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 Vern Shotwell on Thanks, JC., for the tip. Actually the guy has been here for a year, but just woke up today!
Such multiple postings are considered to be Spamming the Site. And warnings often don't get read, they are too busy spamming to look!
This is a warning to all, really. Just don't spam! A moderator might just become impatient and silence you, using the only tools the have, really.
Permalink Reply by Dennis L on 
Permalink Reply by Jim Haughey on I am glad to see more and more people seeing the same things here. Like your reply Dennis L. I think Newt has stayed above the fray and has shown incredable leadership going forward. This country has been so screwed up the last 6 years and all this in fighting is frustrating. I am appauled at the MSM and now even Fox getting on the attack bandwagon against Newt....I just can't watch them anymore. Why is everyone so in the bag for Romney.....I just don't understand!!!! He is the biggest flip flopper and least Conservative in the field. I like your points though!!!
Permalink Reply by SallyT CA on Wow, I can tell here that no one has done their homwork on Newt. Go ahead vote for him just like those that voted for Hussein. No vetting whatsoever. We need a president that believes in the Constitution and our blessed Republic, not one that believes in a One World Government and adheres to the orders of the owners of the unfederal reserve. I cant believe that none of you see this. You are all falling into the trap of that the Elitist have put out for you. I personally do not want to lose our sovereignty and I will do anything in my power to do stop it from happening. Do your homework a little more that is all I am saying. A person can say one thing and do another after he is elected. Remember that! Or have you forgotten it already. Do not be a sheeple and follow the anyone who will take America down the hell hole of the One World Government. You do have a choice, ya know, God gave you the ability to chose. Now do what He would do..
Permalink Reply by Louis R Smith on I listened to Beck everyday. I was hoping that he could have convinced me or taught me something. The big GBTV show, that he was going to explain and expose Newt was garbage. He was running around scribbling on his chalkboard, quoting every dead President, lashing out at the Tea Party, crying as usual. His behavior has been erratic and very odd.
How could Glenn say this with a straight face:"Why is the MSM and the GOP establishment pushing for Newt to win?" I thought he misspoke. It's very unusual how he's going after Newt and lashing out at conservative friends and his website treats MSNBC like a respectable media source now. Beck changed my mind alright, but it wasn't what he wanted. Beck is a backstabbing liar.
Permalink Reply by Jim Haughey on @Louis R Smith: Beck actually did say that the MSM and GOP Establishment are pushing for Newt??? Is he out of his mind?? Not sure what he's smoking these days or what he drinking!! It's gotten so bad even on FOX News and they keep putting on that idiot Anne Coulter.....I just can't watch it anymore. The MSM and Establishment GOP are just hammering Newt....it's so obvious.
I use to be a big Beck fan....but a few things that made my head turn. The lastest is his love for Michele Bachmann. He had Newt on a couple of weeks back and was hard on him....OK...that was fair. Newt was on for 20 minutes and Beck's questions were Odd....to say the least. I could tell he was trying to get something from Newt.....Anyway...Bachmann was on right after Newt...and called him a "frugal socialist"...and Beck made her say it again..."can your repeat that". My jaw dropped as I thought that he and Bachmann were way out of line. I was done with Beck at that time.
Further....to back up what you replied.....here are two clips from Bachmann about Newt.
I DO NOT TRUST BECK and BACHMANN....AT ALL!!!
You will love these. WAAAAY WAAAAY back in 2008..... the 100% Conservative Rating star Michele Bachman has to say about Newt .....AND.....also KNOWIGNLY that Newt was a consultant for Freddie Mac.
There two clips were on Michele's campain trail and Newt campained for her.
Have fun....take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zz5myJ_hs
Permalink Reply by Larry W. Emory on Newt was a CONSULTANT NOT A LOBBIEST. There is a huge difference. Consulting is an honest job. Fanny & freddie did not take his advice. Newt has never lobbied for anyone. Newt has some flaws but that is not one of them.
Permalink Reply by Louis R Smith on Iowa's liberal-leaning newspaper, the Des Moines Register, which endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008, has endorsed Mitt Romney for the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.
Glenn Beck and his new friends Paul Krugman, Chris Mathews, and Jon Stewart would like to thank the Des Moines Register for not being racist.
Permalink Reply by SallyT CA on Newt Gingrich thinks “America’s challenge” (whatever this means on any given day in Newt-speak) is “compounded by our Constitution. “He is without question “for the United Nations” but appears to have reservations about constitutional limits–you know, the very thing every conservative from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan has always emphasized as the basis of American government? Said Gingrich in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in 1995:
“The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution… Under our (constitutional system) — either we’re going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we’re going to have to rethink our process of decision-making… (I believe in) “very strong but limited federal government… I am for the United Nations.”
Permalink Reply by Louis R Smith on
Run, Newt, Run!
Gingrich 2008?
The casual TV viewer has probably noticed two things during the past few days — there’s a war in the Middle East, and Newt Gingrich is commenting on it.
Gingrich has been a ubiquitous analyst on the war — ubiquity being one of the tireless, outsized former House speaker’s favorite qualities. In between appearances in his role as a commentator for the Fox News Channel, Gingrich announced on Meet the Press that we are in the midst of World War III. A few days later, Hezbollah declared that it welcomed World War III, nicely capturing the moment: Simultaneous with its shooting war with Israel, Hezbollah is in a war of words with Newt Gingrich.
The old conventional wisdom about Gingrich was that we wouldn’t have him to kick around anymore. The new conventional wisdom is that he’s back, and he’s doing the kicking. Ousted by his own party after its losses in the 1998 midterm elections, Gingrich has reestablished himself as a party leader through sheer intellectual energy. He has had something intelligent to say about literally every issue of the hour, from health care to Katrina to the war on terror. “He has helped himself immensely — he’s all over the place,” says former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie.
Gingrich is partly benefiting from a beneath-the-surface conservative exasperation with President Bush. In 2000, Bush represented a break from Gingrich’s brainy, hyperpartisan, government-cutting conservatism, for something more personable, more bipartisan and more comfortable with government. After six years of Bush, many conservatives are ready for a no-holds-barred, limited-government brainiac again.
What thrills Republicans about Gingrich’s media appearances is the sense of intellectual mastery — that he has the arguments, along with the words, to beat all comers. And he hasn’t been shy about criticizing the Bush administration or the Republican Congress. This puts Gingrich in the enviable position of being a keen Beltway player, but one not associated with an unpopular GOP establishment.
Opinion is split about whether Gingrich will run for the 2008 presidential nomination, but no one doubts that he would love to. A GOP strategist says tactical considerations won’t loom so large in Gingrich’s calculations: “The only question for Newt will be, ‘Can I devise the message that will rouse the nation?’”
Gingrich is still in bad odor for many Washington insiders who remember his often self-indulgent, erratic four-year run as speaker. Grass-roots Republicans, however, don’t share their dismissiveness. “When you go out in the real world,” says Gillespie, “if Newt was there last week, they’re still talking about it.” If Gingrich ran, he would immediately raise the bar for the rest of the field, both in terms of policy and of rhetoric. “If you get him in front of an audience talking with other candidates, he’ll look the best,” says a Gingrich-friendly insider.
It’s hard to see any plausible path to victory for Gingrich unless George Allen and Mitt Romney fizzle, freeing up room for an anti-McCain conservative. But the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses are a conservative bastion. In 2000, even unserious candidates Alan Keyes and Gray Bauer combined for 23 percent of the vote. “I think he could do very well in Iowa,” says top Republican pollster John McLaughlin, “and you never know.”
If one of Gingrich’s strengths is that he is enamored of ideas, a weakness is that he seems too enamored of his own. He has ethical issues from his time as speaker related to a book contract and the funding of a college course he taught, but in the Age of Abramoff those scandals seem quaint. More potentially damaging is his messy personal life and the sense of arrogance that sank his speakership.
Whatever happens, Gingrich stands to be the party’s most important intellectual table-setter. “Whoever wins,” says Gillespie, “is going to have spent a lot of time talking about what Newt was talking about.” There are worse places for the party to look for a renewed agenda.
— Rich Lowry
Permalink Reply by Jim Haughey on Thats all a bunch of BS......and you know it.
If that makes him something that you think he is then what does Michele Bachmann think?
You can cut clip out pieces of transcript and video......but it's all a bunch of crap.
Here....in her own words.....13 years after.....ENJOY!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zz5myJ_hs
Go Newt!!!
Permalink Reply by Louis R Smith on Santorum would be upset with people trashing his mentor.
Santorum: ” I Adopted Newt’s Vision for Conservative Governance”
in his own words....Enjoy
Go Newt!!!
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
