Bennett vs. Beck

posted at 4:20 pm on February 21, 2010 by Karl

Bill Bennett was not a fan of Glenn Beck’s speech at CPAC last night. He has three criticisms — all worthy of discussion — but the second one is probably the most important:

[F]or him to continue to say that he does not hear the Republican party admit its failings or problems is to ignore some of the loudest and brightest lights in the party. From Jim DeMint to Tom Coburn to Mike Pence to Paul Ryan, any number of Republicans have admitted the excesses of the party and done constructive and serious work to correct them and find and promote solutions. Even John McCain has said again and again that “the Republican party lost its way.” These leaders, and many others, have been offering real proposals, not ill-informed muttering diatribes that can’t distinguish between conservative and liberal, free enterprise and controlled markets, or night and day. Does Glenn truly believe there is no difference between a Tom Coburn, for example, and a Harry Reid or a Charles Schumer or a Barbara Boxer? Between a Paul Ryan or Michele Bachmann and a Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank?

***

To say the GOP and the Democrats are no different, to say the GOP needs to hit a recovery-program-type bottom and hang its head in remorse, is to delay our own country’s recovery from the problems the Democratic left is inflicting. The stakes are too important to go through that kind of exercise, which will ultimately go nowhere anyway — because it’s already happened.

I doubt Beck would deny that there is a difference between Michelle Bachman and Barney Frank. However, the Congressional Republican party’s record on spending and growing government during the G. W. Bush administration looks good only by comparison to the Obama administration’s plans. So Bennett ought to forgive those who are skeptical of the GOP’s current contrition. The party has not been led by the Coburns, Bachmans or Ryans.

On the other hand, Beck should acknowledge that it is not clear that the GOP would fare better if it took a couple of electoral victories as a mandate to implement a Tea Party agenda, either. Buried in a Pew poll (on science, of all things) from last summer (starting on pp. 15 of the questionnaire), you will find an overwhelming disinclination to cut spending on most any part of the federal budget. Only 2% support cuts in Social Security. Only 18% support cuts in the military (small comfort for most Republicans). Only 15% support cutting unemployment (and that number is likely lower today). Only 6% support cutting Medicare. Only 10% support cutting Medicaid and other HHS spending. Those categories make up over 75% of the federal budget. And in most categories, the number who want increased spending exceeds those who want cuts.

Of course, Republicans would be more prone to propose freezes, or reductions in the rate of growth for various programs. However, anyone who saw the Republican Congress get derailed in over the government shutdown in 1995 knows how the establishment media will play it. Indeed, these days, Democrats are looking to turn Rep. Ryan’s “roadmap” into a budget for similar reasons. Should Republicans regain power over the next cuple of elections, they will face the same temptation of over-reading their mandate that they faced in 1995 — and the Democrats have faced this year. Shrinking the size and influence of the State requires an ongoing effort to educate the public before a fiscal crisis forces truly painful choices on everyone. That will take the efforts of all of the Bennetts and Becks we can find.

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


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I agree MeatHead. During the presidential election, McCain went out of his way to diss the conservatives while he treated the Libs with kid gloves.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 8:54 PM

I agree MeatHead. During the presidential election, McCain went out of his way to diss the conservatives while he treated the Libs with kid gloves.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 8:54 PM

And it wasn’t just in the presidential election… Actually, McCain is pretty tame compared to his rabid lapdog Graham.

But now, after being all Mavericky, he’s back to AZ trying to get re-elected.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Bennett is the consummate insider Republican running a feel-good, cutesy radio show. ’nuff said really.

alteredbeat on February 21, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Even Glenn Beck said we didn’t do enough with the bailouts when Bush was president.

The Dean on February 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Beck said that in reference to the intent of the bailouts. We were told the bailouts would do X and instead, they delivered less and towards other things, including a slush fund. As for his view, he supported it for only 3 days before he realized it was a bad disastrous idea.

