Video: Glenn Beck explains McCain comment, boils fake frog
posted at 10:07 pm on September 23, 2009 by Allahpundit
Doctor Z anticipated his argument before this even aired: “Glenn Beck’s slap at McCain is a retroactive expression of the idea that conservatism is just one crushing defeat away from total victory.” Just so. Would conservatives really be organizing tea parties, wonders GB, if it were McCain pushing cap-and-trade? Maybe not — but then, McCain wouldn’t have pushed health-care reform or a stimulus sick with pork or withdrawal from Afghanistan either. If you take Beck’s logic seriously, the country would actually have been much better off if we’d elected Dennis Kucinich, because ooh boy, what a conservative backlash that would have generated. Let’s go as far left as we can — let’s pass every irreversible economy-destroying liberal program that we can — because the more damage we do, the greater the odds of a small-government wave in the future. We’re just one crushing defeat away — forever. Frankly, I don’t know why he says that he hopes we’re not on the path to becoming Venezuela in the next few years. What better way to inspire an awesomely awesome conservative renewal than having a full-blown socialist dictator in power?
Some day he’s going to get his wish for a viable small-government third party. And it’s going to break his heart into a million pieces when he discovers that they’re willing to compromise their principles in the interest of governance too.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
RW, that wasn’t aimed at you, but let me explain my point anyway. Beck is saying that none of our current outrage would exist without Obama’s radical agenda, and that if McCain were President we’d be all smiles and giggles with his stealth “progressive” agenda.
To which I say: then explain the absolute explosion of outrage during the Shamnesty debate, when we had a “conservative” President Bush and McCain in the Senate leading the charge. We burned McCain and Bush in effigy. We shut down the Congressional switchboard. We flamed every single RINO amnesty supporter in Congress until they had no hair and were afraid to go out in public.
This would seem to disprove Beck’s idiotic statement on McCain and his idiotic explanation and his idiotic posture that he is getting heat “not from conservatives, but from Republicans”. He can go fuc% himself. I’m a conservative.
Jaibones on September 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Be that as it may, while you speculate about what he would have done as President, you might allow your opinions to be informed by McCain’s actual known votes and positions. Isn’t that a reasonable place to start, rather than declare that he would have done the exact opposite of what he has actually done?
Jaibones on September 24, 2009 at 2:39 AM
You conservative movement is in better shape now that McCain is gone for the precise reason that we can rebuild and stop the wars.
We need to build support for the Ron Paul campaign for 2012. 4 years of Obama might make the country ready.
Spathi on September 24, 2009 at 3:09 AM
ah, everyone knows Allah doesn’t watch or listen to anything in its entirety unless it’s Bridezillas or Reno 911.
I_C on September 24, 2009 at 3:15 AM
Not true. He’s also a big fan of The Golden Girls.
Watcher on September 24, 2009 at 3:42 AM
Because, quite frankly, AP is a moron liberal.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 3:42 AM
Damn right AP, the obscenely disproportionate value placed gestures that play as demonstrations of principle is a big reason we’re in the state we’re in economically.
galenrox on September 24, 2009 at 3:44 AM
I agree with you.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 3:45 AM
Glenn Beck has become a legend in his own mind.
Jdripper on September 24, 2009 at 3:47 AM
I love Glenn Beck but the talk that sounds like the formation of a 3rd party is bad. We don’t need a 3rd party unless we’re prepared for the liberals to be in power for decades to come. A third party will not solve our current problem, only prolong it.
Advocate For Change on September 24, 2009 at 3:49 AM
Glenn, love ya, got to meet ya during your Christmas special. But when I watched that.
YOU IDIOT! Haven’t you seen “Mythbusters”? you should have TESTED THAT THEORY FIRST BEFORE doing it on camera! Now you look like an idiot Olby’s gonna mock you tomorrow.
SIGH! Do a real frog next time, SCREW PETA!
rednebulastudios on September 24, 2009 at 3:51 AM
Oh, you’re incredibly naive. Not only did Bush 43 do his best to continue the reshaping of this country economically, he also wanted to reshape the country culturally. From a speech he gave in Miami before being elected to his first term:
Suddenly his push for amnesty makes a whole lot more sense, no?
———-
You know, the fact that I have seen so much Bush/Republican defending in this thread proves Beck was right. Had McCain been elected, a good number of you people would be spending half your time defending him because he’s “your guy” — all while he pushed ahead with his own progressive agenda.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 3:59 AM
Yes, because sticking so loyally with the Republican party has served us or so well…
Wake up.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 4:00 AM
Mark Twain was obviously no theologian.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 4:05 AM
Exactly. But like I said, AP isn’t very smart.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 4:10 AM
I don’t think he said there would be “none,” just not anything close to what we’re seeing with Obama in office.
