I woke up in Bizzaro World: Beck says McCain would have been worse than Obama

rawstory.com

You can always count on Glenn Beck to say something shocking on the air. In an interview with Katie Couric to air on CBSNews.com this evening, the outspoken television host reveals that he thinks President Obama is better for the country than John McCain would have been.

"I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama," Beck told Couric in the debut episode of her new web show, @katiecouric.

Beck's statement came in response to a question from Couric about Hillary Clinton, who Beck said he may have even voted for had she been the Democratic nominee against John McCain.

"I can't believe I'm saying this," Beck said, "I think I would have much preferred her as president and may have voted for her against John McCain."

What is going on here?! First we have O'Reilly saying in another thread he would have been all for the public option. Now Beck is saying he'd rather have Obama as President over McCain? Stories like these are what makes me a conspiracy theorist. There's no way this can be just what it is on the surface.

He is either:

1. trying to make himself look less partisan;
   
2. pandering to the conservative wing of the Republican Party that never liked McCain (i.e. the large majority of the party)
   
3. desperate for attention;
   
4. all of the above.
   

My bet is on D.


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Salvation]

YA Mccain reminded me to much of Bush and thats why I went with Obama well I made a big mistake but we would probally already be at war with Iran and Russia by now if I we would have voted Mccain in.

Yeah, I keep doing that too. Waking up in Bizarro World. A few weeks ago, I saw an interview on French TV with Laura Bush, who had some nice things to say about Obama, and some things to say about Republicans that would have been incendiary if Fox had had the courage to report on it.

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
Yeah, I keep doing that too. Waking up in Bizarro World. A few weeks ago, I saw an interview on French TV with Laura Bush, who had some nice things to say about Obama, and some things to say about Republicans that would have been incendiary if Fox had had the courage to report on it.

If Matt Latimer – a speechwriter for Bush during the last years of his office, soon coming out with a book on the whole ordeal – is to be believed, Laura Bush was (not so secretly) a Democrat, so she might have been waiting to say whatever it was for a long time.

What perplexes me is the things that Beck accuses Obama of being and then turning around and saying, "Well at least he's better then McCain". But wait, didn't Beck VOTE for McCain? I'm pretty sure I heard him say that on his show a few weeks back. I could be wrong about that though, but I know he didn't say he voted for Obama!

This just gets stranger by the minute.

So, if McCain had won what would Beck be saying about him? If he thinks McCain would have done much worse I would assume his rhetoric would be far uglier than what he says about Obama.

Are you kidding me...?

This is probably the only TRUE statement he's made in a year or so.

Dance monkey, dance.....

From a 'European' outlook on the US and foreign relations with this side of the atlantic.. If John McCain got into power over there, the US could possibly have kissed the US/EU military alliance and any EU support (apart from the UK) goodbye. But thats from an outsider perspective, obviously national issues are waaaay more important in this kind of economic climate.

Simple question tho.. seeing as Obama is using a lot of the advisors that Bush was using and McCain would probably have been using those aswell.. do you really really think McCain would have done any better.. especially seeing as the crash had already happened when Bush was in power..?

Originally posted by Salvation
He is either:

1. trying to make himself look less partisan;
   
2. pandering to the conservative wing of the Republican Party that never liked McCain (i.e. the large majority of the party)
   
3. desperate for attention;
   
4. all of the above.
   

My bet is on D.

I will join you in voting "D" with an emphasis on A. People are seeing Glenn Back for the nasty, self-involved manipulator that he really is, so this is his attempt to appear more human.

But my question is... If he prefers Obama over McCain, can we assume he voted for Obama as well?

reply to post by Dermo


Really what support have we had from EU? What a couple thousand soldiers in afgan? Nato is now a Joke. the EU is a joke.

