I Yelled At Glenn Beck Friday

Last Friday, as usual, I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio.   Most of you know I'm a big fan of Glenn Beck, but on Friday, I was getting more and more angry with every minute.

Glenn Beck had yet to make up his mind about supporting McCain.  I understood completely why some may have hesitated to support McCain - he's poked conservatives in the eye so many times, we winced at the mention of his name.

However, at some point, after the primaries are over, and the contrasts are drawn between the GOP nominee and the Democratic nominee, angst about our nominee should give way to support.   U.S. Presidential elections are rarely, if ever, between your ideal candidate and the Democrats.

Most elections are a choice between two flawed candidates that will steer the country left (Democrat / liberal / more socialism) or right (GOP / conservative / more capitalism).   Given the failures of the socialist model, it's surprising Democrats win anything.

One of the reasons is that most Americans get their election information from folks that spin it to make Democrats look good (or not as bad) and Republicans look bad (or really bad).  That's why it's so important to have objective news sources and, maybe, some conservative voices, if at all possible.

Glenn is one of those few objective sources of information.  I know he's conservative but, if you spend ten minutes listening to him - he's extremely fair.  He has no problem slamming Republicans if they're screwing up.  In fact, he does it all the time!

In the 2008 election, the liberal news media, if they were honest with us, would admit Obama is a candidate whose background scares most Americans (terrorist Bill Ayers and twenty years in a church with "God Dam* America!") and holds positions that will hurt most Americans.

For example, raising taxes in a weak economy will make the economy worse.  It's not a judgement call - it's economic science.  Raising taxes will hurt most Americans.  When faced with the crisis of a huge rise in oil prices, the Obama-led Democrats took a 5 week paid vacation.  High prices are hurting most Americans.

Except Members of Congress, which make $14,000 per month. 

Obama will not admit the surge has worked - it's obvious it has worked and for a future commander-in-chief to not admit he's wrong reminds many of Bush's reluctance to admit his initial Iraq strategy was not working.  Obama still thinks premature withdrawal would have been better.  Americans don't want a President, of either party, who can't admit when their wrong.

On Friday, Glenn spent a good part of the morning agonizing about how much John McCain ruined the "orgasmic high" Sarah Palin had provided with the "conservative porn" in her Thursday RNC speech.  Knowing how bad an Obama presidency would be, and what a breath of fresh air Sarah Palin is, I was stunned that Glenn Beck was still on the fence.

Angry and determined, I called in to vent:

GLENN:  Let me go to Matt in Vermont...hello Matt!

MATT:  Hey Glenn, how ya doing?

GLENN:  Good, man, how are you?

MATT:  I'm stunned.  I'm a big fan but...

After hearing how different McCain and Obama handled the Russian invasion of Georgia...

And what Obama supporters said about Sarah Palin...

After all we know about Obama's Marxist past...

After all you know about Sarah Palin...

I can't believe you're still undecided about whether to support McCain-Palin!

McCain brought Sarah Palin to national politics...to his credit...

GLENN:  Why do you have to call it McCain-Palin?

Just call it McCain.

MATT:  What?

GLENN:  Why do you have to call it McCain-Palin?

Cause then it makes me...

MATT:  That's the ticket!  He brought her there!

He put the Sarah card on the table and you're not going to pick it up!!!???

I just don't get that....that's uh...

GLENN:  I understand..

MATT:  I just don't understand that's like uh..

GLENN:  No.  Go ahead. I thought you were going to say that's stupid

MATT:  You know the saying "Perfect is the enemy of the good"?

GLENN:  What did you say?

MATT:  You know the saying "Perfect is the enemy of the good"?

GLENN:  I'm not looking for perrrfecttt.  I'm not looking for perfect.

I'm just looking for someone who, in their speech last night, doesn't say things like, "Hey, if you lose your job and your get a lower paying job, we're going to make up the difference for a while."

That's what I'm looking for, I'm looking for somebody who doesn't say that.

MATT:  (unaired) You don't have the option of choosing...

(aired) the perfect candidate.  It's who's the best candidate between the two teams?

GLENN:  Grrrrrrr!

MATT:  Are you really going to choose Barr and say no thanks to Sarah Palin?

GLENN:  No!  No.  No.

MATT:  (Not aired) Because voting for Barr has the same effect as...

(Aired) voting for Obama.

GLENN:  I just can't bring myself to say it right now...I just can't bring myself to say it yet...

(frustrated) I'm sure I'm going to vote for McCain-PALIN!  I'm sure I'm going to do it.

(end of call)

That is the first time I've heard Glenn Beck say who he'd vote for.

SUCCESS!!  Finally! 

I was thrilled.

As Mac said the other night..."Change is coming!"

Hey Glenn - Choose McCain.

I heard Glenn Beck disparage McCain this morning, again, understandably, and thought I'd let him know I've had a change of heart in the last couple weeks.

Here's my email:

Glenn,

I heard you say this morning that McCain may not be much better than Barack. I understand your anger and disgust about McCain. I’m a big Romney supporter (see vermonters4mitt.WordPress.com) and saw how McCain sucker punched Romney down in Florida to win that primary and the nomination. I was mad as anybody.

