Beck: Maybe both parties aren’t the same

posted at 8:48 am on February 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Relax, Beck fans — Glenn isn’t going soft on Republicans, whom he diagnoses as “Suck-o-Rama.” He’s not even really complaining about the Democrats being worse, but merely noting that Barack Obama is in a Rama all by himself. Beck uses his chalkboard to do a comparison between deficits as a percentage of GDP from actual budgets during the Bush and Clinton presidencies to the White House projections for future budget deficits under the Obama plan. In fact, Beck generously attributes 2009 to Bush, even though Bush never signed that budget, and offers to disregard this year’s deficit (projected at 10.6% of GDP). It doesn’t help.

With Obama promising to start getting tough on deficits, Beck wonders just how many terms of office Obama plans on winning to get around to it (via The Right Scoop):

I don’t know how many terms Obama plans on winning, but unless he gets spending and deficits down and employment up, he’ll have won his last term in 2008.

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

I think Beck’s role is that of provoking thought and controversy–it keeps everyone on their toes…and constantly talking…

lovingmyUSA on February 11, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Exactly: talking, and thinking. He is presenting it in a way that a lot of people are not used to seeing. In-you-face moves some people out of their comfort (complacency) zone.

Yoop on February 11, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I constantly heard that Reagan was too conservative, and then he won.

Johan Klaus on February 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Reagan would never pass Beck’s standards, and using Beck’s standards Reagan governed as a “progressive”. Problem is Reagan isn’t hated by the Culture like Bush and modern Repubs so he would never touch that.

jp on February 11, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Yes, under Bush they were big spenders. That was largely Bush’s fault.
But regarding right-to-life, foreign policy, tax policy, health care reform, & many other issues, the differences are like day & night(mare).

jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 10:54 AM

So it was someone else’s fault that they spent w/o regard for the consequences?

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Here is how Ronald Reagan governed:

“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.

“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

“I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’

“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

- Ronald Reagan

alot of “Libertarians” Beck flirts with(Ron Paul types) hate Reagan, in the 80′s they were much more vocal about it. Which is why the paultard left the GOP in the 80′s, called Reagan a “Traitor” and joined the LP and ran on CIA/Drug/Bush conspiracy theories.

jp on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Yes, under Bush they were big spenders. That was largely Bush’s fault.
But regarding right-to-life, foreign policy, tax policy, health care reform, & many other issues, the differences are like day & night(mare).

jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 10:54 AM

One doesn’t have Discernment if they can’t see the difference between the GOP and the Dems and ‘thinks they are the same’. mind-boggling.

jp on February 11, 2010 at 11:06 AM

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM

The President always has huge influence on how members of Congress in his party act. That doesn’t excuse the GOP during the Bush years, but it is a fact.

jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 11:11 AM

jp on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Thanks for the timely & fitting Reagan quote.

jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Debra Medina just shot herself in the foot on Beck’s radio show.

Pablo on February 11, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Both major parties are corrupt and have embraced socialism, trumped as “progressive” or as “compassionate conservatism”* for the right to swallow.

What differentiates the two major party function today is that the Marxists own the Democrat Party and have utter disdain for Republicans who aren’t progressive or compassionate “bipartisan” lapdogs, and having strangled what still parades as “blue dog” within their own ranks.

The newest kids on the political block are like reincarnated patriots rallying at Tea Parties to allow our Constitution to flourish, requiring grass roots protests against Marxism.

When the career politicians who have sold out for kickbacks get booted out of office by voters entrusting responsible government led by qualified NEW Tea Party GOP candidates, faith through works lives.

When the mantra promoting the familiar candidate ignores the recorded corruption of that career politician because familiarity is supposed to feel secure, the end result proves that familiarity breeds contempt when the truth is known.

To hold government employees and public servants responsible, the Tea Party conservative voters must elect officials who will hold the Constitutional line without abusing authority to alter our “unalienable” rights by mutating our States’ and Constitutional Rights into Federal powers to own us. Government workers no longer focus on their job descriptions, distracted from responsible governance by fraudulently assuming powers vested in other branches of government and denied themselves. Congress attempts to execute the law. The Judicial Branch simultaneously attempts to legislate from the bench while dropping prosecution of the law in favor of promoting organized crime. The President attempts to legislate the law. The Commander in Chief has ordered our Military to obey suicidal Karai 12 Rules of Engagement, and orders the Military to function as civil servants of foreign powers.

Compound bloated bureaucracy with multitasking bureaucrats.

/*The recent dialogue regarding Bush’s supposed statement that he remodeled the conservative movement is not forgotten. As time has consistently proven, bloating bureaucracies is a huge mistake. DHS is a prime horror show within a single transfer of administrations. Beyond that fiasco to “insure communication within the intelligence community” or “protect citizens” by invading all privacy and trampling all rights, we can also address the federal government’s progressively failed efforts to cure illiteracy in America. The federal initiation of the Dept. of Education (Reagan with Bill Bennett has evolved into Obama with the Safe School Czar pervert) was subsequently compounded with legislation mandating teachers to promote failing students, mandating school busing squandering tax funds and student study time on the road, “No Child Left Behind” that closes under-performing schools (rather than completely restaffing if punitive measures against failing teachers was the plan–take punitive measures against the Teachers Union that forces failing and criminal teachers to stay on tax payer payroll). The point remains that no legislation can mandate student responsibility for their own good study habits that require dedicated scheduled time spent concentrating on learning, i.e., NO MULTITASKING DISTRACTIONS FROM CONCENTRATION. Multitasking has been proven at MIT to lower student performance while students remain falsely convinced of their invulnerability to the foolish habit because they are too smart to fail. Think again about multitasking prowess too big to fail like the unsinkable Titanic.

maverick muse on February 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Debra Medina just shot herself in the foot on Beck’s radio show.

Pablo on February 11, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Luckily Beck is a clown and no one who listens to his show should be taken seriously.

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM

One doesn’t have Discernment if they can’t see the difference between the GOP and the Dems and ‘thinks they are the same’. mind-boggling.
jp on February 11, 2010 at 11:06 AM

It is mind-boggling. Why does Beck do it? Grrrr.

BTW, one other objection I have to Beck is that he tends to preach that all debt is evil, which is not true. Civilization would not have flourished without borrowing and lending. Obviously, the key is not to borrow more than one can pay back.

I also happen to be on the side who think the TARP was necessary (again, it was a loan not a gift). But it was very poorly cobbled together without enough accountability. And of course it was never intended to bail out G.M. and the unions (at the expense of Senior bondholders, no less).

Buy Danish on February 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Michael Medved shreds Beck follower’s talking points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGTGnAYeU5Y

jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I disagree. Yes, part of it is putting the Republican’s feet to the fire, but his standards are almost impossible to meet.

Buy Danish on February 11, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Following the Constitution as its written is “impossible to meet”?

dominigan on February 11, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Following the Constitution as its written is “impossible to meet”?

As is telling the truth, resisting corruption and championing limited government.

Pablo on February 11, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Michael Medved shreds Beck follower’s talking points

jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Medved couldn’t shred wet toilet paper with his logic.

SirGawain on February 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM

It is all about the VAT. It is coming.

GardenGnome on February 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Following the Constitution as its written is “impossible to meet”?
dominigan on February 11, 2010 at 11:48 AM

“Nobody” in the G.O.P. follows the Constitution?

As is telling the truth, resisting corruption and championing limited government.
Pablo on February 11, 2010 at 11:54 AM

“Nobody” in the G.O.P. does this?

Moreover, Beck’s view of the Constitution is an uber-Libertarian view (like Andrew Napolitano). Beck objects to the Patriot Act. Does Beck have the last word on this topic?

Buy Danish on February 11, 2010 at 12:07 PM

jp on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM

If you don’t mind, I’m going to post that over at RonaldReagan.Com. We have had a lot of libertarian members who are part of that all-or-nothing crowd who continually try to misrepresent the man. Thank you for a great post.

GT on February 11, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Luckily Beck is a clown and no one who listens to his show should be taken seriously.

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 11:41 Am

he who lives in a glass house

lees on February 11, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Luckily Beck is a clown and no one who listens to his show should be taken seriously.

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM

And many will suggest you can go…

Yoop on February 11, 2010 at 1:17 PM

jp on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Reagan compromised on things that he felt were ok to compromise on. But Reagan was the most conservative President of the last century. Prop 13, lower taxes, stronger defense, deregulation….
Reagan had a high deficit spending, but largely because he was dealing with Congress who leaned strongly left.

Compromise is not a dirty word, its reality. He isn’t a King. He played chess, which means you give what you can to reach your objective without losing your soul. Reagan did a great job doing this.

Conservative Voice on February 11, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Buy Danish on February 11, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Beck was for the Patriot Act, but things it should sunset and be challenged constantly.

Beck is a libertarian conservative, doesn’t mean he is a kook about it. In fact I would say Stossel is more libertarian than Beck is.

Conservative Voice on February 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM

but *thinks things should sunset

Conservative Voice on February 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Beck: Maybe both parties aren’t the same

If you people had been listening he’s been saying the issue is progressives and out of control spending in both parties, and this goes back to his argument that McCain would have been worse than Obama. We’d be on the same track, just going a lot slower. At least with a radical like Obama much of the country woke up. Do you really think we’d have tea parties, etc. if McCain had won?

RightWinged on February 11, 2010 at 1:33 PM

If both parties were the same we would now have Cap&Trade,Obama care ,passed and signed into law.

thmcbb on February 11, 2010 at 2:08 PM

RightWinged

and this goes back to his argument that McCain would have been worse than Obama.

How anyone could still believe that idiocy is beyond me.

Do you really think we’d have tea parties, etc. if McCain had won?

Gee, the bankruptcy, capitulation to our enemies, 1 in 5 people out of work, loss of sovereignty, empowerment of the worst president since James Buchanan and a political ideology that is a cross between kleptocracy and socialism… But hey, at least we have the tea parties.

Boxy_Brown on February 11, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Do you really think we’d have tea parties, etc. if McCain had won?

RightWinged on February 11, 2010 at 1:33 PM

We also wouldn’t have the staggering debt, the weakened US standing in the world, Iran so close to nukes, 10% unemployment, SC Judge Soliberal, radical pro-abortion policy, cash-for-clunkers, VP Biden, Government Motors, etc.

jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Medved couldn’t shred wet toilet paper with his logic.

SirGawain on February 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM

haha You obviously didn’t listen then. It was total annihilation.

jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Beck uses his chalkboard to do a comparison between deficits as a percentage of GDP from actual budgets during the Bush and Clinton presidencies to the White House projections for future budget deficits under the Obama plan.

It would be nice if Beck could take it a step further, and see if his researchers could uncover enough hard data to validate or invalidate the Obama claim that he “inherited” a massive deficit from GW Bush.

My contention is that GW Bush actually inherited the dynamics which ultimately created that deficit in large part directly from WJ Clinton. During the Clinton presidency military funding took a nosedive. The mythical “surplus” that is being claimed as Clinton’s “legacy” was largely due to the savings in the military budget resulting from drastic cuts, of nearly $100 billion, according to The Heritage Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bu217.cfm

Does anyone remember, after 9/11 when the following year GW Bush initiated the war on terror in the Middle East, that there was a hue and cry about the military being woefully underequipped and forced to use inadequate technology? Billions were spent reinforcing transport and combat equipment, outfitting the troops, and bringing the techology up-to-date. That’s because Clinton had consigned military readiness to the bottom of the funding barrel, leaving it up to subsequent administrations to carry the burden for adequate funding.

That’s not to exonerate GW Bush in any way for responsibility for what Obama “inherited” deficit-wise. IMNSHO, the burden of blame falls equally on both major parties, because they’ve been locked in the “us vs. them” mentality for decades now rather than working together to properly execute their duties as administrators of the federal government in a responsible and accountable fashion.

Political expediency has frustratingly become the actual legacy of the past few decades, rather than fiscal responsibility.

KendraWilder on February 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Beck is a libertarian conservative, doesn’t mean he is a kook about it. In fact I would say Stossel is more libertarian than Beck is.
Conservative Voice on February 11, 2010 at 1:30PM

I don’t think Beck is a kook. I think he’s fantastic at exposing the Obama Administration, the Progressive/Marxist agenda and so forth. As a leader of a movement who sets the rules for us to follow? Not so much.

We also wouldn’t have the staggering debt, the weakened US standing in the world, Iran so close to nukes, 10% unemployment, SC Judge Soliberal, radical pro-abortion policy, cash-for-clunkers, VP Biden, Government Motors, etc.
jgapinoy on February 11, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Exactamundo. Some people seem awfully willing to gamble our future with the idea that if things get bad enough we’ll get mad enough. There are also national security issues. We are facing 3 more years of Obama, and he can do incredible damage even if we retake Congress.

Buy Danish on February 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

It’s good to see that Hot Air does have some tolerance for Beck. I understand the hesitation. But really who else does the analysis he does and takes the time to make it visual? Beck missed his calling as a teacher… although that is to our benefit now. But he really has talent at teaching.

petunia on February 11, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Do you really think we’d have tea parties, etc. if McCain had won?

RightWinged on February 11, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Remember the frog? Hee hee. That was the point of the frog.

I can’t believe McCain would have made so dang many mistakes with the economy as Obama has done. I don’t blame the whole economy on Obama. Downturns happen it is part of the cycle and we were way over due.

But Obama has done most everything badly. It’s like the advisers said spend and he heard spend until we are bankrupt!

I know Bush gets razed for the “go out and spend” line after 9-11 but if Obama had said more of that… this down turn would have been much milder. Instead he basically said Wall Street ripped everybody off and jobs and money are evil don’t make any money anymore… the exact opposite attitude. Bush understood how things work. Obama doesn’t have a clue.

petunia on February 11, 2010 at 4:33 PM

We are facing 3 more years of Obama, and he can do incredible damage even if we retake Congress.

Buy Danish on February 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Obama’s going to appoint the gangster union guys to whatever he wants and they will ravish the economy. Hopefully it won’t be stuff that can’t be undone. But there is going to be damage.

petunia on February 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Beck’s a clown with an unrealistic outlook on electoral politics.

therightwinger on February 11, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Beck missed his calling as a teacher… although that is to our benefit now. But he really has talent at teaching.
petunia on February 11, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Agreed. And he’s far better than Professor Obama.

Buy Danish on February 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Ya know, one thing I keep reading about is that Bush spent like heck when he was President. In fact, Presidents do not pass spending bills so how could he have spent the money? The Democrats were in charge of Congress for the worst years of President Bush’s 2 terms and you blame Bush for the spending? Tarp was a bi partisan cluster F… and Obama voted for it. You can’t separate their spending because they were on the same side.

To make things worse for Zero, Bush only used the first half of TARP and the only reason he took the second half of TARP was at the request of Obama. So half of TARP was directly because of ZERObama.

Bush spent money but nowhere near what Zero is.

Anastas on February 11, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Reagan would never pass Beck’s standards, and using Beck’s standards Reagan governed as a “progressive”. Problem is Reagan isn’t hated by the Culture like Bush and modern Repubs so he would never touch that.

jp on February 11, 2010 at 11:01 AM

He was talking about this on the radio this week. He acknowledged that Reagan spent too much but added the qualifier that we were fighting a cold war after all, from which I inferred he didn’t object as much to Reagan’s deficit spending as he does to Obama’s (of course, be sheer order of magnitude, you could understand why). Whether he actually believes that or if he was going soft on the old Gipper for the benefit of his audience, who knows, but he seemed to discount it IMO. He did mention the fact that Reagan cut a deal with Congress to get the tax cuts. It should surprise no one that when we have a Democratically controlled Congress, spending increases regardless of who is in the White House. A radical socialist like Obama can certainly aid and abet a spendthrift legislature, and no doubt they will do his own bidding without complaint, but ultimately the Congress is responsible. Just look at how “fiscally restrained” ol’ Billy Jeff became after 1994. That certainly wasn’t b/c he had a come to Jesus moment or anything. The conservatives who swept in in 1994 just had a tight leash on him.

NoLeftTurn on February 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Beck missed his calling as a teacher… although that is to our benefit now. But he really has talent at teaching.

petunia on February 11, 2010 at 4:26 PM

I totally agree with this. I don’t get to watch the program everyday, but whenever I do, I always feel like I’m in a classroom: “We have a lot to cover, let’s get to work.” Yes, sir, Mr. Beck!

I really feel like he should teach a history webinar or something, where we could all Skype in and ask questions and discuss. He would be brilliant at it. I was a history major in college and I am regularly being schooled by him on stuff I thought I already knew. For instance, my recollection of the “Depression of 1920″ was that it was little more than a precursor to the 1929 crash and that govt. inaction in 1920 is what ultimately led to Black Tuesday. No mention at all of the fact that all of the wealth that was lost in 1920 was much greater than in 1929, or that it was all recovered and then some during the decade that followed. Or that everyone benefitted from the explosion in growth, not just the wealthy. The middle class grew exponentially. They turned it around in just a couple of years by doing two simple things: The cut taxes, and they halved spending (which at the time was a quaint $6.3 billion). Conversely, the Great Depression lasted pretty much 20 years all total, and the government did neither of these things, but instead took the opposite approach. Hmm, not rocket science, is it? Yet I never learned much at all about the 1920s when I was in college, other than that it was a decade of greed and avarice for which all the evil fat cats were aptly punished when the stock market crashed.

If Beck were teaching this stuff, kids might actually learn something. Can you imagine what a hoot it would have been to have a teacher or prof who boiled rubber frogs in class to make a point? Fantastic! He would have made learning fun. Of course, he would have had to teach in a private school because the People’s Republic of Socialist Educators would have had him drummed out of the public schools for failing to adhere to the required Marxist doctrine. So unfortunately, those most in need of his tutelage wouldn’t get it.

NoLeftTurn on February 11, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2