AH_C on February 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Bennett is an insider Republican, and his lastest attempt to become relevant is weak.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 9:12 PM

AH_C on February 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM

I’ve heard Beck lie to a caller and say he never supported the bailout. Then I looked up video of him on CNN Headline News supporting it and realized how big of a fraud he is.

alteredbeat on February 21, 2010 at 9:16 PM

The policies they produce are not “indistinguishable”. This is just utter nonsense. Moreover, Beck is a pundit, not a legislator, or executive. It’s a lot easier to make demands of the sort he is making than it is to actually implement them.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 6:18 PM

They are “indistinguishable” at their eventual concluding points.

The Democratic Party is for expanding the entitlement state – which will crash the US fast.

The Republican Party is for slowing, or stopping the entitlement state – which will crash it slower.

Both philosophies end up with the U.S.A. in the trash heap – since we can’t support the entitlements that we have now.

That’s what Beck is saying here – and he’s right.

Name me a single Republican who will tell you that we MUST abolish, or phase-out Medicare and Social Security … QUICKLY.

Name one.

What you get is someone like Romney – who might say … “Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if the government weren’t in Medicare or Social Security?”

But then those guys turn right around and say … “Whoa NO! I’m not for getting rid of these programs!!”

Yet unless these programs are done away with – this nation will fall under the weight of entitlements – even if we don’t expand them.

So … I really don’t see a difference between Democratic and GOP economic policy – since they both bankrupt the nation.

In fact – I’m starting to like Democratic philosophy better because it brings the crash quicker – and makes it so that WE have to deal with it rather than our grand kids.

HondaV65 on February 21, 2010 at 9:16 PM

I’ve heard Beck lie to a caller and say he never supported the bailout. Then I looked up video of him on CNN Headline News supporting it and realized how big of a fraud he is.

alteredbeat on February 21, 2010 at 9:16 PM

I was listening to Beck when he supported the bailout and I was listening to him the next week when he said that he was wrong for supporting the bailout.

thomasaur on February 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM

bennett got particularly nasty last week talking about J.D. Hayworth, basically accusing him of corruption. bennett slipped up also when trying to coopt Reagans statement about not leaving the democrat party but the democrat party leaving him. bennett admitted his personal philosophy was the same as when he was a democrat. Well, bennett was a democrat in the 60′s and 70′s when all the nasty little creeps now running the show in washington were indoctrinated. If he still has the philosophy of a 1968 democrat he aint no conservative. bennett, medved, mccain and even bush have no problem getting nasty with conservatives but they are always so diplomatic with thier democrat colleagues. Everyone sees and understands the influence of alinsky in the present administration but alinsky has been around for a long time. I have no difficulty believing these once true believers may still be doing thier part for the cause.

peacenprosperity on February 21, 2010 at 9:23 PM

thomasaur on February 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM

And I heard him on his radio show just last year tell a caller he never supported it. He lied. But putting that aside, if he realized after a week that he was wrong for supporting it, what does that tell you about him? That he’s a confused idiot. If your instincts aren’t right on a $733 Billion handout to banks which has now turned into $23.7 Trillion, then you’ve got serious problems.

alteredbeat on February 21, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Bill Bennett appreciates the GOP as only someone who came to the party as a disaffected conservative Reagan Democrat can appreciate it. Whether you agree with Bennett on any given issue or not, he engages in the realm of ideas and facts. I agree completely with Bennett about Beck’s speech and posted here yesterday that I felt emotionally manipulated by it, which is from my perspective as the friend of many recovering alcoholics. In contrast, Dick Cheney and George Will were much more effective at CPAC in defending conservatism and eviscerating liberalism.

I find Beck entertaining and smart but emotionally fragile and self-promoting. Somebody called him the Tea Party populists’ own Keith Olbermann and I can see their point. I fear he is the media personality on the right most likely to pull a Howard Beale.

