Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tex-Con-Man

“I will trust my own opinion of Beck much more than anything WND has to say.” ~ Tex-Con-Man

Agree in spades (except for _a few_ of the writers on WND).

I do think that Beck understands what Rush pointed out in early 2008 - there are three legs of Conservatism. Right-wing radical extremists (the flip-side of the left-wing extremist coin) don’t accept the fact that the three legs won’t necessarily agree with each other on everything.

But the fact is that there are only two viable political parties. None of the three legs of Conservatism have any voice at all in the ‘RAT Party. There is only one political party in which they have any semblance of a chance of having their voices heard. Because of that reality, all three legs need to stop the in-fighting and stick together if we want to have any prayer at all of taking over the Republican Party and getting it back to its Conservative (classical liberal) roots.

Rush: ...The Three Legs of Conservatism
February 4, 2008
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020408/content/01125109.guest.html.guest.html

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to clarify something that I said in the last hour. I had a caller who was talking about the three legs of the conservative stool, and I said that one of the reasons why voters on our side are going to three or four different candidates is because not one candidate embodies all three legs of the stool. The more accurate way to have stated that was that at the outset of our campaign, there wasn’t one who had all three legs. Well, there was one. Fred Thompson did, but he was never really a factor, for reasons we can only guess about. But after that, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Ron Paul; each one of these guys had a strength on one of those legs of the stool, and so our guys, our side, went off on their single-issue preferences.

... The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.

Of course, the foreign policy crowd is obviously what it is. I don’t think there’s anybody on our side who doesn’t care about national security, which is why I found it amazing that McCain gets the bulk of those, because the idea that Romney or Huckabee are going to punt national security? In Huckabee’s case, you might just say the things he’s saying about it represent an ignorance born of inexperience in the subject. I don’t think Huckabee has any deleterious intentions about the country. When it comes to the fiscal side, you cannot say — you just cannot say — that John McCain is interested. He’s even admitted he’s not interested in the social side. He’s not interested in the economic side. He said this, and when he has spoken up about it, he sides more often with liberal Democrats on fiscal issues than he does with his own side. That’s problematic. This is why I think — and why I have said — that the Republican Party, not conservatism, but the Republican Party is in big trouble if it is empowered and gets elected by attracting people who also hold liberal Democrat views simply because they like McCain because of his character, his honor, his prisoner of war story, and they don’t like Hillary or Obama.

Now, I’m going to just tell you, folks. If the Republican Party grows and spans by attracting liberals as liberals — and if we grow and expand because we have a candidate who’s going out trying to attract liberals by being like them — then the party’s going to be around, but you won’t recognize it. It’s going to be over as it exists now, if that becomes the reality. “Look at how McCain won. Why, he got liberals and liberal independents!” Yeah, look at how he won! He ran as a liberal and won as a liberal. That’s really great for the Republican Party, right? So my take is, speaking for myself, I’m being honest here. All I do is tell you what I think. What you do with it is up to you. You are not mind-numbed robots, as you know. I’m not a Svengali, I’m not a pied piper, and you’re not lemmings running off the cliff. If I look at this roster of three candidates — if I look at Hillary-Obama, about whom there’s not a dime’s worth of difference, because they’re so far left it doesn’t matter which one of them wins. If McCain adopts economic policies that sound very much like what you’d get from Hillary-Obama, and if I think those policies are going to take the country down the tubes I’d just as soon the Democrats take the hit for it, not us. Plain and simple.


60 posted on 08/17/2010 12:25:16 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (BP was founder of Cap & Trade Lobby and is linked to John Podesta, The Apollo Alliance and Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Matchett-PI
I don't watch his television show, but I do listen to Beck's radio show on a fairly regular basis, although lately, I can't handle more than a few minutes of his Reverend Doomsday before I have to turn it off. I haven't listened in a while, so I haven't heard his comments on the Prop 8 lawsuit.

I am horrified by the current trend of an imperial judiciary and believe I am with the vast majority in my thinking. Whether Glenn Beck agrees with me or not doesn't matter, I'll continue to listen to him.

I agree with him more than I disagree him and believe his overall contribution to conservative politics is overwhelmingly positive.

And WND’s “interpretation” of Beck's interview on O’Reilly will have no effect on my opinion, because they are primarily agenda driven.

71 posted on 08/17/2010 1:46:48 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson