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 like Glenn Beck but I found his speech embarrassing to the point that it was painful to watch. So I switched channels.

Beck’s theatrics don’t work in such a venue and he should have known that. He basically took his road show persona, with its phoney emotionalism, and gave a political speech.

It really was painful. I was embarrassed for him.

Jaynie59 on February 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM

katy the mean old lady on February 21, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Hey, long time no see!

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Another failed NeoCon who resents being left out in the cold is Mickey Edwards, who hosted CPAC for the last 5 years but didn’t go this year.

I’m glad he stayed at home.

The failed Bush – McCain NeoCon era is over. I’m so thankful for that! ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ could be named ‘Progressive Conservatism’ and have that chubby Meghan McCain’s approval; what we need now is a stronger version of Tea Party Conservatism that confronts the farthest-left Democrat Party in American history, led by a tough Alinsky-proven community organizer who will (and did) beat down the likes of McCain and Bush.

We have to have stronger, tougher, more rough-and-ready politicos or we might just lose our Republic.

Sorry, Mickey Edwards, Bill Bennett, and the rest of the milksop-brand of weak-spined elitist Republicans: your time is UP.

Serr8d on February 21, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Beck’s not saying there is no difference at all. What Beck is really saying is that the differences between the two are so small that the outcomes their policies produce are really indistinguishable.

This has nothing to do with the heros they worship – or don’t.

HondaV65 on February 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Beck is a dramatist. He makes people think, and he’s a surprisingly good teacher on government. That said, yes, it would definitely have been better if he had named some names of those in Congress who haven’t answered the siren call of progressivism.

Bennett means well, but the inclusion of McCain in the sermonette is a definite turn-off. We don’t need people who “say” things. We need those who walk the walk, not simply talk the talk only when they’re facing re-election, as McCain is — and then court the media with their saintly compromises in non-election years.

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Bennett is right on this.

People like Pelosi and Schumer are evil…

DeMint, Kyle, and many of the other Republicans are not.

Karl is right about Americans not willing to sacrifice. Example: The prescription drug spending is OUR fault. We demanded it. Social Security is OUR fault. Bush tried to divert future funds to something sustainable, and we said NO.

This is a train wreck waiting to happen, Democracies murder themselves over time. They vote the money into their pockets by stealing from the productive. That is why the Senate was appointed until 1917 or so by the states. It helped prevent the unfunded mandate etc… The founders were much wiser than even people here give credit.

scotash on February 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Hey, long time no see!

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Hey right back! Been working hard, no time to post lately.

katy the mean old lady on February 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM

I believe Beck said its not enough to suck less than the other side ….or the lesser of 2 evils. How many of you in the past have made just that choice ….not whole hearted support of a individual just a vote because the other guy was worse

Aggie95 on February 21, 2010 at 6:00 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.

Nutshell.(quote above) Good luck trying.

AnthonyK on February 21, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Hey right back! Been working hard, no time to post lately.

katy the mean old lady on February 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM

:( Well, hopefully that will change! I like the Hornet Sting’s cousin remark hehehe

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:00 PM

O/T
Anyone seen this yet ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1M2Xfs2Mng

macncheez on February 21, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Don’t cut this, don’t freeze that, and don’t end something else. Don’t drill offshore, save the what-ever-it-is, and pity those poor caribou. More regulation, more laws, and red tape will fix it.

I know; let’s just let the debt grow and grow and grow; then, after the collapse and the resulting war with China, maybe we can start over. I love my country, I despise everyone who is responsible for this. I have never been more disappointed in any President, as I am with George Bush. I suspected what Obama was in 2008, at least I wasn’t surprised.

Pelayo on February 21, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Beck is flat wrong. Earlier in the week, he equated Dick Cheney to Pelosi and Reid. Weird.

Frankly, the personal problems he and others unfortunately confront are not akin to the AA steps he prescribes the GOP take.

I’m not sure what Beck’s angle is. Does he (like O’Reilly) think he can expand his audience by placing a pox on both their houses? Sorry, I’m just not buying what Beck is pitching.

Captain America on February 21, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I’m not sure what Beck’s angle is. Does he (like O’Reilly) think he can expand his audience by placing a pox on both their houses? Sorry, I’m just not buying what Beck is pitching.

Captain America on February 21, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Well his main goal is to return to the principles of the constitution …

He want’s to eliminate entitlements.

Don’t worry – if you don’t buy that – you’re in the majority.

Because the Republican party isn’t for eliminating entitlements either.

Which is kind of Beck’s point.

HondaV65 on February 21, 2010 at 6:06 PM

How many of you in the past have made just that choice ….not whole hearted support of a individual just a vote because the other guy was worse. Aggie95

I literally pinched my nose together when I voted for McCain. I should have done what I did in 1968, not voted. I didn’t like Humphrey or Nixon.

Pelayo on February 21, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Phil Byler on February 21, 2010 at 5:43 PM

I’d contend that we’re better off by having Obambi try to drive us off the cliff a la that chick flick, than to have cHillary or McVain, drag us slipping and slidding down the same cliff of unsustainability.

Bottomline, progressives are unsafe at any speed!

Or as Beck eloquently demonstarted, Obambi cranked the pot on full boil while McVain would have just served us froggies up on low simmer.

Now we’re wide awake in America and scrambling to jump out of the pot. Bennett would rather have us jump into his pot. I’d just as soon as not jump into any progressive pot, regardless of their temp setting.

Fortunately for us, the progressives didn’t have a lock on both houses and couldn’t sway other dems to jump off with dear leader.

AH_C on February 21, 2010 at 6:06 PM

I don’t know anyone who would mistake John McCain for a devout capitalist. For John to say, “The Republican party has lost its way” is not enough. John doesn’t trust the First Amendment, capitalism, or the process of citizenship. People like McCain are exactly how the Republican party lost it way.

Bennett is a joke. He’s part of the problem.

beatcanvas on February 21, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I am no Bush apologist, but you have to place the blame on the group of thieves and liars that control the purse strings. Unfortunately Bush seemed to go along to get along for way too much of his Presidency. He did however try to directly address two of the most serious issues that face the country financially. Those two issues being the insanity going on with the Community Reinvestment Act(FM/FM) and Social Security. The dependency peddlers in the Senate and House shut Bush down on every front there.

daesleeper on February 21, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Exactly.
And most people didn’t know this because the MSM controlled the message.
The GOP needs to quit thinking they have to pass something just because they’ve been elected into office.

redridinghood on February 21, 2010 at 6:12 PM

beatcanvas on February 21, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Ditto!

AH_C on February 21, 2010 at 6:13 PM

John doesn’t trust the First Amendment, capitalism, or the process of citizenship. People like McCain are exactly how the Republican party lost it way.

beatcanvas on February 21, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Preach it!

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:14 PM

The GOP needs to quit thinking they have to pass something just because they’ve been elected into office.

redridinghood on February 21, 2010 at 6:12 PM

That might not be the only motivation for the meddlers in the GOP.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Hey, long time no see!

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Hey right back! Been working hard, no time to post lately.

katy the mean old lady on February 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM

katy–I was just thinking about you the other day, and wondering how you were! See, if you were on facebook, we could keep in touch–or at least leave a message…wish you would seriously think of that…
You can click on my or Meat’s name and leave us a message anytime…(I’d like to share emails, if that would be ok…)

lovingmyUSA on February 21, 2010 at 6:16 PM

lovingmyUSA on February 21, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Hey, there!

I miss Katy’s spunk and I’ve missed yours this weekend too :)

Good troll hunting?

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:17 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.

We have already passed that point. Medicare, medicaid, and other entitlements will have to be cut dramatically; there is no getting around it anymore.

Vashta.Nerada on February 21, 2010 at 6:17 PM

BECK = SPOT ON !!!

DougDavis on February 21, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Beck’s not saying there is no difference at all. What Beck is really saying is that the differences between the two are so small that the outcomes their policies produce are really indistinguishable.
HondaV65 on February 21, 2010 at 5:51 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

A year ago, we were told the Republican party and the conservative movement were moribund. Today they are ascendant, and it is the left and the Democratic party that are on defense — even while they are in control. That’s quite an amazing achievement.

Does Mr. Bennett really believe the Republicans had ANYTHING to do with this ascendancy he speaks of? Tea Party Patriots are responsible for this ascendancy, accomplished over the whining of our elected Republican officials. Talk about twisting history to suit his party!

gordo on February 21, 2010 at 6:19 PM

O/T
Anyone seen this yet ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1M2Xfs2Mng

macncheez on February 21, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Holy smokes! Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vermont) is determined to destroy our country. He wants federal control over childcare, too?

The Marxists in progressiveclothing are determined to destroy the individual and the family.

onlineanalyst on February 21, 2010 at 6:20 PM

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

Sure it is, but when you have someone like Mac looking back to the good ole days of Teddy Roosevelt and his friends in Maine talking about getting things done instead of getting bogged down in the Philosophy, well they’ve gone out of their way to snub Conservatism.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:20 PM

onlineanalyst on February 21, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Sanders doesn’t really bother me because we know exactly what he stands for… His deception is minimal if you compare it to the Democrats whom he caucuses with… I just don’t like his views – at all.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Don’t cut this, don’t freeze that, and don’t end something else. Don’t drill offshore, save the what-ever-it-is, and pity those poor caribou. More regulation, more laws, and red tape will fix it.

