only care about big government when Democrats are doing it. That should probably be blamed on most of Fox and talk radio.

The Dean on September 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Glenn’s point is not moot.

The Republican party created the domestic policy context for Mr. Obama’s election. It did so by building a legislative “majority” comprised of a significant number of “centrist” (read “soft statist”) Republicans – including John McCain. These folks are simply not committed to conservative, classical liberal governance and have wielded power far greater than their total numbers should have dictated.

Short view – Mr. McCain would have done less damage less quickly to what is left of the Republic – especially in matters of foreign policy than Mr. Obama has and continues to do. Long view – when the outrageous shenanigans of the leftist President and his congressional cohort lead Olympia Snowe to put up a fuss – as she did in the Senate Finance Committee hearing on health care today – it provides some support for the conclusion that an Obama presidency was part of the solution to the nation’s centrist-driven slide into communalistic globalism.

I voted for John McCain because I wanted our nation defended and because Mr. Obama is without accomplishment or, contrary to some, executive ability. But Glenn’s point has merit and conservatives should stop piling on (I very much enjoy Mark Levin, but tire of his daily, anonymous attacks on Glenn).

FWIW

Tamaqua on September 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Doc, I agree with all of your points regarding what McCain wouldn’t have done, but I also agree with Beck. The conservatives in this country are awakening the likes of which we haven’t seen since Reagan. I don’t think that ever would have happened under a McCain presidency. The government would slower, but surely, continued down the road of socialism and McCain would have contributed his share.

Obama’s speech to the UN was an appalling display of weakness. His apology tour continues right here in our own country. Another year of this guy and Republicans might just get control of both houses of Congress.

orlandocajun on September 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM

I do appreciate this point, which I’ve seen many people making. It’s good to have this discussion, because while we can’t go back in time and redo the 2008 election, we’d be foolish not to learn as much as we can from it. I certainly do hope “Carter gets us a Reagan,” since those are the cards we’ve been dealt. I’ve come to disagree with the argument that inflicting Carter on the country, as a more or less deliberate strategy to get Reagan, is a good strategy, but I find it very illuminating to listen to people making that argument.

I’m just queasy about the magnitude of the price we’re paying to get a chance at Reagan 2.0. Come to think of it, we’re not really finished paying for Carter yet. When the full history of the Obama presidency has been written, I worry that it might not have seemed a fair price to pay for Aragorn running on the GOP ticket in 2012, with Albus Dumbledore as his running mate.

There’s a difference between saying McCain would have been “worse” than Obama, versus “as bad” or “almost as bad.” This is the source of my disagreement with Beck, who I understand clarified his stance a bit later on. To quote another noted radio host, words mean things.

Note to self: put Mothra reference earlier in next essay, so right2bright gets a chance to enjoy it. :)

Doctor Zero on September 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I think I do understand Beck from this angle: we have become addicted to big government and a McCain presidency would have done nothing to end that addiction. With Dear Leader in power though, we will have hit rock bottom, and will either be the end of the US or else we will sober up to a small government conservative. The drift of the country over the last few years to big government (whether under Clinton or W) would continue under McCain. But now we see in stark terms just where that gets us.

The only question is, are we going to be able to survive being a rummy on the streets for a couple of years.

rbj on September 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Long Road To Ruin

Christien on September 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Sometimes you need a “jimmy carter” moment
/////
Ain’t it the truffff!

ohiobabe on September 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM

They both would have done 99% the same, though it is interesting that people only care about big government when Democrats are doing it. That should probably be blamed on most of Fox and talk radio.

The Dean on September 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

way to completely discredit yourself right in the first line with that idiocy.

once again proving crackpot libertarians have zero, and I mean zero, political IQ

jp on September 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM

The very act of “Defending McCain”–and the weak, relativist moderates who teeter so close to the fence that it surprised NOONE when John Kerry considered McCain as his VP—is more harmful to conservatism than anything Beck said in that interview.

Purge the RINOS.

Khorum on September 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM

How would McCain respond? He’d probably say, ‘Please don’t break my arms again. We can make a deal.’

Perfect description of Republican “leadership”.

jay12 on September 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM

anXdem on September 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Maybe with all these conservatives engaged (tea partiers) we’ll even be able to limit the damage before O gets the boot. Many, many dems are running scared from their constituents—afraid now to vote for the socialist crap that O’s selling.

jdpaz on September 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Yeah, but it doesn’t work, Janos. And the more people actually start paying attention, the less the compassion/shame charade is going to work.

