Tuesday, February 23, 2010


Republicans have their flaws, God only knows, but during this past year they have been joined at the hip - in unison against Obama, his cronies, and his government run healthcare. That took a lot of courage.

They should be praised and encouraged, not spanked as Glenn Beck did at CPAC this past weekend. After over a year of negativity and bashing from this president, Americans, especially Republicans, needed a good old fashioned Reagan speech. Just think back to last year's CPAC. Republicans were a party in turmoil, with the lowest ratings ever, and no hope for the future. In less that one year, it's a completely different story. But, a third party will ensure another Obama term, and if we are to fix and take back the Republican Party, it cannot be done with negative attacks. At this point, with the elections close at hand (including the primaries) intimating is not going to do it. Take a stand, no time for playing games or being vague. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. And do it goes....

From Mark Levin, "No conservative endorses overthrowing this government. That would be nuts. And, no conservative endorses the opposite extreme - doing nothing. That would be nuts too." The ballot box is our weapon, unlike most other world nations.

Mark Levin, continues, "For too long we left it to others to determin the outcome of elections. While we wrung our hands and complained. And therefore the nature of our society is transforming. We've kept to ourselves. We've largely kept quiet. We basically went along with whatever comes. But it's different today. The accumulation of 80 years of abuse and torment and misconduct is now at our doorstep. Today we see as a people that we, each of us, are the target of powerful individuals and groups that seek to punish us. To steal our liberty and our private property and now they want control over our very bodies. They call this health insurance reform.

"And as a young person who went to CPAC, and as I got older and would go to CPAC, the speeches you remember are the speeches that show promise and inspired and motivated. I heard Reagan speak at CPAC two or three times. He did two things, amoug others, but two primary things that always remained with me. He defined our enemies and he defined us in very coherent, logical, step by step arguments. No tricks, no games, no diversions, no self-flagulation. He was a serious man. Positive man with a great sense of humor but he was very serious when it came to getting our message across to the American people...

"Reagan used to have this amendment - the 11th amendment - about not attacking fellow Republicans, and yet he would challenge establishment, liberal Republicans all the time. That's how he became Governor and ultimately how he became President. But what he meant by that was ... conservatives ... conservatives. Ronald Reagan would never have loosely generalized about conservatives and the Republican Party because like a surgeon, like a real thinker, and like an activist he wanted the distinctions to be known, he wanted the distinctions to be clear, he wanted to promote our principles and he wanted to contrast them with those who either had no principles or were promoting something else. Carpet-bombing the Republican Party ... takes out a awful lot of good people, too many good people...

"It's time to unite, ladies and gentlemen. We have a common foe. We're on the move. You're on the move. We're doing exactly what we should be doing. We are in fact taking back the Republican Party. We are in fact attracting people to the conservative movement who were not before conservatives, or didn't feel that they were. We're now going through the electoral process like Sherman went through Georgia, sorry ladies and gentletmen in Georgia, no attack on you, just a historical fact. We blew out the left in VA, we blew them out in NJ, we blew them out in MA and blew up the Kennedy seat. And now we're swinging back around to other states. Politics, very much like military operations without the physical violence. We want to stay on the battlefield, we to own the battlefield, we want to take back our government. Now is the time to unite!

"Can't wear the clown nose, and not wear the clown nose at the same time.... Stop dividing us. What I see across the horizon today in my forty years or so conservative activism is unity like I've never seen before. And it's not unity because of hate for Mitch McConnell or Boehner or what ever. It's contempt for this president, and Pelosi and Reid and what they're doing to this nation. That's what's happening, that's what's going on and when Republicans deserve a lashing they should get it. But right now they're holding the fort and they deserve reinforcements. They won't always, but when they do, they ought to get it." Mark Levin, February 22, 2010

Using the latest label "Progressive" rather than their more accurate name Liberal (which they rightfully deserve) only lets them off the hook, and the Libs love it.

C. Edmund Wright has an interesting couple of pieces on this in American Thinker:

Glenn Beck vs. C. Edmund Wright
by C. Edmund Wright, February 23, 2010

In the spirit of FOX News: I report, you decide.

Glenn Beck acknowledged on his Monday afternoon television show that some folks did not approve of his keynote address to CPAC. The example he chose to express that displeasure was our Monday piece, "CPAC's Odd Ending."

Beck claimed on his show that my words made his case. I respectfully disagree and in fact submit the opposite. Here's why: In response to this article, Beck came right out and said words I have never heard him say before. His wording indicates that he does in fact think of the GOP as his team. He disavowed any third party movement almost totally on two different occasions. This will certainly come as a surprise to many of his regular viewers.

He claimed that he of course always meant this, but he has rarely if ever said these words...which was precisely the point of my article.

