Beck: I think a third party’s going to win in 2012

posted at 6:11 pm on November 3, 2009 by Allahpundit

I missed this a few days ago but an eagle-eyed Freeper didn’t. Skip ahead to 3:45 for the key section. Technically he says that a third party will win unless the Democrats and GOP get their acts together, but that caveat is meaningless: Does anyone seriously think GB’s going to pronounce either party “cured” and therefore not in need of challenging before 2012? It’s also no mystery who he has in mind to lead the third party that shall save us all. I’ve been droning at you lately about how this is a dangerous idea that’ll end up with a split Republican vote and Democratic victory a la 1992 so I won’t belabor the point; follow that last link for more or read Ace’s recent thoughts about it, including another long post today about how big to make the tent. Sample quote:

To the extent the positions of each respective side get parodized and turned into straw-men, let us have less of that. The maximalists have to stop, stop treating anyone who mentions a legitimate practical-world concern to a maximalist slate of candidates as some sort of sell-out “without principle” and “without integrity.” (Having been on the receiving end of that sort of thing, I can tell you: Insults are not persuasive, and actually only harden one’s position against you.)

And on the pragmatist side of things, we can stop with the bait-ish expressions like “fantasy world” and other statements that imply the maximalist is less than lucid.

More on that later, though: I do think that some of the maximalists are in fact simply dismissing electoral reality as an inconvenience easily ignored, and almost as easily overcome, and we do need to discuss that. But we need more constructive manners of expressing that, I guess, as “fantasy” is taken as offensive.

Further to that boldfaced part, watch to the end here as Beck dismisses Romney as a guy who’ll make deals on spending rather than just cut, cut, cut. How he expects a Republican president to cut, cut, cut when the Democrats will almost certainly have enough Senate seats for a filibuster is beyond me, but that’s one of the things that makes me a “hated RINO” in Ace’s (mock) description.

While we’re talking 2012, John Ziegler’s piece on the likelihood that The One will be reelected is also worth reading. Writes JZ, “For Obama to be really hurt by a poor economy things would have be at least as bad three years from now as they are today. The reality is that, unless this is an unusually long recession, there is almost no chance that there won’t be at least some improvement that his friends in the fourth estate can of course give him all the credit for.” Fair enough, but based on historical trends, so long as unemployment is trending in the right direction on Election Day, reelection is almost assured. The One’s got three years to make that happen; if he does, even the media won’t have to do much pushing.


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

Official Ron Paul Tin Foil Hats only 3 easy payments of $19.95

Jeff from WI on November 3, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Lots of folks seem to forget that Perot was not the only reason the Democrats won in 1992-the “objective media” kept alive the lie that the economic recovery hadn’t begun-even though Fed stats show that it had begun 18 months before the election itself.

And remember, Clintoon made a ton of hay out of his “it’s the economy, stupid” snake oil. He knew full well it was a false premise, but also knew his fellow Democrats in the legacy media would cover for him. Dr. Goebbels would be proud of them all.

The NY Times finally got around to admitting that the recovery started in March of 1991. In an editorial in 1999.

“Mission Accomplished”

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2009 at 6:46 PM

progressoverpeace on November 3, 2009 at 6:41 PM

I think we get it, progressoverpeace but don’t agree. A third party for the POTUS guarantees a 2nd Obama term. And frankly, a 3rd party is the easy way out.
It may have to be done, and only time will tell but right now, today, it is a bad idea.

ORconservative on November 3, 2009 at 6:46 PM

A third party would be doom to the GOP and conservatism. No. No. No. If you want a sure fire Obama 2nd term, vote for a 3rd party.

therightwinger on November 3, 2009 at 6:47 PM

AP, respectfully I think you’re about the economy helping Obama in 2012. In fact I believe the economy will be worse……significantly worse. More bad housing news looming next spring when a pile of Alt-A and Option A mortages reset. Lords knows how much garbage these zombie banks have secretly buried on their books. The donks will pass something to save face after tonight’s beatdown and the big landmine looming is the expiration if the Bush tax cuts in 2011 that will all but guarantee this recession will continue through the middle of 2013 until the next conservative President and GOP Congress can restore those tax cuts to reboot our economy. And I didn’t even talk about disasterous local and state budget issues and the ginormous federal debt.

Anyone thinking that a recovery is out there any time soon is not reading the tea leaves and most Americans know it. That’s why tonight will be a bloodbath for the donks.

TheAdmiral on November 3, 2009 at 6:47 PM

The MSM turned it into a fiasco.
Meanwhile, have the NObamas had to account for the $1 BILLION his campaign spent?
And who paid for the Halloween party at the WhiteOrange House?
Oh, I know…We, the American taxpaying public, did.
But we weren’t invited to the party.

Baloney. Schmidt was the anonymous source. He was absolutely McCain’s guy.

And the RNC didn’t respond. It was outrageous. In fact, I’ve never seen a party so abandon a candidate as in that business. McCain and the boyz in the RNC did nothing to help her. In fact, they ruined her Alaskan career.

AnninCA on November 3, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Ugh. No third party. Glenn Beck is not right.

terryannonline on November 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM

Well, at least AllahFrum reports about Beck.

So he’s not completely useless.

notagool on November 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM

How about we not listen to the 5 PMer and take the Republican party back to Reagan Conservatism?

YoungAmerican on November 3, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble, there Young American, but Reagans big tent would not house the RINOs your kind want to include. He would be appalled that 0bama even was nominated, let alone elected and surrounded by the Marxist/Socialist/Communist that Reagan stood against.

Reagan would not recognize the Republican party that stands today. He would see it as the Democratic party he left years before… and the current Democrats as some Soviet lite party…

Wolftech on November 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM

Ron Paul is a truther…end of discussion.

Glenn (the hero of the world) is threatening all the good ol’s…..good for him…..
Keep threatening…..and start firing….mr. what’s up, hip hop Steele would send a good message to conservatives.

nondhimmie on November 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM

if these people got upset a little sooner we wouldn’t be in this situation. So good looking out, but you all suck.

tomas on November 3, 2009 at 6:49 PM

We need Ron Paul to get organized early and kick some neocon ass.

Spathi on November 3, 2009 at 6:16

huh sure…

koo koo

sonofdy on November 3, 2009 at 6:49 PM

I think it’s not as crazy as it might’ve sounded a year ago.

Jim Treacher

Unfortunately you are.

Grow Fins on November 3, 2009 at 6:37 PM

GrowFins reduced to utter incoherence, priceless.

ElectricPhase on November 3, 2009 at 6:49 PM

I wouldn’t be surprised if we have a Ross Perot type candidate. And this nut Glenn Beck is gonna promote him / her like hell. Obama will win if get a third party candidate.

terryannonline on November 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Just redefine the GOP. Frankly, the current batch of GOP can’t be faulted too much. They are holding firm on healthcare, and it’s been pretty darn ugly to do so. ***
AnninCA on November 3, 2009 at 6:41 PM

GOP has held the line on healthcare only because grassroots conservatives have commandeered the political debate on the subject (tea parties, townhalls, etc.) and got the message out there about how horrible the plan is. That’s provided the House and Senate GOP caucuses with enough political cover to feel comfortable opposing the plan.

What disappoints me is that the GOP has really contributed nothing to the debate. When’s the last time you saw a GOP elected official engage in a serious discussion about health care or propose a plan that actually makes sense?

Outlander on November 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Perot…Now that’s just sad

Poor admiral too

Jeff from WI on November 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

President Obama will still be running against Bush 3 years from now. “Unemployment’s dropped from 11 to 9.5% in the last 2 years… I’m rescuing America from the brink of disaster that Bush created… blah blah blah”.

BadgerHawk on November 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Fair enough, but based on historical trends, so long as unemployment is trending in the right direction on Election Day, reelection is almost assured. The One’s got three years to make that happen; if he does, even the media won’t have to do much pushing.

Sorry, but TNR’s wishful thinking is just that, wishful thinking. I can show you statistics to prove just about anything.

If unemployment is, let’s say, 9.8% in October 2012, down 0.3% from September 2012, it does not guarantee Obama’s re-election.

And regarding the 3rd party talk, it could be a reality if the GOP nominates another so-called “moderate”. If a Romney, Daniels, Crist or someone similar gets nominated in 2012 due to a crowded conservative field or democratic votes in open primaries, then yes, a 3rd party is almost inevitable.

Norwegian on November 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

After all that Obama has done to this country I cannot even fathom that people are still hung up on Sarah Palin’s clothes! Are you kidding me?

libertylady on November 3, 2009 at 6:45 PM

They cannot help it, you mention her name and they start frothing immediately and sputter any one of the talking points that comes out first. They cannot understand why she has not been vaporized , as Harry would say, by their media bombardment.

bluemarlin on November 3, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Glen Beck 2009: Yeah! Third party the GOP sucks!

Glen Beck 2012: I never thought I’d say this, but I fully support the GOP candidate, voting for the GOP would change the party into exactly what we need!

I like Beck, but does anyone not realize that this is what he is doing?

jhffmn on November 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM

I think we need to consider inventing some birth certificate canard about Beck, saying he is actually an Urghuir terrorist and deport him to Bermuda.

Anders on November 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM

No, a third party is not going to win in 2012. One way Obama could win in 2012 is if there is a third party candidate like Perot.

Glenn Beck does a brilliant job dissecting the Obama Administration. But he has a few blind spots. This is one.

Phil Byler on November 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Beck’s a lot smarter than AP. He’s done more damage to Obama than anyone. He’s not going to be launching a third party. He’s simply trying to goad the GOP into reality.

Anyone who thinks Obama will be re-elected has no clue about the impact of huge deficits on the nation’s economy. We are headed for high interest rates and hyper-inflation as a result of Obama’s budgets. The economy will not improve sufficiently to undo the damage which has already been done. It may not improve at all.

This is even without an increase in terrorism which is now inevitable as a result of the projection of weakness.

Basilsbest on November 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM

propose a plan that actually makes sense?

Outlander on November 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Well, the basics actually do make more sense than the 2 plans being offered. I’d prefer to see interstate competition than either plan on the table right now.

AnninCA on November 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Wrong.

The only way a third party could get anywhere in the long run is to start winning seats in Congress or Governor level.
Once people are in those positions it can build from there. But this would take 10-20+ years.

But take the experience of the Europeans with their multi-party political systems and abandon this dangerous idea of more than 2 political parties. The US does not want to go that route.
A two party system is the best way. 3 or more political parties is a bureaucratic, do-nothing, coalition nightmare.

albill on November 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Beck is wrong. He’s always let his despair of both parties color his realization that 3rd party candidates don’t work.

But Palin gives every indication that she wants to revitalize the Republican party, so I don’t think she’s going to sign up to head a 3rd party.

tom on November 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM

jhffmn on November 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Beck is looking for a person, not a party. If the GOP happens to find that person, then I think he’ll support her.

Ronnie on November 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Not such a unbelievable situation. The chance to test the theory is in 2010. If conservatives vote and get half of the independents, it is not so unrealistic. Liberals are definitely a minority of the electorate. If the poor, blacks and immigrants ever wake up and see the elitists only use them as tools for control and personal gain then anything is possible.

volsense on November 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Look, GB is entertaining and he has done some great work in exposing BHO for what he really wants to do with America. No one in the country has done as much. But, GB isn’t going to lead me to a political party. I do think by 2012, the landscape is going to look differently. It remains to be seen if the GOP can deliver a POTUS candidate who can win.

d1carter on November 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM

In fact, they ruined her Alaskan career.

AnninCA on November 3, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Maybe Schmidt was the leaker about the wardrobe, if he was a sick twisted b*st*rd who didn’t mind torpedoing his own candidate…He’s clearly no fan of Sarah’s now.

As for ruining Palin’s Alaskan career, that was the Left, if not actual minions of NObama, Axelrod and the other Marxist trolls on NObama’s staff who brought all those bogus ethics charges against her.

Jenfidel on November 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Lots of folks seem to forget that Perot was not the only reason the Democrats won in 1992-the “objective media” kept alive the lie that the economic recovery hadn’t begun-even though Fed stats show that it had begun 18 months before the election itself.
Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2009 at 6:46 PM

True, but Bush raised taxes and had no message about the economy. He was tired & out of touch, much like the GOP establishment is today.

Outlander on November 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM

As for ruining Palin’s Alaskan career, that was the Left, if not actual minions of NObama, Axelrod and the other Marxist trolls on NObama’s staff who brought all those bogus ethics charges against her.
Jenfidel on November 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM

It was also McCain’s campaign who told her that she couldn’t allow the State to reimburse her for the costs associated with defending those ethics charges. Moreover, the RNC made no effort whatsoever to raise a hue & cry against the fake ethics charges and to bring any pressure at all on cabining that process.

Outlander on November 3, 2009 at 6:58 PM

Forget 2012 for now. We can stop this train wreck in 2010 if we focus our efforts: 50 seats in the House. We can take the House in 2010; we don’t need a third party. We run Republicans where Republicans can win (against Blue Dogs) and we run as Independent Conservatives where Republicans haven’t been able to win: Midwest and North, rural and suburban districts that are more conservative than their Democratic representatives but will not vote Republican. This allows a conservative alternative to the Democrats without all of the baggage, real and MSM-induced, of running as a Republican.

http://www.firefifty.com/phpwiki/index.php

motionview on November 3, 2009 at 6:58 PM

Jeff from WI: Why poor admiral? Explain to me what will improve the economy between now and 2012 with all of these landmines in place that the donks will do nothing to avoid? All I’m saying is that they are digging their own grave for 2012.

TheAdmiral on November 3, 2009 at 6:59 PM

When’s the last time you saw a GOP elected official engage in a serious discussion about health care or propose a plan that actually makes sense?

Outlander on November 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Boehner had a speech on Saturday and I believe the GOP House members presented an alternative HC plan only today.

Jenfidel on November 3, 2009 at 6:59 PM

Not such a unbelievable situation. The chance to test the theory is in 2010. If conservatives vote and get half of the independents, it is not so unrealistic. Liberals are definitely a minority of the electorate. If the poor, blacks and immigrants ever wake up and see the elitists only use them as tools for control and personal gain then anything is possible.

volsense on November 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM

I would think it more likely that we will see conservative candidates challenging for seats in primaries. I really do not see a huge independent push if we can get the conservatives winning, why go independent?

bluemarlin on November 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM

Very unlikely a third party candidate can win the WH. But the raise of a third party wining congressional elections coupled with several more electoral poundings of the GOP might be the only way the Republican Party can be re-shaped as a viable and competitive national option again. The scenario being played out here has uncanny simmilarities with what happened to the Progressive Concervative Party of Canada, which went form at one point holding 200 out of 300 seats in parliament to holding only 15 and dissapearing as a party, mostly due to becoming more and more liberal over the years. Borned again as a coalition of true conservative parties it has now won 2 elections in a row, the last one by a much larger margin than the previous one.

neuquenguy on November 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

No, Palin is NOT going to go third party. She is going to discipline the squishy Republicans to take a conservative-libertarian position and fight hard to push that stance.

The two parties are probably going to realign and make their polar postions clear. I expect that there will be more crossovers from the Dems if the Republicans hit hard on smaller government, fiscal responsibility issues…and offer specifics on how that can be accomplished.

onlineanalyst on November 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Oh Please! I would not vote for Ron Paul anymore than I would vote for the filthy lying coward in the White House. Paul has no more ethics, morals, vision, or ability to lead than Obama.

highhopes on November 3, 2009 at 6:42 PM

You must be living on a different planet. You lump Paul in with open the communists/Leninist/Maoists in the white houe now?!? Paul is the most principled member in congress right now. I challenge you to find one that’s more principled. He’s the only one that takes the oath to uphold the constitution seriously and I respect him for that.

nazo311 on November 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

I think it is a serious mistake to be thinking about a third party.
The Republican party has it’s problems, I agree, but the biggest problem and the easiest to fix is it’s lack of leadership. Republicans need a leader.
The Republican party has a proud history and a proud beginning. Starting a new party just because the members aren’t playing the game right may seem like an easy fix. But what do you do if your new party gets filled with “TPINO’S!?? (third party in name only) You going to leave and form a fourth party??
If the battle to take back the Republican party is just to great an effort, how will you handle the battle to take back a nation??
Here is an example from history:
President Wilson, one of our most radical Presidents, and one that is closer to Obama I think than any other, was elected because the Republican vote was split. Teddy Roosevelt, angered because he didn’t get the Republican nomination, left the Republican party and formed a 3rd party. Roosevelt and Taft (the Republican) combined received roughly 7 and a half million votes,, while Wilson (the Democrat) won the election with over 6 million.
So what was Wilson like?

Here’s a little history for you:
In his 1890 essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson explained that a “true leader” uses the masses like “tools.” He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. “Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.”

“No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle,” wrote Wilson, attacking the very individual rights that have made America great.

He rejected the principles of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” that are the foundation of American government: “Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand….” wrote Wilson in The State.

http://www.acuf.org/issues/issue112/080721news.asp
Wilson championed the idea of “the living Constitution” which enables activist judges to re-write the Constitution according to the Progressive notions of the day.
Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online’s editor-at-large, is the author of “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.”
excerpts:

Washington – I’m thinking of an American president who demonized ethnic groups as enemies of the state, censored the press, imprisoned dissidents, bullied political opponents, spewed propaganda, often expressed contempt for the Constitution, approved warrantless searches and eavesdropping, and pursued his policies with a blind, religious certainty.

Oh, and I’m not thinking of George W. Bush, but another “W” – actually “WW”: Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat who served from 1913 to 1921…..
…. Wilson, like the bulk of progressive intellectuals in fin-de-siècle America, was deeply influenced by three strands of thought: philosophical Pragmatism, Hegelianism, and Darwinism. This heady intellectual cocktail produced a drunken arrogance and the conviction that the old rules no longer applied…..Hence Wilson argued that the old “Newtonian” vision – fixed rules enshrined in the Constitution and laws – had to give way to the “Darwinian” view of “living constitutions” and the like.

I love Sarah and I love Glen Beck. But if they go third party, it is an unnecessary risk we do not need to take. America may barely be able to withstand a one term Obama. A second term would be our end. God only knows how high he would hold his head then.

JellyToast on November 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

But take the experience of the Europeans with their multi-party political systems and abandon this dangerous idea of more than 2 political parties. The US does not want to go that route.
A two party system is the best way. 3 or more political parties is a bureaucratic, do-nothing, coalition nightmare.

albill on November 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Don’t forget, we have a NO PARTY system. Political parties are not Constitutional entities and are not needed for our government to operate. Don’t compare our system to the Europeans, as there is NO comparison. In Euro-style parliamentary systems, the party IS the fundamental poltical entity and one cannot even form a working executive branch until some party or coalition has taken effective control of the legislature. Our system is light years different from their s and there is no room to compare anything along these lines. Our President does not need to be in any party. The only place that party comes into play with the President is in the running (money and state election machinery).

We are totally unlike Euro-style, party-oriented, collectivist parliamentary systems, which is what ticks off the anti-individualist dems.

progressoverpeace on November 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

It was also McCain’s campaign who told her that she couldn’t allow the State to reimburse her for the costs associated with defending those ethics charges.

Incorrect.
It was in the state of Alaska’s own rules and laws which ironically, I think Palin herself may have helped put into place when she was cleaning up AK politics before.

Moreover, the RNC made no effort whatsoever to raise a hue & cry against the fake ethics charges and to bring any pressure at all on cabining that process.

Outlander on November 3, 2009 at 6:58 PM

I really don’t know where you’re going with this.
Once the election was over, so was Palin’s symbiotic relationship with the RNC.
As an independent Governor of a state, you’re usually on your own and without the help of your party’s machine, although NObama’s Democrats are changing that (viz. Ogabe’s campaigning for Corzine)

Jenfidel on November 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Can someone point to one Odumbass policy that makes you think the economy will turn around?

txag92 on November 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM

The only one I can think of that comes close is his policy of screwing things up so bad that he puts the R’s in the majority in come Jan 2011.

Dusty on November 3, 2009 at 7:04 PM

For some people, the GOP is a security blanket. They are afraid of letting it go, lest they have nothing else to grab on to. You have to let go to climb higher. Start from a fresh piece of paper and have some guts. By 2012, the economy will be so bad, for so long, obama will be so unpopular, a third party which represents independent voters could field Vince the Shamwow guy and still win. Let\’s not waste this opportunity for fear that obama will benefit. No sitting president gets reelected with the economy in the toilet. It\’s the economy stupid, and always has been. It was the economic concerns of the independent voters that put obama over the top in 2008. Obama didn\’t run against McCain, he ran against Bush to take advantage of that dynamic. However, no matter how unpopular obama is, there is a palpable dislike for the republican brand by independents. Wrongly or rightly, that\’s the way it is. A new party, untainted by that brand, would present no stumbling block to millions of independent socially liberal voters who have soured on obama, but have no love for republicans. That demographic is growing each day and will be huge by 2012. Throw your support behind the GOP, and they might win, but what you will get will be another tax and spend liberal. So you will have squandered a great opportunity and have nothing to show for it. Throw your support behind a third party, it will win, and you will get a fiscally conservative leader for your troubles.

keep the change on November 3, 2009 at 7:04 PM

I think we should hold our breath and wait until 2012 to see who the GOP contenders will be. It really depends on how the political and economic landscape of 2012 will be that will influence who the GOP presidential candidate will be.

I think conservatives ought to remember that Ronald Reagan wasn’t perfect in that he didn’t always do the conservative thing like supporting Amnesty or supporting abortion before changing his views. However, Reagan stood firm in his conservative principles and that is what we remember Reagan for despite his political mistakes.

I think we should be open minded about who the GOP candidate will be. It could be Palin, Romney or anybody else. The 2012 candidate won’t be perfect and they’ll have their flaws. But in the end, they gotta be firm in fighting for conservative principles.

I think Romney, Palin and a few other potential contenders have that.

Conservative Samizdat on November 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM

albill on November 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Succinctly, our Executive branch is totally independent of Congress (except for the checks and balances that have nothing to do with party, but with the arms of the government) and can run perfectly well with a no-party President, no matter what the Congress is comprised of. We are not a party-oriented government. Period.

progressoverpeace on November 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Recognizing the problem with the GOP will go a long way to the cure and I applaud Glenn for that. If 2010 doesn’t prove pivotal to a stronger more conservative GOP then a third party may look more appealing.

fourdeucer on November 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Sorry, but TNR’s wishful thinking is just that, wishful thinking. I can show you statistics to prove just about anything.

