I don’t watch Glenn Beck, so I don’t know the full context of these statements from him (via STACLU), but he is exactly correct:
Last night, I mentioned how some media conservatives had reservations about Scott Brown’s “RINOism” – whatever that word means – and now Glenn Beck is at it, trying to tear down the 41st vote against Obamacare.
“I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy.”
First of all, any conservative knows damn well what “RINOism” is all about. Second of all, to call these statements by Beck as “attacks” on conservatives and “tear[ing] down” Scott Brown is ridiculous. As I stated in the comments at STACLU:
The intern comment aside, Beck is 100% correct. Brown is not some conservative messiah. He is a politician and should be held to his campaign promises and rhetoric just like every other politician in Washington. And it is natural to not trust a politician.
I don’t see what is so controversial about Beck’s statement. Frankly, I am more worried about conservatives who are putting Brown up on some high horse and some even calling for him to run for President already. That is just Olbermann-like crazy right there.
Brown talks a good talk, now we must make sure he walks the walk.
While Scott Brown’s electoral victory in the Senate race in Massachusetts should be celebrated, we should not turn him into some cult-like figure in the same way the Left has done with Obama. Scott Brown’s victory was great, but he himself is no different than any other politician. As such, we need to watch him closely and make sure he does his duty as a servant of We, the People.
The Tea Party movement is not about cult-worship of any politicians. It is about putting the power back into the hands of We, the People. Therefore, we should look upon Scott Brown with the same watchful eye and skepticism as we would any other politician in Washington.
Glenn Beck voicing this reality does not put him into the same category as Keith Olbermann, as STACLU ridiculously states. What it does is make him a voice of reason and temperance to get people to get back to focusing on the task at hand.
I left this comment on a status update of a Facebook ‘friend’ regarding Glenn Beck and Scott Brown:
And people better be careful about treating Scott Brown as anything other than what he is: a politician. He is not some conservative Reagan messiah. He should not be treated as some cult-like figure as the Left does with Obama and did with Teddy Kennedy for decades. He is simply a man who has been elected to serve the people. Nothing more, nothing less.
And now it is his responsibility to keep his campaign promises and it is OUR responsibility to make sure he keeps them. And if he doesn’t, then he should be thrown out of office, just like anyone else.
Scott Brown has talked a good talk to get elected, now we must watch to see if he will walk the walk. It is one thing to campaign to win an election, it is quite another to represent the People and uphold one’s promises and rhetoric once in office.
I will add that I don’t care what Scott Brown looks like, what his daughters look like, how well his daughter can sing or whether or not he drives a truck. I care about how he represents We, the People in Washington, D.C. In other words, substance not style. That should be the only focus of people from here going forward. This is not American Idol, this is the liberty and freedom of our nation.
“But, also, while we hold him accountable, we should remember that he is from Massachusettes, and it is far better to have a John McCain type representing Massachusettes than to have Ted Kennedy represent Massachusettes. We must judge Congressmen based on whom they represent and what it is possible for them to do. Massachusettes certainly isn’t going to elect Tom Coburn.”
I don’t want a John McCain-type representing *any* of the 50 States, Arizona and Massachusetts included.
John McCain has been a me-first politician since he lost the GOP primary in 2000. He has railed against President Bush on the Iraq war effort, he has railed against Bush’s tax cuts, he has grandstanded on “torture” legislation and he has fallen for the hoax of AGW. Not to mention all his reaching across the aisle for liberal legislation like McCain-Lieberman and McCain-Feingold and his Gang of 14 nonsense.
Sorry, but I want no part of that kind of weasley politician in the GOP, I don’t care what State. If a politician is going to be a liberal twit like that, and the people of that State want that kind of liberal twit, then let the liberal twit be a Democrat. Don’t water down the GOP with liberal twits like McCain, anywhere in the nation, whether Texas or Massachusetts.
That said, from what I have read so far, Brown does not seem to be a liberal twit like McCain. Which is a good thing. However, talk is cheap. I am not going to judge him one way or the other based on talk, I will wait until I see his actions. In that regard, I am closer to Beck’s opinion of not trusting him. I don’t have a trust of ANY politician and I don’t think anyone should. We should look upon *all* politicians with mistrust until they prove themselves otherwise trustworthy.
And I don’t care what Scott Brown looks like, what kind of truck he drives, what the social status is of his daughters or whether or not he has a sense of humor. I care about nothing other than how he performs in his duties to the nation in the Senate. And, in that regard, we have absolutely no reason to think anything about him one way or another. Thus, the default opinion should be to watch him with a distrustful eye until he proves himself… just like any other politician.
