Moderate Republican group dropping “Republican” from name

posted at 9:31 pm on January 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

Part of a wider post-election splintering on the right, I think. There was a story last week about centrist establishment Republicans seeking to re-assert themselves in primaries to blunt the influence of tea partiers, followed shortly by a story about Bill Kristol maybe launching a new Republican version of the DLC to support “reformist” fiscal policies. Conservatives knocked down Boehner’s “Plan B” and then nearly succeeded at pushing him to a second ballot in the Speaker election; meanwhile, Chris Christie firmed up his blue-state Republican brand by grandstanding over the House GOP’s failure to vote on the Sandy relief bill. Just today, Glenn Beck announced that he’s re-launching The Blaze as a libertarian network that’ll act as an alternative to the “far right,” a point he illustrated with a screencap of former Fox News colleague Sean Hannity. Whole lotta maneuvering out there right now on our side.

Enter former GOP rep and noted Boehner ally Steve LaTourette, who’s going to show those “chuckleheads” in the tea party a thing or two by … embracing Democrats? Behold as the Republican Main Street Partnership becomes the Main Street Partnership:

The group’s new president, former Ohio Republican Rep. Steven LaTourette, told Yahoo News that he plans to begin conversations with Blue Dog Democrats and centrist groups in the coming months.

“The goal is to try and fill the void that is the middle,” LaTourette, who resigned from Congress this year, said. “The American political system is like a doughnut: You’ve got sides, but you don’t have anything in the middle, and it would be my goal to work with Republicans and Democrats who want to find the path forward to getting things done and compromise.”

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, LaTourette added: “While we have changed our name, we have not changed our values or our mission. We will continue to be a right of center organization and continue to represent the governing wing of the Republican Party.”

The Main Street Partnership will also expand its super PAC, Defending Main Street, to aid center-right members of both parties, LaTourette said, adding, “It’s not going to be focused so much on party as it is on protecting people from the right and left extremes if they choose to do the right things.”

Two questions. One: Why would a group that claims to represent the “governing wing of the Republican Party” want to protect centrist Democrats? Blue Dogs tend to come from reddish districts, which makes them the lowest-hanging fruit for the GOP. If you want to protect the Republicans’ ability to govern while making the House more moderate, stick to backing centrists in Republican and Democratic primaries. Two: Among the members of the Republican Main Street Partnership is new Republican Conference chair (and fellow Boehner ally) Cathy McMorris-Rogers. Ed Kilgore wonders how long she and other GOP congressmen will remain affiliated with the group once it ends up backing its first Democrat. Good question. It’s one thing to be linked to RINOs, it’s another to be linked to an org that’s bankrolling candidates who are running against the party. What Republican’s going to want to face primary voters bearing a “seal of approval” like that?

Exit question: Isn’t there already a squishy group out there that’s all about shedding labels?


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

Can anyone say “Whigs”?

plewis on January 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I thought the feature Beck did on Fox News using the White House “red” phone and Anita Dunn was a classic..:)

Dire Straits on January 9, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I hear that line a lot, that Beck’s a phony, but never with specifics. How is Beck a phony? List a few instances please. List just one “truth” that he has avoided?

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Abraham Lincoln, for one. If a caller tries to point out the tyranny of Lincoln, and Lincoln’s crimes, Beck and his staff hang up on him and call him names. I’ve heard them do it more than once.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

I hear that line a lot, that Beck’s a phony, but never with specifics. How is Beck a phony? List a few instances please. List just one “truth” that he has avoided?

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 12:11 PM

His fawning over Rick Santorum, for another.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

His support and promotion of Romney for another.

He supports the status quo, the establishment, and statists.

He’s a phony and a huckster making money off of fools.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:05 PM

And to say that Sean Hannity is not a fiscal Conservative, but instead is a guy who’s actually for big government? That is literally nuts, and anyone who believes it is outed as a clown.

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Hannity is no form of conservative at all, including fiscally, and he is for big government.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:06 PM

By the way, Hannity is a boring Republibot. I wonder why Levin (who is really one of the few left worth listening to) coddles the guy so much. Just allowances made for a personal friend, I guess.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Levin? A neocon blowhard who resorts to yelling and namecalling when he’s intellectually challenged on an issue.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Hannity is no form of conservative at all, including fiscally, and he is for big government.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Too bad I don’t take you or your unthoughtout, stupid, and worthless opinions seriously, eh?

You are a bigger mental case than Beck, rivaling Michael Savage, Dilettante!