Where were the tea parties when Bush was trying to pass Medicare expansion? Where were the tea parties when he was passing No Child Left Behind? Where were the tea parties when he signed McCain-Feingold into law? Where were the tea parties during TARP? Where was all the outrage against Bush’s 8 years of comprehensive government expansionism, the likes of which we hadn’t seen since LBJ? Where?
So conservatives finally grew a spine and fought Bush on amnesty. Big whoop. What were they doing while all this other stuff was going? Oh yeah, I know, they were too busy DEFENDING Bush from attacks from the left.
The only thing you’ve proven is what a party hack you are. Call yourself what you want, but that’s what you are.
The left has no excuse for its demonizing of conservatives by accusing them of racism for disagreeing with Obama. But quite frankly, a lot of you leave yourself open to such charges because of your continued defense of Bush. Liberals see this and they rightly think, “Why was it ok for Bush to do these things and not Obama? Where were the tea parties when Bush was spending lots of money and expanding government? What suddenly drives their opposition to Obama?”
If it were principle you’d think conservatives would have been just as outraged over Bush. But they weren’t. Instead they defended him (and many still do). Now Obama is in office and suddenly these same people want to play the small government conservatism card. Those of us paying attention see the hypocrisy and must question it, even if party loyalists like Jaibones are oblivious to the double standard.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 4:34 AM
I love the debate on McCain. Hopefully, in the future, any serious GOP power structure will keep his type from rising to the top, forcing conservatives to play the vote then vomit game.
300 million people in this nation and we can’t find anyone better? Perhaps, the “system” is bigger than all of us?
Until we get a hand on the propaganda mills (schools and Mainstream media) as being bad for America (as presently functioning,) we will continue to have the “system” run our nation – and our lives.
Don L on September 24, 2009 at 4:36 AM
AP… come on, man. Get with it already. Your insights on Beck grow more *facepalm* worthy by the day. It’s bad enough that Mark Levin is jealous, but yours approaches new levels of red-faced temper tantrums.
Jockolantern on September 24, 2009 at 4:37 AM
while
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 5:04 AM
Isn’t that what the Whigs said in 1850?
Jeff from WI on September 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM
McCain would lead the push to amnesty, lead bipartisan acceptance of the Socialist Healthcare takeover, agree to the Stimulus, TARP and UAW bailouts, and closed Gitmo. And the Right would be gnashing it’s teeth all the while, but NO teaparties would happen. In that, Beck it right. But, the only way a new party will work, IMO, is if it replaces the GOP. That’d be fine with me.
davecatbone on September 24, 2009 at 5:53 AM
I used to really like Mark Levin. Kind of like I used to really like Hot Air. However, both once-great entities have somehow determined that the one friggin’ guy out there that is making the most sense (Beck) is somehow the enemy. Can Beck be annoying? Hell yes. Is Beck always right? Hell no. Is he the most genuine commentator out there who is literally prepaged to be assassinated or thrown in prison tomorrow by his political enemies for what he is saying if that is the only way to get the truth to the people? I believe he is.
Hey AP, you don’t like Rush, Beck, or Palin. Who do you like? Frum? Brooks? Noonan? It’s been a pleasure chatting with you all on Huffpo lite.
Kataklysmic on September 24, 2009 at 5:55 AM
I was going to jump in on this 190 plus response and give my opinion, but it seems to have been done.
What is your goal?
Do you believe in GW’s version of government? That government can be big, can be regulatory, can be intrusive, but if used right, by the good guys, it is okay?
McCain is Obama- more right. His grasp of economics is no better. His theory of border security is no better. His catering to illegal immigration is no better. His poor or corrupted understanding of the constitution and his willingness to protect his fellow incumbents (on both sides of the aisle)is now actually law. Did you miss the whole McCain/Feingold moment?
I get the fact Beck pricks you. And he is over the top. But he is right. Under GW’s leadership spending went crazy. He dealt away a number of his so-called principles in exchange for eight years so he could fight the war on terror. He knew what would happen if an leftie idiot like Gore or Kerry got into office in the middle of the campaign. McCain would have done the same thing. McCain has drank the Kool-aid of his own press releases and somehow thinks a victory is letting the left win.
Does Beck make silly points, often not on point? Sure, kind of you saying this:
“Frankly, I don’t know why he says that he hopes we’re not on the path to becoming Venezuela in the next few years. What better way to inspire an awesomely awesome conservative renewal than having a full-blown socialist dictator in power?
Some day he’s going to get his wish for a viable small-government third party. And it’s going to break his heart into a million pieces when he discovers that they’re willing to compromise their principles in the interest of governance too.”
Think about your statement borne of frustration- when’s the last time you saw a full blown socialist dictator leave without him going feet first after a bloody civil war?
If somebody were to look at your statement as it stood alone, they’d think you were as nutty as you think Beck is.
Just saying…
Try to remember McCain was a sorry conservative. And I mean, corrupted by power, buying into his own press, willing to sell his so-called principles down the river and us along with it, so he could do a “can’t we all just get along” speech every day kind of sorry conservative. Man, you really have to watch that selective memory issue.
No thanks. We are getting a good enough lesson in bad governance right now.
archer52 on September 24, 2009 at 6:23 AM
At least Beck is still warning people about the economic tsunami that is still coming. The only way that Fed Daddy can continue to print while still manipulating interest rates is to trash the dollar. And it will be beyond his control to “manage” the process at some not too distant point. Violent dislocations will be needed to prop up the fiatsco at some point. I thank Beck for waking me up early on.
rhodeymark on September 24, 2009 at 6:31 AM
Go ahead follow Beck. Turn your backs on the GOP. Create your third party.
As you do so stop whining about Obama. Do not come back after election night in 2012 gnashing your teeth and screaming how could this happen? How could Obama get re-elected?
Glenn Beck is due for a great fall. He shot up like a meteor and there is no place to go but to crash to earth.
After his statements on McCain my 5:00 is now taken up by a much intelligent conversation on TV. Commentary about the previous Sunday’s games on the NFL channel.
Jdripper on September 24, 2009 at 6:32 AM
Kataklysmic,
Many conservatives have Stockholm Syndrome. They only like Bush-Cheney now.
Bush keeps walking all over them, and they love him for it. Same with McCain because he was heir to years of Bushism.
Spathi on September 24, 2009 at 6:34 AM
Many of us were, and continue to be, ashamed of Bush, not because he was some horrible President, but because he did horribly progressive things in the name of conservatism.
McCain would have taken that to the Nth degree.
So maybe we weren’t one “horrible defeat away from winning forever.” But I agree with Glenn that we were another “RINO victory away from losing forever.”
Ludwig on September 24, 2009 at 6:39 AM
I keep hearing this from Beck fans. I think he’s a genuine person who certainly will stand under pressure, but, he’s not the only one exposing lies/corruption and willing to die for their beliefs. There are numerous pundits, bloggers, protesters, military personnel and regular Joes who believe similarly and will fight to the death for liberty, if it comes to it.
We have many voices out there talking about these issues. One thing that the O admin has quickly taught me is the virtue of independent thought, diverse opinions and robust debate. Isn’t that freedom?
There are many different positions held at HA. This is a good thing. What matters is a willingness to allow debate, which they do. Again, freedom.
Diane on September 24, 2009 at 6:51 AM
Well, after all, it did take Jimmy Carter to get us Reagan.
Kafir on September 24, 2009 at 6:53 AM
He may be due for a great fall, BUT you are beyond wrong in saying he shot up like a meteor. Glenn has actually had a very, VERY slow and steady rise. He’s been on radio since he was a child, and took a long time to gain popularity. Almost no one watched the HLN show. Just because you think he’s become too famous too fast doesn’t make that the reality.
I_C on September 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM
Yeah Yeah Yeah.
Who cares?
Terrye on September 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM
I’m sorry but you lost me. Yes, there are differences between Obama and McCain. And certainly Obama sucks. But frankly the argument is not one of “fill column A and column B and tell me which one fills up first”. John McCain would be worse for the country than Barack Obama and Beck is right about this.
pabarge on September 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM
My guess is that Beck got more push back than he expected and now he is trying to make excuses for being a publicity hound and a jack ass.
Terrye on September 24, 2009 at 7:00 AM
If you take Beck’s logic seriously, the country would actually have been much better off if we’d elected Dennis Kucinich, because ooh boy, what a conservative backlash that would have generated. Let’s go as far left as we can — let’s pass every irreversible economy-destroying liberal program that we can — because the more damage we do, the greater the odds of a small-government wave in the future.
Yep, and they will. The idea that would be any different in this country is just absurd, as absurd as Obama doing his monologue at the UN.
But then again, that is the real point of a third party…to make sure that Obama and folks like him can keep getting elected. I am sure that the lesson of Ross Perot was not lost on Glenn Beck.
Terrye on September 24, 2009 at 7:04 AM
I agree.
A third party is fun to think about/threaten, but, it would be our death. I’m certain of one thing: we can barely afford what’s happening now, why in the world would we gamble on another four years? Let’s force change in Congress which is more flexible and stay with the two party system which has served our country well.
Diane on September 24, 2009 at 7:09 AM
We know that retrospectively. History teaches us things, but, reason/critical thinking employs many different categories at once. We made the choice we could at the time. We all said, “The alternative (being Obama) is so very much worse.” We have no other information now except the reality at hand (which, actually, is a lot suckier than we anticipated.) If we really believe, as Beck says, that McCain would have been worse, then why didn’t we write in Ron Paul, en masse? Or are we just agreeing with what Beck said off-the-cuff because Beck said it?
Diane on September 24, 2009 at 7:20 AM
I stand 100% with Glenn Beck 100% of the time. I can’t say the same for Hot Air.
Cinday Blackburn on September 24, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Beck is having fun with his critics with the boiling frog gag. I suspect it really gets under the skin his enemies.
Lefty brains cannot process Beck’s off-the-wall wackiness mixed with deadly serious substance, his warts-and-all approach to truth telling.
RandyChandler on September 24, 2009 at 7:21 AM
And I find the fact that Beck tries to latch onto the Tea Party movement as if it were his idea or something to be very strange. I knew people who went to the march in DC, and none of them were there because of Glenn Beck.
Terrye on September 24, 2009 at 7:23 AM
Randy:
Oh yeah, boiling a frog is a hoot. After he helps get Obama reelected, maybe he can eat bugs for an encore.
Terrye on September 24, 2009 at 7:24 AM
Nope. Sorry AP…..you are becoming the David Frum of….well whatever ideology it is you supposedly run with.
Third party, fourth party, whatever. I didn’t want mcamnesty or hopeychangey. Both were just as crappy.
I want leftroid and “middle” voters that put TehWon into office to suffer and suffer painfully. I want it to hurt so bad they will never consider someone like this ever again.
So, yes I agree wholeheartedly with Beck. Mcamnesty only would have prolonged the death spiral. At least with Odummy it will be as fast as he can keep pushing his marxist Jones flavored koolaid.
exsanguine on September 24, 2009 at 7:27 AM
And why, exactly, do you fantasize that Hot Air is supposed to be a shrine to Glenn Beck? Hot Air existed before you ever heard of that teary drama queen.
Jaibones on September 24, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Terrye,
As I said, Lefty brains cannot process Beck’s approach. Thanks for proving my point.
RandyChandler on September 24, 2009 at 7:34 AM
Terrye,
The Tea Party movement was a Ron Paul thing at the beginning.
Spathi on September 24, 2009 at 7:39 AM
Glenn has a point. Hasn’t anybody noticed how the great majority of our politicians are seriously flawed? Being forced to support and vote for McCain serves to illustrate the point. Is there truly not a better conservative candidate for president in this country? Even now we are seriously looking at a guy that implemented a predictably failed “Universal” health care system at the state level (MA). What??? Why??? Is that the best we’ve got?
I think it boils down to who is picking these guys. And that equation reduces to who is funding their elections. Once you figure out who is funding/picking these guys you have to ask yourself why they keep picking weak, flawed candidates to run. If they can manipulate the Democrat and Republican parties what’s to stop them from manipulating a third party. Blow past the symptom and fix the problem. Follow the money.
speed on September 24, 2009 at 7:41 AM
I think it’s funny that people freak out when they find out that Beck is not part of the official John McCain 2008 presidential campaign staff.
McCain lost. He’s old news.
Spathi on September 24, 2009 at 7:42 AM
You mean we don’t? Seriously, is there a fundamental difference between Chavez, Castro, and the filthy liar in the White House? If there is, somebody is going have to point it out to me.
highhopes on September 24, 2009 at 7:49 AM
I highly doubt we’re getting a viable third party in Beck’s lifetime, if ever.
BadgerHawk on September 24, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Hey, maybe we should run McCain again in 2012.
Pablo on September 24, 2009 at 7:54 AM
The American system really isn’t set up for viable third party. It would be far more productive to drive the heretics and RINOs out and reclaim the GOP from the traitors who thought nothing of foisting John McCain on us and continue to support people like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
highhopes on September 24, 2009 at 7:58 AM
Last time a bunch of Republicans went with a third party we got a second term of Bill Clinton. Are you really willing to risk that this time around?
Advocate For Change on September 24, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Say what you want about Glenn, there is a method to his madness. He woke a lot of people up and is challenging the American people to stand up and fight for this country, to pay attention to what is going on in Washington and “hold their feet to the fire”.
milwife88 on September 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM
So, it’s wrong to hope for a real “conservative” leadership in Washington?
I say NO. I want real change in 2012. Not Bush. Not Obama. Somebody from mainstream America. Outside the beltway.
I agree with Glenn Beck. Putting McCain as the nominee was the real indicator why most Republicans have been really clueless. Bush policies in his second term destroyed the Republican brand. And that’s the truth.
It’s really good that McCain lost. He would also be just fooled by Bernanke anyway.
McCain and national security? Common. The successor of Bush had no option but to continue his “wars”. Obama is the proof. On the other hand, the side benefits of the Bush’s strong homeland defense policy will continue to stick around. Thwarting the terrorist plan in New York is just an example.
But the real issue that works against the American security is its domestic problem. Simply put … Big government. McCain would just further hurt the Republican brand on that front. Now learning more about the character of that irrelevant Lady, it would not surprise me if there would be a huge rift between McCain and Palin should the said ticket won the last election. No one can contain that fiesty Lady. She fights and she speaks up her mind no matter what the cost is. In such scenario, Republicans would be divided … sadly in a irreversible way.
Beck was honest. He was speaking from his heart when he said that to illusionist Couric. Unfortunately, it’s really hard to explain. Because it’s the fear of voting for someone who doesn’t really reflect your ideals, values and aspirations. McCain was never a good conservative.
Beck was just simply saying that REPUBLICANS SHOULD SELECT A BETTER CANDIDATE NEXT TIME AROUND. [Yes. I'm shouting.]
For starter, conservatives and libertarians, please., stop listening to the MSM.
I repeat: Beck’s only sin was to speak his mind with all honesty. In a traditional beltway SOP, what he said should be better left in the confines of his heart and conscience, just like many of us have been doing. But what can I say? Beck is also a fiesty libertarian whose core values are primarily conservative.
TheAlamos on September 24, 2009 at 8:11 AM
I believe it’s Rush who has often said it took Carter to give us Reagan. I happen to think there’s some validity to that.
Beck’s point is a variation on that theme. Why do some folks refuse to acknowledge it? You can grant that Beck makes a useful point without endorsing Obama for prez. Why not take a balanced approach like Doc Zero’s, rather than seizing upon it to eat our own?
Until Beck addresses the matter, we can’t really know, but I can’t support the idea that Beck’s a third party advocate. He’s not about a third party, but about getting progressivism out of both parties.
petefrt on September 24, 2009 at 8:14 AM
But he did, after claiming he would veto any bill that came across his [presidential] desk that contained “earmarks”, take time off his campaign to vote for a wall street bailout bill that was stuff with pork.
I don’t think that I agree with Beck on his statemnt. But I can’t say that I disagree either.
davidk on September 24, 2009 at 8:17 AM
I can’t see a single thing wrong with what Beck said except the “worse president than Obama” part. That’s highly speculative and really can’t be proven. But everything thing else is right on.
They say hindsight is 20/20. Well in hindsight, Bush’s second term wasn’t good for our country. You can say we were secure but then how do you defend the open border with Mexico. How do you defend not doing the surge strategy right off the bat instead of waiting for the body count to pile up? How do you explain the first bailout or the tax rebates?
Speaking as a conservative libertarian myself I have to say Beck was right.
We make the claim all the time that without Carter we never would have had Reagan. We’ll it’s true here too. Without Bush, we never would’ve had Obama. Bush paved the way for much of what Obama is doing now.
Pcoop on September 24, 2009 at 8:18 AM
I know. I see valid points on both sides. Methinks lefties and Beck detractors may have ulterior motives in perpetuating the matter, seizing on it to stir us up.
petefrt on September 24, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Bill Clinton was a cakewalk compared to what we have today.
Pcoop on September 24, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Know WHY I like Glenn Beck?
Because HE doesn’t waste MY TIME in petty childish circular firing squads. I’m sure that Glenn has issues with you too, Allahpundit(or would if he cared)but he doesn’t stoop to goin’ after YOU.
Oh wait- you don’t use your own name- so no one could actually GO AFTER YOU. (cough-pansy-cough)
STOP attacking other folks on our side- GO AFTER THE LEFT- THAT is why Beck is so popular. We’ve done it the “NE elite” way and it doesn’t work.
So Beck says or does somethin’ you don’t like- GET OVER IT and STFU.
ExTex on September 24, 2009 at 8:23 AM
It took Bush to give up Obama. A lesson we all need to learn.
Pcoop on September 24, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Sadly true. The Dems need a third party much more than the GOP. Either that or purge the party of the progressives, who have hijacked it.
petefrt on September 24, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Definitely agreed on this. So, let’s not risk a schism now, of all times.
Diane on September 24, 2009 at 8:26 AM
‘Zactly. He’s not on about parties, he’s on about the people in them who hold office. His point is that the parties don’t much matter. “We suck less than the Democrats” is a fair reason to vote GOP, but it isn’t a really good one. In fact, it’s a damned sad one. John McCain is an excellent demonstration of that principle, as is the fact that when Republicans decided who their nominee would be, that’s who they came up with.
Conservatives need to get back to acting like conservatives. That message is clearly being sent. I hope it’s being received and taken to heart.
Pablo on September 24, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Beck is RIGHT …
tarpon on September 24, 2009 at 8:28 AM
I don’t think McCain would withdraw from Afghanistan, but to say with certainty that the other two wouldn’t have happened is a stretch at best.
Again, you base your argument on assumptions that are not certain and bordering on hyperbole. Cuts are possible. And if pushed, Americans can do great things. You underestimate that quite severely.
Smiles on September 24, 2009 at 8:30 AM
First, why does Glenn keep doing these interviews with the radically biased and dangerous left media? What good does it do? It always gets him in trouble. Stop doing it Glenn!
2nd, Glenn no need to explain about McCain. If people who call themselves Republicans (rather than conservatives) can’t understand the problems w/McCain then they aren’t going to. I held my nose and voted McCain “but” I knew he would lose. McCain and the GOP have angered the middle class working people of this nation. And they can’t win without this block. DD
Darvin Dowdy on September 24, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Coulda, shoulda, woulda . . . McCain lost and Obama won. I get Beck’s point and I get the disagreement, but this is all moot — OBAMA WON and we’ll never know if McCain would have been worse. Bickering about the hypothetical may be useful on some academic level, but we’ve got a REAL problem RIGHT now that needs our united efforts. Beck, Levin, Rush, Hotair, others have all done a good job of defining the arguments. This is an unnecessary distraction over egos.
diesirae on September 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM
You are only partially correct. It took Bush to give us McCain who didn’t have a shot at winning in 2008. The whole process was engineered to give the GOP an anti-social/Christian conservative candidate. It was supposed to be Rudy and ended up with a man who is detested and distrusted by much of the party.
highhopes on September 24, 2009 at 8:35 AM
Does that mean you agree not to complain about any liberal thing the next RINO Republican does who you blindly vote into office?
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM
The GOP needs to sort out the party faithful from the RINOs before they can unify for 2010. As of today the GOP is essentially leaderless with social liberals spending all their time figuring out ways to attack the social/Christian conservatives.
highhopes on September 24, 2009 at 8:37 AM
The GOP turned its back on a huge part of its base. Amnesty, the bailouts, expansion of government–I’m sick of it.
I’ll support the GOP when it starts supporting conservative principles again.
I’m not saying that I want a third party, but I’m not about to go sending any checks to the RNC anytime soon. I sent a check to McCain/Palin only after she was on the ticket. The GOP needs to wake up and remember how much Sarah Palin energized the party because she energized the base with conservative principles.
It’s not rocket science.
Niere on September 24, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Last time a bunch of conservatives voted a Republican into office we wound up with a big government quasi-socialist in Bush. Are you willing to keep voting for this party no matter what kind of garbage (see: McCain) they throw at you?
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 8:42 AM
What’s your problem with rocket science?
Diane on September 24, 2009 at 8:43 AM
You’re not an advocate for “change” anymore than were all those dolts who pulled the lever for Obama. You’re an advocate for the status quo.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Why wouldn’t he? He supported it during the campaign.
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Zero problem with rocket science. At least any tax money spent in that direction has a shot of accomplishing something meaningful.
Niere on September 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM
absolutely true.
the GOP thinks they’re doing us a favor letting us vote for their moderates…please….
right4life on September 24, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I hate to say it, but in a sense, I kind of agree with Glenn Beck. Certainly not with everything, but the general sentiment, yes. What he’s missing – and apparently so many of us too – is that this isn’t just about how Obama has ignited the conservative movement. No, what really stands out in my mind, is finally the nation can see once and for all exactly what the Democrats are really about. Finally the average American can see just how effectively radical leftists have overwhelmed and overtaken the Democratic party.
We all suffered through eight long years of not only dealing with Bush’s insane “compassionate conservatism”, but also the Democrats’ constant anger, screaming, and all sorts of arrogant statements about how they could do so much better than any Republican ever could. They’d whipped up most of the left and the middle into such an anti-conservative frenzy that now it’s about time everyone sees just what that frenzy has wrought.
Now it’s the Democrats’ turn to try and prove what all their fuss was about. And once and for all, people will get to see just how full of crap the radical leftist Democrats really are. The average American will finally get to see that the Democrats said anything necessary just to get into power; that most of their statements were lies (i.e. their pledges to get rid of the Patriot Act, reduce the deficit, etc.)
That wouldn’t have happened if John McCain had won. If he’d been elected, the Democrats would have had even more time to refine their attacks and overwhelm even more moderates and independents with anti-conservative feelings. So not only would we still be on the same general legislative path – just, granted, moving a little slower – we’d still end up with a radical leftist President after McCain, someone even more radical than Obama. And yes, I really mean that; I mean, look at how we had Kerry in 2004, then ended up with Obama. I think if McCain had won, we’d only have gotten someone even worse next time around. Except after McCain, he’d have an even bigger progressive foundation with which to work from than Obama does now.
I still voted for McCain, because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Obama. But after I got over the initial disappointment, I realized that it meant not having to listen to my uber-liberal brother kvetch for another four years about how conservatives are the source of all our national problems. Now he, like the rest of the Left, has to put up or shut up. And as we’re all seeing, the American public is finally waking up to just how dangerously ludicrous the Left really is. Which I hope will finally shut them up and usher in a period of successful limited government.