Oh, for crying out loud! I’ve now read two right-of-center blogs bashing Glenn Beck for his comments regarding Scott Brown. I don’t even watch Glenn Beck and here I am one of the few who is defending him. He has been one of the few right-of-center pundits who has actually put his neck out there the past 2 years criticizing and exposing the radicalism of Obama and his Administration and yet he makes a few non-fangirlish comments about Scott Brown and conservatives are throwing him under the bus? Geez.
What has Brown done? Posed for Playboy, made some great campaign speeches and interviews, ran a great campaign and won an election. Congratulations to him, but, excuse me while I say… big fat hairy deal. And ask you, of whom does this remind you? That’s right, Barack Obama. Scott Brown has talked the talk, but has not walked the walk yet. Despite that, there are conservatives already talking about him running for President.
Someone tell me when the hell the Right turned into the Obama-loving, cult-worshiping, knob-gobbling Left???
After all the work that Glenn has done, here we now have some new pretty boy on the block whose accomplished nothing but winning an election for Senate and now all the fickle sheep run to their new crush?
Brian Maloney, Mark Levin and Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit need to chill out and re-focus. That’s all that Glenn Beck was probably trying to do… get people to take a step back from their ridiculous fangirl cheerleading of Brown and get back to treating him as what he is: a politician We, the People must hold to his campaign promises. Nothing more, nothing less.
Some good comments left at Gateway Pundit’s post:
January 20th, 2010 | 4:59 pm | #18
While I don’t fully agree with Beck on this one, I think he just may be on the page that Scott Brown is not an ultra-conservative, nor will this win solve all of our problems.
I think the nude spread is not something most people would do, but Brown was younger and we’ve all done things that weren’t so smart back in the day. I think Beck just doesn’t like it.
The comment about his daughters was funny and harmless.
I am very excited about this win, but hesitant at the same time. I don’t want this movement to lose its steam even temporarily because of such an exciting and important upset.
I don’t think that will happen, but we have lots more to do and even more conservative candidates to support all over the country.
Let’s understand that Brown is a moderate and for now his win has caused a massive storm that is causing upheaval on the healthcare bill and Democrat plans.
But don’t believe for one minute that Cap and Tax or Amnesty are dead. They aren’t.
January 20th, 2010 | 5:00 pm | #20
I’m excited that Brown won only because he needed to win to prevent the country from lurching drastically to the left. So far left that we likely wouldn’t be able to correct it in the future if Coakley won.
But I agree with Joe Camel. Brown is no conservative. He voted for universal healthcare in MA; he supports abortion rights (but opposes partial birth abortion); he’s for civil unions.
He may be conservative by New England standards, like the weak sisters in ME, but he’s a RINO where I come from.
I was disappointed DeMint endorsed him because DeMint’s endoresment wasn’t going to sway many, if any, voters in MA, but it now makes me question how committed he is to restoring conservatism.
January 20th, 2010 | 5:27 pm | #31
Oh for heaven’s sake, get a sense of humor!
Glenn was picking on Scott Brown with a sense of humor (probably should) more to remind us that Brown is no God than to truly attack him. I agree that calls for Brown for President make my cautionary antennae go up. Even Morrissey over at Hot Air (http://bit.ly/5×0oc7) called for caution (with less humor and on a much more serious note than Glenn).
If your party gets pooped over a joke about something that is clearly not on the issues from someone who has proved himself a patriot in the past, I’d say you are putting your political eggs in the wrong basket. Or, maybe you need to grow up a bit.
January 20th, 2010 | 5:39 pm | #36
Glenn is doing his job and making sure we don’t give Brown a seal of approval before he earns it. We should all be watching and making sure Brown lives up to his promises. We’ve learned that many do not. Beck is right to be bemoan any talk of Brown as a Presidential candidate. Another politician with inadequate vetting and experience is NOT what we need.
And comparing Brown’s nude centerfold to Beck’s alcoholism is ridiculous. Beck has struggled to overcome a serious addiction, admitting the mistakes and consequences. Not even in the same category.
Party pooper? You’ve got to be kidding me? All of the sudden someone that cautions conservatives about believing everything you hear is a party pooper? If we are this naive, then we do have a long way to go.
January 20th, 2010 | 5:46 pm | #39
Hmmm I get the sense that we are going to begin to weed the teaparty patriots out of the Republicans As Usual Gang (RAUG).
Now that the RAUG feel the ball is finally rolling, they think they can throw the outside the Beltway folks like Glenn under the bus. I think you better think twice.
Glenn’s comments were said in humor (if you bother to watch the show I don’t know how you can miss that) but with a kernel of seriousness. That kernel of seriousness is important if you know the history of otherwise “good” people going to DC and ending up with lovers in Argentina and fighting over stains on blue dresses.
Glenn’s point is that Brown is every bit the unknown (and more) that Obama was.