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM

You’re right, Pablo, in that it doesn’t work for America–but it works very well for those getting the Free Stuff. The dilemma is as old as democracy with political parties: Power of government is exchanged for entitlements.

I hope you are right but fear that I am

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Anyone who thought it was worth putting Obama in office, as some kind of object lesson for the American voter, gravely underestimated the amount of damage he could do. Look at how far we’ve sailed past the edge of fiscal sanity, in only nine months. It would take decades of careful, moderate reform just to get us back to where George Bush left us… and that wasn’t exactly an enviable position.

It is what it is, since the hypothetical doesn’t exist. I still say however, sometimes lessons are learmed the “hard way” before Real change occurs. That’s why Beck has inspired average people to take to the streets and town halls. It always takes a shock or a bottom to crawl back up from the abyss. With proper leadership the right people in office can turn this around asap. We’ll see how much the people really want to change things in 2010.

Nalea on September 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM

If this rise of resentment against what Obama is doing falls short, a re-elected Obama in 2013-2017 will make his first term look like CandyLand

He’s Jimmy Carter all over again. He’s failing on virtually every front, and the American public is getting tired of looking at his Messianic yet overexposed face while it spouts the same lies over and over. Add a few more years of his detractors being tarred as racists, and 2012 is not going to go well for the Dems.

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM

4 years of McCain are, yes, preferable to 4 years of Obama by a wide margin. But after 4 years time, people would truly have been so fed up with 12 years Republican domination and their softcore progressive-lite policies they would vote in a Democrat and Democratic Congress even WORSE than this one. Ah, don’t think it could be worse? Well, just remember, we’re all still here, still expressing our viewpoints, still ALIVE.

Short term = better. Long term = disastrous.

Orange Doorhinge on September 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM

You and Pablo are basking in the pre-glow of an optimism that I don’t share. You underestimate both the damage that Obama can do AND the hoped-for Awakening of sensibility.

If this rise of resentment against what Obama is doing falls short, a re-elected Obama in 2013-2017 will make his first term look like CandyLand

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Well, we’re into politics, and constantly discussing what may or may not happen 3 years from now. Ask the people confirmed that Palin will run in 2012 about that same optimism. It’s all you can do, since we have utterly no way to know for sure what’s going to happen. Obama could wake up one morning and decide he doesn’t want to piss off the nation anymore, or he could wake up and utterly not give two shits what anyone thinks, even of his public image. He could even be impeached before 2012 and we’d have President…*shivers*…Biden to deal with.

So, speculation over what might have been is pretty legitimate given our speculation of what may be.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM

AND……. Obama is single-handedly DESTROYING the Democratic Party.

My hope and prayer is that BOTH parties will get purged of the corruption and we will restore our Constitution and get a fresh slate. Is it going to hurt some? Probably a lot. That’s what happens when the people accept corruption for as long as we have. But we can get our country back and have fresh, new opportunities to rebuild and go forward! This is an EXCITING time to live in.

Join with Beck who is simply exposing the corruption and gather with like-minded Freedom lovers to take this country back from BOTH corrupt parties!

Joy on September 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Note to self: put Mothra reference earlier in next essay, so right2bright gets a chance to enjoy it. :)

Doctor Zero on September 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Snort!!

thomasaur on September 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM

The proof of the rise of conservatism will be borne out in 2010 but one thing is true in what Dr. Zero said- McCain would’ve be less damaging to the long-term condition of this country.
Beck does a disservice to those who are living in the moment, like seniors, who cannot afford to play “hell to get to heaven” long-term games.
3 plus years to go- for possible vindication?

jjshaka on September 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM

That should probably be blamed on most of Fox and talk radio.

The Dean on September 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

“Probably.”

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Purge the RINOS
////
WELL SAID!Got to get rid of them.They are what is hurting the party.

ohiobabe on September 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

From the mouth of Doc Zero to God’s ear:

I’m just queasy about the magnitude of the price we’re paying to get a chance at Reagan 2.0. Come to think of it, we’re not really finished paying for Carter yet. When the full history of the Obama presidency has been written, I worry that it might not have seemed a fair price to pay for Aragorn running on the GOP ticket in 2012, with Albus Dumbledore as his running mate.

My point exactly, from the Better Craftsman

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

We’re about to hit 10,000 on the DOW, while I agree that Obama is not making matters much better…it doesn’t seem as if he’s terrifying markets in the way you describe.

That’s only because his agenda is failing, if he starts to recover, the market will tank.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Bravo, Doctor. Even Ace agrees.

George Orwell on September 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM

“The “we prefer Jimmy Carter to get a Reagan” meme is complete and utter lunacy.” Lehosh I would agree with you pre-election. I will bet most posting this inclination also voted for McCain. Obama is president now and those of us that are being painted with that “meme” are merely trying to put the best spin on the current predicament. But you have to admit McCain and an all dem with rabid seasoned veteran liberals in charge would probably have an easier time getting amnesty, cap and trade, etc. passed and right now I like the odds of that not happening. I’m very worried for our democratic allies but perhaps our weaked status has them taking more charge of their own affairs. See France and Honduras.

DanMan on September 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM

“Probably.”

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

That’s a typo, remember?

Just like The Dean himself.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM

He spent far too much of his campaign dreaming of a big, old-fashioned wedding with The Media, flanked by honored Senate colleagues in tuxedos and bridesmaid gowns… while the object of his affections staggered out of a tattoo parlor with Obama’s name written all over her, fell into the back seat of the Lightworker’s muscle car, and roared off in a shower of empty beer cans.

Spot on imagery, Dr. Z. However, can you blame McCain? That shameless hussie spent years cozying up to him, twisting her finger in his hair, telling him what a big, strong man he was, etc. That sort of thing can turn a boy’s head, you know.

Kafir on September 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM

I certainly do hope “Carter gets us a Reagan,” since those are the cards we’ve been dealt. I’ve come to disagree with the argument that inflicting Carter on the country, as a more or less deliberate strategy to get Reagan, is a good strategy, but I find it very illuminating to listen to people making that argument.

Thing is, that’s not the argument at hand, Doc. It is, as you note, a matter of playing the cards we’ve been dealt. (And a review of why we got those cards is in order. It wasn’t random.)

I’m just queasy about the magnitude of the price we’re paying to get a chance at Reagan 2.0.

I think we can all agree on that. And we don’t necessarily have a Reagan 2.0. At the end of the day, this argument is between optimism and pessimism, Beck being on the optimistic side of things.

We’re Americans. We don’t decide “Aw, we’re screwed.” and curl up into the fetal position. We fall down, we get back up. Things break, we fix them. Can we recover from Obama? Can we save the America we know and love?

Yes, we can.

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Ultimately, don’t people have to be reminded not to take things for granted? How does that happen? Bad things occur. Now, I’m not saying that you should facilitate those bad things in any way. If I was, I wouldn’t have voted for McCain. However, hindsight is always easier to judge with. We were left with 200 proof hell as one choice, and 150 proof hell as the other. Maybe America needs the mother of all hangovers to swear off liberalism for a while.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM

DanMan on September 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Yeah, I don’t “prefer Carter to get Reagan”, but now that we have it, I’m gonna focus on the upside. A chance to not just slow the slide to serfdom but maybe even convincing a majority to reverse direction.

jdpaz on September 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM

I’m talking mostly about what IS–about what Obama has already actually done while in office–rather than what might be. He has already done a lot of damage, and gives every indication that he will continue down a path we can already see clearly.

All of life is about a hoped-for future: We make decisions based on what we hope will be their collective outcome. In the last election too many people lost faith the the ‘collective outcome’ envisioned by conservatives because a non-conservative was at the head of the ticket–and too many others simply wanted the government to give them Stuff.

The whole idea of having a Bad Demo energizing latent conservatives is optimistic: It worked in 1980 but the electorate in 2012 ( and now ) is significantly different in attitude and, ahem, color.

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

That’s only because his agenda is failing, if he starts to recover, the market will tank.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Thats kind of weak given the 4,000 point gain has been a pretty steady climb upward. Again, im not acting as if Obama can’t have an impact, specifically a negative impact, on the markets with his policies. However, to describe him as ‘terrifying markets’ seems hyperbolic, if not outright wrong.

ernesto on September 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

AP:
* * * *
When a post is promoted from the Green Room is it possible to also move the original comments so discussions continue in sequence?
* * * *

publiuspen on September 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I for one am getting tired of the “purge the RINO” thing.

Yes, RINOs are just as disgusting as progressive liberal fascists, but instead of chasing them over to the other side how about showing them logically where they are wrong. Steer them back to sanity instead of appeasement. I think RINOs were born of the fear of liberal fascism, and they think appeasing the enemy will make them retreat. That worked so well against Hitler after all, eh?

