CPAC strawpoll was strongly in favor of Ron Paul.  That tells you something.

btw, I think Huckabee got skunked in that poll but I'm not certain.  I was starting to like the guy, too.

 All in all, I think Glenn Beck made one of his very few misfires with his speech to the CPAC convention.  His was the keynote address . . . he was the cleanup batter, if you will . . . and it was his job to bring home all that had gone on during the last few days.  

Did he do that?  Not really.  He should have tailored his speech to ignite such enthusiasm among the attendees that they would have, literally and figuratively, run out of the convention and kept on running until conservatives regained their power in November.  Instead, his listeners were treated to what amounted to a downer of an assessment of the status of the Republican Party and, by association, of conservatives' chances of victory in November.  It was the wrong speech at the wrong time and to the wrong people . . .  It's strange that Beck, of all people, got this so wrong.

Bennett totally misses Glenn's point.  Glenn wasn't saying there was no difference between republicans and democrats.  He was saying there is little difference between the republican party establishment and the democrat party establishment.  He was saying, "It's not enough to just not suck as much as the other guy."  And he is right.  Glenn Beck has even endorsed many republican candidates, many of whom Bennett mentions in his article (Bachmann, Ryan, DeMint, and others).

But what I think Bennett is missing here is that Beck’s criticism is of the Republican party establishment. If the Republican Party Establishment is so different from the Democrats, then why did the NRSC push Crist over Rubio even though Crist supported the stimulus package? Why did the Republican establishment, including Newt Gingrich, pick Scozzafava in the NY23 and spend a million dollars on her campaign when she looked exactly like a democrat, and you had Doug Hoffman running as a true fiscal and social conservative? It’s because they are still the big tent, big spending, moderate republican establishment that has helped to get us into this fiscal mess.

And you think what Beck did was dangerous?

From Bennett:

"Second, for him to continue to say that he does not hear the Republican party admit its failings or problems is to ignore some of the loudest and brightest lights in the party. From Jim DeMint to Tom Coburn to Mike Pence to Paul Ryan any number of Republicans have admitted the excesses of the party and done constructive and serious work to correct them and find and promote solutions. Even John McCain has said again and again that “the Republican party lost its way.”

Someone should tell Bennett that Republicans like John McCain are the reason why the Republican Party has lost its way.  Progressive Republican candidates are the reason why we lose elections.  What Glenn means by saying the Republican Party has lost its way and what John McCain means are two totally different things.  I find it telling that Bennett agrees with John McCain.  Perhaps Bennett himself wants more spending, more bail outs, and wants the party to be a bigger tent?

Why does Bennett think it's wrong for Beck to use analogies when talking about the country?  Isn't that what people do, like, all the time? 

"What Glenn means by saying the Republican Party has lost its way and what John McCain means are two totally different things.  I find it telling that Bennett agrees with John McCain.  Perhaps Bennett himself wants more spending, more bail outs, and wants the party to be a bigger tent?"

Stephen, I'm not sure how Beck and McCain disagree on these issues.  McCain has always been one of the biggest advocates of spending cuts in Congress.  He just came out and admitted he was wrong on TARP and never supported any other bailout.  I think Beck and McCain are actually saying almost the exact same thing when it comes to them saying the Republican Party needs to "repent" or find its way again.  I think that was part of Bennett's point.  If even McCain is saying these things, then it is obvious the Reublican Party already knows it messed up and is looking to do its base right.

"And you think what Beck did was dangerous?"

Absolutely.  Here's one example why: In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been trailing in the polls all year long.  Up for reelection later this year, there are two relatively solid conservative GOP candidates, Tarkanian and Lowden, whom polls consistently showed leading Reid in this important race. Last week, however, an official Tea Party candidate emerged who seems likely to capture anywhere from 5-15% of the vote.  Now, because of the emergence of this 3rd party candidate, Reid looks likely to retain his seat. 

Meanwhile, Beck, who has flirted with the idea of supporting third party candidates all year long, gives a marquee speech at CPAC saying there's no difference between the two parties (or the two party "establishments"). This will only encourage more third parties to emerge in the coming weeks and months. Come November, several liberal Democrats, including Reid, will now probably hold on to their seats because these third party candidates manage to steal 10% or so of the vote in these elections.  That's stupid and, yes, dangerous.  

