Simple, Beck Is Not A Conservative

September 21, 2009

Only a media that doesn't know what one is, or is more interested in defining them to be what they want them to be, as opposed to what they really are, would mistake Glenn Beck for a conservative. He isn't and never has been that, so far as I'm aware.

I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now—and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn’t the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism. At a time when we should aim for intellectual depth, for tough-minded and reasoned arguments, for good cheer and calm purpose, rather than erratic behavior, he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on.

What he has always reminded me of most is Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes played by Andy Griffith in A Face In The Crowd. And, unfortunately, no, that one didn't end very well for many of the people involved.

Get your mind around one thing right now, a Perot or Paul-like fracture in the Republican Party in 2010, or 2012 is a guarantee  that Euro-socialism will prevail in America. And it will be too late to do anything about it by the time some next election rolls around.

Turning back the clock will prove politically impossible after that. You may as well pack up your kids to be raised in France, or the UK, as there will be no marked difference from what it is we become over here.

Them's the facts, folks. Ignore them at your peril and American conservatism's complete demise.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. “…he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on.”
    Oh, of course not. He’s only a man who has been exposing the radical in the White House and all his radical advisors and Czars, doing the job the mass media refuses to do. Yet, lets not embrace or cheer that on. Right.
    I didn’t know that it was against the idea of conservatism to embrace and cheer on people who get the facts out to the general public about people who are working to tear down the country from within. If embracing and cheering people on who are doing that is now ‘anti-conservative’, well, I guess I am no longer a conservative.
    The fact is that Glenn Beck is not a leader of the conservative movement. He is simply a man who is correctly leading the way in exposing Obama as the radical that he is, something the mass media should have been doing the last 2 years, but failed to do. Now, Andrew Breitbart and Co. are joining Beck and exposing Obama and Co as radical as well.
    This has nothing to do with “conservatism” as much as it has to do with being against a radical in the White House and his radicals in his Administration and exposing them before they can succeed in destroying this nation.
    Personally, I don’t give a darn what a person’s political persuasion happens to be, if they are calling out Obama on his lies, calling out the Administration on their corruption and radical nature, I am going to stand and cheer and and embrace them 100%.
    My guess is this Wehner person is just upset that Beck and Co are having such massive success at exposing Obama and his radical Administration.

  2. ReaganTMan says:

    The key to turning back socialism and today’s liberal agenda is in Republican victories in 2009, 2010 & 2012. I tell people who say they left the party or that they would rather remain “independent” that the key to winning elections in our 2 party system requires a strong enough coalition, and that’s why the party’s sort out around convention time.
    The key is not for people to be turned off by the Republican party or fracture into a libertarian or independent 3rd party. The key is, like I have been saying since election day, to learn from the tactics of the left and beat them at their own game.
    Radicals have always had it as their only goal to infiltrate the Democrat party. They realized that “Green” parties don’t work. They knew it was their only hope of gaining power. Remaining splinter groups or just showing up at anti-war rallies was not going to do the trick for them. Now for us it’s time to take a page out of their playbook.
    Those dissilusioned with the Obama Administration must not be put off or be afraid to embrace the Republican party. Rather, they should be enthusiastic about infiltrating it.
    The TEA Party protests are a movement of like minded people who can form a very powerful coalition between conservatives, liberatarians and evangelicals. This coalition should be preserved and expanded, eventually becoming the essence of the Republican party.
    The values will make the party and not the other way around. Fixing the party and making it reflective of the people is a much better solution than abandoning it or rejecting it. If you have no vehicle, you’ll never get to your desination.

  3. Ran says:

    Conservatism is a huge branch of political philosophy, yes? How does Beck’s views and philosophy differ in any meaningful way from Goldwater’s or Reagan’s?
    Then there’s utter crap such as this: “His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.)” Beck has repeatedly gone out of his way at considerable length to actively DEBUNK conspiracy theories as a way to salvage the credibility of those on the Right and Left unfairly smeared as complicit with the nutbags. Hell, it’s precisely the ignorance of such charges made by Wehner that fuels speculation of “interest” in conspiracy.
    Cripes… Even a Reagan could “admire” a Ron Paul for being correct on a great number of important issues while being wrong on others. I admire Lieberman, but call me nuts if I agree with him on any domestic policy.
    More, the issue of pulling troops back is also a conservative view, as Conservatives are divided on the issue, each with clear rationale… especially given the present lack of clear, pro-American foreign policy.
    Look, it’s obvious Wehner hasn’t spent much time listening to Beck. His reportage on this topic is, to be kind… somewhat lacking information.

  4. Mr. Sauce says:

    We’re big tenting Beck for now, and we’re in this for more than a Romney sign in our front yards.

  5. Andrew says:

    I would agree, neither Beck nor O’Reilly are conservatives. I would consider them Populists, as the author in your link does. I would also agree with your sentiments that a Populist mouth piece cannot become the voice of the Conservative movement. They can be useful as they point out the flaws of the libs, but they will bite you come polling time. Clinton would have lost the election had Perot stayed on the sidelines.

  6. Brian says:

    Maybe we don’t need Conservatism these days. Maybe we need Libertarianism. Glenn Beck is right with regard to domestic policy, and he’s right that Obama is outside the American mainstream, and has populated the federal government with like-minded freaks. That’s quite a bit. (Beck seems to be wrong on foreign policy. Can’t have everything.)

  7. Javert says:

    More like Joe Pine than Lonesome, imho.

  8. wws says:

    There’s no chance of any 3rd party movement in 2010, and here’s why: the groundwork of finding candidates, getting them financed and getting them on ballots would have to be starting now. Organizations aren’t built overnight, which is why nowadays behind the scenes groundwork for the next election begins the day after the last election is over.
    2012 is still too far off for anyone to have any idea what’s going to happen (unless you believe the Mayans forsaw all this millenia ago, of course) That is going to depend on a) what happens in the 2010 elections, and b) leadership. Whose leadership? That’s the big question.
    The rising movement that may be called the Tea Party movement is ill-defined and amorphous, and epitomized by the lack of any organized leadership whatsoever. That’s why Glenn Beck can have such an influence – he has a national megaphone and no one else I can think is even competing for the job as spokesman. This movement is backed by powerful passions but is unpredictable and unfocused, at this point.
    What happens next is going to depend on who is able to take advantage of this situation, grab hold of this movement and make it their own. Remember, Perot was only able to create a third party because he was a bored billionaire with a massive ego to match the size of his fortune. Without that one man’s craving of the national spotlight, there would never have been any 3rd party in the 90’s. Recall that as soon as Perot and his money lost interest, the “Reform Party” vanished as quickly as it had sprung up. Okay, Pat Buchanon and his sister get an assist for driving the final nails into it’s coffin.
    Who will take advantage of the opportunity a powerful but leaderless movement represents? Will one of the Republicans take note of it and be opportunistic enough (and clever enough) to take charge of it? That’s the kind of move that great political careers are built on. Or will it be some independant free agent with a big bankroll, ala Perot, who will bring about the split that you fear? But who is in a position to make that kind of move today?
    Who will be the leader that the movement is waiting for?

  9. beetroot says:

    Dan’s quite likely correct: Beck’s no “conservative.” But then again, the conservative movement long ago stopped being conservative. Launch unnecessary wars with no exit plan? Spend money with no concern for deficits? Piss on the Constitution by packing the Justice Department with partisan operatives? The conservative movement went radical a long time ago, with predictable results: failure in government and rejection at the ballot box. You can try to thrust Beck out of the tent, but the fact is he’s the ringmaster in the circus of pseudo-ideological foolishness that passes for modern conservativism.

  10. Ran says:

    “I would agree, neither Beck nor O’Reilly are conservatives. I would consider them Populists,”
    Oh. “Populist.” The derisive, silly term used by the “conservative” Jonah Goldberg.
    What in H^ll is going on here? Beck, O’Reilly, Goldberg, Riehl… Conservatism is clearly big enough to encompass all of them even where any two might differ on just about every domestic, foreign and fiscal policy.
    Dan made a solid point, though, to be emphasized: We hang together as Conservatives or we will hang separately later. It is time for every Conservative and Libertarian to take the Republican Party from the eunuchs presently in charge. We can argue and disagree later… but if we split the vote, we are over. Permanently over.

  11. neomom says:

    News Flash! The Republican Party is just Democrat Party lite. I mean look at it. John McCain? Who is a big government kind of guy. Loves amnesty. Agrees with global warming and Cap & Trade.
    I would much rather have Glenn Beck leading the resurgence of the conservatives than the alleged conservative intellectual elites like Peggy Noonan or George Will. You know those that were standing up right next to the liberal elites trying to destroy Sarah Palin because she was just a simpleton commoner – she didn’t have the appropriate coastal Blue Blood pedigree. Peter Wehner strikes me as a Noonan/Will wanna-be. Populism? Maybe. It could also be that enough of us are sick and tired of our elected representatives patting us on the head, lying to our faces, and then patronizingly sending us on our way because THEY know better. Because they went to an IVY LEAGUE LAW SCHOOL. Seriously, do you think that any of those idiots or the RNC could have sparked the TEA Parties or the March on DC better than Beck’s 9/12 project? News flash – those of us that go to our lowly State colleges have brains, are the ones truly making this country work right now, and believe that a bit of respect is due us. Thank you very much.
    Btw – Beck isn’t pushing for a third party. But he is pushing for a few good Democrats and Republicans to stand up and root out the corruption in both parties that is killing this country. Regarding Afghanistan – I believe his statement was “If you aren’t going to let them fight to win, pull them out, bring them home”.. As in, stop tying their hands and simply be cannon fodder. I agree with that statement.
    So to Peter Wehner – as a proud member of the American Mob –
    Bite Me.