I don’t even try to change the minds of the hard leftists, they just don’t listen….IQ problem I think, but the RINOs at least have some hope of salvation, and we really can’t afford to chase them to the other side. Accepting their votes does not mean WE become RINOs, get that straight. It means they agree with PARTS of what conservatives say, so lets illuminate them on the rest instead of making them our enemies and chasing them off to 0bamas side.

Spiritk9 on September 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Maybe America needs the mother of all hangovers to swear off liberalism for a while.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Maybe not: There’s a difference between a hangover and a Total ClusterFark. It’s not a ’150-200′ difference…..

More like one-fifty to one thousand

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM

The whole idea of having a Bad Demo energizing latent conservatives is optimistic: It worked in 1980 but the electorate in 2012 ( and now ) is significantly different in attitude and, ahem, color.

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

By that very statement, we may be screwed overall. If they’re not going to vote for a conservative after a liberal shatters the country, and our best bet is delayed destruction, or slowed destruction, then what hope is there? This country was founded on optimism. Without it, there’s no point in even trying.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Thats kind of weak given the 4,000 point gain has been a pretty steady climb upward.

4,000 point gain? You mean the Dow went from 12,000 to 5,000? I don’t recall that.

to describe him as ‘terrifying markets’ seems hyperbolic, if not outright wrong.

What would you call an “administration” that routinely demonizes private industry for making a profit? Investors invest because of profits, nobody invests in a company that’s dead in the water.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM

When we’re hit with the inevitable Zimbabwe-level hyper inflation due to monetizing 0bama’s debt, will the “McCain would be worse than 0bama” folks admit they were wrong?

Will anyone be able to get online to read it?

Rebar on September 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Considering the John McCain versus Obama argument, let me put a few points into consideration:

–> BOTH were (or are) willing to ignore the constitution to put their agenda through.

For McCain, it was McCain Feingold. For Obama, it’s a host of things. To me, this point makes both unforgiveable. Granted, I did vote for McCain, but we’ve been dealt this card. I think both candidates deserve some time under the microscope and seeing this, there is a point of justice in this election… namely that a man who run roughshod over the first amendment didn’t get elected into office. Seeing that both had done this however, we were stuck with one person who did versus another one who would do worse.

–> BOTH voted very liberal on key issues.

McCain Feingold is by far the biggest but not the only offense against conservatism that McCain performed. He didn’t stick with the judges that Bush put through. He didn’t show strong support. In short, he did what was politically popular at times where it simply stabbed us in the back. Granted, Bush was no conservative himself, but the fact that he caused quite a bit of fracture in a formerly unified GOP is quite a crime to me. For some more specific examples, he supported Amnesty, environmentalism (cap and trade), gun contol, HMO reform (which got us into the mess we’re in with healthcare right now).

With a Democratic party in place, are you sure he’d really hold the line as some suggest? He considered switching parties at some point. Would you really want a could be Arlen Specter in the white house?

I’ve come to the conclusion (mostly through McCain’s actions, though Specter cemented the conclusion) that voting RINO is either (a) a waste of time or (b) voting for a democrat lite (McCain) or a future democrat (Specter).

I don’t always like party politics, but if you claim to be a republican, then hold the line on the platform. If you can’t do that, you’re being very dishonest to a lot of people.

Chaz706 on September 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM

McCain demonstrated his willingness to punch his fist through the Constitution with McCain-Feingold.

We would have been in much worse shape in 2012 because Obama would have run again – and won with a much bigger mandate and run over the ground that McCain trampled with Seven-League boots.

Better to experiment with Obama now and get it over with. The price will be high, but it is what it is. On the bright side, the dems will own it, lock, stock, and barrel.

RushBaby on September 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM

We’re Americans. We don’t decide “Aw, we’re screwed.” and curl up into the fetal position. We fall down, we get back up. Things break, we fix them. Can we recover from Obama? Can we save the America we know and love?

Yes, we can.

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM

There are too many people who think that your vision of America never existed–or that maybe it was real back in The Old Days but those days are Long Gone. Many others would like to put you in a camp for re-education just for having such Hateful Thoughts

and now they’re in control of the government….

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Although Beck’s statement was seen as an attack aimed at the conservative constituency, I didn’t take it that way, and there is a kernel of truth in what was said.

Indulge me for a moment or two, and consider this:

For some time now, the conservative movement had been more like a stagnation. We had been simply going along, apparently accepting whatever came out of our representatives, congressional or presidential, just because they were from our party. Like the frog being cooked by slowly turning up the temperature, we were allowing ourselves to be cooked by incremental encroachment on our liberties.

I don’t see that McCain would have followed any different path than that which we had been on, (unless he unleashed Palin and gave her free rein to dismantle the overbearing parts of the federal bureaucracy — something I’d have liked to watch.)

As it is now, with the actions of Zero’s administration, we have felt the temperature turned up all at once, and have jumped out of the pot in unison. Tell me that under McCain we would have been somehow stirred to the actions we’ve begun to take. I doubt it.
Yes, I don’t for a moment argue that what O has done is in any way good for our country and I oppose every bit of what he proposes, but in a similar perspective, would our founders have been stirred to revolution without the overbearing actions of King George? Every opportunity for great progress is fraught with danger, but it is the threat of this danger that stirs us to action. It seems to take a threat such as this from time to time to remind us that without our vigilance and willingness to take action, our liberties are at risk. There is greater danger in the complacency we practiced prior to our current actions than we face from our current administration, if we are only resolved to act.

Not until we as a society are resolved to remain vigilant in the preservation of our liberty, and instill this attitude in those whom we elect, no matter which party they are from, will we be truly free. In this regard, there is reason, however slight, to hold that for these purposes, McCain would have been worse for our Republic’s long-term survival than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
–Written, not in support of Obama, but in support of our Great Republic, may our efforts renew and protect her, and may we always be committed to her strength, her survival and her prosperity.

LooseCannon on September 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

When we’re hit with the inevitable Zimbabwe-level hyper inflation due to monetizing 0bama’s debt, will the “McCain would be worse than 0bama” folks admit they were wrong?

Will anyone be able to get online to read it?

Rebar on September 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Don’t tell me you think McCain wouldn’t have done the same thing? That didn’t start under Obama. And who do you think McCain’s Treasury Secretary nominee would have been? I’ll give you a hint. His initials are Tim Geithner.

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

I don’t even try to change the minds of the hard leftists, they just don’t listen….IQ problem I think, but the RINOs at least have some hope of salvation, and we really can’t afford to chase them to the other side. Accepting their votes does not mean WE become RINOs, get that straight. It means they agree with PARTS of what conservatives say, so lets illuminate them on the rest instead of making them our enemies and chasing them off to 0bamas side.

Spiritk9 on September 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM

The real question of this thread, perhaps, is would we have to elect a RINO to get their support?

And who are the RINO voters anyway?

That second question is one I’d really like to find an answer to.

As for the first question, we had a man who got the Conservatives, the Social conservatives, the libertarians, the RINO’s, and the Independents, and even picked up a few dems when it came to votes: it was Reagan. He spoke with a clear conservative voice. Conservatism will win the day if spoken clearly by a man with principle. By principle, I mean a person who won’t sacrifice his views just to make people happy.

RINO’s, when they’ve ran, have only given us bad memories, bad policies, and lost elections.

Chaz706 on September 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Maybe not: There’s a difference between a hangover and a Total ClusterFark. It’s not a ‘150-200′ difference…..

More like one-fifty to one thousand

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Again, that’s up for speculation. It’s not ridiculous to think McCain would have passed socialized medicine, cap and trade, and amnesty, as well as plenty more spending. Think about how he approached TARP, and apply. We also have no idea how he would have handled the power of the ultimate position.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Did Obama really accuse the cop of racism? I thought he just used the word “stupid”.

It’s a small point I know, but accuracy matters in stuff like this. Doctor Zero is generally better.

Gaunilon on September 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM

I’m forced to agree with you, yet again. As I said here, I believe John McCain would have been worse for conservatism, but I disagree with Beck. Like you, I would have gladly sacrificed the interests of the conservative movement for real leadership. And that’s why I voted for John McCain last November, in spite of my numerous disagreements with him.

Stickeehands on September 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM

There are too many people who think that your vision of America never existed–or that maybe it was real back in The Old Days but those days are Long Gone.

There are also a fair number of young folks who get it. 2 of them just took ACORN down.

Many others would like to put you in a camp for re-education just for having such Hateful Thoughts

and now they’re in control of the government….

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

And they’re seeing angry mobs that just keep forming and forming, people who vote and have had more than enough….

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Conservatism will win the day if spoken clearly by a man with principle. Chaz706 on September 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM

The only one I see speaking this clearly is a woman.

tessa on September 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM

We would have been in much worse shape in 2012 because Obama would have run again – and won with a much bigger mandate and run over the ground that McCain trampled with Seven-League boots.

Better to experiment with Obama now and get it over with. The price will be high, but it is what it is. On the bright side, the dems will own it, lock, stock, and barrel.

