On his radio program yesterday, Glenn Beck made a rather surprising statement when he declared that he was not sure that Ted Cruz could govern effectively if he were to be elected president. Beck made the remark during a segment in which he was just randomly assessing whether any of the potential GOP candidates could govern, seemingly based on some random criteria that only Beck understood. (He also declared that Mike Huckabee would also be unable to govern if elected president.)
It was pretty obvious that even Beck did not understand whatever it was he was trying to say at the time, and predictably, he is now lashing out at everyone else for supposedly taking his “Ted Cruz can’t govern” statement out of context, complaining about it on his website:
As we were discussing the challenges for Cruz and others, I mentioned that Cruz might have a tough time putting together a coalition because of all the work the media and politicians on left and right have done vilifying him. The way I tried to poorly summarize that was to say that “I’m not sure he could govern.”
Of course, the media has jumped all over that as if Vladimir Putin just came out as anti-Russia. But, context is key here. The specific example we used to discuss what we meant by “coalitions” and to “govern” was George W. Bush’s infamous decision in the midst of bailout mania as he “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” Bush quite clearly built a broad coalition to govern in that instance, but I don’t consider that something to aspire to.
This is also why we talked about how Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Mccain would be able to “govern” even though I am not a fan of any of them. Stu caught how ridiculous the way the Cruz comment sounded immediately: “you can’t think he’s the best candidate if you don’t think he can govern.”
This is obviously true. Executing the nations “policy, actions, and affairs” as the dictionary definition reads is something I consider Ted Cruz to be quite capable of. Avoiding George W. Bush type “coalitions” is precisely why I like him.
He also complained about it on his Facebook page:
So, the media as always made this into a really big deal without context.
My question to these nitwits is this: how could I give full throated support to Ted and then not think he could govern?
I couldn’t, unless
A: I am a psycho
B: I have changed my mind
C: you missed the context
The answer is C. Context matters.
I don’t believe that things are going to stay the same. I believe the events that are coming are going to be so dramatic that the Republic will literally be hanging in the balance.
The country will do one of two things:
a: tear itself apart
b: come together as we always do in a crisis.
I wish I could bank on B, but I no longer know my country.
If we choose A, we will go into some sort of martial law and it will be imperative that we have a president that knows and respects the constitution and the people and will give the power back as Lincoln did.
If we choose B, then a man with vision and clear principles can and will govern.
This next president will indeed chart the course for the future and it will result in freedom unlike we have ever had due to hi tech and the constitution.
Or it will end in global an oligarchy and Russian style totalitarianism due to hi tech and the lack of a constitution.
I feel totally comfortable with Ted Cruz as the man to lead us through troubled times.
Least of all because of his father who has seen this movie before in Cuba and has raised his son for times such as this.
Please help me fight the anti ted spin and lies. If you see this story please help correct it in the comment sections and in chain emails.
Unsurprisingly, Beck’s defense of himself make no sense. In the clip that we posted, Beck says that Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush all “could govern” while Huckabee and Cruz could not. Beck has publicly been a champion of Rubio, Walker, and Paul and has not been at all shy about voicing his deep dislike for Bush.
If his standard for what qualifies a candidate as being able to “govern” is George W. Bush, whom Beck is now specifically citing as the sort of president that he doesn’t want to see, then why are Rubio, Paul, and Walker on his list? And why is Huckabee not on that list, given that Beck thinks that Huckabee is a liar and “a very dangerous man“?
Beck’s explanation is utterly incoherent, especially since his citation of George W. Bush as an example of bad governing is not what he said during the segment yesterday. Immediately following the end of the video we clipped yesterday, Beck and co-host Stu Burguiere had this exchange:
Burguiere: We can all look back now and it feels different in hindsight, but at the time, no one was more vilified than George W. Bush, who ran the country for eight years … I mean, ‘Bush is a terrorist’ were sold in mainstream t-shirt stores in the mall.
Beck: And he couldn’t govern at the end, he couldn’t govern at the end and why he could govern; he couldn’t govern at the beginning and he couldn’t govern in the end. It was 9/11 that brought us all together.
Burguiere: Eh, there might be something to that, but towards the end he was governing the way that he was building coalitions towards the ends for things like, you know, removing capitalism to save it. I mean, that’s the stuff he got broad consensus on.
Beck: Yes. That’s the reason why Jeb Bush could govern.
It was not Beck who was initially arguing that George W. Bush was the negative standard for governing, since he explicitly asserted that Bush couldn’t govern and it was Burguiere who was challenging Beck’s assertion. On top of that, Beck then went on to say that Chris Christie and Rick Perry both “could govern” which is equally confusing if he was supposedly citing Bush’s poor governing as the standard against which he was judging the current crop of candidates considering that Beck likes Perry and vehemently dislikes Christie.
The problem here is not that Beck’s statement is being “taken out if context” but simply that there is no coherent explanation for why Beck thinks that Paul, Rubio, Walker, Bush, Perry, and Christie all “could govern” while Huckabee and Cruz could not.
And that is because Beck literally had no idea what he was talking about when he made this statement in the first place.