Glenn Beck Has Jumped The Shark UPDATE: So Has Michael Savage

I’ve always been inclined to like the guy – but no more.  No more. I can’t see how any right-minded, self-respecting Republican can  have anything to do with Glenn Beck at this point.

The Right Scoop: Glenn Beck: I’d consider Ron Paul as third party over Newt Gingrich

Glenn Beck said this morning on his radio show that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee and Ron Paul runs third party, he’d consider voting for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, and he hates Ron Paul’s policies on the Middle East.
Watch video at the site.
He’d throw Israel under the bus over Gingrich?
Unbelievable. I understand that politics gets a little heated at times, and we have our little disagreements over candidates – but this? This is crazy and suicidal. Beck has a large audience, and I hope to heck most of them leave him over this.
Ace puts on his amateur shrink hat:
Apparently some among us talk a good game about the crucial need of removing Obama from office, but sort of have a kind of Battered Wife Syndrome, and just can’t quit the big lug.

That’s about the long and short of it.

I can only hope (and pray) that Ron Paul has enough love for his country that he not do this.

I’m too disgusted to say anything more.


Via The Hill:

Conservative radio host Michael Savage is offering Republican presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich $1 million if he drops out of the GOP race within the next 72 hours, according to a message on his website.

“Newt Gingrich is unelectable. Mitt Romney is the only candidate with a chance of defeating Barack Obama, and there is nothing more important than that for the future health, safety, and security of the United States of America,” the statement read. “Therefore I am offering Newt Gingrich one million dollars to drop out of the presidential race for the sake of the nation.”

Savage and Beck could team up, but I think Savage may have poisoned the well when he called Beck a “hemorrhoid with eyes”:

“Now we’ve got a guy on the conservative band who is equally – shall I say – cynical, crazy, manipulative, political or what and we’re not supposed to notice this?”

Takes one to know one.


Via BloggerGunny, Beck is taking a beating on his own website. Commenters on this post; Glenn to respond to “big government GOP progressives” on GBTV tonight are letting him have it with both barrels. First the tea partiers are racist if they vote for Newt slur, (with which the left is predictably having a field day) and now this third party crap has people up in arms.

And what’s with the “big government GOP progressives” crap. Nice Deb is anything but a “big government GOP progressive” and I think he’s full of excrement. GBTV may as well be The Alex Jones Show at this point.

Linked by Michelle Malkin in Buzzworthy, and Doug Ross in Larwyn’s Links, The Campaign Spot, and Daily Pundit, thanks!



56 thoughts on “Glenn Beck Has Jumped The Shark UPDATE: So Has Michael Savage

  1. Deb, I agree 100% with your sentiment. If Paul ran as an independent it is very possible that he could pull 3-5% of the vote – and with some certainty those voters would have never cast ballots for Obama. Perhaps Paul is seeking to have an impact at the convention in forming the platform. I would not fault him for that providing he backed the nominee and could ‘deliver’.


  2. I remember the last time somebody ran as an independent: Ross Perot. That got Clinton elected.

    Paul has some wacky notions, like “get rid if the Fed”. OK, so what if we do that? Where does the money come from?

    I think Paul’s problem with Israel is really one of foreign aid, which he sees as “taking money from us and giving it to foreign countries” (in most cases, foreign dictators). He doesn’t seem to realize that we aren’t alone in the world – as we were in the 1800s – and that we have friends as well as enemies. Our aim needs to be to help our friends and hinder our enemies.

    He’s a bit too short-sighted to be President.


  3. Deb, I share your disgust at Beck’s position vis-a-vis Paul. Whatever his motivation (? a need to bolster market share), it is an unreasonable, illogical, and potentially catastrophic position. He has lost me, too.


  4. After listening to him get it wrong this morning about the portions of S 1867 that the ACLU and others keep screaming authorizes the indefinate detention of American Citizens (Sorry, I’ve read it multiple times, and there isn’t a reality-based interpretation that would lead to this conclusion), I’m starting to think that he needs a few days off.


  5. This was the straw for you? This implies that him using Fox to run a series of specials warning about a shadowy Jew puppetmaster secretly plotting against the US in a grand financial conspiracy… this side of the 1930s… wasn’t it.


  6. Pingback: Savage a never was and Beck a has been noe working to relect Obama « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+. ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

  7. ” authorizes the indefinate detention of American Citizens (Sorry, I’ve read it multiple times, and there isn’t a reality-based interpretation that would lead to this conclusion), ”

    LOL it isn’t that hard pal. Read 1031-1032.
    1032(a)(2) states that this this applies to “any person”. No exceptions are provided. Really, how complicated is that for you?


  8. Pingback: Glenn Beck: I’d consider Ron Paul as third party over Newt Gingrich « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+. ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

  9. Why do so many people believe that simply by getting rid of Obama that our country will magically resurrect itself? That all it will take to “fix” America is to put another empty suit in the White House, provided there’s a little (R) following his name?

    The problem we have is that, while presidents come and go, the same people occupy their seats in Congress decade after decade. Corporations run this country; whether you agree or not does not change this fact.

    If anyone truly wants things to change, we must rethink the role of America and foreign policy. While Ron Paul is a brilliant man with respect to economic matters (esp. monetary policies), his Isolationist mentality scares the living hell out of most people.

    What I have trouble figuring out is why? What has six decades of “nation building” done for our standing in the world? How many countries really love us because of who we are, and not simply because we hand over billions of dollars to those countries who pretend to be our allies?

    For the record, Dr Paul has already made it quite clear that he would not be willing to run as an independent. And, in the end, conservatives will be forced to hold their noses and vote for either Mitt or Newt.

    It really doesn’t matter, as, whether or not either replaces Obama, we will see America collapse under the weight of our debt within the next decade. Nothing can change the course we’ve taken; it’s basically a case of too little, too late.

    Oh, a very happy holiday season to all…


  10. I still have not forgotten that Glen Beck smeared free speech anti-jihad HERO Geert Wilders as a “fascist”. Nothing that comes from Becky or the Blaze will ever be linked anywhere by me.
    Shame about Savage, I got the biggest bump ever in blog traffic when he featured ion of my posts at his site, but Mittens is a big fat dhimmi, as you can see by my latest blog post and i truly do not want to see him as nominee. Mitt said that islam isn’t violent and that ISLAMIC JIHAD has nothing to do with islam! really!
    But regardless of how I may feel about the eventual nominee, I am voting GOP to rid us of Obama and urge everyone else to do so. You vote your conscience in the PRIMARY but you vote in the general election to WIN (or so the worst guy LOSES).


  11. We already have an amnesty-loving, corrupt, globalist in the White House… Why would we need to elect Newt?


  12. LOL it isn’t that hard pal. Read 1031-1032.
    1032(a)(2) states that this this applies to “any person”. No exceptions are provided. Really, how complicated is that for you?

    Oh, it isn’t complicated at all. I’ve read it many times.
    The exact language of Section 1032 (a) (2) is:
    (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—

    So the operative question is “Who’s detention is authorized under section 1031?

    You already have the link, so you can read it for yourself, but I will call your attention to s1031(e):

    (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
    This means that unless the detention of US Citizens was ALREADY permitted under the circumstances described elsewhere in section 1031, this act does not enact any NEW law related to the detention of US citizens.

    Therefore, unless your detention as a citizen was ALREADY authorized, you are not a “covered person” under the meaning of section 1031, and therefore, section 1032 doesn’t apply to you either.


  13. Pingback: Glenn Beck Being Slammed by Commenters on « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+. ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

  14. So has the republican party. T.E.A. Taxed. Enough Already. After Obama cut taxes for 95% of us. And the GOP is still taking the idiot teabaggers seriously?

    Can you say 4 more years?

    You’ll be lucky to have an even remote chance in 2016.


  15. I still am having a hard time believing that his devotee’s are actually saying he didn’t call Newt Fan’s racist. I was told earlier today I didn’t understand what he said and I should watch the clip. Uh, I did and he called Newt supporters racist.

    Beck is not all he is cracked up to be.

    1. He tried to pull a permit for his thing last summer at the Capitol on 9/12, but it was already pulled for the 9/12 march. He then told his audience that he chose that day at random and did not want his people to work on the Sabbath. Well 9/12 that year was a Sunday.

    2. He went crazy when Speaker Boehner refused to let congressman go to his thing in Israel and insisted that the group that was paying for it wasn’t a lobbyist. If people took two minutes to look at their website it very clearly states that their goal is to influence government’s around the world. That sounds like a lobbyist to me. On top of that they have the same tax status as Planned Parent and Naral, I doubt to many on the right would say they are not lobbyists.

    Beck has gotten many people up off their couches and involved; myself among them; but that doesn’t give the right to be dishonest, and dishonest he has been.


  16. Mr Happy: “While Ron Paul is a brilliant man with respect to economic matters (esp. monetary policies),”

    So his idea to get rid of the Fed is brilliant? Suppose he did that – what would happen to the dollar? All those green pieces of paper, with the words “Federal Reserve Note” would suddenly become worthless. I may have missed his suggestion, but what does he propose replacing the Fed with? What does he propose about the money?

    Canon, and BlackIsWhite: I think the term “covered person” is in there. Yep, there it is.

    jharp: “After Obama cut taxes for 95% of us.”

    I’m new here. Just where has Obama cut taxes for anybody?

    “You’ll be lucky to have an even remote chance in 2016.”

    That is absolutely true – if Obama gets re-elected, nobody will have a chance.

    just a conservative girl: “Beck is not all he is cracked up to be.”

    Evidently he’s just cracked up.


  17. ZZMike Says:
    December, 12, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    jharp: “After Obama cut taxes for 95% of us.”

    “I’m new here. Just where has Obama cut taxes for anybody?”
    In 2009. Right after he took office. It is called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And it lowered taxes for 95% of American taxpayers. Check it out.

    Why am I not surprised that you are among the 88% of dumbasses to stupid to realize it?

    God you people are stupid.


  18. Wow. We bow before your superior intellect, there Harp. I mean you even link to the Obama White House to prove that Obama’s a mega tax slasher.

    Who knew? Obama has certainly never repeatedly mentioned that he cut taxes in the stimulus in dozens of speeches over and over again ad nauseam. We would never have heard of this elusive factoid that Obama cut taxes unless you had told us, so thank you so much!

    Now, I’m left wondering…huh! If all of our taxes were slashed, why did no one feel it?

    Could it be that they were largely unhelpful tax credits and gimmicks that really did nothing while he was planning massive tax increases in Obamacare?

    See the WSJ for the non-exhaustive list of ObamaCare’s tax increases: Taxes Upon Taxes Upon . . .

    The economic ironies are also, well, rich. Mr. Obama is now pushing to reduce the payroll tax by two-percentage points for another year to boost the economy, but he’s already built in a big increase in that same payroll tax for 2013. So if a payroll tax cut creates jobs this year, why doesn’t a payroll tax increase destroy jobs after 2013?

    Mr. Obama is also touting spending cuts he’s willing to make in entitlements in return for bigger tax increases, yet the spending increases built into ObamaCare aren’t even up for discussion in the debt-limit talks. The Affordable Care Act adds more than 30 million more Americans onto Medicaid’s rolls, when that program is already growing by 6.5% this year. So Mr. Obama is willing to cut current entitlements on grounds that they are unaffordable, but he’s taken what may be the most expensive entitlement off the table..


  19. “Now, I’m left wondering…huh! If all of our taxes were slashed, why did no one feel it?”

    Because most of American’s are stupid. Witness Rush Limbaugh being taken seriously and Fox News considered real news.

    My taxes, along with 95% of American taxpayers, were lowered.

    And tax credits are tax cuts you simple minded buffoon. If you are too ignorant to grasp that then you should bow before my superior intellect.

    God you people are stupid.


  20. And tax credits are tax cuts you simple minded buffoon. If you are too ignorant to grasp that then you should bow before my superior intellect.

    I’m gonna let you in on a little secret now – I was being SARCASTIC when I said that we should bow down to your superior intellect. Believe me, I’m not proud of myself for ridiculing someone who is so obviously punching above his weight. But it is what it is.

    You want to know why I was confident that you are a complete moron who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about?

    Because after 3 years, you still support Obama!

    Also, you’re a lefty, and lefties are famously ignorant when it comes to most things – especially economics.

    Um – a tax cut and a tax credit are not the same thing.

    A tax cut decreases the rate at which one is taxed. A tax credit is a benefit paid to an individual to increase one’s net income.
    By the way, bonus points if you can answer this – how did 95% of us get a tax cut when only 47% pay taxes? Be careful with your answer so I don’t have to laugh at you again.


  21. God jharp is stupid…

    I was done with Beck after he coopted the 2010 Washington 9/12 event with his 8/28 event. The 2009 9/12 tea party in Washington was massive, so he thought he would steal some of that away for his own “sermon” if you will. I typically can listen to about 30 mins of Beck on XM every morning and then have to switch him off until Wilkow comes on at noon.


  22. “I can only hope (and pray) that Ron Paul has enough love for his country that he not do this.”

    I wouldn’t count on it. Ron Paul’s love of country compels him to scorch the earth.


  23. I watched Glenn Beck faithfully. I learned while being entertained. At some point I started to feel like I was being preached to and not included in a discussion about current events and historical facts.

    I do not understand the oxymoron of proporting love of country, recognizing the utter destruction of our Constitutional Republic under Obama, his appointees, and his Administration present or future, while participating in a process where someone who can turn the country around and get us on the path to liberty, free enterprise, and less government that CAN ACTUALLY GET ELECTED in a country that voted for an unvetted empty suit is evicerated on a daily basis by people that are rooting for someone else in this primary. The “crime” in my opinion, is not that they disagree, it is that they are creating an atmosphere where the guy just can’t do anything right… even when he does. I’m not talking about Newt. In my opinion he won’t be elected because the next election will evolve into an election about him and not Obama which is exactly what Obama has to have to survive another four years at our expense. Newt would make a wonderful VP however or a cabinet member… but I believe in the current atmosphere he can’t and won’t be elected.

    Romney had a Reagan “I paid for this microphone” moment in the last debate. He told Perry to put up some serious money if he was going to stand by what he was saying, basically he said “put up or shut up” and he of course declined because it wasn’t true. I keep seeing the Newt comeback about Mitt not being elected against Kennedy but hardly anyone is playing his response to it which was another memorable noteworthy moment in the debate and quite frankly, he turned it right around on Newt. Not too many people can do something like that. But what are we talking about? The amount of a hyperbolic bet?

    The Left created the phrase “anti-Romney” candidate. They did it so we would accept it… and we have. We even picked up the ball and ran with it and did them one better coining the phrase “anybody but Romney.” Does anyone remember that Romney was the most electable conservative candidate in the last election or is it just me? Don’t forget we thought it was going to be Hillary as the nominee. There are more conservative candidates that align with my thinking although as a conservative that happens to live in Massachusetts and has seen Romney in action I am extremely comfortable with him.

    There are people like Sarah Palin and a few others that aren’t running for President because they have been almost “caricatured”. Now we’re doing it to one of our own candidates in the most important election in my lifetime (I’m 56.) Conservative pundits, radio hosts, bloggers, and others have pounded the piss out of him every day. Now I’m hearing that “Romney will have the hardest time beating Obama” in the general election…. FROM CONSERVATIVES! Have we adopted a mob mentality whereby anyone can say anything and if it makes us feel good we accept it? So the guy that has consistently polled highest in a head to head with Obama that involves ALL voters including women, right leaning Democrats, and Independents, not just conservatives, will have the hardest time beating Obama?

    We’ve done such an effective job that he dropped a couple points in a head to head against Obama where it is now a virtual tie. Obama is salivating at the prospect he won’t have to run against Romney. The last thing he wants is a Republican candidate he can’t insinuate is stupid, who has executive experience, and business acumen that doesn’t offer a “visual” where he looks like the young handsome family man and his opponent is an old frumpy adulterer inside Washington politician. Obama can’t accuse Romney of flipflopping without exposing himself as a serial flipflopper. Unlike conventional wisdom “Romneycare” actually diffuses arguments that Obama cares about healthcare for the people and Romney doesn’t. I haven’t heard that obvious fact from one single pundit yet. I’m still waiting. Romney is the ONE candidate that could clean his clock on that issue BECAUSE HE TRIED IT! I still haven’t heard that yet from any pundit. It’s like an alcoholic that is sponsered by someone that has never had a drink. All the other candidates can rail against Obamacare but none of them can actually say they did something about it and have experience in the pros and cons… only Romney. He can’t portray “I care about people and he doesn’t.” Again this is obvious but I haven’t read it or heard it from a single conservative. Everybody seems to be running away from this reality. Even Romney supporters who don’t want to offend conservatives. I’m a conservative and I can see this clearly. Can he attack him on “cap and trade”? How about the abortion flipflop? I could go on and on. Unless I missed the memo telling all conservatives to stay home on election day if Romney is nominated so Obama wins then I don’t know what the hell we are doing. If you like Michele Bachmann then support her and her ideas. Give her money, campaign for her, do whatever. The same goes for all the others.