NObama on September 24, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Remember,
Allah worked hard to defend the bank takeover bill last fall. His argument was that it was better for the voters to see Republicans doing something, even if they were making the problem worse, than to have the voters see the Republicans stopping the Democratic plan. Which would leave them open to the charge of doing nothing.
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:16 AM
To a lot of people, winning is the only thing that matters.
Power is all that counts.
What people do with that power is irrelevant, unless it helps them hold onto power.
I’m told that I have to support a party that supports 1% of what I think is important, because the other party supports 0% of what I think is important. And that I simply have no other choice.
I voted for McCain last year because as bad as he was, Obama was worse, but I never supported McCain. By the time Nov. rolled around, McCain and Obama really were the only two choices.
Now is not Nov. The election is not days away. If the Republican party wants me to keep suppporting it, it needs to start supporting me.
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Impossible. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. And the people of this country have ADHD and no short term memory. The cycle shall keep repeating.
Pcoop on September 24, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Great, we dump a moron, and replace him with a lunatic.
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Here’s the template: if the candidate has any known resolute faith in a God, they must be destroyed. Period. Cause you know atheism, with it’s over arching umbrella of meaningless will see to it that we elect people who won’t put the state on that mitigating plinth that once belonged to a dead god. Keep hammering those steam pipes Charles and Allah. Nothing will happen.
The Therapist on September 24, 2009 at 9:22 AM
So says the guy who only wants to get rid of those govt programs that he’s not getting checks from.
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:22 AM
The same can be said for the GOP.
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:23 AM
So your goal is to keep America lilly white and make sure that nothing corrupts our culture?
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Are you somehow under the impression that we have had the Republican and Democratic parties since the founding of this country?
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:30 AM
The alternative was Dole.
If the Republicans put up a candidate worthy of support. I will support that candidate.
If they put up a candidate because the insiders like him, or because it’s “his turn”, then they will only get my support if the alternative is a lot worse.
The Republicans do not own my support, or anyone elses, and the sooner the leadership remembers that fact, the sooner the Republican party will start being competitive again.
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Of course, this is completely wrong, and shows just how wrong conservatives are to criticize each other instead of Obama et al.
Beck is not expressing the idea that conservatism is just one crushing defeat away from total victory.
Instead it’s the opposite.
Beck is expressing the idea that conservatism is just one more Bush/McCain victory away from total defeat.
Surely you can understand and appreciate the difference.
And maybe you can even recognize the sense of such a statement.
Chris of Rights on September 24, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Tiresome.
Am I this obnoxious? If so, I apologize.
MadisonConservative on September 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM
What McCain wouldn’t have done doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have eventually been done. I’m with Beck, with McCain, it just happens more slowly without people realizing what’s going on.
If ever there was a time that a third party could succeed, it would be now. Not saying that’s what should happen at this point, but people are waking up to the corruption and power plays of both parties, and are ready to clean house. Who would have thought the original revolution would have suceeded? There are some people who have not totally accepted the idea “Some corruption is acceptable.”
texanpride on September 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM
You heard wrong. He hasn’t mentioned the constitution party as an alternative to what we have now. In fact, he’s mentioned that a third party has not a chance. He is looking to have these 56 refounders go through their own political party and rat out the corruption.
mizflame98 on September 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM
“What better way to inspire an awesomely awesome conservative renewal than having a full-blown socialist dictator in power?”
–
Your logic is extremely flawed my friend! With a dirt bag dictator in power the “conservative movement” would be crushed. You would see a civil war in this country and many people would die! I would not hesitate to grab my weapons,raise the battle flag, and take out as many commie idiots as I can, but I would rather see these liberal idiots taken down without a shot fired!
Confederate on September 24, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Allah: Sorry but I don’t see the third party thing here other than your comments. Beck makes one small reference to a third party candidate yet doesn’t mention a party or candidates name. He does say layer that he wants politicians that believe in Liberty, Freedom, and Individual rights. If I could find someone like that I would vote for them no matter what party they did or didn’t belong to. I guess I still hold out hope that its possible that we could find or grow our own that would hold true to their principles. Check out the GOOOH system, it gives me hope.
New Patriot on September 24, 2009 at 9:43 AM
You know, I don’t watch much Glen Beck – his emotional level is just a little too high for me, at least the consistency of it is.
That being said – I don’t find much in this video that I disagree with. I think he is spot on when he talks about McCain. I almost didn’t vote for McCain in 2008. I would not have voted FOR Obamba – but, I almost could not get myself to vote FOR McCain.
Those of you who sarcastically suggest that we should elect Hitler – imagine what an impact that would have on the Conservative movement – miss the point. I would never be good to actually promote a guy like Obama, but the fact that he is so over the top – might just be what brings us to our senses.
And since the election McCain has come out more and more FOR liberal issues. As bad as it was – he was on his BEST behvior during the election – trying to get as many conservatives as he could. In reality, he his much more Obamanistic in his views than was portrayed during the election.
I don’t know about a third party, although I have thrown 3rd party protest votes – not for Perot, mind you (I worked for EDS, and I can tell you he is one weird cookie). But, in the right circumstances – a third party could be viable. Just because it hasn’t happened up to now, doesn’t mean it never can. But, I am good with turning the GOP inside out too.
MYounger on September 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Here’s Allahpundit putting words in people’s mouths. Admit you got some personal issue with Beck and move on, son. Levin needs to do the same. The sniping reminds me of opposing the guy on an issue not because of an actual wrong disagreement on principle, but because he stole your girl and your sore over it.
We’re also missing the point that voting a Dem president alone doesn’t make all the doom and gloom happen – voting a Dem majority Congress does. And it helps to have the Dem president to cement that.
Beck has a point (though not very well explained point, mind you) that is an analogy of a cancer diagnosis: what is “better”: discover cancer when you find a tumor in your head that is bad but localized and could be removed quickly, or discover cancer after is has been allowed to spread undetected for 8 years? Neither is a great scenario to be put it, and no one would want either of them, but I would rather discover the cancer and act quick than be unaware of it and naively help it along.
No one is saying we should actively drink poison to make ourselves healthy, not even Beck. I can’t advocate actively voting for Obama for that reason, which is why Beck said he would have voted for Clinton over McCain, not Obama over McCain. But Beck is a big boy, he can defend himself on that. The point is that some people (i.e. voters) in this country must “hit bottom” until they realize their mistakes and misconceptions politically. It would be great if that didn’t have to happen, since we all have to hit bottom with them, but if we HAVE to do it, I’d rather pull the band-aid quick than pull it slow. I can agree or disagree with that without calling someone a “Paultard”. That is your issue with Beck (the stolen girlfriend), so address THAT and get it over with so you can address other issues without the grudge. (An in full disclosure, I don’t support/advocate Paul myself, so don’t sling the label in my direction for my own views).
I admit I voted McCain, but I was not enthusiastic about it. It was a vote against Obama, and I knew at the time McCain’s presidency would continue 4 years of center left “conservatism”, which would kill the ideology and make it easier for liberals to ascend to power for a lot longer. Imagine 4 years of McCain followed by 4-8 of Obama. The agenda stretched longer. I took some “comfort” in the “upside” that Obama would tank the country, but do it so quickly we could reverse course. Not a great “hope”, but there it is.
McCain, if elected, would have been “better” for the nation than Obama in the short term, but FAR WORSE, if not fatal, for the ideology of conservatism. He would likely have went even further left than Bush did (as he often does now), reaching so far across the aisle to make sure Democrat causes were advanced that he’d fall left. But you’d never know it, because any “bi-partisan” mistake or failure would be dropped solely on McCain by the media. Any blowback or disgruntlement would have been thrust on McCain and his “conservative policies”, a perfect excuse for Dems to slap the fault for “moderate left” policies on McCain’s “conservatism”. See Bush for a recent example.
Obama, by contrast, will be FAR WORSE for the nation, but MUCH BETTER for conservatism. Not really Republicans, but conservatism. If you think conservatism is what is better for the country, then you realize McCain is counter to that.
You can get ignorant or uneducated or biased or uniformed people to understand topics that they were never taught in school quite easily (concepts of overspending and federal/state power, basic economics and civics) by exposing them to it, explaining and showing them they will pay the bill when it comes. My brother calls it “therapeutic check-writing”, i.e. “pay the bills, cure all your ills.” You tend to manage your shop and be more responsible when you have to write the check at the end of the month. Example- you will never learn a language better than if you need to do so to survive.
Obama will be that wake up call for a lot of people. And it is unfortunate that it had to happen. I said this 1 1/2 years ago – he will trash this nation, but do it SO QUICKLY, that it will get noticed, and in fact, be hard to ignore. Obama and his ilk are far too arrogant to hide their agenda, or be more clever in selling it. They will thug it in your face and defy you to stop it. Ring any bells to what we are witnessing right now?
Republicans can either be conservative (or do a damn good job pretending to be conservative), and ride the coming wave that rolls that direction, but as you can plainly see, there are few to no big name Republicans stepping up to voice opposition beyond radio and tv personalities.
As far as both sides being a disaster, they are. I don’t trust either one, they are all crooks. I just vote for the one who robs me the least, or is given less opportunity/power to do so.
Right now, the Dems are far, far worse than the Republicans, but give the Republicans a crushing victory, and watch the past eight years of overspending happen all over again.
Saltyron on September 24, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Why not neither of the two?
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 10:07 AM
What? You don’t even know me, let alone what kind of government checks I am or am not receiving.
Keep swinging in the dark, moron.
2Brave2Bscared on September 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Glenn covered this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAt7-Ea0yHk
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBYMd6POFg&feature=related
mizflame98 on September 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »