Can't all conservatives at least agree that Glenn Beck is not the enemy?

Lots of strong reaction to yesterday's dust-up. Yes, I know Dan Riehl is quoting Wehner, and yes, I know Mark Levin slammed Beck. That's OK with me.

Unlike a certain deranged blogger who sees enemies everywhere, I am not interested in running a personality cult where everyone who disagrees with me is a "fascist." The fact that Think Progress wants to see a Levin vs. Beck smackdown should be all the proof any conservative needs that such a fight is a bad idea.

I like Glenn Beck -- which isn't the same as saying I always agree with Glenn Beck --and anyone who has been following this blog long enough knows how much I despise Crazy Cousin John:

I long worried that all the moonshine runners, snuff-dippers and bar brawlers in the Alabama branch of our family tree might feel I had failed to uphold our ancestral honor by working in the disgraceful racket that "journalism" has now become. Yet the two-faced, backstabbing, open-borders, bailout-endorsing crapweasel, Crazy Cousin John, has brought such odium upon our name that no one even pays attention to me.

By his disgraceful defeat and unprincipled politics, John McCain has disgraced not only himself, but has imputed an ineradicable stain to his innocent kindred. (The first time I was introduced to Ann Coulter, her greeting was, "A most unfortunate name.") And let's not even bring his idiot daughter into this, OK? If the blonde-joke punchline can't stop at three margaritas, that's certainly not my fault.

When Beck gets criticized for slamming Maverick as a "weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt was," it's hard for honest men to disagree. My right-hand manque Smitty is a sworn antagonist of all things "progressive" and my basic attitude about the 2008 election is: Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bob Barr.

Since I'm quoting myself again, let me repeat this: Short, old, bald and grumpy is not a winning combination in politics. The fact that John McCain thought he'd be a better Republican presidential candidate than Mitt Romney -- tall, handsome, hirsute, cheerful -- tells you everything you need to know about Maverick's poor judgment in terms of basic electoral politics.

Think about this: Why have you never seen me on TV? Because I suck on TV. I've done a few appearances, hated it because I'm not good at it, and don't want to do any more. I'm a natural on radio, however, and have appeared as a guest on scores of talk radio shows. So that's me: Never gonna be "TV-famous," doomed to perpetual obscurity.

A man's got to know his limitations. Crazy Cousin John never could accept the simple fact that everyone with the slightest media acumen could see: He lacked the fundamental telegenic quality necessary to be a winning presidential candidate in our era. He also lacks sturdy principles and emotional equipose, but from the standpoint of pure 50-percent-plus-one politics, those were secondary considerations compared to the clueless-old-coot vibe he emits on TV.

OK, so now we come to Beck's praise of Ron Paul. Aleister at American Glob writes:

Ron Paul is not wrong about everything. Many people who don't count themselves "Ron Paul supporters" agree with Paul on a great many things, particularly liberty and the out of control spending in Washington.

Look, I covered the 9/12 March On D.C. I talked to scores of attendees raaaaacists. If the policy of the march organizers had been No Beck Fans Allowed, you could certainly subtract 40%-50% from whatever you think the attendance was. And considering the degree to which the march was organized by free-marketeers, a No Ron Paul Supporters Allowed policy would have subtracted at least 40 staffers from the event.

Quoting myself once more: You can't build a successful movement by a process of subtraction. The urge-to-purge approach to coalition politics simply doesn't work, which is why winners avoid it. If we're going to purge anyone, we ought to purge the neurasthenic geeks whose predictable response to anything popular and successful is to attack it.

People who want to talk about the "New Majority" or "The Next Right" or "Republican renewal" need to get used to the idea that the conservative coalition of the future will be a loud, rowdy and unruly bunch, composed of diverse people with disparate beliefs.

"One of the basic principles of military strategy is to reinforce success. If you see a man who fights and wins, give him reinforcements, and bid others to emulate his success."

We need fighters, and I suspect Beck will fight 'til ev'ry foe is vanquished. Bob Belvedere gets it. Phyllis Chesler gets it. We defend truth and liberty against lies and tyranny. Every eye is upon us and we are surrounded by enemies as numerous as the grains of sand on the shore. Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer.

WOLVERINES!

UPDATE: Need more evidence? Andrew Sullivan:

Of course, disdain from the dogmatic right will only help Beck. As it should. He should wear the scorn of Levin like a badge of honor.

If an endorsement from Sully doesn't convince Mark Levin to make peace with Glenn Beck (or, at least, with Beck's fans), what ever could?

BTW, I've met Mark Levin, who is the size of a linebacker and is one of the last conservative pundits I would ever want to have angry at me. If the Levin-Beck feud were a prize fight, my money would be on Levin by a first-round knockout.

Meanwhile, Ran at Si Vis Pacem has related thoughts, and I have a new Twitter friend, 26-year-old Cubachi -- "Conservative, Catholic, Palinista, Cuban w/Chinese roots, and Geeky, while looking good!" -- who is proud to be a "Ted Nugent Republican." Works for me.

UPDATE II: Welcome, Instapundit readers! (Gee, Professor, you had me worried for a few days there, y'know?) New readers, please be sure to visit JihadWatch, Atlas Shrugs, Baldilocks, Blogmocracy, and Little Miss Attila.

A 10-day 'Lanche drought is scary enough, but never anger a Large-Breasted Lesbian . . . shudder.