January 20th, 2010 | 6:05 pm | #48
A lot of people need to seriously get a clue and realize what they are doing when it comes to Brown. Yes, he won. Yes, it is a fantastic day to be a conservative. But, it is not a day to fall into the same trap the left fell into with Obama. They made him be all things to all people when he had not done a darn thing.
He was hot, he was smart, he was well spoken, he was the future of the party, he was, he was, he was…
And now, one day after this election, it seems as if every damn conservative has lost their collective minds and have started doing the same thing to Brown. Have none of you learned anything over the past year? A lot of you say you have watched Glenn, but it is pretty obvious that you were not LISTENING!
We respect the Founding Father’s for WHAT THEY DID! not how hot they are. We respect Reagan for WHAT HE DID! not for his potential on 1/20/1981. For over a year, Glenn has been saying that to campaign on a promise is one thing, to deliver it is another. And you all want to bash on him because, in HIS opinion, some of the things Brown has done or something he said last night set off his radar.
He did not bash Brown. In fact, he said he was extremely happy that he won and that he felt a sense of relief that perhaps we could get back on track. He just said it sounded a little weird.
For one second, imagine some ‘hot’ Liberal Democrat saying those things and posing nude. Now, imagine he had just won the state of Texas. Your radar would be going off the same as Beck’s.
Point is, be happy today (I am), be hopeful for the future (I am) and send Brown all the ‘We Love Your HAWTNESS’ emails that you want.
But remember – this is but one battle in a war that has not even begun to get ugly. That is what Glenn has been saying all year and that is what he was reminding you all of today…
January 20th, 2010 | 6:38 pm | #58
I don’t recall the part where Mr. Brown apologized for his foolish decision to pose for Cosmo. Clearly he is not the sort of character who conservatives are going to relate to, and I don’t see why you’re criticizing Beck for making that point. He’s just trying to save conservatives from making the same mistake they’ve made so many times before, which is to stand behind a guy who turns out to not really be one of them. I get the logic behind this race. I get the cold, calculated political reasons why you folks are supporting this guy. But seriously, get a grip.
January 20th, 2010 | 6:41 pm | #60
Well, I’d rather throw neither Brown nor Beck under the bus and it seems to me the real venom is here (and now on Hot Air). This along with all the crowing about Bush on Big Government smells like Beltway to me. And nothing stinks worse than Beltway.
I don’t know how to explain Levin, but I think Rush had it right, he quietly disagreed with Beck and let it be. I hope the rest of you can be as adult as Rush.
January 20th, 2010 | 7:05 pm | #70
First reaction: Lighten up, Glenn.
Second thought: Ah… maybe your motivation was to nip a Brown ‘cult of personality’ cooking around hunkiness/ available daughters… (late night losers like Letterman just troll for Scott-isms to have at.)
Third reaction: No big deal… you’re part of the reason why we have now have a Mr. Brown in Washington.
In Conservative vs ‘Moderate’ Debate, Scott Brown’s Good Showing in Massachusetts Proves Conservatives’ Strategy Correct
Since the Democrats gained supermajorities in both Houses of Congress in November 2008, the argument has been made by “moderates” in the GOP that the GOP needs to take its platform more to the Left in order to attract more voters. Conservatives have rejected that theory and have asserted that the reason the GOP has been losing is that the Party members have not stuck to conservative principles and not given the people a true alternative to the left-wing policies of the Democrat Party.
The compromise rebuttal then by the “moderates” is that the GOP must run “moderate” to liberal-leaning Republicans in liberal areas of the country and conservatives only in conservative areas of the country. Conservatives have responded to that by saying that we should not dilute the GOP brand and if an area wants a liberal representative, then it might as well be a Democrat. The “moderates” claim that that is a foolish losing cause which will never gain the GOP back the majority. Conservatives counter that it is better to at least provide people a conservative alternative and try to persuade people of our values, instead of just giving up.
Well, fast forward to the Massachusetts special election to fill the Senate seat opened by the death of Ted Kennedy. Republican candidate Scott Brown is campaigning against Democrat Candidate Martha Coakley. From everything I have read about the policy positions and political ideology of Scott Brown, he seems to be a solid conservative. And, other than his support for abortion, he’s even a social conservative in that he is against re-defining marriage.
In my opinion, this proves correct the conservative argument for campaigning conservatives, even in liberal areas of the country. “Moderates” argued back during the NY-23 Congressional election that Dede Scozzofava would be an acceptable GOP candidate in liberal parts of the country. Conservatives argued that she would never be an acceptable GOP candidate anywhere, that if people wanted a candidate with her far-left wing political ideology, then they might as well vote for a Democrat and the GOP should not dilute it’s platform to bring in liberal candidates such as her.
Well, here we have arguably one of the most liberal States in the Union, and all polls are showing that providing a conservative option for which the people can vote is a successful strategy.
