Glenn Beck CPAC 2010 Speech VIDEO: Republicans Don't Need A Big Tent

***SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO***

Bombastic conservative talk show host Glenn Beck closed a three-day conservative conference on Saturday by demanding that Republicans get their own house in order before re-trying their hand at governance.

In a winding speech that touched as much on his personal turmoil as his policies and politics, Beck had the packed auditorium at CPAC captivated from the start. Using hand gestures, multiple impersonations and his infamous chalkboard, he took the usual swipes at Democrats. "Progressivism," he declared, "is eating the Constitution." Moreover, it "was designed to eat the Constitution."

But the nearly hour-long address was spent not bemoaning his ideological foes, but rather demanding purity among his likely allies. If last year's CPAC keynote speech - delivered by radio host Rush Limbaugh - was defined by urging President Barack Obama to fail, Beck's stood out for his demand that conservatism succeed.

"Dick Cheney a couple days ago... says it is going to be a good year for conservative ideas," he declared at one point, wiping the sweat from his brow. "It is going to be a very good year. But it is not enough just to not suck as much as the other side."

And who, exactly, sucked as much as the other side? Beck didn't really name names - save for a swipe at one Republican (presumably Sen. John McCain) for admiring another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt -- the latter of whom Beck accused of launching the modern progressive movement. But the message was clear: supporting anything that closely resembled the Democratic agenda would no longer fly with the modern GOP.

"I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit yet that they have a problem," he said. "I haven't seen the Come-To-Jesus moment from Republicans yet."

Story continues below

Advertisement

"One party will tax and spend," he added at another point. 'One party won't tax and will spend. It is both of them together."

The plea was made all the more effective by the intertwining of Beck's own story of struggle and redemption Pointing to his time as a recovering alcoholic, the Fox News host urged the GOP to embark on a 12-step program of recovery. "Hello, my name is the Republican Party, and I got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government," he declared, reading out the apology he wanted lawmakers to deliver. Reflecting on his own lack of formal education, he railed against government handouts - extending the logic to argue against a right to health care.

The crowd was enthralled, even as Beck took them down winding tales of Calvin Coolidge, the Statute of Liberty and the supposed great middle class explosion of the 1920s.

But was the message what the conservative movement needed to hear? Tradition dictates that political parties out of power do what they can to expand their coalition. Elections, after all, are won when candidates broaden their appeal to the voters responsible for electing them. For Beck and the surrounding CPAC crowd, however, ideological purity was the path to redemption and recovery.

All we've heard, the Fox News host complained, is "we need a big tent. We need a big tent. Can we get a bigger tent? How can we get a big tent? What is this the circus? America is not a clown show. America is not a circus. America is an idea. America is an idea that sets people free."

WATCH:

Know something we don't? E-mail us at [e-mail]

Comments

[PsychoAgnostic]

Beck's rant about eradicating the cancer of progressives from this country reveals how he is truly fascist through and through. Research from personality psychology reveals how Beck and his followers display clear signs of what is called the authoritarian (i.e., fascist) character structure. I just found an interesting article that links this personality type to the twisted brand of conservatives that are following this clown.

http://www.inebriateddiscourse.com/2010/02/conservativefascists.html

[Roger]

God, I hope this idiotic conservative movement eats itself alive and either makes the Republican party sane again, or takes it down with them.

[npc01]

What you all need to realize is that this isn't "the Republicans," this is a group of Conservatives. What Beck did was describe Conservative ideals. Big government is the problem because neither Republican nor Democrat matters. The bigger the government, the more big business, big labor and big everything else will be able to lobby, make back door deals, etc with no regard for the American people.

What the article failed to mention was Beck talking about how the Republican Party became too full of Progressive spending - that's why it needs a "come to Jesus" moment. Not to mention the lack of mention of personal responsibility and the fact that people are not entitled to health care, housing and everything else Progressivism promises. The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We are not guaranteed or promised anything, nor is it the government's place to give it to us.

[bluechevy]

Did any of you actually watch the video? He's pretty dang good. He is obviously watched by millions for a reason. It doesn't mean he's full of hate. He is a smart guy with an entertaining way of telling the story.

[npc01]

I think it's pretty clear that the author of the article didn't listen to the speech. I think this encapsulates about 10-20% of the message.

[Masonx]

When I look at all the character puppets - both those on FOX like Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck and or those directly sponsored by the GOP like Bush, Cheney, Palin, Boehner, and many, many others - I see an incredibly consistent summary representation of less than mediocre intellect, a constant theme of inadequate education forming the incorrect opinions they espouse, a rejection of science, logic and critical thought, a morbid fascination with war and torture, an obsession with gaining personal wealth at any price and a general ignorance of the principles which this country was founded, but those that have made it great. How and why more intelligent people continue to grant them any credible audience or participate in discussions about them as individuals, or as a political entity is totally illogical and beyond me.

[Guitanguran]

"...is totally...beyond me."

I think you may have hit upon the answer to your query.

[bluechevy]

As opposed to Maddow and Olberman? At least every night, Hannity has someone on who has an opposing view. I've watched Maddow and Olberman, they'll have an occassional nutty person on there, but by and large, they have no opposition. You libs who think they aren't polarizing and playing to ideology are dead wrong. They only have on people who agree with them. Go watch O'Reilly and Hannity. Every night, they have an opposing view on. Beck I'm not sure of just b/c I don't watch TV at 5p.m.

[Eris23Skidoo]

I suppose you count the lightweight Colmes as being an "opposition figure"? That guy could never get a word in edgewise and was only there to give the impression that Fox was "fair" or "balanced". He was more like the straight man to Hannity's funny man. I haven't watched him in some time but considering how long Colmes was Hannity's token "liberal" partner, I seriously doubt there is a guest on Hannity's show that is able to speak freely without getting his mic cut. I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm an excellent debater and I'm quick on my feet. Hannity would never debate someone who could hold their own in a debate. Let's see him lock horns with a MIchael Kingsley or someone like that. He never will. His show sets it up so that he'll always win the argument and the right wing position will always appear to be the most reasonable one.

[Eris23Skidoo]

The trick is that they play to their demographic. They attract the stupidest possible viewers and sell them a product. Infotainment. It doesn't require accuracy, but it reinforces their stereotypes and makes the viewers feel good about themselves and reminds them that it is okay to hate other Americans.

[TheSojourner]

"All we've heard, the Fox News host complained, is "we need a big tent. We need a big tent. Can we get a bigger tent? How can we get a big tent? What is this the circus? America is not a clown show. America is not a circus..."

America may not be a circus or a clown show, but I thought the Republican party already was, these days. All they need is the costumes. Some are walking the tight rope, as well. Wouldn't you call the C Street bunch clowns? Don't you love the way the GOPers are juggling the truth? Of course some of the tea baggers are already dressed in costumes. Did you notice some of the crowd in the "protests" or "conventions?" There are lots of clowns in the GOP now. All they need is the tiny car. Sure looks like a circus to me.

[Eris23Skidoo]

It just proves the point that conservatives can't be honest about anything. Beck fosters this teabag clown-party with all their costumes and circuses, and then accuses the GOP of being a circus? Typical hypocrisy from the right.

[iconoclast1]

Beck personifies what is so deeply disturbing about America today. His schtick attracts those who are anti-science and who seem not to understand reality. They don't get why we have a government and they don't understand that it is really Big Business that poses the greatest danger. We need a responsible version of capitalism, not a reckless one. And we don't need a political party that is a wholly owned subsidiary, in effect, of Big Business. I see something beautiful about people coming together to build a skyscraper. The architect draws the plans, and trained, skilled people work together to give life to the plans, while government inspectors make sure everything is done properly. Works every time. Nobody cries foul that their freedom (to do something different than the plans) is somehow being taken from them. Beck's followers reject this model; they are anarchists cloaked in the language of liberty.

[kimohavoc]

you think that's it?

Those gov't inspectors really seemed to do a good job in regards to ensuring Toyota put out a good product, or that the Chinese weren't sending lead coated toys to our children, etc.

The problem with your picture is the gov't has been corrupt for a number of yrs now at all levels of gov't and they haven't been doing their job.

[Eris23Skidoo]

And business will always try to get around the inspectors. Not EVERY last toy can be inspected. It can be assumed that a company like Toyota, who had been playing by the rules for decades and became a very successful, world-leading company, would continue with their formula of playing by the rules, building trust with their customers and making the best cars in the world. Apparently, they didn't live up to their own business model and saw an opportunity to make some fast cash or to cut corners or whatever. They forgot where they came from and what got them there. The inspectors, I would assume, were going on the belief that a smart firm doesn't change their business model when that business model is serving them well. The inspectors were wrong, apparently, and should have focused their attention more closely on Toyota. This doesn't mean the regulators were corrupt, it means there weren't ENOUGH of them. We need a BIGGER govt, not a smaller one, if we want to be protected from being killed off one by one by greedy corporations.

[enriquecaliente]

FOX is a very smart corporation. After 911, they give the country 24. Everybody jumps on the show not knowing that they're using it as a subliminal tool so that the ruling party can run amok.

Glen Beck is a MILLIONAIRE and cares nothing about the common man. And this brother Limbaugh too.

[Fenarkleman]

This guy is so great -- for the Daily Show. Hilarious. Public library. Read it in a book from the public library. That is financed by taxpayers, even though he says it is free. And that is a communal service. Wow! What a Communist hypocrite! Ha!

[bert70]

Sorry, in my haste I put the e before the u.

[JMiler]

CPAC deserves Glen Beck! These poor bastards are in the same boat as the teabaggers in that the GOP just picks their pockets and goes on down the road pillaging where-ever they can find someone to give them a buck. As for Beck he needs to loose the chalk board as I think the chalk dust is messing up whats left of his mind. Maybe he should learn to make balloon animals as it would be something his followers could better understand and you don't need to know how to spell.

[philohooke]

“It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish with contempt”
Thomas Paine

http://www.itsadogslifestudio.com

[WillSeitz]

There was an old TV show called Max Headroom that depicted a dark future where television stations were synonymous with political parties. More and more FOX is running the GOP. Beck isn't an elected official. He isn't a scholar. He is a talk show host. Who is the core of the Republican party? Hannity, O'Reilley, and Beck. Palin is still on the national scene because like Tina Fey said, she is "ratings gold". I mean, let's face it the Tea Party movement was constructed by FOX. A media conglomerate is creating political parties and influencing public policy via propaganda.

[Guitanguran]

"...let's face it the Tea Party movement was constructed by FOX"

Actually, it started in February of 2009 at CNBC with Rick Santelli. Video went viral.

So, did FNC engage Mr. Santelli in some kind of under-cover operation to get the ball rolling?

[Eris23Skidoo]

Fox nurtured the movement. Misrepresented their numbers at rallies (showed footage of previous rallies with ten times as many marchers with tea-bag graphics making it appear that these marchers were teabags). They "sold" the movement to their viewers. Santelli may have thrown a tantrum on CNBC but Fox turned that tantrum into a "movement". It chimed in with Beck's 9/12 Project. Beck co-opted whatever "grass roots" movement was around after Santelli's tantrum went "viral". Fox also ensured that the teabags got corporate backing and PLENTY of media attention. I've been to dozens of protests, many including thousands of other people. We didn't get NEARLY this much media attention. I mean, who cares if a bunch of counter-culture kids are protesting a war. There are morons out there protesting their own tax cuts! And tea-bags want to be taken seriously! Sheesh!