So, in the cool, unemotional format of print transcript, I invite the readers to decide as I quickly respond to Beck's comments from Monday's Glenn Beck Show.

BECK: Not everybody was in love with my speech at CPAC. Some are saying I wasn't quite partisan enough ... which I intentionally steered away from ... this [CPAC] isn't really talking to the Democrats.

WRIGHT: Actually, Mr. Beck, I did praise a lot of your speech, and I did not use the word partisan. Having said that, the fact that you admit that you weren't talking to Democrats almost admits that you were knowingly talking to Republicans. Hmmm. This is a far cry from your average TV show, where you go to great lengths to equate the two parties as equally corrupt and equally progressive. Not a major point, but I submit a small admission on your part already.

BECK: It seems that some people think that I was wanting some sort of third party. Nope.

WRIGHT: Memo to the Beck supporters who think he is a third-party guy: He said "nope." I think I may have forced this. He's never said this before that I can remember. 1-0.

BECK: I just think the American people ... just want a party that stands for something.

WRIGHT: I concur, and while I realize that you probably had your people read my piece, had you read it or any other of my works, you would know that you and I agree on this and that I have been a long time critic of the Republican Party apparatus -- as have many other writers here at AT.

BECK: You know -- it's holding your own side's feet ...

WRIGHT: Stop the tape! What was that again?

BECK: You know -- it's holding your own side's feet to the fire that delivers a party like that.

WRIGHT: Uh, I hate to quibble, Glenn, but you just made my point. My point was that you did not say at CPAC -- and you never say on your show -- which side is your side. You never actually connect the dots and say the word "Republican" in telling us who the only party is that can stop the progressive movement. Thank you for finally connecting those dots and telling us which is "your side." I think a lot of your fans will be shocked to hear this.

BECK: It's important to acknowledge the individual Republicans fighting the good fight ...

WRIGHT: Stop the tape again! I agree. I think you just made another of my points for me. And while we're on the subject, why didn't you acknowledge them last night? That was really all I was asking for.

BECK: ... and I think we do that on this program. CPAC -- they had already done a good job of that ... most of the speeches during the weekend were made by people I tend to agree with. If you watch this show at all, you know that I highlight good conservatives inside the Republican Party. Jim DeMint's on this show ... I think ... as much as I'm on this show.

WRIGHT: First of all, when giving a keynote address where you have agreed with the week's festivities, it is customary to acknowledge that during your speech at some point. You did not.

And yes, on your show, you do tend to highlight good conservative Republicans for the first fifty minutes. I called much of your work fabulous, by the way. You generally don't mention party when you do that. Moreover, you tend to spend the end of your show with the obligatory R or D disclaimer that seems out of place with the rest of the show. That was a point I made. Glad to see you actually stringing the words good - principled - conservative - Republicans together.

BECK: The problem is progressivism. Does anyone seriously think that Mike Pence is who I'm talking about when I say Republican progressives?

WRIGHT: No, we don't think Pence or DeMint or Inhofe or Ryan. But you never say -- until now -- that there are more good conservative Republicans than there are Democrats. You sure as heck didn't say anything remotely similar to that at CPAC.

BECK: The usually on-the-money American Thinker was critical of my speech as well ...

WRIGHT: Again, read what I said. There was at least an equal measure of praise.

BECK: In doing so, inadvertently, they made my point for me.

WRIGHT: I respectfully disagree.

BECK: When I was talking about not seeing the come-to-Jesus moment for the Republican Party -- they [Wright] wrote, "Has he not heard about Marco Rubio? Rubio is now up 12 points over Charlie Crist among Florida voters. That sounds to me like a lot of Florida Republicans admit there's a problem." Rubio is a perfect example of the problem I'm talking about. Rubio is not up by 18 because of the Republican Party. He's up by 18 because the people of Florida are rejecting what the Republican Party told them to do: Vote for Charlie Crist.

WRIGHT: But Mr. Beck, we have a couple of problems with your answer here and your speech Saturday. If you felt this strongly about Rubio before I (and Bill Bennett) called you on it, the CPAC speech was the perfect venue for you to say so. After all, Rubio was the biggest attraction there besides you. Your sudden passion for Rubio, Sir, makes my point that you should have indeed mentioned him Saturday.

Further, you make your living with words -- and words mean things. You said "I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit ..." Marco Rubio is a person within the Republican Party. He is ahead thanks to the Republican Party voters of Florida. They are "people within the Republican Party," too. Can you hear them now?

I know what the party hacks are up to, and I join you in condemning them. But for a wordsmith, your brush was too broad. And I submit that it's not the first time.

BECK: I don't want a third party. I think that might be a bad idea.

WRIGHT: I agree totally. So so so glad to hear you say it. Now, I wonder what many of your fans will say. What do you think? Call me.