  12. jjmurphy says:

    I like Glenn Beck and see him as a breath of fresh air in a very stale room.
    Considering the behavior of the Republicans over the past 20+ years, is it any wonder a huge chunk of former Republicans are sick of the current Republican Party? Time after time they scream that we MUST vote for the Republican Candidate. Then, when we do, that same Republican Party spits in our faces and stabs us in the back. And they constantly trash any libertarian or conservative that gains national attention, such as Beck or Palin.
    Gets kind of old. The Republican Party needs to earn its’ way back into power. So far I see no likelihood of that.
    Yes, I do vote for the Republican every time in the triumph of hope over experience, but I fully understand why a lot of people won’t.

  13. Bruce, NV says:

    I agree with Ran. Far be it for me to say who is or isn’t conservative. Beck isn’t my cup of tea, but I won’t try to silence him. I’m tired of people like Wehner, these ivory tower faux-conservatives telling people in the heartland who is or isn’t conservative. As long as Pete gets invited to the right parties, nothing matters.
    As far as voting Republican, not if they continue to stumble around blindly, trying to be Democrats-lite. Show some principle and some backbone as a conservative, and I will vote for you. Otherwise, sorry Charlie.

  14. Lala says:

    I haven’t time to read all of the above, I just glanced at them. I came across this discussion today and haven’t read much of it either, just a little, but it seems interesting.
    David Horowitz is arguing with David Frum about Beck –

  15. JadedByPolitics says:

    You know those lilly white lazy elite Republicans who like to call themselves Conservatives can just get off the bus and hit the Democrat party. Beck is going to be with the multi-millions of us who are REAL Conservatives. We are taking the party back from the ground up with the Committeeman/woman project and in 3 election cycles there will NEVER be another McCain that rises to the top. There is no third party there is the two and we in the Conservative movement will be WRENCHING the Republican party RIGHT! Beck has done more for those lazy Republicans then anyone else. He has shown the disgusting nature of the leftist in the WH and those socialist’s in the Congress and because he has Republicans will win. Those who don’t like it can leave the party you are no longer welcome!

  16. rrpjr says:

    Too much hyperventilating about Beck. You can’t do anything about him anyway. His appeal is his appeal, and as I see it it is based mostly on saying things — truths — “conservatives” consider themselves too dainty to say but which the crowd understands to be true and is tired of having swept under the rug. Beck’s popularity is a direct result of conservative establishment laziness and cowardliness.
    And “A Face in the Crowd” was a liberal nightmarish conceit of populism. It was a movie.

  17. USMC says:

    I am amazed at this article and some of the commentary. Do you people even grasp what the hell is going on? We are in uncharted waters. As far as third party it amazes me what little some of you know about third parties. They’re already established and on most ballots around the USA.
    With today’s technology people could elevate an established third party “overnight”. What the hell is the GOP offering? Romney? Huckabee? Are you kidding me? The verdict imho is still out on Palin. I do see a good crop of GOPers running next year.
    I would love the GOP to return to its roots but right now it’s run and infested by lightweights and wimps. Any organization that was founded by ABOLITIONISTS to be labeled as “racists” for decades is a joke of a party.
    How does a party that stopped slavery, fought segregation and pushed for civil rights get this label? WIMPS!
    I’m not a Republican yet I’m prouder of its history than most registered Republicans.
    Sad and pathetic.
    Gerald Celente has predicted the rise of a third party. He’s been eerily right about everything else. The only third party worth considering is the Constitution Party. Don’t agree with everything they say but they’re not ankle grabbing progressives and they’re not gutless Republicans.
    Right now all I want for Christmas is the Progressive movement to collapse and be wiped off so my kids can live in a free country under God. My 2 cents.

  18. USMC says:

    Also, Beck has devastated the progressives in a very short time. I’ve learned more from his show and Breitbart than any other. If Levin spent less time bitching about Beck he could cause more devastation.
    “You may as well pack up your kids to be raised in France, or the UK, as there will be no marked difference from what it is we become over hear.” No way. There’s always another option when the people don’t like what they’re government becomes.
    Do I have to spell it out or do you all get my drift. Here’s a hint it involves using “muskets”.

  19. neomom says:

    Right now all I want for Christmas is the Progressive movement to collapse and be wiped off so my kids can live in a free country under God. My 2 cents.

