Paul Ryan to Glenn Beck and Hot Air: I’m not a conservative progressive

posted at 4:14 pm on April 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via the Right Scoop, the exciting conclusion to Thursday’s cliffhanger in which Beck cited CK MacLeod’s post at HA as evidence that Ryan might just be sweet on Woodrow Wilson and the gang. Not so, says Ryan, phoning in for the first time; CK just completely missed the point. Which is unfair, I think: CK’s point was that conservatives should champion the best ideas of early progressives, like popular referenda and government transparency. Ryan’s point in his Oklahoma City speech was that today’s progressives have completely betrayed those original good-government impulses — a descriptive observation, not a prescriptive one like CK’s, but similar insofar as both see some virtue in some elements of old-school progressivism. The confusion, I think, stemmed from CK straining to apply the “progressive” label to Ryan and Beck mistakenly assuming that that meant Ryan was on board with most/all of the Wilsonian program. Not by a long shot, as you’re about to see. In fact, with just this one phone call, it seems like Beck’s found himself a new favorite Republican. Watch your back, Sarah!

Exit question: Isn’t this basically the blog equivalent of that Marshall McLuhan scene in “Annie Hall”? Ryan taps CK on the shoulder and says, “You know nothing of my work.”


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

Have Half the time I don’t understand exactly what CK is saying to be truthfully honest. I am usually confused after reading his posts.

deidre on April 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Ditto on that. I’m sure there was a point in all that verbage somewhere but I’ll be damned if I know what it is. Brevity, CK, brevity.

docdave on April 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Brevity, CK, brevity.

docdave on April 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

a few people in the greenroom could use that advice

and i dont mean that insultingly

blatantblue on April 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Ouch!

JimP on April 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

I.I.R.C., Voting for TARP was not a vote for the bailout of GM. That was added by Bush after the original program was voted in.Buy Danish on April 12, 2010 at 5:31 PM

The original idea for TARP was to buy up toxic/troubled assets…Troubled Asset Relief Fund. The purpose was supposed to be to get these assets out of the market (and off the books of banks etc because of the stupid mark to market rules) and then resell them once their real value had been assessed and the market returned to the point where they could reasonably off-loaded. In theory it was a temporary dumping ground for these assets.This still doesn\’t mean that it would have been a good idea getting government involved – but I don\’t think it means that all of it\’s supporters can rightfully be stripped of their \’conservative\’ status.

gwelf on April 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

. I do, however, like posts that challenge conventional wisdom, partly because they’re more likely to spark interesting debate in the comments.

Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM

I know you typed it, but I can’t help but see David Frum mouthing it as well.

portlandon on April 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM

poor ck, goes all intellectual on conservatives, gets completely misunderstood.

sesquipedalian on April 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM

It is why the Marxist-Leninist appropriated the label ‘progressive’; it hides their agenda behind something that sounds good non threatening to the disinterested.

That’s better.

PakviRoti on April 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM

You might need to adjust your writing style as a Consrevative Blogger when Liberals compliment you for being “intellectual”. I’m just sayin’.

kingsjester on April 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM

chaswv:

How did CK bashing Steyn make a top pick on HA?

I don’t think CK made his point very clearly, but I didn’t see it as Steyn-bashing. As I understood him, his main point was: if we sound like our platform is raising taxes on the poor, it’s an electoral loser.

sandberg on April 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Glenn just said he Loves loves loves Ryan……

nondhimmie on April 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM

CK did make a reasoned argument. Finding it unpersuasive doesn’t mean it’s not reasoned. It’s not like his/her posts are “HA commenters are teh suck!”
Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I guess all that matters is that you think so. Nevermind the majority of said commenters, oh and Paul Ryan, on CK’s recent posts who disagree on his reasonableness or persuasiveness.

conservative pilgrim on April 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Yes. Yet some commenters are accusing Beck of dissing Ryan. I think there is something weird going on here.

petunia on April 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Well, if anyone knows Glenn and his body language, it was so clear that Paul zeroed in on Glenn’s views, and made a connection. Pat, Glenn’s best friend, picked up on that, too. Pat’s remark about proposing was his typical humor. No way that was a diss to Paul. No way.

sybilll on April 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Ooops. Meant to add that Glenn even linked to Paul’s WH website on his TV show this afternoon, too.

sybilll on April 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM

A good writer aims for precision in language to make himself understood. The temptation to use archaic words or to waffle on incessantly are nets to be evaded. A piece of writing that is very intellectual might flatter the writer’s own vanity but if too difficult to understand it will not be intellectualy stimulating for the reader.

aengus on April 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM

CK tries to stir up controversy and inadvertently brings together Beck and Ryan. Magnificent.