    We should support the candidate we want for whatever reason but I think we’re crossing the line when we try to destroy a candidate in order to support and elevate another. That goes double for the candidates themselves.


  24. Pingback: LIVE AT FIVE – 12.13.11 : The Other McCain

  25. “And I’m pretty sure “Jew puppetmaster” are your words – not Beck’s.”

    Why of course. I was slandering the man who ran a multi-part TV special exposing the Jew behind the massive financial conspiracy who was determined to destroy America, despite nothing sane to suggest this was true. After all, when he talked about this guy pulling all the strings, that could have been a reference to kite flying.

    Remember kids, anti-semitism is bad except when it reflects badly on the right, in which case it’s excused and ignored. That’s why the hundreds of planned, prevented or executed attacks against Jews and synagogues in the US each year simply don’t count as acts of domestic terrorism, no matter how many times the FBI or dictionaries classify them as such.


  26. This thread is sad. It’s like there’s blood in the water and you all just can’t help yourselves.
    Take a breath, guys. We don’t need to hyperventilate over this. Neither Beck nor Savage are presidential candidates.
    And speaking of candidates, why not Santorum???


  27. Remember kids, anti-semitism is bad except when it reflects badly on the right, in which case it’s excused and ignored

    It’s interesting, kids, that he would say that, when Beck never attacked Soros based on his Jewishness. The one thing he may have done is note his history in Hungry of collaborating with the Nazis as a youth. (fact):

    To accuse someone of being an anti-Semite because they say negative things about someone who happens to be Jewish is either evidence of very weak, muddled thinking, or an attempt to influence weak muddled thinkers.
    Pretty damn sad. Soros, undeniably has thrown his money at left-wing causes designed to undermine American interests.
    He also recently benefited 130 million of off MF Global bonds.

    We all know you would love it to be otherwise, but in a free country, one not inoculated from scrutiny because of one’s religious background, or the color of skin.


  28. . We don’t need to hyperventilate over this.
    They both command large audiences.
    Savage in particular, spent most of 2008 slamming McCain and saying he wasn’t going to vote for him. That didn’t end well. Now, he’s doing this. In 2012, we will need every single possible vote, and we have these two clowns out there playing games like this?
    It’s one thing to come out against a candidate – but both of these guys are burning bridges. What if Gingrich becomes the candidate? What does Savage do, then? He’ll spend most of the year slamming Gingrich, and then at the last moment say he’ll vote for him only because the alternative is even worse, but the damage will already be done.
    What Beck is doing is even more heinous, branding tea partiers as racists if they vote for Gingrich, and saying he’d go 3rd party if he’s the nominee.

    These two are waaaay off the reservation.


  29. Pingback: They Hate Him. They Really, Really Hate Him | Daily Pundit

  30. Pingback: Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, and GOP fallout: Beck calls it like it is and is vilified « The Conservative Guild

  31. nicedeb Says: “Um – a tax cut and a tax credit are not the same thing.”

    Got it. Under George Bush in 2008 if you earned $6,000 your tax bill was about $400. After Obama cut taxes for 2009 if you earned $6,000 your tax bill was $0 due to Obama’s tax credit.

    But having one taxes lowered from $400 to $0 is not a tax cut?

    God you people are stupid.


  32. nicedeb Says: “By the way, bonus points if you can answer this – how did 95% of us get a tax cut when only 47% pay taxes? Be careful with your answer so I don’t have to laugh at you again.”

    They are called payroll taxes dumbshit. And anyone who earns a dime pays them. The 47% number you cite refers ONLY to income taxes.

    God you people are stupid.


  33. Again, you said a tax cut and a tax credit are the same thing. You are incorrect.

    They are called payroll taxes dumbshit. And anyone who earns a dime pays them. The 47% number you cite refers ONLY to income taxes.

    But that’s not what you said, is it? You said 95% of us got a tax cut which is B.S.

    (And by the way, in case I wasn’t clear before; the reason why nobody knows they got a tax cut is because they were too small and insignificant to be felt.)

    At this point, I’m done toying with you. Since you can’t debate with any degree of civility, the rest of your comments go straight to trash.


  34. Please reconsider Ron Paul’s position on Israel. Paul is a very strong defender of Israel, and usually agrees with Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding U.S.-Israeli policies.

    1. Paul wants to follow the Constitution and halt ALL foreign funding. Critical Point: We fund Israel’s neighbors SEVEN TIMES more than we fund Israel. Seven times! Defunding all of the Middle East, including Israel, places Israel in the dominant position and best able to defend herself.

    2. Paul wants to free Israel from the U.S. government’s influence. He has repeatedly observed that we interfere with Israel’s defense and try to force her into a weakened position that leaves her at the mercy of her neighbors.

    This is a good link for Paul’s position on Israel – rather than the media’s false portrayal of his position:


  35. Paul basically wants to abandon one of our true allies in the world, Lorien. It’s nice that you bring the same old talking points, but, Paul essentially is living a fantasy life where it is 1930 again, and the US is completely isolationist. Defund Israel, pull our support, and the country will be attacked immediately.

    You’ve gotten the Paulites stirred up, Deb. And some Savage and Beck-bots. I love Glenn’s show, usually, but, the comments mentioned where enough to get me to turn him off. I never listen to Savage, he is just too angry for me, even when he makes good points. If I want to listen to angry, I’ll turn on liberal talk radio.


  36. William, Netanyahu does not want the strings that come with our support. The talking points haven’t changed. We cannot be constitutional conservatives if we are willing to ignore the Constitution on matters about which we happen to care, like Israel. By defunding all of the Middle East – and I would be fine with doing this gradually, dropping funding to enemies and neutrals prior to allies – we increase Israel’s power. This, coupled with reviving letters of marque and reprisal to remove targeted enemy leaders, is sufficient to secure the position. Finally, we cannot afford foreign aid. We know this.


  37. We increase Israel’s power by leaving them open to attack? In what world does this make sense? Furthermore, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits giving funds to an ally.

    If Paul was in charge, America would have ignored WWI and WWII.


  38. The question is whether the Constitution *authorizes* giving funds to an ally, and the answer is no. The Constitution is by nature negative document; it was ratified with the understanding that it assumes only those powers specifically expressed to be valid and all unexpressed powers to be left to the States or not at all. This is the position of strict constructionists and constitutional conservatives. To violate this position is to agree with the leftist interpretation of a positive Constitution that created an unlimited federal government.

    The secondary question is whether we can afford to give funds to an ally, and the answer is no.

    We would not be leaving Israel open to attack. As Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly stated, Israel is capable of defending herself if given the liberty to do so. The U.S. has, for decades, prevented Israel from defending herself. We have denied her national sovereignty. Meanwhile, we are giving seven times the amount we give Israel to Israel’s neighbors and enemies. Those countries would be immediately debilitated. Israel would be free to operate under her innate national sovereignty and her enemies would lack the enormous funding provided by the U.S.


  39. Here’s a good synopsis of why conservatives can not back Ron Paul via Doug Ross@Journal:

    • A man who claims that bloodthirsty Islamist terrorists are morally equivalent to Americans?

    • A man who vocally encourages the despicable 9/11 Truther movement?

    • A man who embraces virulent anti-semites and is inspired by those who despise Jews?

    • A man whose foreign policy prescriptions are so “far left” that they are outright dangerous?

    • A man whose strongest supporters vilify Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ed Meese, Sarah Palin, etc.?

    • A man who despises Israel, a beacon of freedom in an otherwise barbaric Middle East?

    • A man so power-hungry that he refuses to rule out a third-party run, which would very likely help reelect Barack Obama?

    Jeffrey Lord offers the quintessential summary of Ron Paul for conservatives:

    The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present.

    No conservative who would like to see Israel survive could ever support this man.


  40. Here’s Ron Paul making the dangerously naive and according to Ben Stein, anti-Semitic argument that Islamofascists become terrorists “because we’re occupiers”


  41. So, Lorien, if I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s version of the constitution, I’m a leftist? Even though he’s wrong?

    I’m shocked that more conservatives aren’t following Paul, considering how much we’re insulted with this twaddle.


  42. He may be jumping the shark, but it’s been a lot of fun listening to him do so. This is going to be one entertaining election year, regardless of who wins. I’m looking forward to it 🙂


  43. Pingback: The Blaze Jumps The Shark « Nice Deb

  44. Pingback: The Blaze Jumps The Shark | FavStocks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s