I know; let’s just let the debt grow and grow and grow; then, after the collapse and the resulting war with China, maybe we can start over. I love my country, I despise everyone who is responsible for this. I have never been more disappointed in any President, as I am with George Bush. I suspected what Obama was in 2008, at least I wasn’t surprised.

Pelayo on February 21, 2010 at 6:02 PM

+1000
(What he said!)

Colorado Anne on February 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM

It really was painful. I was embarrassed for him.

Jaynie59 on February 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Beck’s speech was fantastic. What are you talking about?

Narutoboy on February 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Beck is an idiot and not helping anything

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Does Mr. Bennett really believe the Republicans had ANYTHING to do with this ascendancy he speaks of? Tea Party Patriots are responsible for this ascendancy, accomplished over the whining of our elected Republican officials. Talk about twisting history to suit his party!

gordo on February 21, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Yeah… Bennett is the kind of guy who attributes winning the game not to the players on the field but to those who wore the team colors in the stands.

I wonder if that’s how his gambling problem went awry?

beatcanvas on February 21, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Go away Bill Bennett, you are truly part of the problem!

Lisa on February 21, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Beck is an idiot and not helping anything

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:22 PM

And your comment helps because?

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Wait for the Levin criticism of Beck to land.

daesleeper on February 21, 2010 at 6:24 PM

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Thanks, saw you were back when I read HA at work last night…and yes, had some fun with trolls this weekend. They do serve a purpose, in their own, insignificant way…

Wish we could get katy the mean old lady on FB…

lovingmyUSA on February 21, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Beck’s speech was fantastic. What are you talking about?

Narutoboy on February 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Reminds me of the people that dislike Palin because of her crackly voice or Rush Limbaugh because of his “crude” humor… I’m going on the substance. I, for example, dislike Obama immensely because of his policies … not because of his “professorial” tone.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Beck is starting to overplay his hand.

KBird on February 21, 2010 at 6:25 PM

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM

If you listen to that audio clip, Sanders is claiming that there is a coalition of 51 votes to pass loads of destructive legislation via reconciliation. The interviewer sounds highly supportive of this approach.

onlineanalyst on February 21, 2010 at 6:26 PM

If you listen to that audio clip, Sanders is claiming that there is a coalition of 51 votes to pass loads of destructive legislation via reconciliation. The interviewer sounds highly supportive of this approach.

onlineanalyst on February 21, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Well, Sanders’ policies are destructive in nature, right? I’m just saying, at least we all know Sanders isn’t shy to admit he’s a socialist. On the other hand, we have a ton of socialists that pretend to be anything but…

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Beck is absolutely correct.

So many people vote for the ‘opposite party’ hoping for change and don’t see it primarily because so many on both sides are similar.

The only real change is to transform the party. Kinda like what Obama is trying to do with changing the democrats into socialists, but the opposite

cntrlfrk on February 21, 2010 at 6:29 PM

The parties are basically the same when in power. Coburn and Ryan voted for Bush budgets and the Medicare Drug benefit. Who the heck is Bill Bennett to try to lecture us on the “difference” between parties?

The Dean on February 21, 2010 at 6:31 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 = no political Discernment

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:36 PM

John McCain – one of the most powerful members of Congress, zero pork request!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile the Paultard gets away with getting more PORK than Democrats do

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

I believe Beck said its not enough to suck less than the other side ….or the lesser of 2 evils. How many of you in the past have made just that choice ….not whole hearted support of a individual just a vote because the other guy was worse

Aggie95 on February 21, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Yea, I would like to vote once for the candidate of my choice and not the lesser of two evils.

The Tea Party came about precisely because we are not being well represented by either party. But, I would choose the lame Republicans over the dangerous Democrats every time.

Jvette on February 21, 2010 at 6:38 PM

I love Bennett, but if he thinks that McCain is part of the solution and not part of the problem, he needs to sober up himself.

Spartacus on February 21, 2010 at 6:38 PM

John McCain – one of the most powerful members of Congress, zero pork request!!!!!!!!

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Mac hates the pork and free speech…

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:39 PM

This is painful. Anyone that thinks that Mike Pence, Michele Bachmann, John Kline, Thad McCotter, Paul Ryan, Jason Chaffetz, John Shadegg, Trent Franks, Ron Paul, Scott Jarrett, Lee Terry, Michael Burgess, Phil Gingrey, John Fleming, Patrick McHenry and Jeb Hensarling aren’t dedicated to cutting spending isn’t dealing with facts.

I agree that 3 years ago, there wasn’t a big difference. Alot of RINOs got eliminated during the last 2 election cycles, leaving a vibrant core of fiscal conservatives to build on. Alot of the candidates that’ve been recruited are fiscal conservatives, too.

NO MORE!!! NO MORE am I willing to ignore facts. NO MORE am I willing to accept as fact Beck’s rants because the truth matters.