Disturb the Universe on April 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM

“HA commenters are teh suck!”

Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Now THAT was funny…

Seven Percent Solution on April 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM

aengus on April 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Intellectual giants like sesquipdalein will not understand the banality of your viewpoint. Stretch your response out to 700+ words and occlude your intent in twilight language.

Afterall he votes for Hank Johnson’s party.

Inanemergencydial on April 12, 2010 at 5:52 PM

I guess all that matters is that you think so. Nevermind the majority of said commenters, oh and Paul Ryan, on CK’s recent posts who disagree on his reasonableness or persuasiveness.

conservative pilgrim on April 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM

What, should AP do a poll of Hot Air people before promoting a Greenroom post? I don’t understand why his opinion wouldn’t be sufficient. If it weren’t, then he wouldn’t be here writing posts in the first place.

Esthier on April 12, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Doc Zero gets posted pretty damn regularly compared to CK.

blatantblue on April 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM

And deservedly so.

Disturb the Universe on April 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM

I’m pretty confident that Paul is the right guy to lead the GOP back into power. However, I’m not sure if he belives it yet.

You-Eh-Vee on April 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM

CK did make a reasoned argument.
Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I guess all that matters is that you think so. Nevermind the majority of said commenters, oh and Paul Ryan, on CK’s recent posts who disagree on his reasonableness or persuasiveness.
conservative pilgrim on April 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM

I’m still trying to figure out why a dozen articles from fromfrumtofrum.com and something called (btw, I am NOT making this up!) “The Daily Beast” get linked here every day.

I guess there’s a fine line between well-meaning incoherence and Fifth Column rabble-rousing.

logis on April 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM

However, I’m not sure if he belives it yet.

You-Eh-Vee on April 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM

That’s what makes me like him even more.

Esthier on April 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Esthier on April 12, 2010 at 5:52 PM

If you want to understand the context of my comment, then please read the rest of the conversation on page one. I’ve shared my thoughts. Moving on.

conservative pilgrim on April 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM

“I’m not running for president.” Can someone please convince him he needs to?

Thanks.

cpaulus on April 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Ideas aren’t inseparable from names. “Progressive” is far too tainted as a label to be helpful, particularly when there are better alternatives available.

I have two points:

1. we should not reject all ideas that have a “Progressive” label, specifically the voter reforms I mentioned.

2. we should also be careful not to crap on our own Republican heritage to the extent it includes those early Western “Progressives” and should try to distinguish between the mostly non-dirigiste Western Progressives and the dirigiste techoncratic European and Eastern US “Progressive” intellectuals.

CatoRenasci on April 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM

HA can post who they want. I just think that CK’s style is better suited for the three commenters on his own site.

d1carter on April 12, 2010 at 6:07 PM

If you want to understand the context of my comment, then please read the rest of the conversation on page one. I’ve shared my thoughts. Moving on.

conservative pilgrim on April 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I had already read all of it. There’s nothing further illuminating about your first page posts.

Esthier on April 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM

And deservedly so.

Disturb the Universe on April 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM

yup

blatantblue on April 12, 2010 at 6:12 PM

CatoRenasci on April 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM

I have a better point. I say we do not try to distinguish what kind of Progressive a politician is. But,rather, identify those public officials that are actively working to turn our country into a European/Socialist/Marxist nation and vote them out of office. Period. Then after that is accomplished, I’ll be more than willing to listen to your essay on the varying degress of Progressivism. I want my country back. Now.

kingsjester on April 12, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Thank God. I can now resume my former crush on him.

As a happily married, suburban mom, is it wrong for me to say, I Paul Ryan?

Republigal on April 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Oops, that was supposed to say, “I heart Paul Ryan.”

