Glenn Beck is now supporting a second term for Barack Obama.
Yes. How else do you explain what he has come out with now? From the Right Scoop:
Glenn Beck said this morning on his radio show that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee and Ron Paul runs third party, he’d consider voting for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, and he hates Ron Paul’s policies on the Middle East:
This is suicide and it doesn’t get any simpler this: voting third party on our side for whomever guarantees Obama a victory. That’s it. And if Newt’s the nominee and Beck wants to go that road, then I tell him what I tell others: enjoy the hell that will be a second Obama term.
This is after Beck came out a few days ago saying if the Tea Party supported Newt over Obama, it was only about race.
From Business Insider:
Over the weekend Beck followed up last week's headline-making interview with Newt Gingrich with an appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Fox Business show.
Beck, who is no fan of what he terms Gingrich's "progressive" politics, declared that Gingrich is the "only candidate I cannot vote for" before taking a rather brutal (if totally true to form) swipe at Tea Party supporters.
If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.
Those comments can only be described as nutty.
Why would Beck say such stupid things? One commenter on one of the websites that carried this story suggested Beck was trying to help Romney out because Romney and Beck are both Mormon.
Some Tea Party members, such as myself, like Newt Gingrich. Some are willing to accept Gingrich and some say they will refuse to vote for him. Calling us racists because we prefer Gingrich, who despite his flaws, loves America and wants the best for America, is absolutely nuts.
To say you would prefer Ron Paul as a third party candidate over Newt Gingrich is beyond nuts. If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, he has the support to pull enough votes away to give Barack Obama a second term. Anyone with half a brain can figure this out.
Why would Glenn Beck want Barack Obama to have a second term?
If there is no other reason to make certain there is no second Obama term, then consider the Supreme Court. In the next four years, there will be at least one opening in the Supreme Court and possibly more. If one of the conservatives leaves the court, we will have a liberal majority on the court and if that happens, we will see the constitution be relegated to the ash heap of history.
If Beck is so opposed to Newt because he thinks Newt is a progressive, why hasn’t he said anything about Mitt Romney who, unlike Newt, really is a liberal?
So, Glenn, why no criticism of Mitt?
I gave up listening to Glenn Beck several years ago when it became apparent he was more interested in building his brand, then about saving this country.
It looks like I haven’t missed anything.
Tags: beck, gingrich, glenn, mitt, newt, obama, romney, second, term
Permalink Reply by Jim Haughey on AWESOME!!!! Keep it up!!!
Gingrich is in love with himself, Sorry but America only swells his heart when it can swell his bank account.
I have to go with GB on this one. He's spot on.
The real question is this. If Ron Paul has so much support then why doesn't the RNC get behind him. Absolute strategic slam dunk to beat Obama by historic proportions say 60/40. Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, Cross-Over Monetary-Reform & Anti-War democrats for Ron Paul. Absolute Slam Dunk. With Romney you get Repub-base and that's about it.
The only way for the RNC to lose is to NOT choose Ron Paul.
SO WHY AREN'T THEY? FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!
There are dishonest fortunes to be made with our current crooked monetary and financial system. There are fortunes to be made loaning the US money to prosecute endless wars.....just ask CHINA!
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Permalink Reply by Louis R Smith on This article is meant to make Newt look bad. It had the exact opposite affect on me. This is an excerpt. This is the smoking gun.
(The Government is shutdown in a Budget Battle)
The House conservatives knew that refusing to re-open the government was the only way they could get Clinton to move further in their direction. And despite the conventional wisdom at the time, many congressmen noted they were not getting much negative feedback from their constituents. Journalists who followed the events closely admit that Republicans were gaining more of their policy goals the longer the government was shut down. As Elizabeth Drew of the Washington Post wrote in her book about the first year of the 104th Congress, “Clinton had already moved quite a bit [during the shutdown] toward the Republicans, and was prepared to move further.” But Gingrich was eager to end the shutdown. When seventeen House Republicans – twelve of them freshmen – voted against re-opening the government, Gingrich was enraged and cancelled fundraisers in some of their districts.
This article reminds me of why I dropped Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck also tried to prove his point and ended up proving he was wrong. So Newt shuts down the Government in a budget battle with Clinton. Something our cowards today would never do. The Journalist in an attempt to smear eager Newt, admitted that Clinton moved quite a bit toward the Republicans. Mission accomplished.
17 armchair quarterbacks that watched Newt from the sideline, decided to make a name for themselves. They recognize the formula to Newts success, so they try to 1 up him. "You think that's conservative, I would have made Clinton fund the Government out of his own pocket, I would have shut it down for a year without blinking". A bunch of Billy Bad Azzes leading from behind.
So you hear Santorum talk about the conservative revolution against Newt. It was these 17 clowns and a bunch of Democrats that teamed up to create it. 17 Glenn Becks and a bunch of Chris Mathews. That's the conservatives that teamed up and created all the lies we are hearing today. The kind that side with Democrats.
Permalink Reply by ConCap on Glenn is right!
I place the Constitution to the far right, and anyone who advocates any thing on a federal level that is not in 100% compliance of the Constitution as written (not interpreted) is to the left.
The more things you advocate non Constitutional, the farther you are to the left. Social Conservatives (on a federal level) are farther to the left than say Fiscal Conservatives.
Being 100% for the Constitution makes you conservative, not a Conservative.
There are as many Conservatives as there are people.
Every one is trying to conserve what they believe in through politics, left or right.
You can’t just call your self a generic “Conservative” , you must call your self a Constitutional Conservative ( No social issues on a Federal level ) and differentiate your self from the other so called Conservatives that have compromised away all of our lost freedoms in the last 60 years.
Section 8, Article I and nothing more. (on a Federal level)
In my opinion, one should always back the person in the primaries who is deemed Constitutionally farthest to the right and brings (no social issues) to the Federal level, wither you personally like that person or not.
If that person drops out, or is found non deserving, one should then pick up the flag of the next person farthest to the right, so on and so on. One should not even talk about anyone on the list left of the person farthest to the right until it is his or her turn.
To back any one left of the person farthest to the right is a COMPROMISE to the existents of our Constitution and the Nation.
Any one who backs any one left of the farthest person to the right, mainly does so because of (ME, ME, ME) by placing their personal social issues before the Constitutional need of the Nation on a Federal level.
That’s why we end up with people like Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Bush II and others like them.
Technically speaking, no one should back any one in the primaries on the Federal level, based on their personal social issues.
To do this, is to FORCE others through Federal taxation to back their cause.
One should take this fight to the State or local level.
Should the vote for President, come down to some one, one does not like, one should simply vote for the one that is farthest to the right.
Do not, NOT VOTE,
I think, if one would follow this idea, it should not come down to voting for the lesser of the two evils because the one we ended up with would be the one farthest to the right.
If it does come down to voting for the lesser of the two evils, it is because members on the right in part, but self in front of Country and failed to unite as a whole and support the candidate best qualified to protect the Constitution and the Nation.
The more a candidate believes in making non Constitutional issues an issue on a Federal level, the farther they are to the left. Also, considering their oath of office, the more criminal they are.
You should all ways vote for the candidate farthest to the right wither you personally like that candidate or not, no matter WHAT.
Be “A” political. You do not have political to vote. Rate who you back in the primaries by how they appear to uphold the true meaning of the Constitution as written (not interpreted)
Until there is a movement that is “A” political, and who’s goal is the reinstatement of a Federal Government that is strictly run under the guidance of the U.S. Constitution, there is no hope for our Nation as intended by our founding Fathers‘.
NOTHING MATTERS BUT THE FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES…. THE REST WILL TAKE CARE OF IT’S SELF.
Permalink Reply by Larry W. Emory on I place the Constitution to the far right, and anyone who advocates any thing on a federal level that is not in 100% compliance of the Constitution as written (not interpreted) is to the left.
The more things you advocate non Constitutional, the farther you are to the left. Social Conservatives (on a federal level) are farther to the left than say Fiscal Conservatives.
Huraay!
Someone finally ses this thing clearly!! I've been trying to make this case locally for some time without much success. It's important because otherwise we allow ourselves to be labeled "right wing extremist" The Constitution is plainly the center of the political spectrim. I can't envision anyone being to the right of the Constitution. Everyone to the left can quite accurately be called a left wing extremist. The Constitution is the Law of the land. Judges nor Congress have the right to change it's meaning. Even here I see the term right wing used. There is no right wing.
Permalink Reply by Paul Jeffrey Miller on ConCap, I totally agree with you. I'm guessing that would be Ron Paul, but his foreign policy scares me. I don't think it's realistic for today's world. How do we get around that? It's our country's secutity we're talking about here as well as our allies. I believe that united we stand and divided we'll fall.
A lot of people are either for him or against him based on his drug policy, but as much as I am opposed to drugs I finally came to the conclusion that it too belongs to the states and local level and not the federal govt. Allowing the feds to take over such responsibilities got us in this mess in the first place.
Permalink Reply by ConCap on Paul
Glad to see some one is thinking on there own on this site.
His Constitutional stand, far outweighs anything one may PERSONALLY think.
Why do people think, as soon as he is elected, all of his (so called radical) ideas will become law?
With all those left wing members of the Republican Party in office now, most of his ideas (good or bad) will never have a chance.
Be sides, like you stated,all most all of these arguments against Paul have nothing to do with the Constitution and if he does anything, he will make them a States rights issue.
VOTE FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REST WILL TAKE CARE OF IT'S SELF.
Permalink Reply by Christina Mcabe on Glenn Beck is a Mormon (LDS) and lots of Mormons are poor and may receive US governmental social assistance. However, he is also a conservative and an anti-Communist. So, I think that trumps the worry he may be for helping Mormons who need social assistance. By the way, it is true the SW area could use some jobs besides the wonderful, wonderful drug-trade...
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on Christina the LDS that I know are very work oriented and work hard. The welfare is not that great among the LDS.
Many LDS that I know are very well off.
Permalink Reply by American Infidel on Christina, you are correct about the high percentages of Mormons on welfare. Since they can only legally marry one woman "on paper", all their other wives, and their dozens and dozens of children, march right on down to the welfare office, to get the maximum amount of benefits allowed to a single mother with X number of children. Since most of them have over ten children per woman, and a Mormon man can have as many "wives" as he wants, we are talking huge numbers here. The LDS will be quick to claim that is not done anymore, but anyone originally from or still living in a Western state, such as myself, knows better. Polygamous Mormons are everywhere in the West, and all the "wives" except the first one, along with their dozens of kids, are on welfare.
Permalink Reply by Roger F. Gay on I would certainly do the same. That minority of voters who are currently at the core of Republican Party loyalism at present need to enter the real world for a change. You lost in 2008 with a RINO candidate. You can lose again in 2012. I'm not alone in vowing not to vote for Newt Gingrich (or Mitt Romney). No matter what.
You need more than just saying the other guy is bad. You need a good candidate to run against him.
I've asked the same thing about Mitt Romney ... i.e. why Glenn Beck doesn't add him to his no-vote list, in Beck is Right! Gingrich and Romney are RINO Establishment Candidates. He sort of responded, sort of, saying that maybe it's because Newt Gingrich committed his sins at the federal level, and Mitt hasn't yet. Perhaps he'll see the light and add Romney.
.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