  20. Paul A'Barge says:

    Peter Wehner is a big-ass wussy, and for that matter I try to avoid Commentary as often as possible.
    Let’s try it this way: who cares if Glenn Beck is a freakin’ martian straight out of “The Men in Black”? Judge him by his reportage. Judge him by his results. You see that ACORN pelt hanging on his belt? He deserves it.
    Beck is the only one making the logical connection argument tying William Ayers to B. Hussein “You Lie!” Obama and Obama’s White House staff. Watch Beck and follow the Leftist/Communist/Radical tree-of-life for these mutts. Who else out there is doing this?
    Beck doesn’t imply that the liberal-leftist-neo-communists in Barak Obama’s policy positions sit around a back room behind a closed door in a Greenwich Village coffee house planning the covert take-over of the US Government? They don’t have to. These (enemy) people own academia and the media and now the political sphere. They lunch with and read and tut-tut with the likes of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and then deny that any conspiracy exists.
    Fine. It’s not a conspiracy in the conventional sense. What it is is a philosophical fraternity of nefarious ideas.
    Who is out there who Wehner considers a “real conservative” who is speaking about this?
    Screw Wehner.

  21. Huey says:

    Again with this…
    When, when, when will “conservatives” get it through their skulls that “conservative” isn’t a POINT on a continuum but a SPREAD?
    Oh…and is there some confusion about his “conspiracy theories?” Really?
    Obama HASN’T been surrounding himself with radicals from SEIU, ACORN, and the Apollo Group? His agenda ISN’T in line with theirs? The connections between SEIU, ACORN and the Apollo group don’t EXIST? Jebus… just because JFK wasn’t killed by a “magic bullet” doesn’t meant that there are NO CONSPIRACIES.

  22. neomom says:

    Locked and Loaded :-)

  23. Ken says:

    I agree that Beck isn’t conservative, and that he’s often wrong on issues. However, he also is a very effective journalist who is revealing a lot of dirt on the Obama administration that wouldn’t get out otherwise. Even if Beck were a hardcore Trotskyite who was revealing the same things about Obama because he didn’t consider Obama leftist enough, I would still be thankful for what he’s done.
    Ultimately, it isn’t a conservative issue, but a First Amendment issue.

  24. Drider says:

    Beck has always been what most Americans are….right of center.He claims to be an independent, I believe but regardless, it is great to have him aboard the tea party movements just as it is great to have the millions of other people from every political corner with the exception of the Obamunists.
    Beck says it like it is and that is ask the questions, stand up for liberty and don’t be afraid during this time in American history where many are afraid.
    I’ll stand with my brothers and sisters to the “left and right” of me while speaking out against these insane policies that this current crop of leaders is trying to jam down our throats and be happy that they put forth the time and effort to join in the cause.
    At this point in time it’s about being Americans, we should be proud that there are scads of people from every stripe, color, religion and political viewpoints that can stand as one united front against the “changers”, it’s really an awesome event that rarely takes place in any country.

  25. Dan Riehl says:

    Geez, Beck Heads, I never called for Beck to be silenced. Nor did I say I thought the Republican Party was conservative.
    Beck has done the old switcheroo before – from backing Bush to attacking him. There’s a pattern with him of riding pupular waves to increase his audience. There’s nothing wrong with an entertainer, which Beck is, doing that.
    He’s never struck me as having any underlying political philosophy than what he thinks, or says at a given time. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t mistake it with a pathway forward for America. And it doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate any damage he does to Obama in the process.

  26. Drider says:

    Dan, for the record, I’m not a Beck fan or a Beck hater. I rarely listen to his radio show and only watch the videos on some of his fox clips.
    Beck has the ability to wear on me but thats not the point, the point is that Beck has been on point in beating back and beating down some of these lunatics in the current administration.I’m not going to go out of my way to slight Beck or anyone who is actively putting forth the effort to stop these leaders from destroying the country and that goes for everyone participating in these demonstrations…….the more the merrier!!

  27. Rollory says:

    It is equally certain that continued support for the Republicans is a guarantee of Euro-style socialism here within 10-12 years. Republicans never advance, only retreat. Sometimes they retreat less than other times, and announce that as a victory and a grand revolution; but the ground lost is never, ever regained. Liberal advances don’t get rolled back. Liberal bureaucracies and government programs never get shut down. The Republicans are enablers for the socialists, and everyone who supports them is lying to themselves about where it’ll end.
    Trust – and vote for – the Republicans at your peril. Them’s the facts, folks..

  28. Rollory says:

    “Beck has done the old switcheroo before – from backing Bush to attacking him.”
    Are you, perhaps, trying to suggest that Bush did not deserve to be attacked? That Bush was, in any sense, a conservative?
    Bush did ONE thing right, and that was that when he got shot at, he shot back. Beyond that point – even starting with how he shot and who he shot at – just about everything he did was suboptimal and not guided by any sort of conservative principle.

  29. jjmurphy says:

    Beck Head? Nope. I’ve never heard him on the radio and don’t watch much television. I’ve seen his show maybe a dozen times. Mostly I read about him on the internet. I just like what he is doing to the statists. Like I said before, what I have seen of him is a breath of fresh air and a very welcome change from the usual Republican stupidity. We need all the tools in the shed if we are going to beat the statists.

  30. Vic says:

    Thank you, Jackass!
    This will be the last post of yours I ever read.
    Feel free to flame me, I will not come back to read any of them.
    Good bye!

  31. neomom says:

    Dan –
    I backed Bush for a while too. And then the last two years of his administration happened. Bush’s domestic agenda evaporated and he openly turned to big government. Amnesty, Bailouts…. What was that inane comment about tearing down the free market to save it?
    There were an awful lot of us that did the “switcheroo” and turned against President Bush when he did that crap.
    What does that make us?

  32. Huey says:

    I admit to not being a follower of Beck. I have found him to be, generally, a bit too much for me to take. (I stopped listening to Rush and only sparingly listen to Hannity for the same reason. I can listen/watch them only once in a while….but, it’s much like a soap opera, miss 4 days of 5 and you’ll get the gist….)
    But…I’ve listened to him long enough to know that he DID attack Bush on several issues. He’s been consistent as to HIS beliefs as far as I can tell.
    Certainly, as something akin to a “conservative” (whatever the heck that means) he backed Bush on a ton of issues, as Bush was something akin to a “conservative” as well, and the main thrust of his two terms was DEFENSE OF THE COUNTRY. So, in that area, there were a lot of areas in which the two of them agreed.
    I don’t know about all this notion that Beck is calling for us to get out of our overseas entanglements. He said either fight to WIN — or get out. I agree with THAT, don’t you? As to our other entanglements (Germany, etc.) I’d have to read the entire context to see whether I’d agree. (Or, if like many things Rush says, it was for effect, or irony, or humor, or whatever the heck he wanted it to be for OTHER than truth…)

  33. Drider says:

    Rollary, Dan mentioned a pathway forward for America.
    Attempting to form a 3rd party is suicide for this country.Republicans sure have a list of garbage that has endlessly irritated me to know end, so much that I registered as an Independent. dropping the R for an I.
    If you hate the path that this country is on then we need to vote Republicans in, in both 2010 and 2012 or we will be giving these Obamunists a clear path to absolute Hell.
    Some years down the line, once we reverse this course then people may want to seriously give thought to a 3rd party but there is just waaayyyy to much on the line to even think about going through another Perot disaster.

  34. HatlessHessian says:

    Conservatism really worked well for us, didn’t it? Is the left right… the definition of a true conservative is “one who is incapable of change.” Seriously, the fact that nearly all the Republicans in office (which isn’t a large number by any means) are epic failures, embracing “values” that a government has no business pushing in order to conceal their true order of business: fleecing the middle class through excessive debt obligation-funded spending in order to give the capital to their fat-cat friends and associates.
    Granted, both parties are about elite special interest, although we’re seeing a lower-class Marxist movement simmering underneath Barack’s administration (they believe they’ve co-opted for their fascist intentions, but is certainly a threat that needs monitoring). But should any here delude themselves with the myth that a program that pushes “conservative values” while continuing the Republican pork-laden fiscal fiasco should prepared for a perpetuity of political irrelevance.
    Take Beck for what he is: an effective spokesperson for a necessary critique of the current system. That the critique applies to the Republicans in a significant degree isn’t a fault of Beck’s, but rather an important observation that the right must be aware of should it wish to claim any ethical and political credibility. As such, it has none currently and I can account for less than a dozen Representatives and Senators that would be excluded from the criticism. Beck is highly tied to his critique, and whether his relevance corresponds to the path of the message or if he’s able to move past it when the time comes is only something the future will answer. That he is popular and embraces a populist approach (and that it is uncomfortable to some here) is somewhat alarming, given the necessity of a populist methodology in the American Revolution and all other *successful* political movements. Yes, the elites are always nervous about anyone other than them having a voice, but I would suggest they need to be more mindful of what occurs when that voice is persistently delegitimized, as a study of the French revolution and the reign of Robespierre would illustrate.
    The effort to sincerely embrace healthy criticism and populism is the path to relevance and success. Commit to principles, not people, and the conservatives may be listened to once again. Otherwise, continue with the conservative retreat to the country clubs and let the libertarians and other true advocates lead this effort.

  35. I have difficulty stomaching Beck’s presentation (if he wasn’t Mormon I’d blame drugs), but he has been fantastic about getting some stories and information into the mainstream.
    There are a lot of different people with differing beliefs that call themselves “conservatives.” In my mind, all of the “true conservative” and “RINO” backbiting is the biggest (and dumbest) waste of energy imaginable – not because some people’s ideas aren’t wacky (especially the “Inside the Beltway” folks), but because it’s far more useful to debate individual ideas than it is to form purity contests based on a set of definitions none of you could possibly agree on. It’s easier for us libertarian-minded people – we can have different beliefs and still get along at a political level because we all agree that we don’t want the government involved in 99.9% of stuff.
    While we have significant differences with many “conservative” (in the big tent sense) beliefs, we have far more in common with you than we do with progressives, so it’s pretty annoying be sitting here with our common enemy doing its best to flank itself and the only thing you guys can think of to do is form a bunch of circular firing squads trying to figure out who’s the real Slim Shady … errr… Republican.
    So, yes, I find Glenn Beck to be a weepy, whiny, younger-version-of-Rodney-Dangerfield-without-the-humor-or-the-coke (seriously, the mannerisms are so similar it’s uncanny). But he is out there every day kicking ass and taking names on issues that I mostly agree with so screw it, I’m happy he’s around.