RushBaby on September 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Another +1.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM

This all was fought prior to the election last year and really, I think that if all the conservatives who remained home would have voted for McCain, he still would have lost.

So this is a pointless debate in many ways, unless McCain is the nominee again in 2012. Which he won’t be.

My question is, who else is out there? Yes, I like Palin, but I’m hoping we have more than just her to choose from. I don’t like any of the people who lost to McCain in the primary, so who’s out there or is it too soon?

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Again, the easiest way to gauge market ‘terror’ would be to take a look at how its doing. From its bottom in march ’09, the longer Obama’s been president the better its been doing. Again, im not arguing with you that Obama’s doing things that are antithetical to ‘support for the free market’…but the DOW is not behaving in a manner that suggests investors are terrified.

ernesto on September 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Doctor Zero, excellent essay ,always a pleasure and an honor to read your words.

tessa on September 23, 2009 at 2:00 PM

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM

You can’t eat optimism: Too many people have become clients of the state: They’re now ‘disabled’ because being disabled means the gov-mint will give you a grand a month, etc.

I understand the longing for a Conservative Re-awakening–and it has already started and will grow–but if it falls short and Obama and the Dems stay in power they will do terrible damage to every aspect of this nation.

Anyway, if the 2010 elections take away the House and make the Senate about even, Obama will be stymied; of course if that happens, he’ll run against a “Do-Nothing Congress” a la Truman in 1948.

The result then was a Demo President elected with Demo majorities in the House and Senate. Obama now thinks he’s FDR; he can play the part of Truman, too

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Don’t tell me you think McCain wouldn’t have done the same thing?

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

I’m telling you, McCain would not have signed the porkulous bill. He wouldn’t have nationalized the banks nor GM either.

All the “cool kids” are hating on McCain, but that doesn’t make it the truth. He’s not a conservative guy, but he’s not dead-set on sinking the country like 0bama is either.

Rebar on September 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Beck is right on the point that McCain would not have inspired the conservatives to take the actions millions are starting to take to save our country and it’s values. The mainstream media that is a willing accomplic in this administration’s efforts to reform our way of life to one of control and rationing should be addressed by the American public. REMEMBER: The mainstream media is not the mainstream media unless YOU acknowledge their existence. Without YOUR attention, they are a non-factor in transforming our country.

volsense on September 23, 2009 at 2:02 PM

HOG WASH !!!!!!

thmcbb on September 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Doctor Zero: Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this.

Loxodonta on September 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM

That only works if the policies Obama is pushing are popular. They aren’t. The people don’t want congress to do anything.

jhffmn on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Did Obama really accuse the cop of racism? I thought he just used the word “stupid”.

It’s a small point I know, but accuracy matters in stuff like this. Doctor Zero is generally better.

Gaunilon on September 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Obama did not accuse the officer of racism, but his statements created that impression. He first stated he did not know the facts or what role race played. Then he said the police acted stupidly and brought up racial profiling and the role race plays with police. This is a slick way of saying I don’t know what role race played, but, in a completely unrelated topic *wink wink,* I want to talk about racist cops. The juxtaposition of the particular incident and the broader issue of racial profiling creates the impression that it played a role in that case. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of using code words.

Stickeehands on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I don’t like any of the people who lost to McCain in the primary, so who’s out there or is it too soon?

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Jindal — who should be speaking out more on the health care debate.
Pawlenty. Don’t know enough about him though.

Um, ah, er, (way to hike the Appalachian trail on us, Sanford).
Jeb Bush? No. Need to get away from political dynasties.

Nobody in Congress. The VP could be a DC insider, in order to help get legislation passed, but the top person needs to be an outsider. And someone of the younger, post Vietnam generation.

rbj on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Pablo on September 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM

again, I hope you’re right……..

I lived through the damage that Carter wrought and Obama is so much worse–with a much worse, much more partisan and leftist Democratic Party in control of both Houses

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Dr Zero so many of your words are so memorable I can never select a fave, and the melange of popular culture, history, economic data, politics and wit is wonderful to read. Thank you for another great post.

ginaswo on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

We would have been in much worse shape in 2012 because Obama would have run again – and won with a much bigger mandate and run over the ground that McCain trampled with Seven-League boots.

Better to experiment with Obama now and get it over with. The price will be high, but it is what it is. On the bright side, the dems will own it, lock, stock, and barrel.

