Little Green Freakshow Watch: Charles Johnson runs selectively-edited footage in a post entitled, “Glenn Beck: Frog Killer.” Beck responds to the controversy, during which he states the title of Johnson’s post. The conclusion? “Glenn Beck Lies About LGF.” Honestly, at this point what can you say to somebody like Charles Johnson, aside from either “go to hell” or “please seek psychiatric help”?
As to the original controversy that led Beck to ruthlessly murder that poor, rubber frog—Beck’s contention that John McCain winning the election would have been worse for America than Barack Obama’s victory—it’s a view I was once sympathetic to, but I ultimately came around (mostly due to foreign policy) and voted for McCain. As bad as McCain is on the issues, I think it’s safe to say he wouldn’t be putting 9/11 Truthers or deranged eugenicists in positions of power. He wouldn’t be redefining the standard for acceptable deficits. And most importantly, a McCain Administration wouldn’t abandon missile defense, sell out Israel, underestimate Iran’s threat, waver on Afghanistan, or side with tyranny over democracy in Honduras.
As to the idea that McCain-backed liberalism wouldn’t be opposed to the degree Obama-backed liberalism is currently: I think there’s probably truth to that at the congressional level, but not at the grassroots. How far did George W. Bush get on Harriet Miers, amnesty, or the United Arab Emirates deal?
I was wrong then, and Glenn Beck is wrong now.
5 thoughts on “Of Frogs and Fatwas”
A McCain win wouldn’t have brought us all together as Obama has done, so perhaps Glenn is right….he would have been worse. Just a thought. 🙂
I like Glenn, but I really don’t think so – there were many among the pundits who gave Bush a pass on his big-govt. tendencies since he was fighting terror, defending life and cutting taxes, and some of the talkers might be giving McCain a pass today. But like I said, when he tried to impose amnesty, the country rose up and killed it. Same with Harriet Miers and the UAE. Maybe the tea parties wouldn’t be *quite* as big, but if McCain were pushing this crap today, there’d still be major opposition – especially considering that most Republicans hate McCain way more than Bush, and have for years.
What surprises me most about Glenn’s argument, I think, is how it implicitly suggests the protests are insincere and motivated primarily by partisanship — which I very much doubt he meant to do.
Really? You got that? You must have seen/heard something I missed. Wouldn’t be the first time. 🙂
Well, sure. If the grassroots rise up when Obama imposes statism, but doesn’t rise up when McCain imposes statism, what difference is there, other than party affiliation?
I’m thinking McCain would have been the frog in the cold water scenario. Those parties are killin’ us….one line of the Constitution at a time. sigh….