  36. Xerocky says:

    Part of the problem is that people like Beck and Coulter get more attention from the liberal media by stirring the pot with their out there opinions.
    When I read Ann’s coloum on her website, she doesn’t seem as bad as she does on TV. But it doesn’t matter, because however right they may be on any given day, there are loads of other conservatives or right wingers or whatever who don’t get the attention because they don’t strive to roil the rest of the media.
    So Beck galvanizes the right, but he also raises the noise level because he upsets the Moonbats too much. There comes a point where he’s far beyond counter productive.
    But, getting rid of choices shouldn’t be the goal. I understand the consequences, but the left has Nader, and they’ve marginalized him. I say screw it, fly by the seat of your pants and go with the guy who makes the most sense to you. Why do you have to be locked into somebody who you don’t really like (McCain!) because they have an R next to their name?
    We all need to say it loud and say it proud.

  37. al-ozarka says:

    “Them’s the facts, folks. Ignore them at your peril and American conservatism’s complete demise.”
    So…whose fault is it if you are correct? Conservative voters who are fed-up with spineless Republican Party officials? Or Republican Party officials who don’t give a damn about the mood of conservative voters?

  38. Ken says:

    Here’s a point that needs to be made:
    The damage Glenn Beck could hypothetically do, years down the line, to the “Republican brand,” isn’t even in the same ball park as the damage ALREADY being done by John Cornyn and the NRSC:
    1. They endorsed Arlen Specter for reelection, totally ignoring the fact that Bush’s decline began when HE endorsed Specter. (Yes, he won reelection–but his approval rating was near 70% when he endorsed Specter, and he barely won reelection against one of the worst Democrat candidates ever).
    Even so, Specter was an incumbent, so at least the NRSC endorsement was understandable. Except, then…
    2. When Toomey’s pending primary landslide caused Specter to cynically switch to the Democrats, instead of accepting Toomey’s nomination and working with him, they tried to UNDERCUT him by drafting Tom Ridge to run against him. Notably, they knew as well as everyone else that Ridge could win neither the primary nor the general election. Why then did they want him to run? Simple: they wanted to DIVIDE THEIR OWN PARTY in order to ensure Specter’s reelection, so as to get their petty revenge on Toomey for questioning the Almighty Incumbent.
    3. They endorsed Charlie Crist, the governor of Florida, over Assemblyman Mark Rubio, even though either would likely win the election, because they believed Rubio was too conservative, and they wanted to “position” the party as “moderate”–even though Crist had, unlike all but three GOP Senators and ALL GOP Congressmen, endorsed Obama’s Porkulus bill.
    4. They are currently pushing Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, against conservative assemblyman Chuck Devore, as the
    GOP challenger to leftist Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer in California. Now, at first sight, this might seem to make sense. After all, CA is a very liberal state. The problem, however, is that Carly Fiorina is a horrible candidate. She was one of the worst CEO’s in the country, a tyrant who was universally hated by HP employees. While it is possible that Devore might be too conservative to win a CA election–although 2010 seems to be as good a year as ever to finally get rid of the Wicked Witch of the West–Fiorina is such a horrible candidate that she would almost certainly lose. She is widely hated and inexperienced in politicking. Either Cornyn, et al, haven’t done their homework on her–or else, more likely, they’re putting her up as a sacrificial lamb, to prevent Devore from proving that conservatives can, indeed, win.
    Given that some of the topmost official in the Grand Old Party are deliberately undermining the party in order to keep their lines to adulterous affairs with Democrat groupies open…why the Hell would you focus on the strictly hypothetical harm that MIGHT be done by not censoring Glenn Beck?

  39. David R. Graham says:

    Let’s let it roll and enjoy the show.
    What is of God cannot be stopped.
    What is not is or will be soon enough.
    I don’t like Glenn Beck, either. Blowhard, dim-wit, self-promoter. But, wheat is mixed with the tares and they will be harvested together. Then separated. I think that fear is not warranted.

  40. Huey says:

    Graham: I’m sorry, but “dim-wit” does not describe Beck. He is sharp as can be, and likely much better read than I (or the vast, vast majority of the populace, for that matter).
    Once you get past the presentation (much like Rush), the worth of the FACTS he digs up and the QUESTIONS he asks … cannot be denied.

  41. David R. Graham says:

    What an utterly delightful and edifying cascade of comments. Thanks folks, I am cheered! More than the usual array of talented, skillful, insightful people are commenting on this post. Thanks to Dan for making it possible!
    You know, a nation is built around its Army, or in the modern world, its Armed Forces.
    If there is not an Army, there is not a nation. If there is not an Army that wins its nation’s wars, there is not an independent nation. As goes its Army, so goes the nation built around it. It’s that simple.