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Levin? A neocon blowhard who resorts to yelling and namecalling when he’s intellectually challenged on an issue.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

“Neocon” is another lazy-ass epithet that’s lost all meaning, along the lines of “genocide” and “terrorist”. It’s shorthand for anyone who’s not Ron Paul (government pork-swiller). I’d bet Levin would have Ron Paul on anytime, if he has never appeared there before.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:19 PM

By the way, Hannity is a boring Republibot. I wonder why Levin (who is really one of the few left worth listening to) coddles the guy so much. Just allowances made for a personal friend, I guess.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Sean vociferously opposed the fiscal deal the GOP just went for – can you explain how a Republibot could do that?

I think Levin understands Sean far better than you believe you do.

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 5:24 PM

His fawning over Rick Santorum, for another.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

And neo-liberal Ron Paul fawned over Romney. Why, so did Rand, come to think of it.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Sean vociferously opposed the fiscal deal the GOP just went for – can you explain how a Republibot could do that?

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 5:24 PM

He’ll be kissing the asses of whatever GOP leadership figures appear on his show. As he always has done, as he always will do.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:25 PM

He’ll be kissing the asses of whatever GOP leadership figures appear on his show. As he always has done, as he always will do.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Please correct where this is wrong: you believe a hard-working, self-described Conservative can strongly oppose the recent fiscal deal but still fairly be called a Republibot.

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 5:32 PM

He’ll be kissing the asses of whatever GOP leadership figures appear on his show. As he always has done, as he always will do.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Please correct where this is wrong: you believe a hard-working, self-described Conservative can strongly oppose the recent fiscal deal but still fairly be called a Republibot.

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Oh, good grief. Hannity vociferously said that McCain shouldn’t pick Lieberman as his VP, but Hannity would still have been kissing McCain’s ass if he had done so. Hannity was vociferously against ObamaCare but still schmoozed with Mitt.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Oh, good grief. Hannity vociferously said that McCain shouldn’t pick Lieberman as his VP, but Hannity would still have been kissing McCain’s ass if he had done so. Hannity was vociferously against ObamaCare but still schmoozed with Mitt.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I’ll take that as a “Yes!” then – thank you!

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 5:43 PM

I’ll take that as a “Yes!” then – thank you!

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Yeah, it is. Hannity’s a party guy.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Late reply, my browser crashed. ;__;

I’m talking about what Sean didn’t say, as in, his failure to stand up against big government Republicanism. Remember the MMA bill which included Medicare Part D, signed into law in 2003? What about No Child Left Behind? “Campaign Finance Reform” was passed in 02′-03′.

There’s also the massive expansion of executive power that took place during the Bush 43 era. You’d think a bunch of “conservatives” would push for changes in Congress and possibly the Presidency (putting aside how difficult it is to challenge a sitting President) before the ’04 election, but they fully went along with the big government policies of the GOP simply because they weren’t the Democrats (lesser of two evils).

Sean has also said quite consistently that he supports the federal government using its power to mandate/regulate social policy, which is straight out of the Santorum playbook and less to do with small government conservatism.

Aizen on January 9, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Let me recap: I started out saying Sean is not an advocate for big government; you tried to morph the conservation by saying that by not speaking out loudly enough in the past, Sean showed he has “no problems” with big-government.

You don’t have trouble understanding why I think you are a bloviating, unkind, unserious, and self-righteous crank I shouldn’t take seriously, exactly like how I saw Ron Paul when he went on Sean’s show, do you?

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Yeah, it is. Hannity’s a party guy.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Yeah, “a Party guy” who bucked GOP Party leadership by not agreeing with Boehner and McConnell so that he could instead go along with the majority of GOP House members who didn’t support the fiscal cliff deal – let me tell you, that kind of “educated” opinion makes a lot of sense to me!

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Yeah, “a Party guy” who bucked GOP Party leadership by not agreeing with Boehner and McConnell so that he could instead go along with the majority of GOP House members who didn’t support the fiscal cliff deal – let me tell you, that kind of “educated” opinion makes a lot of sense to me!

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Oh yeah, that Hannity’s such a maverick. LOL

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Oh yeah, that Hannity’s such a maverick. LOL

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

You mean, kinda like how you’re a good-faith debater? LOL

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 6:52 PM

“Neocon” is another lazy-ass epithet that’s lost all meaning, along the lines of “genocide” and “terrorist”. It’s shorthand for anyone who’s not Ron Paul (government pork-swiller). I’d bet Levin would have Ron Paul on anytime, if he has never appeared there before.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Nothing lazy about it. It’s a very real ideology. Bill Kristol’s father, Irving, is considered the godfather of neoconservatism. Basically, a bunch of hawkish liberals soured on the programs of the Great Society and defected to the Republican Party.

link

An Introduction to Neoconservatism

So just because you are unaware of its origins or tenets does not mean it is an epithet (and it isn’t) that’s lost all meaning. It is a very real political ideology.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM

And neo-liberal Ron Paul fawned over Romney. Why, so did Rand, come to think of it.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Ron Paul is friends with Romney, but never endorsed his positions nor did he endorse him as Republican nominee. Beck’s fawning was in regards to Santorum’s positions, going as far as calling him the next George Washington.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I thought the feature Beck did on Fox News using the White House “red” phone and Anita Dunn was a classic..:)

Dire Straits on January 9, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I remember the red phone asking for the WH to correct him on something, but not the specifics. It think his point was that he’d already proved his point, and unless someone from the WH challenged it, he’d consider the point proved and move on. Yea, that was brilliantly done.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 9:02 PM

I also noticed that Beck ran with his tail between his legs, changing his tune. So I guess Soros won.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Thank you for demonstrating your agenda so clearly.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Nothing lazy about it. It’s a very real ideology. Bill Kristol’s father, Irving, is considered the godfather of neoconservatism. Basically, a bunch of hawkish liberals soured on the programs of the Great Society and defected to the Republican Party.

link

An Introduction to Neoconservatism

So just because you are unaware of its origins or tenets does not mean it is an epithet (and it isn’t) that’s lost all meaning. It is a very real political ideology.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Oh, I’m quote aware of it. As I said, it’s just lazy shorthand for (usually Jewish) conservatives who don’t share the good all-seeing Doctor’s isolationism. Actually, “neocon” more accurately describes largely Jewish liberals who “converted” to some elements of Reaganesque ideology in the 1980s. Not much more.

Ron Paul is friends with Romney, but never endorsed his positions…

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 8:29 PM

He sure as hell never attacked them either, not even when he and his loyal zealots were treated rudely at the time of the convention.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 9:17 PM

I also noticed that Beck ran with his tail between his legs, changing his tune. So I guess Soros won.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Thank you for demonstrating your agenda so clearly.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 9:03 PM

What agenda? Someone doesn’t believe Beck’s the greatest guardian of liberty we have today, they must have a sinister agenda.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 9:19 PM

* quite, not quote above

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Abraham Lincoln, for one. If a caller tries to point out the tyranny of Lincoln, and Lincoln’s crimes, Beck and his staff hang up on him and call him names. I’ve heard them do it more than once.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

I didn’t see that so I can’t just accept your interpretation of it.

His fawning over Rick Santorum, for another.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

I was a supporter of Santorum, even as an atheist. That was because Santorum was the only candidate that that I believe would would stand up to the occupy mobs when they demanded that nothing be cut from the budget. I never interpreted his support of Santorum as “fawning”. That makes me question of your interpretation of the Lincoln call.

His support and promotion of Romney for another.
He supports the status quo, the establishment, and statists.
He’s a phony and a huckster making money off of fools.
Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:05 PM

He slammed Romney until it was 100% clear that he would be nominated. He always qualified his support afterward, NEVER cheerleading him. He was the inspiration for my bumper sticker: “Mitt Romney? At least he’s not a Marxist!”

None of this supports saying Beck a phony or suppresses the truth.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 9:23 PM

He slammed Romney until it was 100% clear that he would be nominated.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 9:23 PM

B.s. He was too busy telling us how horrible Newt is. The guy has this delusion that he’s some sort of human litmus paper to differentiate between “good guys” and “eeeeevillle sonsab1tches”.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 9:51 PM

^ He never “slammed” Romney, by the way, because he knew damn well that Mitt was going to be the nominee. I listened to Beck during the campaign. He was tougher on Rick Perry during Perry’s own primary fight than he ever was on Romney.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I didn’t see that so I can’t just accept your interpretation of it.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 9:23 PM

I didn’t give an interpretation. A caller (more than one, really) said that the decline of the Republic and the assault on the Constitution began under Lincoln. They ended the call in mid-sentence, and proceeded to mock him and mock Ron Paul.

He slammed Romney until it was 100% clear that he would be nominated. He always qualified his support afterward, NEVER cheerleading him. He was the inspiration for my bumper sticker: “Mitt Romney? At least he’s not a Marxist!”

None of this supports saying Beck a phony or suppresses the truth.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 9:23 PM

So he slammed Romney, but then supported him. Way to sick to those “principles”. Everything about Romney is (supposedly) everything that Beck rails against.

Phony.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 10:06 PM

So he slammed Romney, but then supported him. Way to sick to those “principles”. Everything about Romney is (supposedly) everything that Beck rails against.

Phony.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 10:06 PM

I slammed Romney and then punched the dot for him too. Does that make me unprincipled? It “might” make me weak, cracking when the price hits. But more likely it’s just that I was head strong in the beginning. I flamed Romney because he was the establishments’ choice who calculated his policy positions. But after picking Paul Ryan for VP, and after thinking on it a few days. I warmed up. And after seeing both the goodness in him as well as the wobbly corporate side, I figured that he just “might” stand up to the occupy mobs when he proposed real spending cuts. I changed my mind, deciding to vote for something good and weak over something evil and strong.

Lincoln certainly violated the Constitution in order to save it so to speak, but I’d have to hear the context of the calls that day to agree that his dismissal of them makes him a phony.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 10:30 PM

I slammed Romney and then punched the dot for him too. Does that make me unprincipled?

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Could you provide a link to recorded occasions when Beck was ever remotely harshly critical of Romney?

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 10:32 PM

^ Or even The Blaze in general, for that matter. That site in its comments sections especially seemed to have been taken over by the ‘Bot Goon Squads.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 10:34 PM

None of this supports saying Beck a phony or suppresses the truth.

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 9:23 PM

If you believe Beck operates overwhelmingly out of principle, you either have not been paying close attention to him, you’re a personality cultist, or both.

^ He never “slammed” Romney, by the way, because he knew damn well that Mitt was going to be the nominee. I listened to Beck during the campaign. He was tougher on Rick Perry during Perry’s own primary fight than he ever was on Romney.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I guess you just haven’t gotten the message yet that Glenn does not have a very personal agenda.

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 10:43 PM

I guess you just haven’t gotten the message yet that Glenn does not have a very personal agenda.

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Oh, he most certainly did against Newt Gingrich. Now Newt was an eeeevilllle progressive, but Romney and even the son of Glenn’s ol’ buddy Jon Huntsman, Sr were untouched.

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 10:48 PM

I slammed Romney and then punched the dot for him too. Does that make me unprincipled?

elfman on January 9, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Yes, and it makes you the problem.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Could you provide a link to recorded occasions when Beck was ever remotely harshly critical of Romney?

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Glenn on throwing support behind Romney: ‘At least he’s not a Commy’
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/11/glenn-on-throwing-support-behind-romney-%E2%80%98at-least-he%E2%80%99s-not-a-commy%E2%80%99/

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Could you provide a link to recorded occasions when Beck was ever remotely harshly critical of Romney?

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Glenn on throwing support behind Romney: ‘At least he’s not a Commy’
/

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM

LOL…that’s “harshly critical”? Now take Gingrich, Romney and Huntsman. Which of the three do you think is the most “progressive”? Why did Beck choose to zero in on Gingrich?

ddrintn on January 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Could you provide a link to recorded occasions when Beck was ever remotely harshly critical of Romney?

ddrintn on January 9, 2013 at 10:32 PM

“Here is a portion of a transcript of a recent Glenn Beck NRA speech. (Good speech, by the way)

“”The solutions that we need are right in front of us. We need to find a leader. And I got news for you, I mean Wayne [LaPierre] should have reconsidered asking me to speak when I first said, “you know I think we should all look at Michelle Bachman”, and like 15 minutes later she drops out of the race. And then I’m like, “you know Rick Santorum is a really good guy”…and then last week he drops out of the race.

“So, we have Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney’s our guy. Now let me tell you something. I haven’t been a Mitt Romney fan. I’ve done a lot of research. I’ve looked into his past, I’ve looked into all his policies, I’ve looked into everything I could possibly find on Mitt Romney to see if there was SOMETHING I could really get my arms around and say YES, the American people need to know this, and here it is…

“Mitt Romney is my guy, because Mitt Romney…. is not ….a communist!

“I know that’s a pretty low bar, but I’m willing to take that low bar. Look, what do you say we make sure no Marxists, or communists, or revolutionaries are in the White House next year? ….are you in, or are you out?”