However, we’re in the general now and the choice is no longer between McCain and Romney (the best presidential candidate in 20 years), the choice is between McCain and Obama (the worst candidate in 20 yrs - imagine Jimmy Carter with Soros funding).

So the choice is:

McCain vs. Obama

• A war vet vs. a community organizer
• Winning in Iraq vs. pulling out in defeat (meaning our soldiers died in vain).
• Offshore drilling to lower gas prices & save our economy vs. hoping alternatives work out someday and destroying the economy to “teach us to conserve more”.
• A Supreme Court that affirms the right to bear arms vs. a court that bans handguns.
• A President that will keep radio waves free vs. a President that will usher in the “Fairness Doctrine”
• A President with 50 years of Navy/Congress experience to draw on in an international crisis vs. a President with 4 years of Congressional experience – 2 years spent campaigning for President.
• A President that has never asked for earmarks and will never sign a bill with earmarks vs. a President that will use the earmark process for four years to make the country “more fair”.
• A direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $5,000 for truly portable health insurance vs. a “new public plan” that will offer coverage to all 47 million uninsured, including 12 million illegals.

Still think there’s little difference?

Just last weekend, I decided to follow Mitt’s lead and start supporting McCain overtly. I thought I would feel dirty but it feels good. I’m in the game. I’ve taken a side.

We’re never given a perfect or even a good choice for President. The point is it’s a choice between two people not a choice between a perfect option and an imperfect one.

In 2008, the choice is between a very flawed war hero named McCain against a very liberal Soros-backed empty-suit named Obama.

I’m choosing McCain.

Join me. It’ll be fun.

Thanks…Matt

Rush Defends Clinton on Rwanda

I called Rush Limbaugh on Friday about Rwanda. You can read the transcript and listen to the audio here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050908/content/01125115.guest.html

I was a first time caller and a little nervous talking to a man I’ve admired for most of my adult life, and still do.

As such, I did not engage him about some of the things he said that were a little off the mark.  Rush's overall answer was fine but he made a couple mistakes in his comments & I know he'll want to correct the record as soon as practical.

Rush's 1^st mistake: “Clinton was busy at the time saving Haiti.” 

Even if the Haiti intervention happened during the genocide (Apr-Jul, 2004), the US military had the capacity to return Aristide to power and intervene in Rwanda.  Bush proved this later when he fought two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) with over 400,000 troops deployed.  Clinton himself estimated in 2003 that he would only have needed 5,000 – 10,000 troops to “save half of those killed in Rwanda”

So, Haiti is not a legitimate excuse. Christopher Hutchens suggested that Hillary asked Bill not to intervene in Bosnia, as he had promised he would in the 1992 campaign to Elie Wiezel, because a messy intervention might jeopardize her health care reforms. Hutchens estimates that about 250,000 died before Clinton finally intervened in his second term. I believe this also explains why the Clintons abandoned Rwanda. The Clintons did not want another Somalia. The Hutu commanders in Rwanda knew about Clinton's mistake in Somalia and knew if they killed a few soldiers the West would leave and not come back. They were right.

Rush's 2^nd mistake:   “Clinton squared it all …took responsibility.  He was a big man.  At least Bill Clinton admitted a mistake”.

Clinton's apologies on Rwanda were late (in 1998 - well after the 1996 Presidential Election) and, well, Clintonesque.  He suggested he was not fully aware of the genocide and he wished he could have done more. 

    

In 2004, documents were released that show Bill Clinton, and Vice-President Al Gore, were kept well-informed of events in Rwanda and, in fact, began using the term “genocide” privately within 3 weeks (150,000 dead) but chose not to get involved, or allow others to send rescue teams (that would embarrass us) until three months later – after 800,000 had died.

Even if he really apologized – that doesn’t “square it all”. No apology or singing in black churches or African charity work can make up for letting 800,000 humans die needlessly.

So, given these facts – why is Rush sticking up for the Clintons? Is this part of Operation Chaos?

The Clinton /Rwanda controversy is rich with conservative talk radio material about liberal hypocrisy:

1. Hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old were raped and mutilated. Where were the feminists then? Why do they support Hillary now?
2. Over 800,000 Africans were butchered to death? We should all be outraged but why is there not outrage from African-Americans like Obama, Sharpton, Clyburn, Jackson, etc? Hours and hours about all the terrible things whites have done to blacks in Rev Wright sermons and nothing about Rwanda?
3. Democrats and their activist groups are outraged about 4000 dead soldiers – “Bush lied, they died”. Of course, we should honor every soldier’s sacrifice but they died fighting a noble cause. The victims of the Rwanda Genocide were largely innocent – many women and children. So many were slaughtered that the Kagera River ran red with blood and clogged in some places because of the volume of bloated & hacked body parts. Democrats are outraged about 4000 soldiers who died fighting a noble cause but not a peep about 800,000 innocent people are butchered to death at a murder rate 5 times the Holocaust?

I believe the Clintons made a political calculation that, in the end, no one, not even African-Americans, will care that America let 800,000 Africans die needlessly, horribly.

They were right.