  42. in_awe says:

    Glen Beck has given me hope for the nation at what is the darkest hour I have experienced since the Carter years. His manner of presentation is an acquired taste to be sure, but his ability to illuminate the corners of this administration and its enablers is second to none.
    Recently he has become an equal opportunity exposer of corruption on the left and right. In that I believe that disillusioned independents can embrace the growing disgust with all things Washington. Therein lies our best opportunity to turn out the statists on both teams, and replace them with folks who have read and promise to actually uphold the Constitution. The Obama win was not a landslide (I remind my liberals friends of the Reagan win…), so turning 5% in the middle can bring the downfall of the Democrat monopoly in DC. I think that can be best accomplished not by touting the Republican Party, but touting values that are being trampled by this administration and people voting for the Not liberal Democrat candidate.

  43. wws says:

    Ken – I strongly suspect that Carly Fiorina is being pushed for a very simple and tawdry reason, one that has nothing to do with ideology or any of the other reasons you mentioned – she has the money required to self-finance her campaign, and thus she won’t be a big draw on the RNC’s financial resources.
    You could ask, does this mean that the GOP’s support is up for sale to the highest bidder? The answer appears to be Yes.

  44. Steve J says:

    Let’s not get into fights over ideological purity — i.e., “more conservative than thou” comparisons — when we’re faced with a menace like Obama and Co. It’s time to stick together and not go looking for a mote in our brother’s eye.

  45. Dan Riehl says:

    Carly Fiorina has said she isn’t self-funding. If true, kind of puts the lie to that.

  46. Lala says:

    Glenn Beck has a lot of guts to do what he is doing.

  47. martin says:

    PS, there is nothing wrong with backing Bush, but then realizing that Bush sold us out. It has nothing to do with cynacism, or publicity, it has to do with a true open mind and willingness to admit being wrong.

  48. Ad rem says:

    Knock Beck all you want…..the man has stones and knows how to use ‘um. Meanwhile, the Republican “elite” sit back and let others do the heavy lifting.

  49. Little Miss Spellcheck says:

    Andy Griffith’s demagogue role was Lonesome Rhodes.
    Lonesome Pines were what Laurel and Hardy were on the trail of.
    Joe Pyne was the swinish TV host someone upthread mentioned.

  50. BushHoover says:

    Only idiots don’t know that REAGAN said that libertarianism is really th essence of conservatism and the American tradition.
    Wehner’s attack as an ideological stance is essentially an attack on
    Reagan populism in favor of the disasters of the Bush / neoconservative train wreck.

  51. BushHoover says:

    Having Beck as the face of conservatism is a hell of a lot better for conservatism than having George Bush as the face
    of conservatism.
    Beck didn’t wreck the economy, didn’t increase spending and debt more than LBJ and FDR, didn’t fail
    to win the war in Afghanistan, etc., etc.

  52. joyMc says:

    I would call that a opinion and a prediction, not a collection of facts. Words still matter.

  53. syn says:

    I am glad Beck is confronting state-run media however Beck had best not transform into a RON PAUL!!! thug, we already have too many OBAMA thugs and there is no more room for crazies.

  54. Paul A'Barge says:

    “Beck has done the old switcheroo before – from backing Bush to attacking him.”
    I’ve certainly seen Beck defend Bush against the slander of the lib-tards when Bush did not deserve the criticism. When Beck did that he did so not so much to “back Bush” as to attack the attackers.
    Certainly Beck attacks Bush on issues on which Bush is/was wrong.
    Not the same thing. And not a switcheroo either.

  55. I’m no huge fan of McCain, but I respect him and voted for him… if for no other reason than to
    avoid our current fate.
    What’s up with Beck saying McCain would have been worse than Obama?
    He’d would have had to have a pretty focused and effective plan to outdo the Dear Leader- what on
    earth is Mr Beck talking about?

  56. ThomasD says:

    You are absolutely correct GB is not a conservative. But thankfully he’s not a progressive.
    If conservatives care about the upcoming elections they better find a real leader who can steal Beck’s fire and assume the lead.
    The circular firing squad crowd (Frum, Parker, Brooks, et al) needs to be told in no uncertain terms to either direct their fire at the enemy or STFU.
    Otherwise your predictions of a progressive victory will come to pass. Only, don’t blame it on Beck; blame it on the conservatives/republicans too damn timid and weak to fight and win.

  57. Mike2Cents says:

    Excellent Face in the Crowd reference (actually Lonesome Rhodes).
    The Wikipedia plot summary of the film is freakishly akin to Beck’s story.
    One can only hope for a similar ending:
    In late 1950s America, a time during which television was rapidly replacing radio as the most popular entertainment medium, Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, while coarse and abusive in private, possesses a charm that quickly endears him to rural listeners after Marcia Jeffries (Neal), a small-town radio personality, discovers him in the county jail of the fictional town of Pickett in northeast Arkansas and lands him a radio show.
    A talent scout invites him to appear on television in Memphis, Tennessee, where Rhodes is introduced to Mel Miller (Matthau), a bookish Vanderbilt University graduate who writes his scripts. Rhodes makes a name for himself by insulting his sponsor — to the delight of his adoring audience. Rhodes’s sponsor, whose company sells mattresses, relents in canceling the show when he discovers that Rhodes’s antics increased sales by 55%.
    An opportunistic “office boy” (portrayed by Anthony Franciosa) acts as an agent and lands Rhodes a contract in New York City, where he stars in his own national television program and becomes the national TV spokesman for Vitajex, an innocuous dietary supplement. A frenetic montage of Rhodes’s hyperbolic ads for Vitajex, suggesting it has Viagra-like powers, is one of the film’s most memorable sequences, highlighting the presumed gullibility of the American public to a persuasive con-artist.
    Rhodes’ fame, influence and ego grow. He is called in as an adviser by national political campaigns, rudely instructing candidates how to gain the public’s trust and suggesting himself for a Cabinet-level post. Rhodes uses his TV program to give exposure to his presidential candidate of choice, while mocking the man in private to his various sycophants.
    Jeffries increasingly feels betrayed, first when discovering that he was not yet technically divorced from his first wife, then when Rhodes elopes with a teenaged baton twirler. Miller intends to write a book showing the world what kind of man Rhodes really is.
    In the tradition of classical tragedy, Rhodes is undone by Jeffries, who, despite building his stardom and falling in love with him, brings down his kingdom. Rhodes is shown smiling and waving to the camera while in the control room, Jeffries and the technical staff hear him mock his viewers as “idiots,” “morons” and “guinea pigs.” Aware she helped create the monster, Jeffries pushes switches that throw Rhodes’s comments on the air. Furious fans call the network. In a symbolic moment, an unaware Rhodes’s popularity is shown plummeting as he rides an elevator going down.
    The story ends with a meltdown at Rhodes’s penthouse apartment, as Jeffries admits she betrayed him and Matthau predicts his future: that Rhodes is finished. An uncredited Rip Torn is shown as “Barry Mills,” the next Lonesome Rhodes waiting in the wings. Rhodes ends up threatening to kill himself and pleading for Jeffries to come back.

  58. gary gulrud says:

    I think we could have just left off with Michael from MI at the top and skipped further commentary.
    Beck is a gadfly, but is having his finest hour. The GOP, should, if “conservatives” have learned anything, have a hard time getting their favorites through primaries. And yet if successful, a hard time getting them through into Congress.
    2010 isn’t time to return to the Rethuglicans but a time to make them our biatch.

  59. bushhoover says:

    Bush = Hoover + LBJ + FDR … he’s been a disaster for conservatives and America. And Bush botched for years the Iraq and Afghanistan wars .. another disaster for conservatives and America.
    Dan writes:
    “Beck has done the old switcheroo before – from backing Bush to attacking him.”
    Well, Dan, what you do you when someone has been a disaster.

  60. bushhoover says:

    “He’s never struck me as having any underlying political philosophy than what he thinks ..”
    Beck has read some important books and rethought some serious things in the last 6 months .. this sort of intellectual change is the only hope for America .. any your attacking it?

  61. bushhoover says:

    Beck has read some books and learned some history and learned some lessons from Bush disaster that Wehner needs to learn …

  62. Robohobo says:

    Great, just great. Another ‘conservative’ telling me what to think and how to think it. Ever consider that you are the embodiment of what cost us the elections last time? Elitist ring a bell?
    Naw! Didn’t think so.

  63. BushHoover says:

    Ronald Reagan:
    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals – if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
    Who do you trust? Ronald Reagan or Peter Wehner?

  64. ThomasD says:

    “Who do you trust? Ronald Reagan or Peter Wehner?”
    Well, given that Whener – in his first breaths – tries to remind us just how level headed and credible are the gaggle of progressives who write for Time Magazine, I’d say trust and Wehner are simply irreconcilable terms.
    He’s a suck up to the Democrat-Media Complex, but I’ll give him credit for being up front about it.

  65. xax says:

    Look if you guys are willing to beat Beck up for saying that McCain would have been worst than Obama is completely idiotic. It’s a stupid fight. I’m beginning to think the weasel Frum and Co. may have something about weeding out conservatives who do not think exactly alike. Pick your battles.
    Like him or not, Beck does stand up for conservative principles and maybe that bleeds over into libertarian and even in liberal ideology lines. I’m not talking just Republican, Democrat or Independent. Small government is not just a conservative/Republican thing. So while Beck may say and do some things that you would not approve of, all in all, he’s a decent guy. This is the DUMBEST thing on the blogosphere and talk radio.