If unemployment is, let’s say, 9.8% in October 2012, down 0.3% from September 2012, it does not guarantee Obama’s re-election.

Fair point, but I’m assuming they are referring to a more significant and more long term trend, rather than just a very slight improvement over one month. If, for example, unemplyment is still very high, but say it declines from 9% to 8% to 7%, and maybe hits 6.5% by the time of the election, he could say “We were left this huge mess by the eeeevil Republicans, and slowly but surely we are getting it under control,” and quite plausibly sell it.

RINO in Name Only on November 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM

I think the key would be conservative Repubs and Independents, but not a third party.

I agree with Beck on most things, but a third party just isn’t gonna be good next time around. It’ll pretty much seal Obama in for another (gasp) 4 years.

Good lord, we have another three years to go with this dufus as it is. Don’t make it 7.

RedbonePro on November 3, 2009 at 7:06 PM

What disappoints me is that the GOP has really contributed nothing to the debate. When’s the last time you saw a GOP elected official engage in a serious discussion about health care or propose a plan that actually makes sense?

Outlander

One, the media would actually have to cover it for people to see it. Good luck with that. Two, there are plans that make sense out there, and, though not perfect, they all make more sense than the Obamalosicare bill. Doing nothing makes more sense than that monstrosity.

Finally, number three, and most important….Republicans have no power to introduce and pass any health care legislation. They could propose the greatest, most perfect plan the world has ever seen, and they would have zero shot of getting it heard, let alone getting it passed.

xblade on November 3, 2009 at 7:07 PM

True, but Bush raised taxes and had no message about the economy. He was tired & out of touch, much like the GOP establishment is today.

Outlander on November 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Bush 41 didn’t raise taxes, Congress did.
And the message about the economy should have been that there had a small recession, but it was in recovery.
I voted for Perot and today, I deeply regret not voting for Bush 41.
George H.W. Bush was a good man and a good President.
The damage done to our country by Clinton was considerable.

Jenfidel on November 3, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Don’t forget, we have a NO PARTY system. Political parties are not Constitutional entities and are not needed for our government to operate.

progressoverpeace on November 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Technically, yes, but practically, our system, and indeed our constitution, lends itself naturally to 2 parties. When the election is winner-take-all, it has the natural effect of discouraging third-parties, which tend to become regarded as “spoilers”, largely because they often really are (e.g. Perot).

RINO in Name Only on November 3, 2009 at 7:09 PM

The One’s got three years to make that happen; if he does, even the media won’t have to do much pushing.

I’m not sure, I think it all depends how high taxes are, etc.

deidre on November 3, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Oh, by the way, I’ve been calling this for weeks now. Beck’s nonsense will result in a third party candidate that will do just enough to give Obama the election. That’s why the senate and house races are so important in 2010 and 2012. If we can take those back, I don’t care if Obama gets re-elected. At least we’ll be able to keep his crap in check.

xblade on November 3, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Okay, Okay!! Geezz . . . a third party is a bad idea . . . we get it; so . . .
we just keep electing these RINOS and yarping about “We gotta take the GIOP back!”
Meantime the progressives take over and ditch the constitution and we got one party . . .
GET A CLUE! The GOP isn’t conservative and ain’t gonna be fixed. Sure we’ll loose at first but if we keep at it eventually a third party–conservative party can win! We need to REVERSE what the progressives are doing not merely do it slower.

rebuzz on November 3, 2009 at 7:12 PM

I think I voted for Perot too. Whatever, however this shakes out the only talk of a 3rd party should come if the r epublicans have someone like McCain again.

Sorry guys but there is no way unemployment is going anywhere but up. I wish that were not the case but it won’t. Obama is going to win with ACORN, and that is the only way, unless Beck is really working for Obama and there is a 3rd party.

ORconservative on November 3, 2009 at 7:13 PM

When I saw this I was actually relieved that he backed off his call for a third party expressed on his show the other day. I do not think Beck will support a third party, not when the Republican party is being rebuilt by grassroots efforts and tea party conservatives.

Daemonocracy on November 3, 2009 at 7:15 PM

I’m not sure, I think it all depends how high taxes are, etc.

deidre

Problem is there are still a lot of stupid people out there, and many of them don’t pay taxes. How stupid? Well, I actually heard a woman today claiming things were definitely getting better because of Obama while whining about her husband being unemployed.

Nutjobs everywhere.

xblade on November 3, 2009 at 7:16 PM

There’ll be no third party . . . but there will be a conservative wing of the GOP and it will be omnipotent. The Republican Party will not split it will simply become a much different entity.

rplat on November 3, 2009 at 7:17 PM

Allahpundit’s 1992 allusion makes me wonder if a third-party spoiler in favor of the Democratic Party presidential nominee is really all that bad. The frustration of 1992 which led to that spoiler and which arose from said spoiler led to the Republican take-over of the House in 1994. It ushered in a period of actual fiscally conservative governance. One we left behind starting around mid-2001. If it takes a bracer like a third-party spoiler in 2012 to get fiscal conservative legislation back into popularity, I think I might be okay with that.