Terrie on February 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Didn’t Beck say Hillary was his girl in 08?Socialized medicine advocate,voted to cut off funding for the troops in the field, did commercials touting universal pre-k? Maybe the problem is that Beck is just a huckster playing his suckers for money?He should not be taken seriously.

Southernblogger on February 21, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Shrinking the size and influence of the State requires an ongoing effort to educate the public before a fiscal crisis forces truly painful choices on everyone. That will take the efforts of all of the Bennetts and Becks we can find.

Good luck with that. We’re a nation of debtors and consumers. There are still people hanging on desperately to houses they can’t afford (thanks in no small part to the govt. subsidizing them), racking up consumer debt we can’t pay back — people who spend recklessly in their own lives are disinclined to support a cut in govt. entitlements.

I don’t know what the answer is. I would like to think there is someone out there with enough persuasive ability to convince the people to vote for him/her despite the hard truths he/she is telling them, and then have the political will to follow through on it. But pols who vow to cut spending and then actually do it are few and far between. Also, if the resulting pain is swift and cutting enough, that person would probably only serve a single term. It would be better than nothing I suppose, but I fear that collapse is the only way the course can be corrected. Whether that’s default or devaluing our currency, I don’t know, but it’s going to be one of the two. And we need to get back to producing actual goods and exporting them rather than importing and consuming. In that respect, Wal-Mart and its ilk are pretty bad for the country, I think. And it’s exactly why we need to heed Gov. Palin’s advice and take an all of the above approach to energy production. By producing and exporting our own product — both green and traditional — I think we put ourselves in the best possible position to recover from this disaster.

NoLeftTurn on February 21, 2010 at 9:31 PM

It’s a good thing that Bennett isn’t wasting time sniping at irrelevant targets (like Obowmao, for example). I’m glad he’s aiming at the people most likely to damage the country.

/s

rmgraha on February 21, 2010 at 9:34 PM

… any suggestion that they are equally to blame with the DemonRats for the mess we are in is profoundly ignorant of the facts.

Jaibones on February 21, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Actually, the Republicans are more to blame than the liberals. If not for Republicans like McCain acting like progressives while they had control of Congress, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place and conservatives would most likely still be in power today.

Progressives would be a completely unknown sliver in the shadows of some dark alley in Berkeley if the GOP hadn’t “walked across the aisle.”

I don’t pay much attention to media narcissists like Beck, but if that’s what he’s saying, he’s an idiot.

This last statement, coupled with the previous, indicates that it’s not Beck who is ignorant of the facts.

I guess that’s what happens when you “don’t pay much attention.”

Gregor on February 21, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Lately, it has been very interesting to listen to the likes of Bennett and Hatch. They are part of the old Republican guard, and besides striking out at Beck, they are using the tea party as the enemy.too. I fully expect to hear from more and more of these old time arrogant Republicans. Their thinking is being challenged by the conservatives, and they don’t like it one bit.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 9:38 PM

I see there’s a lot of Paulbots on the thread today, bashing Beck. Because anyone who dares to bash Ron Paul or Truthers is automatically some sort of super secret double agent traitor to the country or something.

I get it.

Gregor on February 21, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Actually, the Republicans are more to blame than the liberals

It makes my head spin that boehner and mcconnell will be running the show if the republicans manage to take back congress. Blame bush for not vetoing anyhting but what he wasn’t vetoing was spending bills these two dirtbags ushered into the oval office. If they are running the show again for the next six years everyone can start looking forward to president cuomo and that foul little fascist will take us places we haven’t even imagined with barry.

peacenprosperity on February 21, 2010 at 9:43 PM

I guess that’s what happens when you “don’t pay much attention.”

Gregor on February 21, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Well, I pay more attention than you, apparently. The so-called progressives have been around for a century, according to your hero Beck, and have had a profound impact on the growth of government going back decades.

You talk about McCain as though he was a progressive, but he’s largely conservative, especially on spending. He has a number of issues on which I disagree with him completely, and they’re not small issues — ANWR and CrapTrade in particular, but also amnesty.

But you must not understand the causes of the housing bubble and subsequent recession if you think there is no difference between the parties.

Jaibones on February 21, 2010 at 9:46 PM

But you must not understand the causes of the housing bubble and subsequent recession

Everyone has seen the you tube vidoes of the congressional hearing where barney and his toadies said there was nothing wrong with fnma and freddie mac and attacked the non partisan investigator raising the alarms. Well those congressional hearing were in a republican controlled congress with a republican running the hearings. Yet the democrats called the shots. There is a political elite running this country that is made up of democrats, republicans and the media and they are putting on a show for us rubes.

peacenprosperity on February 21, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Face it, when all else fails in the eyes of the Republican elitists, blame a conservative.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 9:54 PM

You talk about McCain as though he was a progressive, but he’s largely conservative, especially on spending. He has a number of issues on which I disagree with him completely, and they’re not small issues — ANWR and CrapTrade in particular, but also amnesty.

But you must not understand the causes of the housing bubble and subsequent recession if you think there is no difference between the parties.

Jaibones on February 21, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Lemme see, Bush raised the specter of FM/FM crashing in 2005. Who controlled the house and senate? As for McVain, he was big on reducing spending, but soooo wrong on curbing 1st Amendment, sooo wrong on amenesty, sooo wrong on raising taxes, sooo wrong on going green, sooo wrong on being the deciding vote to stop ANWR and the list goes on. So let’s suppose he suceeded in reducing spending.

Great, the govt reduced their spending and We The People are stuck with higher taxes, higher cost of living and no way of speaking out X days before an election. McVain needs to shut up and enjoy his ill-gotten in quiet retirement.

AH_C on February 21, 2010 at 10:00 PM

McCain opposed a lot of the Bush/GOP congress insane spending vocally and repeatedly. McCain opposed the Medicare drug expansion (largest increase in entitlements in history), opposes the ethanol boondoggle, opposed a couple of the porkfest \”transportation\” and \”energy\” bills touted by Bush and Trent Lott, etc.Thad Cochran hates McCain because the latter said he would make Cochran famous for his pork-barrel ways.

But you people still insist that the crazy spending is somehow tied to McCain. It was GW Bush and Trent Lott and the Abramson crowd, not John McCain.

funky chicken on February 21, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier. McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (via Beltway Snark):

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/

funky chicken on February 21, 2010 at 10:22 PM

It makes my head spin that boehner and mcconnell will be running the show if the republicans manage to take back congress. Blame bush for not vetoing anyhting but what he wasn’t vetoing was spending bills these two dirtbags ushered into the oval office. If they are running the show again for the next six years everyone can start looking forward to president cuomo and that foul little fascist will take us places we haven’t even imagined with barry.

peacenprosperity on February 21, 2010 at 9:43 PM

It was Trent Lott and Tom Delay. And Denny Hastert and Bill Frist were in leadership roles also. Really, do some research.

funky chicken on February 21, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Welcome to the party Bill Bennett. The inflamatory grass roots rhetoric needs to be tempered by some adults. Being a politician sucks and they all have blemishes. We are starting to eat our own when we should be uniting as a dominant force.

swamp_yankee on February 21, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Funky chicken–my latest research at Michelle Malkin’s website: Over the last year, McCain supported everything the grassroots Tea Party movement has stood against: The $700 billion all purpose EARMARK stuffed TARP bailout. The $25 billion auto bailout. The $300 billion mortgage bailout. The first $85 billion AIG bailout.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Don’t get me wrong; I like Beck and I think every one of his personalities is sincere.

