Or, Glenn Beck jumps the shark.
Beck called GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich a progressive and went so far as to say that in a hypothetical match-up between the former House Speaker and Our Lord and Savior Barack Hussein Obama that anyone who supported Gingrich did so only because Gingrich is white.
In other words, Raaaaacist! Yes, there are five a’s in Raaaaacist!
From the PuffHo:
Beck has been vocal about his dislike for Gingrich, and he hosted the GOP presidential frontrunner for a notably tough interview on Tuesday. On Friday, he appeared on the Fox Business show “Freedom Watch” and hammered Gingrich even more.
Calling him “the only candidate I cannot vote for,” Beck dubbed Gingrich’s support for Theodore Roosevelt “ridiculous,” and said that he had issued a “challenge” to any Tea Party supporters of the former House Speaker.
“You read this guy’s record,” he said. “You read his words…see what he believes. This man is a progressive. He knows he’s a progressive. He doesn’t have a problem with being a progressive. So if you’ve got a big government progressive [in Gingrich] or a big government progressive in Obama, one in Newt Gingrich, one in Obama, ask yourself this Tea Party. Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race.”
Beck’s comments were made on the Fox Business Channel show hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano, who took his trip over the shark some time ago when he outed himself as a 9/11 Troofer and a believer in the idiotic Building 7 conspiracy theories.
Sure, Mister Newt has a track record that is less than the conservative he claims to be. Pushes subsidized, mandated ethanol while receiving major campaign contributions from ethanol manufacturers. Supports subsidized solar, wind and biofuels:
Taking $37 million from health care lobbyists to push for the individual mandate to purchase health care. Can you say … ObamaCare? Newt was for it before he was against it.
Here’s a far more reasoned, detailed rationale for opposing Gingrich than just saying “If you vote for Gingrich over Obama, you’re a raaaaacist!”
Gary Jackson from A Time For Choosing lists several reasons why Gingrich is anything but conservative. This one stands out, especially if you are a talk radio listener:
Conservatives remember the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” and how it stifled Freedom of Speech for decades. Created by extremists, the left wing democrats who controlled Congress back in 1949, the “Fairness Doctrine” put severe limits on Free Speech, by requiring stations managers to air opposing view points on “controversial issues.”
Now this may sound reasonable to some, but in practice, it was a direct assault on Free Speech. You see, station owners are businessmen. They are in business to make money. These rules made it impossible for them to do this.
Back then, just as today, few will sit and listen to the “progressive” point of view for long. There are few successful left wing talk show hosts in the U.S. On the other hand, Conservative talk is a thriving business, with $100s of millions paid out to the many stars who give good talk. Even in the bluest of blue states, Conservative talk radio makes money while liberal talkers end up bankrupting stations.
When the “Fairness Doctrine” was in effect, station owners simply took the path of least resistance, and played music, forgoing political talk altogether.
There was one exception to the “Fairness Doctrine”: The News. This was fine for the left, because the news is always presented from their point of view anyway. Liberals got around the rule on the Sunday morning shows by having a handful of liberals, some to the left of Stalin, and the one token “conservative” who was only on the show because he or she had spent a life time ripping on actual Conservatives! This is a practice that still goes on today.
The Supreme Court ruled the Federal Communications Commission had “limited powers of enforcement” concerning this rule, but was under no obligation whatsoever to actually enforce it.
Enter Ronald Reagan.
In his second term Reagan wrote an Executive Order directing the FCC to stop enforcing the “Fairness Doctrine.” Of course, we know an Executive Order is only good until another president rescinds it, or Congress passes legislation overriding it.
This is where Newt comes in.
Before the ink was dry on Reagan’s order, Newt and his fellow anti-First Amendment “progressives” created legislation reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine” with actually legislation, rather that just an FCC rule.
This legislation passed both the House and the Senate and was sent to Reagan’s desk, where he promptly vetoed it.
That’s right. Mister Newt, who became Speaker of the House primarily because of talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular, never would have had that chance if his efforts to restore the (Un)Fairness Doctrine had succeeded. Same efforts that were thwarted in the 111th Congress.
No wonder Gingrich felt so comfortable canoodling on that couch with Bela Pelosi. In addition to pushing the hoax known as global warming, both were supporters of stifling free speech on the radio in the name of “fairness.”
Also, if Gingrich’s efforts had been successful, there would have been no Rush Limbaugh. No Mark Levin. No Michael Savage. No Charlie Sykes. No Mark Belling. No Jay Weber. No Vicki McKenna.
Let that be said: At no point will I ever claim that Newt Gingrich is a principled conservative. In fact, Gingrich is more like a chameleon than a newt, changing colors to blend in with whatever his environment happens to be at that moment. I think he’s more of a Rockefeller Republican, since he’s publicly claimed the best President in U.S. History is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both Roosevelts — Teddy and FDR — were big government progressives, and it’s hard to find concrete evidence that Gingrich as President would be a principled advocate of smaller, limited government. He seems to think, like his fellow progressives, that every problem needs a government solution.
That said, Beck’s claim that Gingrich is just as bad as Obama is absurd. For example, if he had been Speaker of the House, would Obama have pushed the congressional reforms achieved in the Contract With America? No. Would Obama have worked with President Clinton to reform welfare? Hell no, since one of the moves in the first half of the Obama regime was to essentially undo the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reforms. Would Obama have worked with Clinton to move toward a balanced budget? Again, hell no. Can you say $1.5 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see?
It’s an illogical as those who say there is no difference between Mitt Romney and Obama. Yes, it’s no secret that I am not very enthralled about those being our choices to replace Teh Won. In fact, given a choice between Gingrich and Romney, I might support the Mayan apocalypse. Yes, this:
Under no circumstances do I believe either President Romney or President Gingrich will work to reduce the role of the federal government in our lives or reduce spending. But unfortunately this is what the GOP Smart Set has served us, especially when they destroyed the one Reaganesque conservative who could have brought about real change to Washington.
But America cannot afford a second — or a third, or a fourth — Obama term. So, in effect, Anybody But Obama must prevail. And, no, the Roasted Paulnut is not an option either. Once more, for the record, Ron Paul is nuts. Film at eleven. Two of the main groups of supporters of the Roasted Paulnuts are anti-Semites and 9/11 Troofers.
Thank God Andrew Breitbart is on our side. Breitbart, no fan of Beck, to begin with, nails him for his comments, calling Beck a snake and a coward. The Daily Caller has the audio of Breitbart.