RushBaby on September 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM

I can’t agree with Beck on this unless I pretend I know nothing about Honduras, Iran, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe or the Kool & The Gang World Apology Tour, but I like what you say here.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Shorter version: McCain didn’t and doesn’t hate America and wouldn’t be trying to murder her.

baldilocks on September 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Romney Palin ’12, economic know how (Bain Capital) and someone who ‘gets’ the American people, great combo

or

Cheney Cheney 12 we find your lack of faith disturbing

depends on how bad things get in the interim and in what way.

ginaswo on September 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM

rushbaby

no once TOTUS lost he would not have been run again by the leadership
if they could block Hill it wouldve been Mark Warner, betcha that he is the next they crown

we generally dont give the nom to someone who lost it ESP after he pushed Hill out

it wouldve been Hill in 12

ginaswo on September 23, 2009 at 2:09 PM

I think it is a toss up actually. Sure McCain would not be the socialist extreme thjat Obama is but he WOULD continue the social and fiscal lefty policies of Bush and instead of the republicans crying foul like now, they would go right along like they did with Bush. We needed an Obama to remind republicans why we are “right” and to steer them back in the right direction. Both the Bushs did more to damage our country so far than Obama has done (so far) with Bush one creating the disability population and Bush two expanding medicare.

Redglen on September 23, 2009 at 2:09 PM

The sad fact that so many of us on the right can agree with Beck is certainly an indication of how poorly McCain managed his “conservative” bona-fides.

ARom on September 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM

I understand the longing for a Conservative Re-awakening–and it has already started and will grow–but if it falls short and Obama and the Dems stay in power they will do terrible damage to every aspect of this nation.

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Again, then we’re screwed. If conservatism can’t rise after all that happens to us in the next few years, then it can’t rise ever. As a great man once said:

If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

If we can’t round up enough people to stand for freedom, then we’re headed for the Dark Ages, Obama or McCain in the seat. Hence, optimism is practically required.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM

The people don’t want congress to do anything.

jhffmn on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

that’s a ‘universal statement’ and those are always false. Politics is about percentages as well as policies; ‘the people’ are divided, and voting studies prove that most people DO NOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS DURING A CAMPAIGN

Repubs vote Repub; Demos vote Demo; the ‘other third’ are much more likely to simply not vote, or will use factors other than political ideology to make their voting decision

I used to do voting studies; you should have heard some of the reasons for voting: “His eyes were too close together” was one reason for voting against a candidate.

The People are all over the map, and mostly not listening…

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM

I don’t like any of the people who lost to McCain in the primary, so who’s out there or is it too soon?

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Jindal — who should be speaking out more on the health care debate.
Pawlenty. Don’t know enough about him though.

Um, ah, er, (way to hike the Appalachian trail on us, Sanford).
Jeb Bush? No. Need to get away from political dynasties.

Nobody in Congress. The VP could be a DC insider, in order to help get legislation passed, but the top person needs to be an outsider. And someone of the younger, post Vietnam generation.

rbj on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Who do the libs attack the most? Who do they hate the most? Who do they mock the most? The answer is the person who they FEAR can beat them the most….

I think it’s pretty obvious who that person is.

How about this for a ticket…

President S. Palin
Vice President C. Rice

tatersalad on September 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM

I can’t agree with Beck on this unless I pretend I know nothing about Honduras, Iran, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe or the Kool & The Gang World Apology Tour, but I like what you say here.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Dude, you totally left out the John Schneider Variety Hour’s Tribute to Environmental Crusaders. For shame.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM

President John McCain would NOT:

- Have 33 Marxist Czars
- Appoint a radical to the Supreme Court
- Surrender in Afghanistan
- Be in bed with George Soros
- Spend his time apologizing to the rest of the world
- Have a government take over of every important industry in the USA
- Push for universal health care
- Not use the term “war on terror”

Sure McCain has his faults but not nearly as many as Obama and unlike Obama McCain does what he does b/c he is looking out for America.

lavell12 on September 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM

I always thought “The Straight Talk Express” was a silly name for his campaign bus, but at least it wasn’t splattered with the political blood of people thrown beneath it.

Doctor Zero, you don’t miss much, but this was a foul ball. He threw Sarah Palin under his bus.

RushBaby on September 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Supised nobody has mentioned the one reason McCain would be better. SARAH PALIN

lavell12 on September 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM

If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Yep. At least when the left threatens to leave the country they have lots of places to go. For those who believe in individual liberty this is it. I hope we can persuade enough people it’s worth fighting for.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM

I wonder why this gratuitous slap? “I’ve got a lot of bones to pick with George Bush’s domestic policies, and I doubt President McCain’s would have been much better,”

What is with Republicans? Why do they feel this uncontrollable need and obsession to take swipes at George Bush when they write anything political? No matter how light or heavy the blows it is unnecessary and injurious to us ever getting back into power.

