Image 01 Image 03

Uh oh, call Glenn Beck quick

Uh oh, call Glenn Beck quick

Now he has to vote for Ron Paul as a third-party candidate even if Romney is the nominee, and has to call Romney supporters racist too.

This was 2002, “My views are progressive.”  (h/t @Allahpundit)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



MaggotAtBroadAndWall | December 13, 2011 at 10:29 am

And then we have this clip of Newt which made me want to hurl breakfast:

    Add to that Newt comparing himself to Teddy Roosevelt, the original Progressive, and I’ll be sure to NOT eat breakfast before I go to the voting booth is he wins the nomination.

We used to watch Beck’s show on Fox. We don’t subscribe to his GBTV. I’ll give Beck his due as he has undoubtedly done some good for our country. But what I’m hearing from him these days is unsettling. I just finished listening to an interview with Andrew Breibart discussing Beck:

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Kitty. | December 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Not wanting to be contemptful prior to investigation, I signed up for GBTV just to see what the unfettered Beck might do. It was more of the same with a 20% increase in the frequent paranoia/conspiracy-mongering/weepy preacher facets of the man. I quit after a week.

But Romney is a Mormon progressive, that makes it all okay.

Wait a minute Professor. Glenn Beck has been right more than he’s been wrong. He may sound like Chicken Little at times but what he is saying is correct. Progressivism is a cancer eating away at the Constitution and America. I’m not a Ron Paul supporter but I don’t feel Bachmann or Santorum can win the most important election in our lifetimes. What a shame we don’t have strong conservative candidates instead of progressive light/dark on the menu. For me, Ron Paul’s views on Iran are the big problem. I believe we should get rid of all the agencies he suggests. We don’t have a great choice in these candidates, just another ‘lesser of the evils’ menu.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to texaszea. | December 13, 2011 at 11:38 am

    I think Andrew Breitbart had it right when he said that for three years we have been fighting the attempt by the left to smear the Tea Party movement as racist, and that Beck did enormous damage by claiming that any Tea Party member who supports Gingrich over Obama is doing so based on race. Beck fed the “progressive” media beast for the purpose of aggrandizing Glenn Beck at the expense of the Tea Party. He may have been right on some things, but he is off the rails now.

      VetHusbandFather in reply to William A. Jacobson. | December 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm

      First, I’ll say that I think Beck’s charge of tea party ‘racism’ was completely out of line. He was trying to make a point and he stepped into the realm of hyperbole. However I think the point he’s trying to make is a valid point. And that is that Gingrich and Romney are not the best representatives of the Tea Party platform. The Tea Party was originally supposed to be a bipartisan movement about ending excessive taxes, ending deficit spending, and reducing the size of the federal government. To be perfectly honest Ron Paul is a better representative of that platform than either Gingrich or Romney. But when Cain dropped out, Gingrich absorbed most of Cain’s supporters and not Paul. I will not go where Beck went, and say it was because of racism. However the clear message seems to be that Conservatives are giving other issues precedence in the latest polls. My guess is that it is Paul’s foreign policy positions are driving his lack of support.

      I’ve struggled with the conflict a bit myself. First I’ll say that I love Gingrich on the debate floor, but I have no love for his character or his establishment in ‘the system’. And while I hate Ron Paul’s stance on Iran and the ‘War on Terror’, I also appreciate his stance on cutting foreign aid to countries like Pakistan. Lately, I’ve been starting to consider if his Foreign Policy stance would be worth compromising on in order to shrink the federal government in a way that I don’t think Gingrich or Romney would.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to VetHusbandFather. | December 13, 2011 at 1:45 pm

        Speaking as a local Tea Party member with organizing and rotating chairmanship duties, I will say that when you look at the two top ‘must have’ requirements in a candidate – electability and conservatism – I am not entirely pleased with the slate of candidates and my first two choices are not running. Therefore, like everyone else, including those in the Tea Party, I am relegated to the slate we have for my choice.

        *Of those running* … I like Rick Santorum quite a bit, but I have doubts on his electability and I notice his inability to get off the basement floor in terms of polling and national support – his eleactability is in great doubt.