Maybe now the so-called “pragmatists” can stop their ridiculous criticism (ie, “living in ‘fantasy land'”) of conservatives’ strategy. The success of Scott Brown in Massachusetts is a bright shining example that unapologetic conservatism is a winning strategy, even in one of the most liberal States in the Union.
Rush was great on this topic today as well, reminding people that he has been one of the prominent voices loudly rejecting the “moderates'” strategy from the beginning: A Look Back One Year Later: Reagan Conservatism Can’t Win?
RUSH: We were told ten months ago we couldn’t win in New England. We shall see. The entire argument a few months ago by liberal Republicans, Democrats alike, GOP was a regional party, conservatism is dead, must become more moderate, demographics make Reaganism impossible, the era of Reagan is over, all these pundits who said this, many of them on our side need to quit, many of them are people who denounced me and other conservatives. And look where we are now. We’re on the verge of taking ‘Teddy Kennedy’s seat’ and a large number of people in our own movement a year ago said nothing like this was ever possible, we couldn’t do it as conservatives. We’re doing it precisely as conservatives.
I mentioned earlier I was going to take a one-year look-back at the Republican Party, the GOP. Let’s do it now. The fact is that when the Republican Party and conservatives were at their lowest morale, 12 months ago, when they were completely out of sorts and near panic, it was I, and others, who stood up and insisted that we get back to basics, that we advance conservative principles, the only principles that had the answers for our time. That we relearn them; that we become confident in them; that we spread them; that we push back against the moderate Republicans who had nearly killed the party; that we reinvigorate the conservative movement, which had been left to die by successive Republican administrations and Congresses. We fought the David Brookses, the David Frums, the Colin Powells, the Tom Ridges. We fought some on our own side who proclaimed the death of Reaganism and Goldwaterism and insisted that we become more like those who defeated us. They urged that we drop the matters of small government, tax cuts, and limits on spending. They urged that we embrace global warming and amnesty for illegal aliens. They told us we had become a regional party. They told us we had become a white man’s party, that we either change and become more like our adversaries or we would perish.
We heard this from the self-appointed sages who claimed to be conservative leaders and Republican leaders. We heard it from so-called conservative columnists and commentators. And of course we heard it from the liberal media and their favorite liberal Republican guests. We were being assaulted with the notion that conservatism was out of date and out of time. The only way we could win was to become moderate, to attract independents and Democrats to our party. We’ve gotta drop the incivility of our discourse. We’ve gotta stop being divisive. Our own people were telling us this just a year ago, and they were wrong. They were all wrong. On this program we refused to accept the death of conservatism. On the contrary, my attitude, my position was to make our case for conservatism better than ever before, because it was the only thing that could save our society. I said then, as I do now, that it was and is crucial to expose Obama and his allies, to defeat them, to insist that they fail, which I knew they would, and to offer the nation an alternative, not watered-down arguments, not tweaks of their premises, not apologies. We don’t need to apologize for ourselves. We don’t need to excuse ourselves. We need to offer a real, solid, understandable alternative. And that was and is conservatism.
Related: Supporting Scott Brown: Pragmatism or Principle? by Rick Moran at Pajamas Media
You can’t pigeonhole Scott Brown. He’s a conservative — but he’s not. He’s a squishy RINO — but he’s not. He’s pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-consumer protection, pro-free market, and pro-environment. He opposes gay marriage but supported a regional cap-and-trade scheme — a vote he now says was a mistake. He supported the Massachusetts health insurance plan promoted by Mitt Romney with its individual mandate, although he now says that they need to get costs under control.
The picture that emerges after examining this fellow’s record and his position on the issues is one of an independent thinker with conservative principles who doesn’t allow ideology to dominate his thinking or his politics. Prudent, pragmatic, reasonable, but not squishy about where he stands (see his fight to repeal the sales tax increase and his battle over gay marriage).
He appears to be thoughtful and nuanced. His abortion stance mixes classic libertarian thinking with the concerns of a parent with two daughters. He grants women the right to choose and opposes partial birth abortions, but he wants strict parental notification requirements as well.
Also, a good comment left at the post:
Does Brown pass the “Reagan Test”? Does he give me 80%? Fiscal conservative, pro-gun, anti-Obamacare, national defense, Crap and Tax a bad idea, illegal immigration, pretty good so far. Abortion, pro-choice not so good, but against partial birth and for parental notification so that gets me 2 out of 3. Romneycare, not much, but that is one of the powers left to the various States by the Constitution and Mass. doing it is up to the people of Mass. Just don’t tell me I have to pay for it, which seems to me a Conservative position. So he looks pretty good to me. Like Rudy, not total agreement, but on the whole, pretty close. To me, a RINO is not someone who disagrees with me on something, but pokes a stick in my eye while doing it. You hear me, Arlen?