–Glenn Beck, 2012 NRA Annual Meeting, 4/14/2012
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2873063/posts

Beck Literally Runs & Screams After Hearing Romney Is Considering Pawlenty as VP: ‘You Will Lose!’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-literally-runs-screams-after-hearing-news-romney-is-considering-pawlenty-as-vp-you-will-lose/

Your impression is wrong and I’m sorry if I’ve done anything to lead that. I’ve said on the air that, for me if I had to vote, it would be a tough choice between Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. However, I just said last week, gun to my head, I’ll vote for Mitt Romney. If it’s Newt Gingrich and a third party and it’s Ron Paul – and I don’t agree with his Middle East policy at all – I might consider a third party. So there’s where I stand.”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-id-vote-for-a-ron-paul-third-party-candidacy-over-newt-gingrich/

According to Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney is a Socialist.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/according-to-glenn-beck-mitt-romney-is-a-socialist/question-2700943/

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Abraham Lincoln, for one. If a caller tries to point out the tyranny of Lincoln, and Lincoln’s crimes, Beck and his staff hang up on him and call him names. I’ve heard them do it more than once.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

If Glenn Blech insults and hangs up on your fellow wannabe plantation owner history revisionists, then by golly that’s ONE thing the man does right.

MelonCollie on January 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM

This post on FR is representative of Glenn views on Romney:

“Here is a portion of a transcript of a recent Glenn Beck NRA speech. (Good speech, by the way)

“”The solutions that we need are right in front of us. We need to find a leader. And I got news for you, I mean Wayne [LaPierre] should have reconsidered asking me to speak when I first said, “you know I think we should all look at Michelle Bachman”, and like 15 minutes later she drops out of the race. And then I’m like, “you know Rick Santorum is a really good guy”…and then last week he drops out of the race.

“So, we have Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney’s our guy. Now let me tell you something. I haven’t been a Mitt Romney fan. I’ve done a lot of research. I’ve looked into his past, I’ve looked into all his policies, I’ve looked into everything I could possibly find on Mitt Romney to see if there was SOMETHING I could really get my arms around and say YES, the American people need to know this, and here it is…

“Mitt Romney is my guy, because Mitt Romney…. is not ….a communist!

“I know that’s a pretty low bar, but I’m willing to take that low bar. Look, what do you say we make sure no Marxists, or communists, or revolutionaries are in the White House next year? ….are you in, or are you out?”

–Glenn Beck, 2012 NRA Annual Meeting, 4/14/2012
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2873063/posts

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:28 AM

This post on FR is representative of Glenn views on Romney:

“Here is a portion of a transcript of a recent Glenn Beck NRA speech. (Good speech, by the way)

“”The solutions that we need are right in front of us. We need to find a leader. And I got news for you, I mean Wayne [LaPierre] should have reconsidered asking me to speak when I first said, “you know I think we should all look at Michelle Bachman”, and like 15 minutes later she drops out of the race. And then I’m like, “you know Rick Santorum is a really good guy”…and then last week he drops out of the race.

“So, we have Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney’s our guy. Now let me tell you something. I haven’t been a Mitt Romney fan. I’ve done a lot of research. I’ve looked into his past, I’ve looked into all his policies, I’ve looked into everything I could possibly find on Mitt Romney to see if there was SOMETHING I could really get my arms around and say YES, the American people need to know this, and here it is…

“Mitt Romney is my guy, because Mitt Romney…. is not ….a communist!

“I know that’s a pretty low bar, but I’m willing to take that low bar. Look, what do you say we make sure no Marxists, or communists, or revolutionaries are in the White House next year? ….are you in, or are you out?”

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:28 AM

So tell me, why did principled Glenn Beck lambast Gingrich CONSTANTLY, but didn’t go after the more-progressive Romney?

ddrintn on January 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM

LOL…that’s “harshly critical”? Now take Gingrich, Romney and Huntsman. Which of the three do you think is the most “progressive”? Why did Beck choose to zero in on Gingrich?

ddrintn on January 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Is that where much of your anger toward Beck comes from?

I don’t read minds, buy my reason for not supporting Newt was principle and integrity. Newt’s bright, but has neither. He’s a skilled shape shifter, but if you understand philosophy, his transitions are unmistakably visible.

I’m old enough to remember Newt in Congress, old enough to remember how he was so quiet during the Lewinsky affair, and then months into it he gave a press conference and said that he would speak to it every day forward. A few weeks later his own affair was exposed. What kind of opportunistic unprincipled fool would do that?

I wrote further against Newt on HR, one of them is here.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/11/11/cmon-people-gingrich-is-horrible/comment-page-1/#comments

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Is that where much of your anger toward Beck comes from?

I don’t read minds, buy my reason for not supporting Newt was principle and integrity.

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM

But that didn’t keep you (and Beck) from supporting Romney. Hence, “phony”.

ddrintn on January 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I’m old enough to remember Newt in Congress, old enough to remember how he was so quiet during the Lewinsky affair, and then months into it he gave a press conference and said that he would speak to it every day forward.

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM

I’m sure you’re also old enough to remember Romney signing RomneyCare into law. Gingrich never did anything that egregious.

ddrintn on January 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

But that didn’t keep you (and Beck) from supporting Romney. Hence, “phony”.

ddrintn on January 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I’ve written on Romney’s problems prior to the election
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/02/21/i-sure-hope-you-guys-nominate-santorum/comment-page-3/#comment-1813541

and post election
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/12/23/romneys-campaign-team-wonders-where-it-all-went-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2227337

I threatened to vote 3rd party all summer. But after his Ryan pick and after driving around for a month with a “Mitt Romney? At least he’s not a marxist” bumper sticker on my truck, I decided to vote for him 3 or 4 days before the election. Glenn Beck’s story is similar.

If that’s your threshold for calling me a phony, I can’t take you seriously. You’ve let your anger dominate you.

I don’t want to continue this conversation. Take care.

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I mean Wayne [LaPierre] should have reconsidered asking me to speak when I first said, “you know I think we should all look at Michelle Bachman”,

Forgot about his support for Bachman. Further evidence of his phonieness.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I don’t read minds, buy my reason for not supporting Newt was principle and integrity.

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Then you punched the button for Romney.

LMFAO

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I don’t listen to Beck anymore but if he has a sub I tune in. Glenn has a terrible habit of repeating himself, once in awhile okay but on and on he goes and if I want a sermon on God I’ll go to church but when Glenn gets going on God he’s just too much with God and repeating himself. Sounds like the ads that go 3 & 4 times with the names and phone numbers. Glenn has changed over the years.

mixplix on January 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM

I just thought of a great new name for those “centrists” group:
“Commie Lite”.

woodNfish on January 10, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I threatened to vote 3rd party all summer. But after his Ryan pick….

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Oh you mean that conservative stalwart who folded like a cheap card table a number of days ago? LOL

You threatened to vote 3rd party until the ‘Bot Squads whipped you into shape. I voted for Romney in one last rube-ish lesser-of-two-evils garbage throwaway vote. Never again. And I do mean never again. Voting for some sure-loser pathetic GOPe mannequin is no less a wasted vote than voting for the Libertarians or the Constitution party.

ddrintn on January 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I don’t listen to Beck anymore but if he has a sub I tune in. Glenn has a terrible habit of repeating himself, once in awhile okay but on and on he goes and if I want a sermon on God I’ll go to church but when Glenn gets going on God he’s just too much with God and repeating himself. Sounds like the ads that go 3 & 4 times with the names and phone numbers. Glenn has changed over the years.

mixplix on January 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM

I agree with this. I want to like Glenn – I believe his heart is in the right place, but the issues about him you brought up here are indicative of why I don’t like him.

The first time I heard him, in the early 2000s, I could tell there was something off about him, and since then, what I sensed has only become more apparent. He comes across to me as though he believes he is some sort of divinely-ordained prophet – I find that he takes his own opinions and beliefs too seriously, to the point that it’s literally clinical.

Anti-Control on January 10, 2013 at 5:15 PM

He comes across to me as though he believes he is some sort of divinely-ordained prophet – I find that he takes his own opinions and beliefs too seriously, to the point that it’s literally clinical.

Anti-Control on January 10, 2013 at 5:15 PM

I think it’s without question that Beck believes that he’s devinely directed to bring his work to the world. He hints at it all the time. If what his team says wasn’t so informative and dead on in what free Americans need to understand and do in order to prevail though this progressive assault, as an atheist, I wouldn’t put up with it.

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I think it’s without question that Beck believes that he’s devinely directed to bring his work to the world. He hints at it all the time. If what his team says wasn’t so informative and dead on in what free Americans need to understand and do in order to prevail though this progressive assault, as an atheist, I wouldn’t put up with it.

elfman on January 10, 2013 at 7:45 PM

That is about as good of a non-dishonest defense of Glenn as I think he can get.

I personally can’t stand it when people try to pretend those they like have no warts.

Anti-Control on January 10, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3