Jens on November 3, 2009 at 7:17 PM

keep the change on November 3, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Unfortunatelly the GOP can take conservatives for granted just like Democrats take the African American vote for granted. The reason is that we do not have any other place to go. So the GOP keeps moving left in their pursuit of the precious “moderates”. Conservatives do have to decouple themselves from the Republican party, make the Republicans, the Democrats or a third party earn their votes. Keep their representatives accountable, tell them that if they do not govern as conservatives they will be thrown out, even if their opponent might be worse. Then tell the opponent the same thing.

neuquenguy on November 3, 2009 at 7:19 PM

There’ll be no third party . . . but there will be a conservative wing of the GOP and it will be omnipotent. The Republican Party will not split it will simply become a much different entity.

rplat on November 3, 2009 at 7:17 PM

Dream on! The “elites” in the GIOP will never let the “bubba’s” have control of the party; We can keep playing the 2-party who’s’ the least progressive” game or we can begin to back and elect real conservatives; the longer we wait to do that the harder it will be; NO more $$ for RINO’s!!

rebuzz on November 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM

A third party would result in an early Christmas present in 2012 for the Democrats.

yoda on November 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM

A third party would result in an early Christmas present in 2012 for the Democrats.

yoda on November 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Running another RINO would result in an early Christmas present in 2012 for the Democrats. Progessives (in both parties).

rebuzz on November 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM

It sounds as though Allah bin Tollbooth is dumping Hucklebuck for Mr. Floppy. Tool.

Percy_Peabody on November 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM

My instinct is to say Sarah has no interest in running as a third-party candidate. Her actions and words of late indicate she’s interested in taking back the Republican Party and redefining it according to its traditional values. But if there’s anything I’ve learned about Sarah Palin over this last year, she’s anything but predictable. If anyone can go third party and actually win, it would be her.

NoLeftTurn on November 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM

Beck is like Obama for me, in the way that voters hate his policies but (marginally) still like him? I like you people, the fans of Beck, and I agree with you on most things.

But this guy is nuts.

Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Running another RINO would result in an early Christmas present in 2012 for the Democrats. Progessives (in both parties).

rebuzz on November 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM

That’s why the Republicans need to elect a Conservative in the primary….no RINOs need apply. The Republican Party would be the party to split, which would result in another win for the Democrats in 2012.

yoda on November 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

It sounds as though Allah bin Tollbooth is dumping Hucklebuck for Mr. Floppy. Tool.

Percy_Peabody on November 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Uh…explain all that for me, slowly?

Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Tollbooth?

Hucklebuck – Huckabee; got that.

Mr. Floppy?

Tool I got.

Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Mr. Floppy! Flip-Flop! Is that the Mittster?

Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 8:00 PM

If we have another Ross Perot election, it will mean another four 17 and counting years of Obama. I pray he is wrong.
bopbottle on November 3, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Remember the lesson of Bill and Hill who we still can’t exorcise from the political landscape thanks to Perot in 1992.

Buy Danish on November 3, 2009 at 8:02 PM

Send your money to Club for Growth or Sen. DeMint’s conservative PAC. These are two groups cultivating and encouraging conservative candidates.

onlineanalyst on November 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

It’s a mystery to me and I watch him almost daily. Someone enlighten me.
It’s Palin. Did you watch the clip. He specifically says, right before he talks about a third party winning in 2012 here, that he thinks she’s going third-party.

Allahpundit on November 3, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Yes, but GB didn’t bring SP up, BOR did. They were talking about SP’s intelligence and how she got screwed by the media and McCain. Then, BOR brought up the 3rd party idea.

I’m fed up with the repubs. I don’t see anything new there, just more of the same ol’ same ol. Would a republican candidate being elected president in 2012 deliver anything different to what we’ve got now? I remember how Obama said some time ago that if was elected, he’d go through the budget line by line and cut out waste. Boy, didn’t he sound so refreshing and new? Has it happened? No. Would any of the repubs we see right now be any different? I’m thinking, no. Seems these guys only know how to lie, lie and lie again. Do any of them sincerely care about you and me?

As for SP? Well, she seems like a nice woman and has a lot of charisma. I do like her a lot. I just have to wonder, does she have the right stuff. We need another Reagan, don’t we.

Ok, so there is a real danger of a 3rd party assuring another 4 yrs for Obama (shudders). So, the opposition has to clean the sh*t out of their ears and really listen to the people, and for once, truly represent us. Damn politics. I hate it. Always have. I don’t want to think about this stuff all day but I can’t help it. For the first time in 30+ years of living in the USA, I’m really frightened of where we’re going. I have nightmares about it.

fullogas on November 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Remember the lesson of Bill and Hill who we still can’t exorcise from the political landscape thanks to Perot in 1992.

Buy Danish on November 3, 2009 at 8:02 PM

True. But I don’t know of any deranged billionaires who lean to the right right now…do you? Soros isn’t likely to run against Obama any time soon.

Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

A 3rd party? That’s teh drugs and teh booze and teh scientology speaking. Xenu 2012!!

simplesimon on November 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Ok I’m probably going to seem like Little Miss Naive here but I really don’t know the answer to this.

Why do people either love or hate Ron Paul? Everywhere I see his name come up, its there.

fullogas on November 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM

I’m torn. I don’t want the repubs to come back yet, because I think they haven’t learned their lesson. Exhibit A in NY-23. OTOH, I don’t want government health care anywhere near the scope and cost we are talking about (when we’re permitted to talk).

What would be really excellent, would be the formation of an authentic Conservative Party, willing to make some tough decisions about how many and exactly which of current republican ‘leaders’ we’re going to let in. Yeah. In my dreams.

Then of course there’s also the problem of how to keep folks like Pat Buchanan from jumping in front of the parade.

Reforming the Repub Party suddenly looks better.
.

wkgdyw on November 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Oh and BTW, I love Ron Paul. I’m glad he’ll never be president, but I’m exceedingly glad he’s out there speaking out.

wkgdyw on November 3, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Romney is voteable, but is he the reformer?

Will he cut, cut, cut?

Maybe not. Would Palin? Could she? I know Ron Paul would. Whoever it is… We do need a reformer.

iamse7en on November 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Is Romney a reformer? NOPE! Note even close.

Ron Paul is bat$hit crazy. He has ZERO chance of getting elected. He has one or two good ideas mixed in with a whole lot of crazy.

Will Sarah “cut, cut, cut?” Go look at her record!

She CUT, CUT, CUT in Alaska! She sold off the stupid jet the previous Governor bought, that wouldn’t land on many of the air fields up there. She fired the executive chef at the Mansion. She even refused a driver, mostly driving her own Jetta to work!

Sarah’s official expenditures on the Office of the Governor were a cool million dollars less than the previous two Governors.

Sarah is itching to tear into Washington.

gary4205 on November 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Technically, yes, but practically, our system, and indeed our constitution, lends itself naturally to 2 parties.

Not at all. There is nothing about our federal government that requires any sort of a party structure. The party structure is most important with respect elections, only, not governing. Now, our COngress has formalized the role of parties, but that is extra-Constitutional and not very bright, frankly.

When the election is winner-take-all, it has the natural effect of discouraging third-parties, which tend to become regarded as “spoilers”, largely because they often really are (e.g. Perot).

RINO in Name Only on November 3, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Most of these “elections” were never intended by the original Constitutional structure. It was up to the states to decide most things, except for the House of Representatives, which was the only part for which the Constitution called for democratic processes.

There would be nothing bad about a third-party/no-party President governing. It would certainly be not unlike a President of one party and Congress controlled by another – though it would probably be a much easier situation to deal with, as the Executive would be far more independent.

progressoverpeace on November 3, 2009 at 8:34 PM

I’ve been droning at you lately about how this is a dangerous idea that’ll end up with a split Republican vote and Democratic victory a la 1992

No, it won’t. We watched you peddle that same bullshit about Hoffman, and you were embarrassed there. Your fear is pathetic and sad. That’s a common fearmongering tactic liberals use because they’re terrified of conservatives actually demanding representation. A third party comprised primarily out of the conservative/libertarian cloth would totally eradicate the Republican Party and trim the Democrat Party as well. It would become THE dominant party.

Which is why you hear you hear this constant meme. They’re trying to scare you because the truth is, THEY’RE terrified of conservatives/libertarians forming a third party. They are absolutely terrified of it.

Sixth Guard on November 3, 2009 at 8:59 PM

RE How a third party splits the republicans and gives the win to the democrat.

Preach it! Bro. How right you are. Abso-fricking-lutely correct. That’s why the WHIG party is so dominate at the polls every election cycle.

Skandia Recluse on November 3, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Glen Beck may well be Right.

We are getting very tired of RINOS like McInsane, G and GW Bushwacked. I still have a hard time believing how far left GW went in his second term. He ruled nothing like he ran once he was safe in his second term and nearly destroyed the Republican Party. If he didn’t destroy it. If he did the Republican Party will have to be replaced by a Conservative Party. For now the Republican Party is just like the Democrat Party of JFK.

When 73% of Republicans say their party does not represent them something is seriously wrong. The majority of Americans are conservative and very upset that their God is being spat on by the Government and not welcome in polite company. They are upset that the Government is stealing everything in the country. This is now the USSA. Conservatives wish to restore it to the (Christian) United States of America like it was in 1776. We are tired of Socialist dressed up as Republicans destroying the party.

Steveangell on November 3, 2009 at 9:10 PM

My God, ACE is counseling people to lay off the insults? That place has been the right-wing kindergarten since its inception, and Ace is MarKOS’s primary rival in the “I Traded My Personality For An Attitude” sweepstakes.

This piece sounds a little calmer, despite his failing to notice that J.K. Galbraith (I know, but still) responded to von Bismarck’s “Politics is the art of the possible” bromide with “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable,” which remark made his point 50 years ago.

Adlai Stevenson (another Democrat – hey, when you’re right, you’re right) is reputed to have said that a man’s desire to run for office should perforce disqualify him. That’s where we’re at, folks. If they weren’t crooks, we wouldn’t know who they are.

Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson appeal to me precisely because I don’t think they’re blowing sunshine up my skirt. That doesn’t mean I’d want to spend a weekend with them, but if somebody’s gotta be President I don’t think either of them will screw me. At least neither of them is a lawyer. (And what many call my cynicism I’ve always referred to as “Reality.” Its ownself.)

“Big tent” Republicans would do well to remember that the phrase was coined by Lyndon Johnson, who knew a crook when he saw one. His view was “I’d rather have him on the inside of the tent pissing out than on the outside of the tent pissing in.”

Pissed off or pissed on; the alternatives for Conservatives like us seem pretty clear to me…

warbaby on November 3, 2009 at 9:12 PM

“Big Tent” = Letting Democrats run our party.

It must end.

Steveangell on November 3, 2009 at 9:25 PM

My God, ACE is counseling people to lay off the insults? That place has been the right-wing kindergarten since its inception, and Ace is MarKOS’s primary rival in the “I Traded My Personality For An Attitude” sweepstakes.

warbaby on November 3, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Ace gets his hindparts handed to him on a regular basis when he writes about the strategy that the Republicans should take forward. Ace seems to have become Allah’s MiniMe, and the morons appear to be getting restless.

trfogey on November 3, 2009 at 9:31 PM

No neo-Perots, please.

I’m all ears!”

No Third Party ever does anything but guarantee the loss of the more moderate and conservative Major Party, because that vote is split more than the Leftoid vote, which only moderates its radicalism… until after the election.

You’re better off working through one of the two Main Parties… until that vehicle utterly fails.

Only then can a struggling Third Party turn into the new Major Party.

If the Republicans ever became 51% Dem-lite, the GOP would justifiably fade away.

And a natural replacement would arise, ~either a Freedom Party or Common Sense Party.

Third Party is like a third wheel.

Unless you’re a tricycle, skip it.

profitsbeard on November 3, 2009 at 9:47 PM

Yeah, sorry – a third party does nothing but act the spoiler and kill one side or the other.

Perot.

Perot.

Nader.

Whether it worked for or against us, there’s no doubt that Clinton (twice) and Bush became president *because* of a third party spoiler.

Please, for God’s sake, let’s not do this and guarantee O’s re-election.

Midas on November 3, 2009 at 9:51 PM

I really do not think a third party will win in a national election. I think Beck wants to see the Perot thing happen again. I can not help it, I just do not trust this guy.

Terrye on November 3, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Allah and Ace (and Newt) seem to think this is some sort of pro sport, where we root for our team regardless of who the quarterback or head coach is this year. I and many people like me could care less the party of the candidate. What we want to see is results. When did Arlen Specter ever cast a conservative vote that mattered? Olympia Snowe? When it matters – when the issue is hot and the vote is close – “Republicans” like those flip the cause to the Dems, and we all lose.
Politics is – or it should be – about principles. I, myself, believe in certain things: the free market, a strong foreign policy, a culture of life. Why should I vote for a “Republican” like Scozzafazza who does not share those beliefs? Certain of those beliefs are non-negotiable. I will vote for the most pro-life candidate regardless of party.
Glenn Beck has a point when he says McCain would not have been much of an improvement over BO. McCain would have voted for Porkulous, no doubt. He had already supported TARP. Instead of Health Reform, we would have had Amnesty and McCain Feingold Part II. And as far as foreign policy goes (Iran, Russia, the missle shield, Honduras) – how much of that would have been SIGNIFICANTLY better? Seriously? What would be different now? Would McCain have found a way to defer Iran? How? Seriously, other than Health Care, which will fail, what would be different?
GWB, as much as I liked him, totally betrayed my vote (and all the phone calls I made for him in 2004.) The only conservative accomplishments – in 8 years – I can point to are the war and the justices. And he screwed up the war. We should have been in and done in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s time the GOP stopped being the party of “It’s your turn this year, Mitt!” and started being the party of “Which of you pretenders really shares the vision of our founding fathers?”
The Dems have it figured out. Here is how they do it in South Carolina. They run as Republicans. They talk the talk to get elected, because they know if they ran as Dems they would lose. Then when they win, they do what they want. Just look at Lindsey.
Wake up people. Start voting your conscience, not your party.
One last comment. Allah advocates that it is more important to prevent the dems winning a seat than it is to get a true conservative in that seat. Bull. I want a conservative country. Voting for a dem will take me 5 steps away from that goal. Voting for a RINO will take me 1 step away from that goal. That is not progress. I would rather take the 10% chance and vote for the true conservative who will take me closer to that goal. That is my only chance to get there.

gl_thecatholic on November 3, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Maybe what Beck is doing is similar to what William Wallace did in Braveheart. Remember the battle scene where he told part of the forces to leave? He said he wanted them to make sure that the English saw them leave. Then, after their half-force fought bravely against the overly-cocky English, the other half of their forces came back and helped win the battle~ Perhaps he wants to keep the dems on the run, and unsure of what we are going to do. I mean, conservatives are somewhat predictable; we have our standards and we try to live them. So the other side can predict our behavior pretty easily. He is using Alinsky methods on them, and a lot of them are terrified of it. He is a little odd, but I think that there is a method to his feigned madness. I gotta give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time. He knows this may be the last battle we get to fight in this war if we lose our freedom in it. FREEDOM!

Peggy Snow Cahill on November 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM

There will be no political victory now, but on his deathbed he will receive total consciousness. So he’s got that going for him.

Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 11:26 PM

More evidence the Beck will say anything for ratings. A third party President would be a political eunuch

Fed45 on November 3, 2009 at 11:58 PM

You don’t get Glenn.

Glen really truly believes America is in serious trouble. He believes the Constitution is being trampled and is on life support with the clock running out. He understands Barack is an Illegal Alien Manchurian President Hell Bent to make America the new Russia. He believes with every inch of his body Obama hates all Whites and hates the Constitution even more. He believes Obama was raised in Marxist totalitarianism from his infancy and as a Muslim as well and that those two go hand in hand. He understands that Obama prays for the death of Christianity. Obama drank the Wright Koolaid and honestly believes that if Christ was white (and he was) we should kill him. Beck understands this. Beck also understands that the Rockefeller Republicans believe Marxism is the way to go.

Beck will never support a “Big Tent” Republican Party. None of us should after the Bush/McCain debacle. Regan Conservatism or bust.

Steveangell on November 4, 2009 at 12:02 AM

There’s nothing wrong with the idea of a big tent… As long as the so called moderates are willing to join us in our tent, we would be happy to have them. But, somehow, I don’t think that’s what they have in mind.

So, tell me, why is it the true believers get tagged with the criticism that they aren’t willing to work with the moderates? Why isn’t it on the moderates to work with us?

Anon Y. Mous on November 4, 2009 at 12:19 AM

Steveangell on November 4, 2009 at 12:02 AM

I’d say you’re right, that’s what Glenn Beck believes.

And I’d also say that anybody that doesn’t understand these things is an idiot.

There’s my tent; big enough for ya?

warbaby on November 4, 2009 at 12:26 AM

I really don’t get it.

Even my liberal Democrat Brother in law agrees Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President. Liberals most likely all know this and just think thumbing the Constitution is funny. We are considered a nut even on FNC simply for mentioning the facts. Even Glenn will not touch this one. I mean since when is hear say evidence accepted in court yet Obama got by with a Birth Certificate on the internet. The court actually accepted that as proof. Try that at any High School or even elementary school.

Steveangell on November 4, 2009 at 12:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3