Glenn Beck: Rick Perry’s “God moment” leads me to believe he’s the real deal
posted at 3:25 pm on August 30, 2011 by Tina Korbe
Rick Perry roared into the presidential race to great acclaim, but he hasn’t exactly been without detractors. His entrance has inspired a rhetorical war about what it means to “vet” candidates and about whether conservatives should vet their own or leave it to the MSM to do that dirty work, as they undoubtedly will.
Multimedia powerhouse Glenn Beck weighed in on that debate this week, saying sources he trusts implicitly have convinced him Rick Perry had a come-to-Jesus moment at some point in his governorship and the problematic Perry of past years has given way to Rick “the Real Deal” Perry, a conservative’s conservative. The Right Scoop reports:
Glenn Beck and his beloved sidekick Pat Gray, who used to live in Texas, recently had a conversation with some people very close to Rick Perry with regard to their concerns about him as a candidate. These are people who Beck, without divulging their identities, says that he trusts and that if he could tell you who they were it would only add credibility to their words. What they told him was that in the last four years Rick Perry has had a God-moment:
Beck: Here’s what I was told and I believe these people because they’re not just bandwagon fans by any stretch of the imagination. … And they said to me ‘Here’s the thing. This guy had a God-moment, if you will, an awakening of something inside of him.’ … I mean he’s always been a spiritual guy but he has had something that has changed in him fundamentally where he’s like ‘OK, wait a minute. Hang on just a second. Do I believe this or not? Do I apply this or not?’ And that’s what’s happened to him in the last four years that has put his feet in cement.
Beck said his words weren’t an endorsement of Perry, but were meant as push-back to concerns about Perry as a candidate.
Related Posts:
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Religious conservatives wanted someone who didn’t pivot on his principles. If you were to forget for a moment that Mitt Romney was a Mormon and just look at how attractive he was as a candidate to religious conservatives, you’d see that they wouldn’t have wanted to vote for him no matter what his religion was. He pivoted on abortion, believed in big government healthcare, and not only surrendered on same sex marriage but actually gave the left more than they were asking.
There is, on the other hand, lots of evidence that Democrats were not about to vote for a Mormon. But that doesn’t advance the narrative, does it?
There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM
Anti-Mormon evangelical bigots cost Romney the election. OK, how many scapegoats does that make? Let’s see: Latinos; Sarah Palin; Candy Crowley; Chris Christie; evangelical bigots (no doubt from the South, which Romney incredibly carried); anti-abortion zealots; Todd Akin; Christine O’Donnell; Sharron Angle; the primaries; Newt Gingrich…everyone except that weak, unelectable nominee himself.
ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 9:57 PM
Nor does the fact that about 60% of moderates voted for Obama.
ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM
Blah. Don’t bother. Asked her (?) hours ago for a cite or at least where that meme came from and I’m still waiting.
kim roy on March 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM
SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM
shove your concern up your wedge driving pie hole loser.
tom daschle concerned on March 22, 2013 at 5:08 AM
There are a great number of us who’d like to feel more comfortable voting for Republicans out there who have to flog ourselves to make it to the polls. Ya see, we’re as deeply troubled by a big religious government as we are by a big secular government.
The big religious government “might” be our kind of religion or it might be something else more extreme or not extreme enough. But, being a Big Government we either abide by its Big Government laws its way or spend time in the big house, have our property taken, and so forth. No thanks. It’s no worse if a Calvinist dominated government does this than if a Mohammedan dominated government does it or if a secular government does it.
I want a government small enough it doesn’t make a practical difference if it tries to make stupid religious based laws about not working on Tuesday because its the Great God Wumpus’ sacred day. It should be too small to make such laws and too tightly constrained to even consider trying.
I’ve nothing against lawmakers being “informed” by their religion. But, I do insist that if they make a law it be a law that has solid secular reasoning behind it. If some religion figures it’s not legal to bathe your feet on Thursdays for some silly reason they MUST be free to exhort their members to follow that stricture and free to expel those who disobey it. But they must not be allowed, for example, to stone violators to death.
This requires a non-negligible government. But it certainly does not need a government with sheaves of regulations large enough to fill the Statue of Liberty to overflowing. That rather violates the spirit of Liberty, doesn’t it?
{^_^}
herself on March 22, 2013 at 5:12 AM
herself on March 22, 2013 at 5:12 AM
I asm assuming you are talking about socons when you say “big religious government.” Here’s a hint, not all socons are religious. Many of us and I know several of us on Hotair are agnostic and atheist. We just see the world the way it is and not in theoretical terms.
I never wanted to be a socon. You think as an agnostic, I want to keep being compared to the church lady? I was forced to become a socon basically by Republicans like you who scream “let’s get out of social issues and let’s the states decide.” The problem is you people completely ignore the fact that we have an opposing party that ignores these rules. I was happy to live in my conservative state and vote on things like abortion and gay marrriage just in my state. It was not me who made that a federal issue. My position as a socon came as a direct response to the Democrats and the liberals using federal legislature and judicial fiat to make Massachusetts and California values federal values. You may be okay living by those state’s values because you agree with them, but I am don’t. If fighting to keep the littlest among us from keeping from having their spine snipped with scissors or thining children deserve to grow up with a mom and a dad makes me an extremist- so be it.
melle1228 on March 22, 2013 at 7:27 AM
In answering the opening question just think of the media and that includes all TV, radio, magazines, newspapers that are heavy progressive agenda screamers and the question answers its self. The only unedited TV we saw were the debates but immediately after these debates the crews of the left were falling all over themselves saying what was really said, the code words used, the lies that Mitt used and now the media asks a question as to what went wrong with the election? Gimme a break!
mixplix on March 22, 2013 at 8:04 AM
Probably because the Republican Party has morphed into Democratic Party Lite.
TulsAmerican on March 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM
It is because anti-liberty states have an undue influence on the primary elections. Hold the primaries in order from most to least conservative/red and we will have a great candidate. Stop rewarding the douchebags by allowing them precedence over the reddest states like Texas.
TXJenny on March 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Close the primaries and than see what happens.
Did you ever wonder why the GOP won’t close the primaries to only republicans voting?
oldyeller on March 23, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Because the RINO leadership in the RNC blocks them in every possible way, and works hard to disenfranchise conservative voters.
The RNC is the problem.
landlines on March 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM
.
Y . E . S . ! ! !
.
ABOLISH OPEN PRIMARIES !
listens2glenn on March 23, 2013 at 2:19 PM
Why? Bcause conservatives eat their own and RINOs don’t!
redware on March 23, 2013 at 7:04 PM
I’ve never heard anyone offer even a passable argument for why Iowa & New Hampshire must always be first in line in the primaries. I live in Texas, the biggest red state in the union no less, and by the time I vote in the primaries the nomination is essentially wrapped up already.
Again, does anything make sense about this?
Reggie1971 on March 24, 2013 at 3:12 PM
because the liberal wing of the republican party don’t want a conservative.
mmcnamer1 on March 25, 2013 at 7:00 AM
This was not correct, it was veteran’s groups who thought we could not possibly have a commander in cheif that had not served in the military service, that put the kabosh on the Romney campaign starting with the N.H. primary. The veterans groups were organized by the McCain campaign staff. At that time they thought the dem candidate would be Hilary; the fiscal meltdown had not happened.
Fleuries on March 25, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4