Republigal on April 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM

So does this mean CK’s writings now get sent back to the main page in a nice little gray and white format?

;)

katy on April 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM

This news and Ryan’s further expansion of his thoughts on Progressivism, and what he’s trying to do, make me extremely happy, as I was disappointed following CK’s post and the audio that was circulating.

Good news, indeed.

Harpazo on April 12, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Republigal on April 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Oh, me too. His mind…now that’s some kinda sexy.

hoosiermama on April 12, 2010 at 6:23 PM

poor ck, goes all intellectual on conservatives, gets completely misunderstood.

sesquipedalian on April 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM

The fountain of unintentional comedy speaks.

TheUnrepentantGeek on April 12, 2010 at 6:31 PM

From Paul’s statements in the original post, it is clear that Paul was giving a history lesson and not assigning himself to any role in that lesson. For some reason, CK decided to insert the lecturer into the lecture.

Oh well, heh heh!

Freddy on April 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Paul Ryan/ Herman Cain 2012

stenwin77 on April 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM

but I don\’t think it means that all of it\’s supporters can rightfully be stripped of their \’conservative\’ status.
gwelf on April 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

True. I think TARP was necessary. It’s how it was set up and administrated (and now set to be plundered for unrelated things like unemployment benefits) that’s the problem.

BTW, why do you always have slash marks before apostrophes? Is that a feature/glitch of your computer or something, or just a personal idiosyncrasy?

Buy Danish on April 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM

I guess there’s a fine line between well-meaning incoherence and Fifth Column rabble-rousing.

logis on April 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Fifth column rabble rousing Chamberlain-esque candy-ass RINO.

RINO in Name Only on April 12, 2010 at 6:47 PM

“HA commenters are teh suck!”

Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Is AP an adult swim watcher? *inquiring minds..* :)

vai2112 on April 12, 2010 at 6:52 PM

The original idea for TARP was to buy up toxic/troubled assets…Troubled Asset Relief Fund. The purpose was supposed to be to get these assets out of the market (and off the books of banks etc because of the stupid mark to market rules) and then resell them once their real value had been assessed and the market returned to the point where they could reasonably off-loaded. In theory it was a temporary dumping ground for these assets.This still doesn\’t mean that it would have been a good idea getting government involved – but I don\’t think it means that all of it\’s supporters can rightfully be stripped of their \’conservative\’ status.

gwelf on April 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Start reading about why it is a bad idea economically.

Tim Burton on April 12, 2010 at 7:03 PM

“Exit question: Isn’t this basically the blog equivalent of that Marshall McLuhan scene in “Annie Hall”?”

Spoken like a true Insufferable NY Hipster!

KS Rex on April 12, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Doc Zero gets posted pretty damn regularly compared to CK.

blatantblue on April 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM
And deservedly so.

Disturb the Universe on April 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Doc Z is great but I would read the Read’s digest version more often.

Brevity is the soul of wit…

petunia on April 12, 2010 at 8:03 PM

“I’m not running for president.” Can someone please convince him he needs to?

Thanks.

cpaulus on April 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Hear hear! He at least needs to consider it. The field is so slim. I haven’t seen enough yet but so far so good.

petunia on April 12, 2010 at 8:06 PM

I wish Ryan was black. We could get him elected in a New York minute.

Star20 on April 12, 2010 at 8:15 PM

So CK gets to backtrack through Allah for a misrepresentation? That’s not very cool.

ButterflyDragon on April 12, 2010 at 8:27 PM

CK did make a reasoned argument.

Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Um, actually no, it wasn’t very ‘reasoned’ at all. In fact it was more of an emotional rant, and yesterday’s article was as well, the one in which CK went totally off the charts in a rant about DocZero’s and Mark Steyn’s articles in which they offered a different perspective on who pays income taxes and should non-income-tax payers even be permitted to vote.

There is a huge difference between rambling emotional rants and reasoned arguments, and just by comparing CK’s rant from yesterday to the well thought out and reasoned arguments by Doc and Mark is a prime example of that very obvious difference.