        That brings me to Newt Gingrich among *those running* and I have little problem supporting him. This will be my tenth presidential election and I haven’t voted once without having to accept less than wonderful facts about each and every person I’ve voted for. Gingrich is no exception. A rock-solid, no taxes, small government, Tea Party darling candidate who is elected is not available this cycle and that’s all there it to it. F**K baggage. They all have baggage.

        1. Who is more conservative, Romney or Gingrich?

        2. Who can better handle Obama in what passes for debate?

        3. Who has the greater experience dealing with the US Congress?

        4. Who has the better political infighting skills?

        5. Who has the thicker skin for criticism and political attacks?

        6. Who knows best how to get government out of the way of job creation and economic growth?

        As for ‘baggage’, Romneycare is a 24 ton double latcher, and the genuine flipflopper label is a 12 tonner. Gingrich has got his too, to say the least, smaller bags, but more of them. Who has the most baggage is rendered irrelevant – they both have it in spades.

        As I went through my above numbered assessment questions, I came up with 5 Gingrichs and a tie between Romney and Gingrich on #6. Ergo, I support Gingrich.

        Since the November 2010 midterms and the GOP’s retaking of the House, the Obama legislative machine has been for the most part successfully stymied. I want this year’s GOP candidate to beat Obama, first and foremost, thereby ending the horrific reign of the radical liberal faction of the Democrat Party. An Obama loss means the Democrat Party will move right (in the relative sense) and return to the sort of liberal party your pappy knew. If Gingrich beats Obama, but then turns all progressive or big government once he gets to the White House, the same GOP House – and a possible retake of the Senate – can stymie him just as well as it has stymied the Obama machine. A repeat in 2012 of the landslide of 2010 will place even more conservative, Tea Party types in US congressional seats. The GOP will be pulled further to the right.

        It is important to note that if we nominate a GOP candidate of debatable conservatism and that candidate wins the White House, whether Romney or Gingrich, we still have checks and balances in Congress available if either tries any of the silly crap after attaining the White House. It’s all good and my personal choice *of those actually running* is Newt Gingrich.

Beck kinda lost it for me when he morphed into some sort of pseudo-evangelical weepy creepy dude. talk about shooting yourself in the foot………
Kinda sad, ’cause I used to love he and Stu and their parodies, especially their “Arlen Specter” stuff.

The Prof is completely on the money with his comment regarding Beck’s statements about racism. When Gawker congratulates Beck, we all know there is a problem. To paraphrase Breitbart said in his book Righteous Indignation – Calling someone racist is one of the most vile and vulgar things you can do today. One should not do so lightly.

I’m still relatively inexperienced in party nominations. They aren’t all 2008 and 2012 quality right? Or can the GOP ever be happy with their choices?

Glenn … time to call your shrink. You’ve done some good work … but now you need to get some rest.

Beck is supporting Bachmann. I think he has jumped the shark.

    Beck jumped the shark four years ago. The face he presents now is a parody of a person earning a living portraying the role of a concerned but emotionally unstable patriot. Millions buy it, proving once again PT Barnum was brilliant.

    There is no way, no matter what he “says”. that in his heart Beck does not ultimately throw his support to Romney. The “stakes” [pun intended] are simply too high.

ahhhhhh, get under your beds — progressives, everywhere!!!

(especially on that buss full of 3rd graders that Beck passed on the way to work. I know he was able to see no fewer then a 75% Progressive rate out of all those 8-9 year olds. They’re taking over the whole dang country, I tell ya…)

GBTV has a new reality show coming out in January: Independence USA. A traditional American family heads into the woods to learn survival skills for the coming unspecified Beckian apocalypse, working on firearm skills, moonshining, and the like. Awesome.

Mediaite’s take:

Since Palin is not in it, I’ll vote for Santorum and register Republican if he lasts until the NC primary.
Everyone needs to remember, Obama is the only candidate running in 2012 WHO WANTS TO BRING THIS COUNTRY TO ITS KNEES!!
Ultimately I’m ABO!!