Glenn Beck dealt a shocking blow to GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz Monday, describing himself as unsure of whether or not the Texas senator could govern America were he to secure the presidency in 2016.
On his radio show Monday, Beck and co-host Stu Burguiere examined the vast field of Republican presidential contenders to pick out which candidates “could govern” in executive office.
While Beck agreed that most of the likely candidates — Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, and Rick Perry, to name a few — have the governing chops, the conservative personality stopped short of giving Cruz such an endorsement.
“I’m not sure he could get the coalition together,” explained Beck. “He’ll be a bulldog and he’ll stand for principles, but I’m not sure that he could govern.”
“Well, first of all, you can’t think he’s the best candidate if you don’t think he can govern,” Burguiere pushed back, comparing Cruz to Ronald Reagan.
“Reagan had charm,” Beck continued. “If you’re going to make somebody into the anti-Christ, and just — and the Democrats are from the very beginning, and his own party from the very beginning going, ‘Nope.'”
The negative comment comes as a surprise from Beck, who has in the past lauded Cruz as his “Man of the Year.”
UPDATE: Beck clarified his comments in a blog post late Monday night, accusing the media of taking his comments “completely out of context.” He expanded:
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.
He went on to explain his belief that Cruz would “lead in a different way” from his fellow GOP competitors if elected.
H/T Daily Caller