Plus, I’m afraid that CK also suffers from what many potentially good writers suffer from these days: Diarrhea of the keyboard. Word processing with automatic spell check has made it possible for writers to sail along as they hammer out their thoughts, while forgetting one of the most fundamental rules of good writing: Tight writing. Tight writing is essential in that if a thought can be formulated effectively in 10 words or less, editing that original 20 to 50 word sentence becomes mandatory unless the writer wants to risk readers getting bored or losing interest due to book-length essays.

KendraWilder on April 12, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Paul Ryan/ Herman Cain 2012

stenwin77 on April 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM
//
Now that’s a winning ticket!

ohiobabe on April 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Bromance.

5u93rm4n on April 12, 2010 at 8:49 PM

I think this was a much-needed slap. CK needs to do better critical thinking.

After the Mark Steyn column the other day, I find this especially refreshing.

disa on April 12, 2010 at 11:02 PM

I believe CK’s point was that republicans should reclaim the term “progressive” which they never had and then further muddy things by using it in a new way.

Brilliant. /s

ROCnPhilly on April 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Considering there’s nothing “progressive” about modern liberal Progressives… why not.

Yakko77 on April 12, 2010 at 11:17 PM

CK’s point was that conservatives should champion the best ideas of early progressives, like popular referenda and government transparency.

Except that progressives were neither the only ones in favor of transparency in government (as the existence of pro-transparency factions early in the history GOP show) nor were they even interested in it per ce (as their perennial rabid support for progressive taxation indicates).

If you want to define progressive to mean all that is good in government, then yes, by all means, fight to label yourself as progressive. After all, progress is a universal good, no?

No.

spmat on April 12, 2010 at 11:19 PM

CK did make a reasoned argument.
Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

AP,
CK is very confused. He pays attention to the words in isolation. I have not seen him make a very good point. If you see his recent post on Mark Steyn you will know what I am referring to. He needs to start *thinking* before he starts ranting.

I am actually surprised Beck took CK at his words. Agreed Beck is impulsive. Personally I expect a blogger at Hotair to be much better than CK.

antisocial on April 12, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Alright, I think CK has officially jumped the shark here at HotAir. From last week’s lame feud to yesterday’s misguided attack on Steyn and Doc Zero to trying to be too clever by half about Paul Ryan. Ed and AP, you gave him a shot, it’s gone to his head. Time to cut him loose. Let him re-join the ranks of us common folk.

JohnInCA on April 12, 2010 at 11:28 PM

CK did make a reasoned argument. Finding it unpersuasive doesn’t mean it’s not reasoned. It’s not like his/her posts are “HA commenters are teh suck!”

Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Actually, his posts do sometimes border on that.

Cylor on April 12, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Gee, go away for a week and look what I missed.

I’ll now have to study to refresh my “Hot Air” nomenclature, what with this new thing called “conservative progressive” despite the fact that the entire concept makes no sense, just no sense at all.

Lourdes on April 13, 2010 at 1:25 AM

“Conservative progressive” is, well, like inventing a “pro-life Democrat”: they don’t exist.

It’s like claiming that there’s Gas Metal, or, Solid Fire…utterly contrary terms and physical properties.

Progressives are not Conservatives, can’t even approach them or that.

Lourdes on April 13, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Reading one of those trackbacks to your post, here…

http://floridapundit.com/2010/04/glenn-beck-falls-in-love-with-paul-ryan/

…contains some very informative links.

I think Ryan just may be talking over the heads of some. He makes sense to me as he’s expressed himself, and I don’t get anything from his comments that suggests HE’s “a progressive” so much as he’s sharing what he thinks about them.

Can’t for the life of me understand how anyone could even keep a straight keyboard, though, and actually try to sell such a thing as “a progressive conservative” or vice-versa, whatever.

Ryan’s chief handicap as to voters on the Right is that he’s not pro=life, not in the legislative sense, in that, I believe I summarize relatively well, he thinks Roe v. Wade as law is to be upheld or supported “as law” or something (since it’s law, it’s the law, so to speak).

He IS an attorney so that explains that point of view. I don’t know what his personal feelings are in regard unborn human life, however, but if he’s not pro-life in that regard, he’s got a big problem with his growing popularity on a national scale.

Our nation really needs a strong guy in the Presidency. We really need a clear thinking, intelligent, well schooled and straight-shooting, aggressive guy in the Presidency.

Lourdes on April 13, 2010 at 2:27 AM

Paul Ryan doesn’t want to be president. That’s exactly why he should be. Draft Paul Ryan, I’ll send in cash now.

davecatbone on April 13, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Start reading about why it is a bad idea economically.

Tim Burton on April 12, 2010 at 7:03 PM

I agree that TARP is a bad idea. What I was trying to claim was that it’s supposed original purpose seemed somewhat ‘reasonable’ but of course it’s folly to give government 700+ Billion dollars and expect anything reasonable to happen. We were told that these assets had to be removed from the market as fast as possible but as soon as the fund was authorized they backed away from it’s original design and turned it instead into a giant government/Democrat slush fund.

gwelf on April 13, 2010 at 7:12 AM

BTW, why do you always have slash marks before apostrophes? Is that a feature/glitch of your computer or something, or just a personal idiosyncrasy?

Buy Danish on April 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Sometimes when I submit a comment I have to login again and my comment has the ‘\’ pre-pended to any apostrophes. Sometimes I’m too lazy to go through my comment and remove them and submit it anyway.

gwelf on April 13, 2010 at 7:13 AM

unseen on April 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s super cute that you think you’ve come up with a quick field orthodoxy test, but come on. AIG was already nationalized and so there’s no free market orthodoxy in the bonus thing. The orthodox thing would’ve been to let them collapse.

Every year trillions of dollars are wasted by failing to address the growth in unfunded entitlement mandates, and Paul Ryan in one of the only people actually trying to address it. But he tried to snag back some money from executives of a company so mismanaged they required billions in bailouts, so yeah, the latter totally wipes out the former, right?

galenrox on April 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Beck’s act is wearing thin. This “I’m right, and everyone else is wrong” attitude is getting really tiresome to me.

Today Beck was questioning Rick Perry’s bonafides. Is anyone good enough for Beck?

David2.0 on April 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM

ROFL!! Thanks, I wanted to listen to that call. Enjoyed the multiple facepalms that Glenn had during the conversation. Glenn, trust me, ME TOO.

ProudPalinFan on April 13, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Oops, that was supposed to say, “I heart Paul Ryan.”

Republigal on April 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM

I know, we gotta come out too…I wanna know what’s the IQ of this guy. That’s why I married Mr. PPF…he’s a “numbers” guy too.

ProudPalinFan on April 13, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Allahpundit on April 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Oh yeah, very nice. Like CK attributing Steyn to producing a “thought experiment” by another GR poster? Being called out by Rep. Ryan for misrepresenting him and associating a columnist to an idea he never conveyed are DANGEROUS topics for “debate”. I have no respect for either scenerio and advocating having a discuss not based in the truth sets you up for potential legal actions. If someone who gets covered like Glenn Beck starts accusing Mark Steyn of things he didn’t say or “misrepresents” his meaning, you may have an epic battle on your hands. He’s gone against the Canadian government. HA is small potatoes to that.

Sultry Beauty on April 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM

ALL POLITICIANS SUCK.

THE KEY IS FINDING THE FEW WHO DON’T SWALLOW.

Beck is just trying to find a pol-crush in the cloak room.

Who can blame him?

Patriots need SOMEbody on the inside who hasn’t COMPLETEly lost his soul.

seejanemom on April 13, 2010 at 4:38 PM

I ejaculated about 20 times listening to this

VinceP1974 on April 13, 2010 at 5:31 PM

AWESOME interview.

Unfortunately:

He voted for TARP & the Stimulus (unless I’m wrong on that).

He also voted for the Auto Bailout.

And the last “unfortunately” is he keeps saying:
“I’M NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT“.

PappyD61 on April 13, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Paul Ryan doesn’t want to be president. That’s exactly why he should be. Draft Paul Ryan, I’ll send in cash now.

davecatbone on April 13, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Money well wasted.
or
A fool and his money ………

5u93rm4n on April 13, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Gingrich Ryan ’12!

The combined intellect of those two just might be enough to win the day.

Or Ryan Gingrich… whatever. I just want the smartest candidates who can wipe the floor with Obama and Biden in the debates, which is the biggest chance they have to reach a mass audience without the MSM/DNC Cabal filter.

Woody on April 14, 2010 at 8:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2