[FreedomFighter2012]

This dude read some books at a library after dropping out of college and now he thinks he's some kind of professor. By the way, Glenn, that public library that is supposedly 'free' is actually paid for by our taxes. The very same taxes you don't want us to pay because it's too progressive. Yes, it's a government entity.

[SteveMarlin]

Is it possible for our nation's leaders to spend too much?

If yes, then what percentage of GDP should be the limit?

If no, then what is the best piece of research to spike Mr. Beck's message?

No, I am not a paid GOP blogger, and I am not naive kid - I am seriously asking these simple questions.

[iconoclast6]

Uh...as to your questions. If simple, why do they make no sense? Please place them in context and I'm sure one of the economists on HP can give you some thoughts. As for me, I don't see it as a percentage of GDP, but then I'm a sociologist. We could have the revenue to do much of what we need, IF...we m@n up and return the tax rate for multi-millionaires and above, to what it was under Reagan.

[iconoclast1]

That is one of the problems: our tax structure is actually regressive at the top when you consider capital gains rates and the ceiling on social security. Unfortunately, Republicans never want to diminish defense spending. We spend 45% of the world's defense expenditures to "protect" less than 5% of the world's population. The ultimate answer is that we need to act collectively, but we need to make choices. We can't have everything, so we must cut those things that are the least necessary. The important thing is to make sure incentives are proper. The federal government should really run a surplus when times are good. Nice screen name!

[citizen1787]

Yes, it is possible to spend too much; but, it depends on the situation.

[SteveMarlin]

Thanks. If I say it like this does it make sense?

"When considering the average expenditures of a nation over a 10 year period in comparison to the tax revenue of that nation over a 10 year period is it possible to spend an inappropriately high amount of tax dollars?

If it is possible, then what ratio of spending to tax revenue should be consider an appropriate limit?

If it is not possible to spend an inappropriately high amount of tax dollars compared to tax revenue, then what economic study states this clearly as a rebuttal to a person like Mr. Beck? "

I am not trying to be a difficult - I really want the best way to ask these questions.
Thank you again for helping.

Steve

[Eris23Skidoo]

I like your first question better. It is more to the point and uses fewer big words which can lead to confusion. You don't have to rephrase it in "econo-speak". We economists need to learn how to explain things in layman's terms if we want people's eyes to not glaze over when we start speaking.

There isn't a "magic number" over which a nation should never spend. In general, too much spending is bad. But on the other hand, not enough can be just as bad. It really depends on the situation. Right now, I am for spending. The reason why is because the other factors that make up GDP are not doing anything and need a jump-start. The equation for GDP is, GDP = C + I + G + X. These stand for: Gross Domestic Product, Consumer Spending, Investment (of business), Government Spending and Net Exports. Look at that like a regular algebra problem. For example, if C increases, and all else on the right side stays the same, GDP must increase to accommodate the equation. Likewise if any one of the four independent variables (the variables on the right) are decreased, then the dependent variable (GDP) will decrease.

(continue)

[Eris23Skidoo]

(continued)

Since we don't manufacture much anymore our trade balance is negative. This means we have a lower GDP than we'd otherwise have. Since business won't hire people because they are afraid they will spend a bunch of money training them and then have to lay them off, and likewise businesses are not investing in capital because they don't want to have to turn around and sell it for less than they bought it for, I is going nowhere. C isn't budging because we consumers are living on tightened budgets, fearful that our current paycheck might be our last one. Consumption, by the way, is what has traditionally driven the US economy. We once had a middle class for a reason.

Since the other three IV's aren't going to increase any time soon, the only way to "grow" the economy at this time is to increase G, Government Spending. But just any old spending won't help. Wasting money on blowing up strangers so that our oil corporations can rape their peoples and resources is not productive use of money. The most productive thing a govt can do is to build infrastructure because new infrastructure always opens doors for entrepreneurs and can have a positive effect on I, which can have a positive effect on C and then we can ease off on the G a little bit. Does that make more sense now?