Glenn Beck: McCain would have been worse than Obama

That is an interesting statement to say the least. I agree that Hillary would have been better than Obama. Even though Hillary is a bit of a leftist ideologue, she, like her husband Bill, would have been too concerned about her political backside to ever go against the will of the people like Obama does. As a result she would have backed away from really unpopular legislation like the stimulus, like cap and trade and she certainly should have learned a lesson about health care reform.

Now as far as McCain being worse that both Hillary and Obama, I not too sure I would go that far. To me John McCain has no ideological center. Rich Lowry described McCain as a political gadfly, because of his conflicting stances on various issues. I find this description to be 100% correct. As such, who knows what we would have gotten with a President McCain. Would a President McCain, stuck with a Democratic Congress, have signed the stimulus, or cap and trade or the health care bill? Who knows? What we do know is that John McCain put too much importance on bi-partisanship. While bi-partisanship is something nice to achieve, it certainly is not a replacement for strong principles.

I voted for McCain only because of Sarah Palin. I had hoped that she would have used her strong conservative principles to guide McCain. Without her, my original plan was to stay home on Election Day.

Another bit of Beck news out today is a commentary by Peter Wehner. Wehner argues that Beck is bad for the conservative movement. You can read the whole commentary here, but I will give you the last paragraph to give you a sense of what Wehner is all about (emphasis added):

I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now—and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn’t the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism. At a time when we should aim for intellectual depth, for tough-minded and reasoned arguments, for good cheer and calm purpose, rather than erratic behavior, he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on.

Oh yes, lets all be quiet little conservatives who play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while the left knocks our teeth out with a lead pipe. Conservatives have been playing this losing role under the wimpy GOP leadership for decades. It doesn’t work.

Think about the health care debate. What has slowed that legislation down more, the intellectual writings of say National Review or Sarah Palin’s death panels? What was more effective to the conservative movement, the arguments made by people at the Weekly Standard or Glenn Beck starting the 9/12 Project?

Conservative intellectuals have a place. They help form the basis of our arguments and dissect liberal policies. However, conservative intellectuals are no match for counteracting leftist radicals. Libertarians like Beck and strong natural conservatives like Palin, are far better suited for the task.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: CBS News

Via: Commentary Magazine