McCain is a joke, the best thaing he had was Palin, and that isnt saying much. Come to think about it looks like Obama is bush Lite, ah the hell with get a rope and hang them all.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]

I was under the impression that the republicans had burned themselves so badly during the past two terms that they didn't have a very good chance regardless. I have said before that I would have voted for Powell if he had run. Romney would have been a more attractive candidate than Mc Cain and I still don't know why people chose him other than his supposed wisdom and added experience. He may have given the impression as another Patton and people are sick of the middle east wars.

As for Hillary, I just didn't feel the time was right for her. Obama does represent change for many reasons. Many people might see his color as more green than black as in greenhorn or similar.

Maybe Beck should just start doing childrens shows or become an evangelist.

I don't know about "better" than Obama. But I didn't hold my nose to vote for either one.

McCain was the designated looser of the election. With Mc Cain running it virtually guareented an Obama win. I sometimes wonder if it were not planned that way from the biginning.

If McCain was the best the Republican party could do, then that does not say a whole hell of a lot about the Republican party When McCain told a crowd of his supporters to tone down and show respect to Obama then the rest of his campain was a series of sutle Obama butt kissing, the outcome of that election was all to obvious.

What irks me to no end, is there are able people out there who have the heart and mind to turn this country around in a months time. But we are never going to see them. We are going to get the same sh#t talking, empty suit sellouts we have always have. They will promise Americans everything. But 10 min. after being elected, They will be on the phone with the Trilateral commission or the UN, kissing butt and kissing the ring finger of people who hate us, like there is no tomorrow. They are beyond just being filth, and what they merit in IMO is probably illegal for me to say, so I won't say it.

This isn't that shocking, all republicans don't give a 100% pass to any politician just because he's republican. A lot do however, but just as many democrats do the samething, this is why we have too many loons in office. Remember that it was Bush's republican party in the senate that opposed his bailouts. People don't understand that too much Republican or too much Democrat power is a bad thing, the order of things has to be balanced, to far right leads to fasicsm which creates poverty for the individual and gives power to the corporations, and to far left we create a social-communism that creates unsustainable wealth for the individual and destroy corporations through taxation. The only way to create wealth and sustain prosperity is to have a balance of moderate blue dog dems and compasionate fiscal conservatives or libertarians, but we can all keep listening to far right or far left propaganda machines and strictly voting party lines and hating eachother, im sure that will work out just fine too

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


You are also a joke

The EU is your biggest ally, it is pretty loose at the moment but will be a sovereign nation in the next couple of years with 30% of the worlds wealth once the lisbon treaty is passed and put into play. Nice to keep it on your side instead of sinking into deep seeded hatred and mistrust which was almost after happening tbh.

No point in being an ass about it, the UK alone have had 120,000 soldiers overall stationed in Iraq and 71,000 in Afghanistan. Just because noone else in the EU really had the stomach for an ethnic cleansing endeavor doesn't mean that they aren't going to be bailing your broke ass out of some Imperial conflict in the next decade.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


But my question is... If he prefers Obama over McCain, can we assume he voted for Obama as well?

Well here's the thing. He also says that he would have voted for Hillary over McCain so I assume that means he voted for McCain.

This makes even less sense. Most people are always saying they vote for the lesser of two evils if they don't particularly like either candidate. So what does it mean when Glenn Beck, who cares about our country so much he balls about it on TV, turns around and votes for the WORST of two evils????

After Beck's latest snafu with trying to hijack Yom Kippur, he is in hot water with the conservatives. He got caught red-handed trying to mislead. I heard ratboy Joe Scarborough this morning say that Beck is bad for the conservative movement.

Morning Joe blasts Beck

If I may, I suggest if you are a serious conservative you distance yourself from Beck because your own team is going leave you in the weeds with him and label you a "wingnut".

McCain definately would have been worse. His democrat lite policies would have done no better than Mr. Obama's and the Republican Party would have taken the hit for it. Mr. Obama is currently setting back the country 70 years, and the Democrat Party is taking the hit for it. Sometimes it takes a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan.