I appreciate Glenn Beck’s love of the Constitution and his strong support for conservative principles. However; he risked setting it all back by playing the race card against the very people who give him his podium — the Tea Party.
Since his interview with Newt Gingrich, Beck has become extremely anti-Newt. That’s fine. It’s his choice and it’s his podium. To hear his original interview with Gingrich, click here.
Soon afterward, Beck did a follow up broadcast where he made his displeasure at Newt’s admiration of Teddy Roosevelt very clear. You can see that here.
He then visited Judge Napolitano on Freedom Watch. In this interview/rant-against-Gingrich, Glenn Beck decided to "challenge" the Tea Party. Calling the GOP frontrunner a "progressive," Beck then asserted that if faced with a choice between two "progressives" (Obama and Gingrich), the only difference then becomes the race of the candidate.
So basically, if Tea Party members vote for Newt Gingrich instead of Obama in 2012, it’s because they must have a problem with Obama’s race.
The left has been dying for someone on the right to make such a remark. This is the type of thing that will show up ten months from now on the eve of the most important election of our lifetimes to prove that Tea Party members are racists — especially if Obama is down in the polls and our candidate just happens to be Newt Gingrich.
I realize — as does anyone else who supported Sarah Palin — that Newt Gingrich has a checkered past. But to infer there being no difference between Obama and Gingrich is a bit of a stretch.
Despite noted concerns and policy statements which are concerning (including an excellent and challenging article written by Abie Rubin here at C4P), Newt’s record shows that he passed welfare reform and got the Democrats on board to do it. Obama on the other hand rolled that reform back with the failed stimulus. Newt’s policies helped to give us 4.2% unemployment. Under Newt’s leadership, he gave us the first balanced budget since 1969 and did it for four years. Obama’s policies have skyrocketed unemployment with job-killers like Obamacare and continue to grow our budget.
Further, and most importantly, Gingrich was able to get bipartisan support from a liberal White House because he knew how to articulate the proposals in a way that works. I believe this a very authentic quality he has which is lacking among some of the others. In fact, the only other living politician who did that successfully was Gov. Palin in Alaska by reaching across the aisle to successfully hold members of her own party accountable as well as pass some serious ethics reform. It’s a quality that only a very few possess. Reagan had it as well. As we see, Obama does not.
I don’t point out these successes of Newt to promote him in regard to his race against the remaining GOP candidates. Despite becoming a Newt supporter about a month ago, I have been paying attention to the other candidates. I have been listening to Rick Santorum since Governor Palin mentioned him. I keep an open mind of having more choices through debate and competition. I have also been praying.
But I do (and will) point these successes out when the alternative is Barack Obama. There are big differences. And they have nothing to do with race.
Newt specifically is not the point. But it is clear that if any of the candidates running became our nominee, most of us would vote for them to replace Obama. That includes Newt Gingrich who did use conservative principles in his life to do some positive things for our country.
If we vote for any of the candidates should they become the nominee — we should not be labeled as groups of people who do so on the basis of race, especially by our own people!
Tea Party members do look for ideological consistency in candidates. We were spoiled with Governor Palin and a lot of us feel like fish out of water as we collectively observe the remaining choices. But the facts are what they are. Aside from ideological consistency, we are also Americans who look for common sense and embody the quality ourselves. If it comes down to a Mitt vs. Obama, or Michele vs. Obama, or Newt vs. Obama, common sense leads me to vote for whichever one it is so long as it’s ‘Anyone But Obama.’
I appreciate Andrew Breitbart for calling this out and pointing to the fact that the Tea Party’s #1 choice for a while there was Herman Cain. Not only were they excited about an African-American man, they were even more excited about an Alaskan woman. Our top two choices are classified as "minorities" by the politically correct in this country.
Glenn Beck, in my opinion, set that back and ignored all of it to abuse his podium for the sake of having a tantrum.
Breitbart’s website also says the following under the video posted:
First he turned against the undercover video work of James O’Keefe – after championing the ACORN undercover video sting and getting huge ratings off them. Then he turned against Andrew Breitbart – by lying about his actions in the Sherrod incident and refusing Breitbart’s requests to defend himself on his radio and TV shows.
Now Glenn Beck, the shock jock-turned-multimedia-star-turned-historian-cum-evangelist-of-sorts pulls the race card… against the Tea Party!
“If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive 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. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”