Mark30339 on February 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Pretty funny. Bennett has a Ph.D from Texas and a law degree from Harvard. It’s fine for some commenters to disagree with him, but we should be really glad a man of his talents is on the GOP side.

waukee on February 21, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Most of Obama’s team members, including Obama, can taut degrees from Harvard. I am not convinced that higher education determines the intelligence and common sense of a leader.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 11:24 PM

Most of Obama’s team members, including Obama, can taut degrees from Harvard. I am not convinced that higher education determines the intelligence and common sense of a leader.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 11:24 PM

We had a very highly thought of doctor here a few years back who got killed because he did not secure his car while trying to work on it, and got crushed (ran over by his own car)in the process. Book smart does not always mean real world smart.

Southernblogger on February 21, 2010 at 11:31 PM

you will find an overwhelming disinclination to cut spending on most any part of the federal budget

Well, then we need to work on the framing of as, in some shape or form, this is what anyone is going to have to do to fix our economy.
I wonder how an all-federal-spending, no off book BS, a shared sacrifice total spending freeze would poll.

motionview on February 21, 2010 at 11:47 PM

John McCain has said again and again that “the Republican party lost its way.” Bill “snake eyes” Bennett

McCain’s “GOP lost its way” refrain, only gets legs when he’s trying to tapdance back to the conservative right — in order to be perceived as electable by the base. Can’t trust the SOB, get’em JD~~~

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on February 22, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Beck and Bennett both serve purposes. Beck’s is to hold the squishy Republicans’ feet to the fire. Bennett’s is to lend perspective that Beck’s purpose is succeeding.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Because John McCain’s record has come up in thiis thread, let’s set it straight. Historically, McCain’s voting record overall is rated moderately conservative, and he has been a consistent opponent of out-of-control federal spending and earmarks. In 2009, McCain’s voting is as conservative a voting record as you could ask for. He voted AGAINST every Obama bailout bill (and even voted against the second release of TARP monies when Bush was still President in late 2008). McCain voted AGAINST every Obama spending bill, denouncing Obama’s multi-trillion dollar deficit spending as “generational theft.” McCain voted AGAINST the confirmations of tax cheat Geithner, radical pro-abortion advocate Sibellius, leftist attorney Kagan and transnational advocate Koh to their respective positions in the Obama Administration. McCain voted AGAINST the confirmation of Sotomayer to the U.S. Supreme Court. McCain voted AGAINST ObamaCare and was attacked by the New York Times for throwing bombs on the subject. McCain has announced that he will vote AGAINST this year’s cap and trade bill.

Further, McCain has been and is still is one of the more knowledgeable persons around concerning foreign policy, military matters and national security. He was right about the Iraq War when even many Republicans went wobbly and fought off Democrat led efforts to cut off funding our troops in the field in Iraq. McCain was right to attack Obama for dithering about committing to General McChrystal’s plan for Afghanistan and for not supporting the Iranian dissidents. McCain could be right because he knows his stuff when it comes to Commander in Chief decisions.

So you can speculate all you want about how we have been energized by Obama. But in meantime, you have in Obama a narcissist President who is a radical socialist, a former community organizer and someone lacking in knowledge and experience in foreign policy, military matters and national security. Simply put, in Obama, we have a Commander in Chief who is not really qualified to discharge that most important duty of the Presidency and instead uses the office to cultivate a “cult of personality.” The short sightedness shown by people with respect to the Commander in Chief responsibilities of the Presidency was and is appalling. For those of us with flesh and blood in the U.S. military, that short sightedness is not appreciated. We would have preferred to have a Commander in Chief from one of the great American military families, who served the country in war and who genuinely spoke of serving with a servant’s heart.

Phil Byler on February 22, 2010 at 12:54 AM

Hm. Skipping over the problem-ridden 1st graf, we come to the 2nd:

To say the GOP and the Democrats are no different, to say the GOP needs to hit a recovery-program-type bottom and hang its head in remorse, is to delay our own country’s recovery from the problems the Democratic left is inflicting. The stakes are too important to go through that kind of exercise, which will ultimately go nowhere anyway — because it’s already happened.

So, he’s simultaneously suggesting (1) we no longer have a problem, AND (2) we do have a problem, but must ignore it for the sake of expediency? Along with some good old-fashioned futility sprinkled in for good measure?

I think the bombers are over the target.

RD on February 22, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Phil Byler on February 22, 2010 at 12:54 AM

It’s good to see John-come-lately come around, finally. But it’s one thing to come around when your vote is little more than a protest vote, and quite another when it leads affirmatively to something you’ll be held accountable for later on. Will he remain true to the new ‘him’ once the Republicans are back in power?

The concern is with how he’ll vote, and what initiatives he’ll champion, when his caucus is back in power… and his votes and leadership actually make a difference. In a way, one could say, McCain is asking the voters to take a chance on him, one more time. One wonders how they will be rewarded, this time.

McCain-Feingold? Sarbanes-Oxley? Shamnesty? Interrogation policy?

RD on February 22, 2010 at 1:50 AM

Pretty funny. Bennett has a Ph.D from Texas and a law degree from Harvard. It’s fine for some commenters to disagree with him, but we should be really glad a man of his talents is on the GOP side.

waukee on February 21, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Multiple degrees imply what? Intelligence? Wisdom? Give me common sense over book smart any day.

Billy O’Reilly has a degree from Harvard and just the other day he was bloviating on how the gov’t has the right to take away firearms from law-abiding citizens in a state of emergency a la post Katrina in New Orleans.

With squishy friends of the Constituition like that, who needs progressives?

AH_C on February 22, 2010 at 2:26 AM

Bill Bennett appreciates the GOP as only someone … I find Beck … emotionally fragile and self-promoting. Somebody called him the Tea Party populists’ own Keith Olbermann and I can see their point.

Terrie on February 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Interesting that you’re focusing on the person more than the message. So who wins the Addict’s Anonymous pi–ing contest, the alcoholic or the habitual gambler? (“Are you seriously comparing Bennett’s light gambling fancies to Beck’s hard-core substance abuse?” Am I the one who brought up these men’s personal foibles in the first place?)

IMHO Beck’s message was more compelling and, dare I say, original than Bennett’s, no matter what one has to say about the messengers. After all, what is Bennett really adding to the discussion at this point? That’s right: nothing. He seems more focused on subtracting and foiling others’ contributions (and may see this as his highest and best purpose) than adding his own, supplemental contribution.

RD on February 22, 2010 at 2:32 AM

The Republicans were firmly in bed with Democrats during the ultimate power plays, rolling back Glass-Steagall and instituting the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Both of those actions are proximate to the birth of Too Big To Fail. Spending isn’t their only sin – they allowed themselves to be captured by the financial sector. Bennett knows that.

rhodeymark on February 22, 2010 at 5:50 AM

Graham, Snowe, Collins come to mind quickly! Aren’t they like the “leaders” of “their” party.
MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 8:38 PM

They are senators of their states, and senators wield a lot of power, but that doesn’t make them “leaders” of their party, and when it comes to the Maine girls, they often vote against their party. You’re picking out a few Republicans and trying to paint the entire party as “progressive”.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2010 at 7:01 AM

Name me a single Republican who will tell you that we MUST abolish, or phase-out Medicare and Social Security … QUICKLY.
Name one.
HondaV65 on February 21, 2010 at 9:16 PM

No one in their right mind would suggest we “quickly” abolish social security and medicare! Beck is suggesting that people wait until they’re like 80 years old to collect social security. Good luck with that!

Bush couldn’t even get one tiny portion of S.S. privatized.

Get real.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2010 at 7:14 AM

Where was Beck when Bush tried to reform social security? Guys like Beck let Bush twist in the wind when he actually tried to reform that entitlement…there were no big ratings in that kind of thinking then, no money to be made.

The truth is the Republicans never spent money the way Democrats did, never. They never piled up debt the way Democrats do and they never supported intrusive taxes to the extent Democrats do.

And you have to go all the way back to the early 20th century, to about 1911 to find Republicans with the kind of super majority that Democrats have right now. That means that whatever they did had to pass that 60 vote threshold in the Senate.

Beck is just plain wrong about this. But he does not care, because he wants a third party and the fact that a third party would split the vote and be a gift to Obama is fine with him. After all, he is making a lot of money right now with the Democrats in charge.

Terrye on February 22, 2010 at 7:26 AM

It was Trent Lott and Tom Delay. And Denny Hastert and Bill Frist

boehner and mcconnell were there lietenants and were in charge from 2005 on. boehner runs out and acts tough when it is safe and then sits back and takes his direction from the media and the democrats when it isn’t. My prediction is that the Tea Party movement will be totally wasted because of boehner, mcconnell and voters like funky chicken who feel inferior to professional politicians and think they somehow must be so brilliant because they are elected officials.

peacenprosperity on February 22, 2010 at 7:29 AM

Twelve years of control and nothing accomplished. The republicans spect 12 years going on the Sunday shows and crying that the democrats were blocking everything they wanted to do. If the republicans had a fraction of the tenacity the democrats do they would have been able to push bills through. The same dynamic that caused the democrats to not get healthcare and cap and trade passed existed then. There were blue dog dems in congress then also but boehner and mcconnell and haster and frist took thier orders from the democrat leadership. When the democrats said no, they would just go on the Sunday shows, cry about it and then go on a junket somewhere. If the republicans had a fraction of the tenacity of the democrats and still the democrats blocked most of the republican initiatives then the democrats would own all the problems we are dealing with now. There would be no barry obama. The reason the republicans don’t have the tenacity of the democrats is because the democrats believe in what they are doing and the republicans don’t.

peacenprosperity on February 22, 2010 at 7:36 AM

The problem with Beck is that he is not being sincere when he says he believes in “morning in America”

He almost never talks about what fiscal policy is necessary to help the private sector grow and the idea that the only way to do that is to eliminate all gov but defense is foolishness and not reality. Furthermore, Becks embrace of the “American at fault for terrorism” views of Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer is Buchanite/Obama idiocy.

Beck is a good business person who has made millions (not sure he is a small business anymore unless you consider over $30MM in annual revenues small business.

And his Tom Friedmanlike embrace of China is off base. China is still Red China with war lords and other massive internal problems which, unfortunately for the Chinese people, we will see explode when the economic bubble burts there

georgealbert on February 22, 2010 at 8:14 AM

First things first. I’m a huge Glenn Beck fan. Been a rabid listener and viewer for the last 4 years or so. Bought Inconvenient and Arguing, read most of Common Sense. Agree with much of what he has to say, and believe that he has done many great things for the conservative cause.

HAVING SAID THAT

He is not right on everything-nor is anybody. The 3rd party crap/notion that there is little or no difference between the parties is UTTER, PSYCHOTIC and COUNTRY-THREATENING NONSENSE! As the “Great One” Mark Levin likes to say-today’s (Liberal) Democrat party is run and controlled by a bunch of raving Marxists (and Communists, Socialists, Maoists, and statists) which strangely, I seem to remember Glenn helping to expose (Did he forget his own handy work?)

Mark Levin could not be more correct in his analysis of “The 5pmer” on this issue, and for those fellow Beck fans that do not shout Glenn down in disagreement over this “Republicans are the same as Democrats” crap are risking a 2nd term of Obama and complete destruction of our country. Glenn should be shouted down in protest every chance we get over making such asinine statements. Let’s not cut our nose to spite our face here. Yes Republicans have done a lot of bad things. They’ve done a lot that the Democrats have done. BUT THEY AREN’T A BUNCH OF RADICALS, so we’ve got to believe that there is hope in REPAIRING THEM, and must make EVERY EFFORT to do so. If we look around we should see some hope-REAL hope and promise. There are Republicans that are not simply “Democrat-light”

PS: Don’t forget Ron Paul is a TRUTHER and is cuckoo for coco puffs. Just stop, no really-stop with Ron Paul already. He’s gonna help Barack O’Communist get reelected too.

dave_ross on February 22, 2010 at 8:40 AM

Bennett has a Ph.D from Texas and a law degree from Harvard.

Obama’s got one of those, too. Not really a qualification for much of anything.

tsj017 on February 22, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Charges that there is no difference between the parties are of course not literally true. But that is not the point.

It is beyond dispute that when in charge in recent years the GOP has made matters worse, not better; and as an opposition to the current socialist administration, the GOP is largely ineffective. Is the current GOP capable of effective opposition to Maobama? And will they be capable of effective leadership if and when they are ever restored to power? My answer is NO, not without a sweeping change of leadership.

james23 on February 22, 2010 at 9:29 AM

I have read the posts of those of you who have posted that there have been appologies and the real differences in both parties.

What I heard Beck say is where are the party leaders pledging to reverse their previous harm and not to harm again?

“I was wrong to earmark that swamp road in my district. I pledge to never ask for another earmark and to insist that no further funding for the 250 other earmarks that I asked for in the past. Additionally, I am for a 50% cut in all spending, for every department except Millitary and Law Enforcement. That includes Social Security, Education, Medicare and Medicaid. I am for a 90% cut in many programs like Education and Medicaid, with the 40% going to States in the form of block grants because they know what their State needs more than we do.”

barnone on February 22, 2010 at 10:19 AM

It is beyond dispute that when in charge in recent years the GOP has made matters worse, not better; Blah blah blah.
james23 on February 22, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Nice try, dude. It’s like saying, “the fact is…” while presenting a lie.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

“I was wrong to earmark that swamp road in my district. I pledge to never ask for another earmark and to insist that no further funding for the 250 other earmarks that I asked for in the past. Additionally, I am for a 50% cut in all spending, for every department except Military and Law Enforcement.”

barnone on February 22, 2010 at 10:19 AM

The LE welfare state is also on the chopping block. There’s plenty of money slushing around in the current organs of the Gestapo state to fund genuine law enforcement activities — especially once the # of enforcible Federal laws (and Big Brother projects) are cut back. (I’m a general fan and supporter of some of these projects, and I’m still conceding this.) Delegation of authority to the States applies here also.

RD on February 22, 2010 at 12:43 PM

The problem with Beck is that he is not being sincere when he says he believes in “morning in America”
georgealbert on February 22, 2010 at 8:14 AM

He seemed sincere to me in his expansion of the Morning in America analogy, but maybe I’m just not seeing it as clearly as you ;).

From all appearances he sincerely believes it’s Saturday morning in the republic, hung over after an all-night drinking binge, and that the nation needs to face up to its problems on Sunday morning in order to make it to another Monday morning.

Does he believe it’s Monday morning in America? No. But neither do you or I.

Becks embrace of the “American at fault for terrorism” views of Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer is Buchanite/Obama idiocy … And his Tom Friedmanlike embrace of China is off base.

Que? Is Glenn giving the Chi-Coms the ol’ panda hug? Must’ve missed that one. Ditto with the Pat Buchan[wald?]-style shiv to Uncle Sam’s ribs on the terror question.

RD on February 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM

well,,, IF I WERE A BETTING MAN….oh wait…that’s Bill Bennett MR. GOP!!! LOSER is Bill

charmingtail on February 22, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Bill Bennett and his Bill Clinton defending brother Bob are both losers!

charmingtail on February 22, 2010 at 2:45 PM

I am listening to a later replay of Mr. Beck’s show today. Mr. Beck takes criticism almost as well as our president.

Cindy Munford on February 22, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3