What makes it worse is this all happened in one of the most conservative shifting years in the Reublican Party since at least 1994 and, perhaps, 1980.  I cannot remember a time when so many young, conservative leaders were emerging from the Republican Party at the same time. 

Matthew, why are you answering my question with saying Beck flirted with an idea (though never came out and directly endorsed) for the last year?  Obviously I am asking what is wrong with his CPAC speech, not every little thing he has ever said. 

If Reid wins his election, I'm sure you'll find it easy to blame someone like Beck, even though the real problem is the Republican Party.  Meanwhile, conservative Republicans like Todd continue to get excited over liberal candidates like Scott Brown when they win, and pissed off when those same liberal republicans, whom they elected, prove not to be fiscally or socially conservative (See his facebook page after he sided with democrats on the jobs bill for proof).  But ask yourself this.  Did Scott Brown lie to republicans to get into office?  Or were republicans lying to themselves? 

As far as John McCain is concerned there are many things that make Glenn Beck more conservative on the issues than McCain himself is.  I don't even have time to go into them on here.  Still, why did it take John McCain all this time to realize he was wrong about TARP?  I find it disingenuous that he waited for an election year to find his conservative roots.

Some people don't understand analogies.  Stop bashing McCain, a great American.  It's not his fault the GOP had no other candidates and Bush was his ball and chain AND the economy went south.  You'll respond that it's his moderateness you don't like not the other things.  So be it but don't bash him.

To clarify what I said earlier about Beck's speech, let me just say this.  I do NOT necessarily disagree with most of what he had to say nor do I necessarily disagrree with some of assessments of the Grand Old Party.  Where I do disagree with him is the place and timing of this speech.

I really belive this was the place on the agenda to accentuate the positive, the whole positive and nothing but the positive.  This was the send-off, the climax, the keynote address and at that time and that place it was time to charge the troops and send them out with a bang . . . that's really all I am saying. 

Beck is generally spot on in his judgements and his analyses and I find it difficult to criticise him for much of anything.  But, here, I do find myself in disagreement ONLY about the place and timing of hjis remarks; not the content . . .

The Tea Party activists who are the core of Mr. Beck's viewing audience have made a pragmatic decision to forswear splinter-group politics and work within the Republican Party. It's true Mr. Beck's words sting and may show insufficient appreciation for recent GOP solidarity against big government. But given the powerful pressures in Washington for even conservatives to backslide when it comes to spending, the Fox News firebrand is probably doing GOP members a favor by keeping the heat on them. When he was president, even Ronald Reagan expressed private appreciation for activists who made it uncomfortable for the "weak sisters" in the Republican Party who didn't back his agenda.

As I said in the post, and as others have made clear (like the John Fund article quoted above but posted like an individual comment), Beck made some valid points.  There is also nothing wrong with keeping the heat on RINO's like Scott Brown or the Maine sisters.  That being said, to suggest there is no difference between the parties or "party establishments" as Beck did is still reckless. Many Democrats, including Reid, could win their elections this year because of his comments.  That is my beef with Beck.

It is also impossible to separate the message from the messenger.  Beck has rallied behind the third party cause often this year; this speech seems to be in perfect harmony with that message. 

Again, he made many fair criticisms and gave some keen insights but, at the end of the day, encouraging others to action that will help keep Reid in office, is counterintuitive and dangerous. 

This is my official position as quoted from American Thinker:

Not everybody was in love with my speech at CPAC. Some are saying I wasn't quite partisan enough ... which I intentionally steered away from ... this [CPAC] isn't really talking to the Democrats.  It seems that some people think that I was wanting some sort of third party. Nope. I just think the American people ... just want a party that stands for something. You know -- it's holding your own side's feet to the fire that delivers a party like that.It's important to acknowledge the individual Republicans fighting the good fight ... and I think we do that on this program. CPAC -- they had already done a good job of that ... most of the speeches during the weekend were made by people I tend to agree with. If you watch this show at all, you know that I highlight good conservatives inside the Republican Party. Jim DeMint's on this show ... I think ... as much as I am.  The problem is progressivism. Does anyone seriously think that Mike Pence is who I'm talking about when I say Republican progressives? The usually on-the-money American Thinker was critical of my speech as well ... In doing so, inadvertently, they made my point for me. When I was talking about not seeing the come-to-Jesus moment for the Republican Party -- they [Wright] wrote, "Has he not heard about Marco Rubio?  Rubio is now up 12 points over Charlie Crist among Florida voters. That sounds to me like a lot of Florida Republicans admit there's a problem." Rubio is a perfect example of the problem I'm talking about. Rubio is not up by 18 because of the Republican Party. He's up by 18 because the people of Florida are rejecting what the Republican Party told them to do: Vote for Charlie Crist.  I don't want a third party. I think that might be a bad idea.

I am definitely glad and encouraged to hear Beck say he doesn't want a third party, however, he can't deny he has hinted at the prospect before.  Beck is the greatest showman in the conservative movement today, something I thought I would never say about anyone other than Rush Limbaugh while Limbaugh was still going strong.

Beck is also smart. Almost scary smart.  Outside of Levin, he hosts the most academic radio and TV shows within the conservative movement, regularly interviewing the likes of history and philosophy professors and some of the smarter conservative writers (e.g. Jonah Goldberg).  You don;t see that much in the conservative movement - making his presence a really, really good thing. 

That being said, he seems to come dangerously close to catering to the John Birch Society/birther/Ron Paul wing of the conservative movement too.  This makes me uncomfortable because I don't know his motives for doing so.  Is he attemting to bring these groups into the more mainstream conservative movement or vice versa?  Does he cater to these groups to simply have a larger radio/tv audience?  I don't know. 

All that being said, I still believe Bennett was right.  Notice Beck had to appeal to other things besides his speech to prove his point. But I'm also glad Beck is on our side and explicitly came out against a thrid party. 

I can't remember when I hear Glen Beck... but I know he comes on the radio 610 WIOD, every day... I think when I head home for lunch. I've heard him talk about a third party numerous times. I'm glad, also, that he's not seeking the growth of a third party either. While it might be ultimately what the Tea Party movement seeks, it's evidentally not going to accomplish what it's goals are...

"That being said, he seems to come dangerously close to catering to the John Birch Society/birther/Ron Paul wing of the conservative movement too.  This makes me uncomfortable because I don't know his motives for doing so.  Is he attemting to bring these groups into the more mainstream conservative movement or vice versa?  Does he cater to these groups to simply have a larger radio/tv audience?  I don't know."  - Matthew Cochrane

Matthew, Glenn Beck hates Ron Paul as a candidate and has said that so many times it's ridiculous anyone would ever tie him to that movement.

"All that being said, I still believe Bennett was right." - Matthew Cochrane

Wow, way to prove a point.  I guess if you say so, that really does settle the issue.  Bennett is usually right but his observation was way off on this one.  You never answered my question about why it is wrong, as Bennett claims, to use analogies from personal experience when talking about our nation.

"Notice Beck had to appeal to other things besides his speech to prove his point." - Matthew Cochrane

And we also noticed that while trying to make a point about Beck's speech, you also had to point to things besides his speech to make it. 

"And you think what Beck did was dangerous?" - Me

"Absolutely.  Here's one example why: In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been trailing in the polls all year long.  Up for reelection later this year, there are two relatively solid conservative GOP candidates, Tarkanian and Lowden, whom polls consistently showed leading Reid in this important race. Last week, however, an official Tea Party candidate emerged who seems likely to capture anywhere from 5-15% of the vote.  Now, because of the emergence of this 3rd party candidate, Reid looks likely to retain his seat." - Matthew Cochrane

Matthew isn't it true that Glenn Beck has specifically said he doesn't want there to be a third party?  Isn't it true that the tea party has never heard of this Nevada politician and some now are beginning to wonder if he is secretly a Harry Reid supporter?

From The Examiner:

Patriots for America, the Confederate Yankee and other populist groups that are faithful Tea Party tea baggers are saying that they never heard of the Tea Party of Nevada or its leader Barry Levinson before the States recognition of the Party.

An excerpt from one of the articles reads, “However, there is significant concern in the grass-roots constitutional conservative movement in Nevada that this is a "false flag" operation - a group of liberals and Harry Reid supporters who are masquerading as constitutionally-conservative grass roots activists with the intent of splitting the movement and drawing electoral strength away from the real Tea Party and grass roots organizations.”

On the website of the Confederate Yankee, the blog page reads; “I've seen several articles today and have read some comments about the formation of the Tea Party of Nevada and their intention to run an unknown against struggling Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.”

“As others have noted, there isn't a great deal of information online about the group or its principles... but there is enough to start wondering whether the group is remotely serious, or just a bunch of cutups.”

“You need look not further than Barry Levinson to know that the group is a farce. Levinson, former attorney for John Wayne Bobbitt is the Secretary of the organization, and holds a seemingly bizarre pedigree for a Tea Party patriot. According to his own blog, Levinson is a disgruntled Obama supporter:”

You want us to believe this is somehow Beck's fault?  How stupid do you think we are?

Sorry, here is the link from the examiner quoted above

That's really interesting about the Nevada Tea Party group.  If that turns out to be true, it's going to really backfire on Reid and the Democrats in that state.  If it's not true, however, the allegations are going to backfire on the other tea party groups...Here's hoping it was definitely a front to try to trick voters. If it is, it is one of the most cynical, condescending political ploys I have ever seen. 

"You want us to believe this is somehow Beck's fault?  How stupid do you think we are?"

Stephen, I never said the Nevada third party was Beck's fault, I stated his speech "will only encourage more third parties to emerge in the coming weeks and months." I don't think anyone here is stupid. Honestly, I'm not sure where that came from.

"And we also noticed that while trying to make a point about Beck's speech, you also had to point to things besides his speech to make it."

Of course, I brought up other points about Beck besides the speech. For some reason, I got called out for it so I wanted to point out that Beck did the same thing too.  I pointed it out again specifically because that's what I did too.  Sheesh.

"Matthew, Glenn Beck hates Ron Paul as a candidate and has said that so many times it's ridiculous anyone would ever tie him to that movement."

It is undeniable he caters to tht fringe of the conservative movement though.  He toys with the idea of going back to the gold standard, he seemingly contemplates conspiracies before finally debunking them, etc.  All of this is pandering to that part of the movement.  Again, I don't know why he does this.  It might be because he wants to bring them closer to the mainstream branch of conservative thought (in which case, that would be awesome).  It might be simply because he recognizes they increase his audience.  I'm not sure; but he does it just enough to make me uncomfortable. 

Actually, that is rather amazing news about the possibility of the "official" Tea Party and its hand-picked thrid-party candidate being phone to the core.  Can you imagine the uproar in the msm if some conservative group had done that?  It would be wall to wall, 24/7 coverage, exposes and special reports . . . ad nauseum. 

I know it's a bit premature but if it's true that none of the tea party regulars know who this is then it might just be true.  All I can say is, "wow!"

I agree Newton.  If the roles were reversed it would definitely be all over the news.

The Glenn Beck CPAC debate is heating up all over the conservative blogosphere.  Hot Air just posted a blog concluding Beck's s very perspective was "not conservative." You gotta give Beck this, he knows how to get people hot and bothered.  Which isn't always a bad thing (but it's not always good either).

 "Hot Air just posted a blog concluding Beck's very perspective was "not conservative" ".  -  Matthew Cochrane

I'm sorry to see this start to happen.  At this point we really cannot afford to start turning in on ourselves and begin attacking one another.  Actually, we never could afford to do it but right now at this critical junction in the life of our country we are fighting for nothing less than the survival of our society.

Like anyone else in the public eye, Beck is fair game for criticism and  I, myself, had some mild criticism of his keynote address to the CPAC convention last week.  Still, Beck has proven himself more than once to be on our side.  Virtually every day he has gone on radio and tv and clearly defended conservative and American values in a way that has educated millions of people.  He has brought numerous citizens into the fray on our side and he has led the charge against the Obama administration going way back to the beginning when it wasn't cool.  Back then it was Beck and Rush leading the charge almost alone.   

All I'm saying is this.  Let's not get carried away with bashing our family members in public.  Beck isn't perfect and he never will be and he is certainly not above being criticized from time to time.  Still, he has more than earned the right to our accolades and our support and our help.  He is one of us; he has proved it time and time again and we should be proud he has championed our causes so eloquently. 

I think Beck's thing is to be anti progressive.  As far as party goes, he says to "vote by principle not by party."

I like the song that Glenn Beck walked out to.  "Uprising" by MUSE:

They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious

Yeah Sarah!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703409804575143980423006828.html

Double yeah Sarah;

Political experts say Palin could help McCain win over even the Republican party's most conservative members.

"I don't think most endorsements have much effect at all. But I think Palin in this specific race could make a difference," political analyst Tucker Carlson told Fox News, calling Palin the "de facto leader of the Tea Party Movement."

"She's the one person that the kind of voters who don't like McCain in Arizona might listen to," Carlson said. " She's the one person who might be able to convince them to support John McCain."

take that Beck