LFRGary on February 21, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Who the heck is Bill Bennett to try to lecture us on the “difference” between parties?

The Dean on February 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Unintentional irony: the “difference” is the answer you get when you do subtraction…and seeing as how NEITHER party has subtracted from government spending…we have no difference!

Dark-Star on February 21, 2010 at 6:42 PM

I was riveted by Beck’s speech.

And I still hear McCain, Steele and most of the rest of the “recognized” Republican “leadership” talking about “big tent” “center right” [what ever the hell that means] and so on.

Yes, there are exceptions. But not enough to matter.

Like the man said, if the Republicans can not admit that they have a problem, they can not get well.

lsheldon on February 21, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Mac was trying to get elected President by playing to the left/Media on certain issues. May have worked if not for rabid BDS and Obamaworship.

Look at his history, he was pretty solidly conservative(still is on issues like spending), but in the late 90′s thru 2008 he was like 70% conservative per ACU ratings while positioning himself as a national figure to get elected.

I bet when 2009 ACU ratings come out he is solid conservative again.

It takes political discernment to understand whats actually going on. Beck hasn’t a clue, unless he’s going to start advocating for a Conservative dictator he’s an idiot if he thinks what he is doing is going to help. Left isn’t going to change, they have alot of power even when in Minority. The Moderates are never going to become ideologues, in short he has no strategy at all other than enriching himself.

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:44 PM

John McCain – one of the most powerful members of Congress, zero pork request!!!!!!!!

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Trillions for preventive war and trillions more for Medicare is more fiscally conservative than a couple million in Constitutional designations? It’s been a while since I took arithmetic class, but I still remember that trillions is a whole lot more than millions.

The Dean on February 21, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Beck is on the money…..as of today.

As of this February 2010, the Republicans have no reputation for being a Conservative brand. If Obama’s agenda wasnt so radical and beyond the realm of public sanity, you can bet a few progressives in the party like Sen. Snowe, Sen. Collins, Sen. Grahm, et al, would have sold the Party and the country down the river to Progressivism light when it comes to health care, or cap and trade….or whatever.

Beck isnt saying there arent some good Conservatives, he is saying that as a whole, the Republican Party cant be counted on to stick to conservative ideals and better yet, have the guts to reverse the damage that progressivism has done to our government and country…..Bush even made it worse in some ways.

We can reach out to conservative Democrats and get them on board with our ideas if possible, but we cant let liberal/progressive Republicans define the party and expect the ordinary nonpolitical American to ever think there is much of a difference between the (R)s and the (D)s.

Beck is saying that until that changes, the Republican Party will not succeed and more importantly, the republic is destined for a slow painful descent into socialism….is he wrong?

alecj on February 21, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Wish we could get katy the mean old lady on FB…

lovingmyUSA on February 21, 2010 at 6:24 PM

I’m there. Just sent you a message.

katy the mean old lady on February 21, 2010 at 6:46 PM

+1 to the point that not all debt is bad, but sometimes necessary. However, the GOP were like drunken sailors on a spending spree when they last had control. When it came time to choose leadership in both houses, they had the choice of electing fiscal conservatives and instead chose partisans, to whit Hastert (had a sweet real-estate deal pending freeway spending in his district, in addition to pork & earmarks for others) and the Hammer (dished out pork and earmarks). Neither were too keen on reducing spending, while unabashedly pro-taxcuts.

AH_C on February 21, 2010 at 5:15 PM

I THINK EAGLE HAS IT RIGHT, AS PER THE BELOW POST, AH_C………..

Also, to state that republican spending during the Bush years was equivalent (’not a dime’s worth of difference’) to spending under the Obama years is again not correct and damaging to proper accountability. The republicans had terrorist attacks on US soil, two wars, and Hurricane Katrina, and still reduced the deficit from 440 billion to 162 billion dollars in FY 2007. When the republicans were voted out of power in 2006, the deficits rose to 440 billion and then to 1.4 trillion and then to 1.6 trillion dollars under complete democrap control. Thus the republicans spent from one third to ninety percent less than the democraps. That’s like comparing someone who splurged buying a new tv (republicans) to someone splurging by buying all cable tv stations (democraps).

It is also less than honest for Beck to claim that no republican has repented for spending excesses, when in fact there have been many who have so stated. Again, how shooting republicans in the head is going to stop wasteful government spending is a mystery best known to Glenn.

eaglewingz08 on February 21, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Facts and truth matter, in all places and all times.

tigerlily on February 21, 2010 at 6:47 PM

John McCain – one of the most powerful members of Congress, zero pork request!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile the Paultard gets away with getting more PORK than Democrats do

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

B-b-b-but McCain supports amnesty…or something…so the facts don’t matter.

Narutoboy on February 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Beck is a lot better at revealing the truth in history, and the dangers of progressivism than he is at political strategery.

Vashta.Nerada on February 21, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Karl,

That’s the valuable point, alliance combines votes for election victory. The other side of that point is that conservatives MUST discern the corrupt distinction that revises conservatism into neo-conservatism. Finally, though differently, both Beck and Bennett speak for neoconservatives. Beck has two faces, while Bennett has only one. That is a paramount point to recognize and admit.

Bennett doesn’t ever change his neoconservative message; whereas Beck changes his tune depending on the weather and where the money’s flowing. One day Beck trumps Tea Party Conservative points; and the next day Beck trumps Neoconservative rhetoric that denounces the Tea Party and smears its conservatives as anti-American.

If Beck were a Constitutional Conservative he would not fabricate whole cloth to sabotage conservative GOP Tea Party candidates. If Bennett were a hard core Constitutional conservative, he’d have pointed out the fallacy of creating the Dept. of Education that he encouraged being constructed for himself to direct as its first Secretary under Reagan. Bennett just wanted a big government job and pretended that he could solve the problems of America’s poor education system that graduates illiterate students with high school diplomas. How many decades has the Dept. of Education used to further the illiteracy rate and increase the drop out rate nationally? Look at today’s “Safe School Czar” sex pervert coercing sexually explicit perverted exposure to our youngest children in Kindergarten. Thanks a lot, Bill Bennett, for advancing the “need” in America for another bureaucracy that is ineffective to solve its original reason, and instead abuses its powers to insidiously pervert our civilization. It hasn’t taken that long to become the Dept. of Perverted Education.

There are many reasons why the Neoconservatives smear Tea Party conservatives as radicals. At first, they joined in with the MSM ridiculing Townhalls last August. But the huge public uprising against federal corruption made the neoconservatives duck and put on the Tea Party masks, and show up in D.C., acting like they started it all with their money, banners, podium on stage with microphones and speakers. Also, because the neoconservatives wish to erase all reference to anything they no longer wish to be bothered supporting, namely SMALLER GOVERNMENT. Because the Tea Party candidates expose the corruption of the neoconservative politicians still seeking MORE POWER TO ABUSE in further multi-term re-election bids. Because the Tea Party candidates threaten the neoconservative politicians, as the Tea Party repudiates the corrupt records of abusive neoconservative in government.

Truly, presidents and politicians compromise in order to “get along”. For the past half century, both major parties have compromised so much that neither represents the primary platform that the American voters understood prior to the World Wars.*

Bigger government and more bureaucracies are just fine with Bennett, and he endorses candidates who are big government neoconservative Republicans like himself, like Bush, like Rick Perry and John McCain. And regarding neoconservative endorsements, Beck does it as well so long as the price is right.

And Bennett perpetrates the neoconservative argument that because various details show a contrast between the two major parties (/spelling their names, for instance/) that there are no obvious similarities regarding how both major parties function once in power. Most obviously, when in the majority, both parties expand government bureaucracies and fail to permanently lower taxes. Neoconservatives: “Rebates” that the taxpayer repays, or temporary cuts with expiration dates are not CUTS; just an illusion to placate the public while increasing spending and national debt.

The neoconservatives used the argument that if you didn’t support Bush’s war efforts, or Bush’s creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, you were failing the conservative party and empowering the Democrats. And most conservatives precariously decided to support Bush’s war efforts in order to support our troops, and also upon the administration’s rhetoric that it would take our military an installation in Iraq in order to defeat the Islamofascists, namely the Iranian Theocracy. Yet it was Bush who initiated the rules of engagement requiring that our troops allow the enemy to shoot first before engaging, rules that have augmented hugely into the Karzai 12. And it was Bush’s administration that revised their “reasons” for the Iraq War that did NOT begin in order to rebuild Iraq. Conservatives were attacked mercilessly as neoconservatives, influencing most with intestinal fortitude to defend the neoconservatives, to ally since we had voted for Bush in order to oust Clinton. According to Bennett’s antibody false analogy, it took a Clinton to get a Bush, as if Bush was THE PERFECT answer to America’s prayers for the next POTUS. No, because Bush happened to win the GOP potus primary, he made the only major alternative to Clinton’s re-election. Note well how W.’s career was boosted having been the GOP candidate opposing Ann Richards, the TX Governor who enabled Clinton’s massacre of the Branch Davidians complete with local media cover-up smearing the murdered victims (children along with their parents) as lunatics who deserved the torture that they got from the Federals who refused to allow the Davidians to surrender to the Texas Rangers as they both requested to do. So George W. ousted Richards and became TX Governor, and then ousted Clinton himself to become the President, all on the tailcoat of Clinton’s corruption, not because Bush would be the “better” potus.

*Our world war veterans returned home honorably, but needed to focus on their personal lives to get over war. Following WWI and WWII, too many Americans just wanted to rely on politicians to take care of government, and stay out of further conflicts that complicated their very complicated lives. Too many disillusioned Americans just didn’t want to put up any more fight after the wars were “over”. Trusting politicians to take care of government was the dumbest thing, and everyone started waking up, all generations, with the social revolutions since the 1960s. And whatever difficulties our world war veterans faced in their disillusionment with “trusting their government” propaganda, our Viet Nam War Veterans had it even worse than the Korean Vets, as America shunned them upon their honorable return that was NOT recognized by the Kissinger led Nixon era neoconservative politicians in office.

maverick muse on February 21, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Sure it is, but when you have someone like Mac looking back to the good ole days of Teddy Roosevelt and his friends in Maine talking about getting things done instead of getting bogged down in the Philosophy, well they’ve gone out of their way to snub Conservatism.
MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Even Beck said he was a T.R. fan until he started reading up on him! And while in retrospect there is much to criticize about T.R., one has to put him in context to the times he lived in. It’s oh so easy to have the wisdom of hindsight, 100 years later. It’s not unlike criticizing Jefferson for having slaves and using that to discredit everything about him. And for everything that sounds bizarre in hindsight about T.R., he also did some stupendous things (like the Panama Canal) and did much to make this country a major power in the world.

As for Collins and Snowe, they are not conservatives and don’t pretend to be, so that argument fails miserably.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 6:54 PM

So we have to put progressive-ism in some historical perspective? If that were the case, we’d also have to argue that perhaps some Marxism is good because of the conditions at the time Marx wrote his manifesto.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Beck-bots. Paul-tards. obamamessiah-zombies… I wish people would stop signing on to cults of personality.

Boxy_Brown on February 21, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Of course there are differences between Republicans and Democrats. One is that Leviathan grows at a slightly slower rate under Republicans than Democrats. Another is that there is a slightly different emphasis on what to regulate next.

misterpeasea on February 21, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Beck is a lot better at revealing the truth in history

Beck has never been the first to expose any story; he catches online what others have discovered and then promotes it himself. Beck enjoys an avid audience made of vicarious blood lusters and rubber neckers who cheer/scream the loudest and longest with their sense of righteous indignation whether or not well founded. He reached his niche through talent. But that does not make this lucky opportunist an original genius, more the composite of what markets. Beck has no more problem lying for profit as telling the truth. He has no problem changing his story depending on pressure or mood. In short, Beck’s word is unreliable in the conservative sense.

maverick muse on February 21, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Country Club Republicans worried about Beck’s strategery need to recognize that he is educating, not strategizing. If they are worried about being hurt by the revelation of Progressivism in their ranks, they need to fight the Progressivism and the Progressivists in their ranks, not Beck. Thanks to Beck, they will have our help in that fight.

Maquis on February 21, 2010 at 7:10 PM

I think people are making too much out of our talking heads–Rush, Glenn, Levin, Mitchelle, Ed, Allah, ect. Their purpose is to provide information, and to “stir the pot”. They promote debate by expressing their OPINION, but they also provide information to support their opinons…

I find it amusing that people are so concerned that Beck is calling both parties the same…The core values of each party are supposed to be different, but I think they have become blurred together through the last 10 years. When it comes down to the means of achieving their goals, I think they have both become the same. If you don’t believe it, check out the income levels of the congressman of each party, when they started, and what they are worth now after years of “public service”…

Beck is the antagonist–he throws out a principle and dares you examine your own….He doesn’t say you have to agree with him, but he challenges you to actually THINK about what you believe in…He wants us to see that the water has slowly been reaching the boiling point, while we have been placidly swimming around…

lovingmyUSA on February 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush and others exist in a total vacuum of political leadership.

The GOP has lost its way and all the mea culpa’s won’t change a thing. They need to get the lead out and publically deal with the underlying economic issues even if it upsets some, or even most people.

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 7:16 PM

jp on February 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

As an Arizonian I dislike McCain because of his stances on 1st amendment rights, amnesty w/o strong border control, Cr*p and Tax and Gang of 14. I know the gang of 14 helped with SCOTUS but screwed us at the Appellate level. Where will we get good conservative Judges for SCOTUS in the future w/o having them proving themselves at the Appellate level.

chemman on February 21, 2010 at 7:19 PM

i wish Republicans would run on the platform of repealing 10 laws/day.

kelley in virginia on February 21, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Trusting politicians to take care of government was the dumbest thing,

maverick muse on February 21, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Great points MM. I would add that the same thing occurred in the education realm where the “so called” professional educators convinced American Parents to allow them to fully educate the children so the parents could pursue jobs and personal fulfillment and leave their children to the state.

chemman on February 21, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Saying that Bennett is calming like a grandfather is not an excuse to ignore where Bennett stands as a Republican. As a grandparent myself, I am sick and tired of the many, many old grandfatherly types in our Congress at this time. Most of them are liberal old koots who have given us nothing but more debt and more regulations. Unfortunately, old age is not an indication of wisdom in Washington, D.C.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Beck has it right, that the republican party is the same as the Democrat party. The Republican party just wants to go slower getting to the same destination of Bankruptcy, socialism, and individual servitude to the federal government. We have no real choice in politics, because the party has such a huge tent that it allows people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham to neutralize any actually real conservatives. These RINOs may prevent the Democrats from voting on far left legislation, but the Democrats would never vote for that far left legislation without the cover of the RINOs in the first place. Look how the Health Care worked out, 60 vote filibuster proof majority incapable of passing a bill. Look how cap and trade is going, without Lindsey Graham, the democrats would have no chance to pass the legislation, now there is a chance.

astonerii on February 21, 2010 at 7:48 PM

So we have to put progressive-ism in some historical perspective? If that were the case, we’d also have to argue that perhaps some Marxism is good because of the conditions at the time Marx wrote his manifesto.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:57 PM

It is possible to understand the appeal of Marxism at the time of Karl Marx. That does not make it “good”! We have seen what an abject failure it is (and sadly Democrats are unwilling to learn that lesson despite the horrors of Stalin, Mao, Castro and others) but when one considers the conditions in Russia at the time, it’s understandable why some people were drawn to it. If the New York Times hadn’t lied about how Stalin’s Russia was the land of milk and honey, and if the Soviet Union’s propagandists hadn’t managed to infiltrate the Democrat Party (and the media) it would have died an earlier death.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM

There’s a big difference. The democrats of today are really socialists. The republicans of today are really 1950′s democrats sans the racism.

Mojave Mark on February 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM

We’ve also seen the harms of the Progressive Movement. So, that would mean that Teddy was flat out wrong. Aside from taking a historic view of some of these movements, given that we believe in absolute truths, these philosophies were wrong from the beginning. That means Teddy the Progressive was wrong from the beginning. That means that Marx was wrong from the beginning. We didn’t need Mao to show up that.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM

*up = us

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 7:54 PM

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

Gag. Good grief, go away already.

John McCain is one of the worst of them all and those “real proposals” you refer to are all talk. Once he’s re-elected, John McCain goes right back to who he really is.

The real question is whether or not the American people have learned from the past, or if they’re going to fall for this fraud all over again.

Gregor on February 21, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Beck is right, and Bennett is part of the problem.

“an overwhelming disinclination to cut spending on most any part of the federal budget” by the majority is the result of the Education system and the Media’s war against our Republic. Many of us recognize the front lines in the war for our survival are located in Journalism and Academia.

Look to Coolidge for the correct strategy.

davecatbone on February 21, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Gregor, I will be anxious to see whether or not the American people have learned from the past. McCain has been putting on the conservative act for the past six months, and I think he realizes that faking it will get him re-elected. His wife and his daughter have continued to exhibit the real McCain beliefs.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM

His wife and his daughter have continued to exhibit the real McCain beliefs.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM

We can only hope MacDaddy himself will duct tape his mouth.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Oh please! How do you think the Pilgrims would be viewed today? Do you think we should judge them according to our understanding of life today? That’s what people like Howard Zinn do.

Unions made sense in T.R.’s time; for the most part they don’t now. From the very beginning, T.R. was interested in routing out corruption. He was moved by the plight of people who lived in dismal conditions (conditions which are unthinkable today). He also railed against hyphenated Americans- while today’s “progressives” encourage it.

The Republican party only briefly flirted with the Progressive Movement (and it was only a small faction of Republicans). Democrats seized the Progressive mantle. T.R. was an opponent of Woodrow Wilson (who really was an evil s.o.b.) and La Follette…

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 8:14 PM

The party has not been led by the Coburns, Bachmans or Ryans.

Maybe, just maybe this is the problem? Too many establishment Republicans that will return to their ways of typical DC politics—-like the frog and the scorpion, it just their nature.

Beck made some great points last night, but if the conservative Repulicans plan to take back this country, we need not become Beck worshipers, hanging on his every word like its gospel. Think for yourselves. Glenn Beck is.

Rovin on February 21, 2010 at 8:14 PM

I like Bennett, but there is no point trying to defend the indefensible. We watched George Bush and the Republican Party trying to find “moderate” ways of solving the country’s problems. The only thing they got remotely right was the fight against islamo-fascists, and even there they were caving at the end.
Enough. Mr. Bennett is wrong on this one.

Randy

williars on February 21, 2010 at 8:20 PM

The elitist in the Republican party think that they are still the leaders. I am sure that they are very threatened by the tea partiers, Glenn Beck, and anyone else who questions their thinking and positions.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 8:20 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

Oh my that is funny…

Someone should send that to Beck! I bet he’d get a kick out of it.

petunia on February 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Oh please! How do you think the Pilgrims would be viewed today? Do you think we should judge them according to our understanding of life today? That’s what people like Howard Zinn do.

Unions made sense in T.R.’s time; for the most part they don’t now. From the very beginning, T.R. was interested in routing out corruption. He was moved by the plight of people who lived in dismal conditions (conditions which are unthinkable today). He also railed against hyphenated Americans- while today’s “progressives” encourage it.

The Republican party only briefly flirted with the Progressive Movement (and it was only a small faction of Republicans). Democrats seized the Progressive mantle. T.R. was an opponent of Woodrow Wilson (who really was an evil s.o.b.) and La Follette…

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 8:14 PM

The Pilgrims and other groups may have been wrong on many things. You brought up the Founders having slaves earlier. Although I don’t believe the words and philosophy of our Founders were wrong, there is no doubt that slavery itself is wrong – no matter the time. In fact, slavery itself somewhat contradicts the words of people like Jefferson. That doesn’t make his core beliefs wrong – it just means he acted wrong. Right and Wrong don’t change with time. If they did, perhaps our Constitution would no longer be considered “Right.”

As for the Unions making sense, I have no problems with people organizing unions… I just think know that just like corporations, they should never be in bed with our government.

I think Wilson also rallied against hyphenated-Americans as well… doesn’t really mean much when you consider just what his beliefs were when it came to the individual.

Oh, and there are still fragments of the Republican party (such as McCain) that occasionally flirt with Progressives.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Actually, I used to think that Bennett might be above the establishment Republicans; however, the way he has been promoting McCain and squeeling about Beck, Bennett needs to be put out to the pasture, too.

mobydutch on February 21, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Oh, and there are still fragments of the Republican party (such as McCain) that occasionally flirt with Progressives.
MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Stipulating for the sake of argument that that is true, he doesn’t represent the Republican Party. McCain is the exception, not the rule. Mac wanted Lieberman to be his running mate for Xsakes. Other than being a hawk, Lieberman is a liberal Democrat through and through.

As for the unions (and corporations), how do you define “being in bed with government”? Federal (and many state) government workers are more than “in bed with” the unions. But what about the U.A.W. prior to our wrong-headed intervention with G.M.? Were they any better then?

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM

As much as the GOP has pissed me off, any suggestion that they are equally to blame with the DemonRats for the mess we are in is profoundly ignorant of the facts. I don’t pay much attention to media narcissists like Beck, but if that’s what he’s saying, he’s an idiot.

Jaibones on February 21, 2010 at 8:37 PM

As for the unions (and corporations), how do you define “being in bed with government”? Federal (and many state) government workers are more than “in bed with” the unions. But what about the U.A.W. prior to our wrong-headed intervention with G.M.? Were they any better then?

Buy Danish on February 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM

It’s really quite simple. Does the government give unionX or corporationY an advantage or special treatment?

Stipulating for the sake of argument that that is true, he doesn’t represent the Republican Party.

Really? So which party was he representing last election?

McCain is the exception, not the rule.

Graham, Snowe, Collins come to mind quickly! Aren’t they like the “leaders” of “their” party.

Mac wanted Lieberman to be his running mate for Xsakes. Other than being a hawk, Lieberman is a liberal Democrat through and through.

Well… some here would say that McCain is a liberal democrat through and through… I don’t think that completely. He’s a progressive republican through and through.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Oh yeah,they are exactly the same as the dems. That’s why amnesty passed…oh wait, it didn’t. Well we now have universal health ca….oh wait, no we don’t. At least, just like the dems wanted to, they “re-deployed” the troops…oh wait, that didn’t happen either. Oh, but the GOP only prevented that stuff from happening because they…listened to the conservatives so…um…….apparently that doesn’t count.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 21, 2010 at 8:43 PM

How soon many of you forgot about Sarah Palin rightly saying that no candidate is perfect.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 21, 2010 at 8:43 PM

How soon many of you forgot about Sarah Palin rightly saying that no candidate is perfect.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 21, 2010 at 8:43 PM

I don’t know about the others on this site, but I don’t strive for 100% perfection… I just really, really dislike those that go out of their way to snub conservatism.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 8:46 PM

This whole debate is very simple… It is all about leading by example!!! Dem, Repub, Libert, whatever you are, shut up and do something instead of just talking about what you might do.

Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions… Beck is right in this regard, that whatever “letter” is next to your name, you better back up what you say! End of Story!

The Dead Terrorist on February 21, 2010 at 8:46 PM

The GOP Mullah Fluffers are out again I see.

thomasaur on February 21, 2010 at 8:51 PM

The GOP Mullah Fluffers are out again I see.

thomasaur on February 21, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Hehe +5

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3