Jdripper on September 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM

rbj on September 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I do like Jindal. He’s going to show what he can do in LA and if he can turn that state around . . .

I guess they’re lying low, so the media can’t focus on destroying them prior to Obama destroying himself.

I would like to look forward, rather than backward. McCain is a tiresome subject and the guy is irrelevant as presidential material.

We need more to get excited about in 2012 than just kicking the Obama’s to the curb of PA Avenue, although that’s big for me.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Good post with hearty agreement from a McCain supporter

Squid Shark on September 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Supised nobody has mentioned the one reason McCain would be better. SARAH PALIN

lavell12 on September 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I thought that was so obvious that it didn’t need saying, but you’re right, of course. ‘President McCain’ would have had an effective, charismatic Veep to ……Keep Conservatism Alive

and maybe be a Brake on his RINO-Maverick instincts

Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM

What is with Republicans? Why do they feel this uncontrollable need and obsession to take swipes at George Bush when they write anything political?

Jdripper on September 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I think it has something to do with Bush leaving conservatism bloody and unconcious on the side of the road.

I really like Bush the man, but he sure did some damage to small government credentials.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Freedom is an endless voyage, while tyranny has far too many points of no return.

While I agree with many of my fellow revolutionaries posting here, that a President McCain would’ve merely kept the conservative giant sleeping as the nation slouched further and further leftward, the awakening of the giant, as Obama surely has done, hopefully will not prove to be too little too late.

Like many here, I voted for McCain in no way expecting the furtherance of our conservative principles but only in hopes of buying some time. We also saw the radical that was candidate Obama and the likelihood he would gain majorities of fellow radicals in both chambers of Congress.

What was missed, I know I missed it, was how far out there Obama was, not to mention this entire cabal that so intricately had planned and is now presiding over the destruction of our entire country.

Needless to say, if given the same choice today, McCain or Obama, even knowing that the giant would be lumbering still, I would be voting the same. But this time… on my knees, praying.

Again, in Doc Z’s eloquent words, “Freedom is an endless voyage, while tyranny has far too many points of no return.”

TXUS on September 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM

On domestic policy McCain = Obama. We know this due to McCain’s support of W’s first stimulus package, his support of the bailout, support of amnesty and support of cap n’trade.

On foreign policy, I agree that Obama has a much different style when it comes to engaging other nations. However, in the end, the actual policies are the same.

So this post’s basic argument is that with McCain we’d be on a slower and more agonizing road to collapse? Because our nation’s industries would be less-scared of McCain? Even if this was the case it still would negate the united conservative front, the libertarian streak, the tea parties, the return to republican ideals and the example of socialism’s failing to the populace. Call me a nihilist but I want this country on a path the real recovery, not a long road to hell. Obama has given us this on the right, and Beck is absolutely right in how he’s calling the situation.

Ahh a Lion on September 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM

I agree. I lost a lot of respect for Beck when he said this. I also began to wonder just whose side he is really on.

Maybe Ron Paul’s. Mostly though I think Beck just wants ratings and he thinks this kind of controversy will help him get them.

Terrye on September 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM

I disagree with the good Doctor. Maverick would have brought us 4 years of hardship due to terrible domestic policies, to be followed by 4 more years of abject misery when an uber libtard like BO would win. The way things are going, congress gets rolled next year and BO is out after his first term. And hopefully the repub party returns to its conservative roots. Call me optimistic, but don’t call me shirley.

David in ATL on September 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Shorter version: McCain didn’t and doesn’t hate America and wouldn’t be trying to murder her.

baldilocks on September 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM

He would have upped the morphine dose a touch, though.

MetaThought on September 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I think it has something to do with Bush leaving conservatism bloody and unconcious on the side of the road.

I really like Bush the man, but he sure did some damage to small government credentials.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 2:25 PM

I am sorry, I do not agree with this. I have been listening to conservatives complain about being unappreciated and badly treated for as long as I can remember.

After awhile, it gets tedious.

Bush never pretended to be something he was not. He would never have hurt his country or wished any harm to come to it. And considering what we have in the White House right now, that is worth something.

BTW, Reagan was not all that conservative either and I can remember back when a lot of them complained about him too. That might be hard to believe today, but back when Reagan was alive, a lot of people said he was not conservative enough either.

Terrye on September 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4