21 responses to “Savage, Beck Against Gingrich”

1. 

   Mark

   December 13, 2011 at 7:01 am

   Can we pass the hat around and start a collection to get all 3 of them to go away? I’m in for $20. Who’s with me?
2. 

   Rick Almeida

   December 13, 2011 at 7:15 am

   They’re cute when they turn on themselves.
3. 

   Hurling dervish

   December 13, 2011 at 7:25 am

   I am too lazy to look it up, but I thought there is a law against paying someone not to run for office?
4. 

   Peacewood

   December 13, 2011 at 7:55 am

   James,

   Consider Godwin’s Law. The reason Hitler comparisons are so odious is because the argument “Hitler liked it, therefore it’s bad” or “Hitler was against it, therefore it’s good” is not only execrable, but logically untenable. Whether some bad person supports your position or not has nothing to do with its merit.

   So, to sum up, Glenn Beck is Hitler.
5. 

   Liberal Capitalist

   December 13, 2011 at 8:16 am

   Could there be some redeeming quality about Gingrich that I’m missing?

   Ummmm … no.
6. 

   Boyd

   December 13, 2011 at 8:22 am

   Stopped clock, and all that.
7. 

   john personna

   December 13, 2011 at 10:17 am

   Actually it could be a real warning sign, because crazy people normally only spot “crazy people” crazier than themselves.
8. 

   Eric Florack

   December 13, 2011 at 11:04 am

   First off, Savage is a nut case. The first indication that Beck is off base is when he and Savage come down on the same side of an issue.

   Secondly, I said this at my own place this morning, and it fits well in this discussion

   =-=-=-=-=:

   Let me preface my comments here by saying I’m not convinced of Newt Gingrich being the answer to the question of the next election. That said, I am convinced Mitt Romney is not the best answer that question. I consider that Romney lost to McCain because as weak a conservative as McCain is, Romney’s record shows him to come down on the left of McCain on most issues, and is thereby more likely to lose the election…. And even if he wins the election the benefits of Romney winning are as close to naught as no matter.To the main issue:
   There is much to be said for Glenn Beck and his efforts. He’s been a stalwart among conservatives for some time, now, and for a time, he has shone above the majority of conservative voices. His efforts to connect the dots in our recent history and tracing the progressive movement and it’s threats to our nation and our culture are spot on. As with anyone else, when they’re right, I’ll say so…. And his record is one of being correct in the vast majority of what he says.But, not now, and I’m troubled by what I see.

   I find Beck’s on -air reactions to Gingrich suspect at best, given his support of Romney, whose liberal record I find inexcusable. Such comments make the question of “what s Beck about” unfathomable, or at least nearly so.

   Calling Gingrich a progressive, given Romney’s liberal legislating, and Gingrich’s conservative legislative record, is bad enough, and certainly shows a willingness to stretch the truth…. But, his pulling the race card out of the deck the other day, as always with those using that crutch, to my mind, shows he’s holding a position which is in search of a reasonable supporting argument. He really has no other arguments against Gingrich, and for Romney. That’s troubling on several levels.

   First to equate Gingrich and his record, to Obama with his, is laughable right at the off. The real history of the thing is that in terms of actual law, and actions while a part of the government, Gingrich comes down to the right of most of the Republican party, much less Obama, who is without any question the farthest left president we’ve ever had in our 200+ year history. Rather like comparing a full-size tractor trailer rig to a so-called “smart car”. They both have wheels and can usually run under their own power. Past that….

   Secondly, the damage done to the perception of race issues among the voting public, done by the misuse of that” we’re only voting against Obama because we’re all racists” meme plays right into the hands of the real racists the Jacksons and Sharptons of the world, along with the whole of the left. That argument will play better for Obama, than for Romney. Stink Progress is already trumpeting this Beck quote as backing their longtime assertion that the Tea Party is racist. The Atlantic, too. Beck ought to know better.

   Thirdly,Gingrich’s legislative record certainly comes down to the right of Romney, which is what mystifies me… Why Beck would lie about that, strikes me as an open question, for lie it is. I begin to understand Andy Breitbart’s anger, here.

   Oh, and Glenn? you might want to check into this quote from Romney himself where he calls himself and his views “progressive”.

   One possible answer to this question of how Beck landed in this quagmire, is Beck’s connections with Heritage, who has made no bones about the idea that Romney is their guy. You may recall Heritage is the group that thought Romneycare was just the thing back when Hillarycare came up. Instead of arguing on the moral and principled ground that healthcare was beyond government’s purview, they opted for the limp-spined centrist approach of coming up with their own government run plan, with the aid of Romney. When a government boot is on your throat, it hardly matters, you see, which party the boot belongs to. I tell you this; If that connection to Heritage is what’s driving this disconnect, Beck and his people have tainted themselves beyond my ability to measure. This is disappointing, at least. And further, it raises questions about Limbaugh who is similarly connected.
9. 

   legion

   December 13, 2011 at 11:05 am

   Could there be some redeeming quality about Gingrich that I’m missing?

   Well, he’s not Mitt Romney 🙂
10. 

    mattb

    December 13, 2011 at 11:51 am

    @Eric Florack:

    If that connection to Heritage is what’s driving this disconnect, Beck and his people have tainted themselves beyond my ability to measure. This is disappointing, at least. And further, it raises questions about Limbaugh who is similarly connected.

    It is both amazing and sad to me that only now are you coming to the realization that Beck and Limbaugh’s advertisers and underwriters *might* have some influence over the messages that both deliver.

    I also have a really hard time seeing how Gingrich will not disappoint you in similar ways. To that point, have a hard time seeing how any self-named conservative can look to Newt and seriously support him (here’s a handy list of some of Gingrich’s anti-conservative positions – http://www.notonewt.com/).

    As far as I can tell, having read your screed, the only think that’s likable about Newt is your general feeling that he could beat-up both Obama and Romney. Which I guess it a valid reason to consider supporting him, but doesn’t exactly back you position as a “thoughtful conservative” (which I’d argue you’ve already called into question with a number of claims that you raised in your post).

    I am sorry to hear that you, Glenn, and Rush might be on the point of breaking up.
11. 

    Eric Florack

    December 13, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    You read it but clearly didn’t understand it.
    One example; the references to their respective legislative records, which is the only real measurement of each candidate.

    also, Im not suggesting that influnece by one group or another to be a bad thing any more than you’re likely to complain that MOVE ON influences Democraats too greatly.

    My issue is when that influence over-rides the facts
12. 

    legion

    December 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    @Eric Florack:

    My issue is when that influence over-rides the facts

    You mean like when Beck was beating the drum to get all his listeners to switch everything into gold, while being paid to say so by a major sponsor, despite the lack of economic sense it made?
13. 

    legion

    December 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    @legion: Also, I think you’re making a mistaken assumption here:

    I consider that Romney lost to McCain because as weak a conservative as McCain is, Romney’s record shows him to come down on the left of McCain on most issues, and is thereby more likely to lose the election….

    Romney lost the GOP nomination to McCain because he wasn’t conservative enough, but that’s also the reason McCain, in turn, lost the general election – McCain ran on a platform of doing everything GW did, only harder, and a lot of Americans didn’t want that…
14. 

    mattb

    December 13, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    @Eric Florack:

    You read it but clearly didn’t understand it.

    No, actually, I’m pretty sure I did understand.

    One example; the references to their respective legislative records, which is the only real measurement of each candidate.

    If you really believe that, then you’d have to rank Ron Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum the most exemplary conservatives in this race as their voting records are the best conservative records. Gingrich’s record, as I understand it, is a far better Republican (as in voting with the Party) record than it is conservative.

    I’m also a little flabbergasted that the only “real measurement” of a candidate is their voting record. Especially since this not only suggests that the only measure we have to really evaluate Gingrich is more than a decade old (given he left office in ’99) but also that we should essentially *not* consider everything that he’s done over the last decade since all that lobbying doesn’t really matter.

    also, Im not suggesting that influnece by one group or another to be a bad thing any more than you’re likely to complain that MOVE ON influences Democraats too greatly.

    Actually, despite outward appearances, I’m not a conventional Democrat and have little use for Move-On or any organizations that deal in their level of hyperbole.

    My issue is when that influence over-rides the facts

    That’s actually my entire point. Don’t you remember Limbaugh’s famous “I’m done carrying water” rant after the election of 2006 in which he essentially admitted “massaging” the facts to back Republicans? Likewise Beck has a long history of… shall we say… “stretching” the truth to match his narrative going all the way back to his coke-fueled morning zoo days.

    The fact is its problematic to trust that beyond, their general conservative stance, that these guys are going to put “truth” ahead of ratings or profits.

    Of course, the listeners to these programs typically don’t mind this behavior when it groks with their general faith-based biases (i.e. Obama is the most leftist president evah — don’t tell Wilson, LBJ and FDR among others this past cenury… or that all us evil libruls belivez that anything anyone says bad about Obama is because of race… as I’ve pointed out many times, by and large, we try to reserve the race card for when people are making… you know… racist comments about the president as in the birth certificate… or that America as we know it is continually coming to an end…).
15. 

    mattb

    December 13, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    @Eric Florack:
    One other brief point… Rereading what I wrote, I realize that it could come across as my believing that Beck and Limbaugh can be bought. That might be true.

    However, it also might not be quite that simple. From what I understand Heritage and others provide analysis and briefings to the programs they support.But it could also be the case that beyond the funding $’s they get from groups like Heritage, they might also actually buy into the arguments that those organizations are making.

    What if Beck, for example, honestly believes what he’s saying due to the intellectual influence of heritage? Does that “taint” him beyond measure?

    And again, was Limbaugh forever tainted by the fact that he knowingly “carried the water” (i.e. lied to his audience) in order to support Republicans?
16. 

    legion

    December 13, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    @mattb:

    I’m also a little flabbergasted that the only “real measurement” of a candidate is their voting record. Especially since this not only suggests that the only measure we have to really evaluate Gingrich is more than a decade old (given he left office in ’99) but also that we should essentially *not* consider everything that he’s done over the last decade since all that lobbying doesn’t really matter.

    That’s because Eric is frantically moving the goalposts to consider only evidence that supports the decision he’s already made – that Gingrich > Romney. Your argument is irrelevant.
17. 

    mattb

    December 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    @legion:
    Which is a good thing (judging Newt by his legislative record)… Otherwise Eric would have to account for Newt quotes like this one…

    I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it’s clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible.”

    Source April 24, 2007 interview with Gingrich
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577072502921422584.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080909224217/http://www.freddiemac.com/corporate/about/policy/policytalk_gingrich_42407.html

    Oh, wait, I know… Newt was just saying that Freddie and Fanny were paying him to say, but his fingers were crossed the entire time and there was code in there for good conservatives to tell them that he really didn’t mean it and he was trying to save the US by charging exorbitant consulting fees in hopes of bankrupting Freddie and Fanny before they asploded the US.
18. 

    Eric Florack

    December 13, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    @legion: Gold is still sound advice.
19. 

    Anphang

    December 14, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Could there be some redeeming quality about Gingrich that I’m missing?

    Hrm… that both Mr. Savage and Mr. Beck don’t support him?
20. 

    Anphang

    December 14, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    Could there be some redeeming quality about Gingrich that I’m missing?

    Hrm… that both Mr. Savage and Mr. Beck don’t support him?

    Just cause it’s tautologous doesn’t mean it’s not true!
21. 

    Eric Florack

    December 16, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    @legion: You’re still operating on the false premise that Bush was a conservative, aren’t you?