agreed. I think Beck is making the argument that people have made about Carter winning over Ford. Yes, Carter was bad, but it was his failures that galvanized people and ultimately led to Reagan. If Ford had won, it’s highly unlikely Reagan ever would have President. In that sense Ford would have been worse than Carter because not only would he probably not have been all that different, but he would have prevented Reagan from taking office.
So McCain is worse in the sense that if he had won the same anti-Bush opposition would be in place, but the conservative regrouping and whatever is going on that is going on would not really have taken root.
That said, I’d rather have McCain anyday, and I bet deep down, Glenn would as well. Besides, if you believe what the media and the left told us, McCain wouldn’t be President now anyway. He’d have died by the Spring and the VP would have taken over.
I know the point Beck says he is trying to make that at least partly covers up his own self interest. [As an aside, I like some of what Beck does on the air as with Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin etc.]
As for the Reagan arguement, the American public liked Reagan. He had residual good will with the public from his acting days. He seemed like a good guy. [The public knows that it does not know what issues will arise in the next four years and thus generally goes with the candidate that seems like a good guy with common sense.] Reagan likely would have won in 1980 whether it was against Carter or it was open with Ford retiring. After running a centerist in 1976, the Dims likely would have run a hard lefty in 1980. Reagan would have mopped the floor with whomever it was.
And as a bonus, had the Dims not won with Carter in 1980, they might have been willing to go with another unknown Dim govenor in 1992 and we might have been spared turning the White House being taken over by trailer trash.