Defending Glenn Beck
No less striking is Beck’s most recent offering, Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, whose provocative title belies the sober good sense within its pages. The book prickles with facts, transcripts, and statistics calculated to chafe and irritate those in the adversarial camp, whose favored strategy is to respond ad hominem, blasting the messenger while at the same time refusing to assimilate the message. This is the device employed by the book’s resident “idiot” who pugnaciously raises the predictable counter-arguments marshaled by those who believe in big government, fiscal redistribution, and state control, only to be answered with the drive and panache that is the Beckian signet. But the “idiot” is no straw man set up merely to be knocked down; his rejoinders are exactly what we read and hear daily in the MSM. And as Beck writes in the introductory disclaimer, “being an idiot has nothing to do with your party affiliation, it has to do with whether you are able to look beyond that affiliation and follow the facts, wherever they may lead.”
The chapter titles give a strong indication of the social, political, and economic positions Beck will take up as he pursues his campaign against creeping socialism and the dismantling of the American experiment: “In Defense of Capitalism: Giving the Free Market a Fair Shake,” “Unions: When Is America Finished Paying Her Dues,” “The Nanny State: Saving You from Yourself, One Right at a Time,” “The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation,” and so on. Beck characteristically pulls no punches, but his arguments in favor of small government and individual responsibility and against “mission creep” are for the most part nuanced, precise, and factually grounded. And this is perhaps what his enemies cannot forgive him, dismissing as bluster or pontification what is nothing short of analytic fidelity to the actual state of affairs.
An argument is made up of three components: evidence, inference (or deduction), and judgment. And in any argument there can be many a slip ‘twixt the evidence and the inference, or the inference and the judgment. No one is saying that Beck is immune to forensic slippage. But if the facts are right and the inference is sound, then the conclusions are correct. This is why his many detractors, in trying to negate his arguments, will invariably attack his conclusions — and of course the man who arrived at them — while refusing to deal with the facts on which they are based or the inferences which issue in a judgment.
These critics, almost exclusively on the left, employ what we might call an anti-extrapolation strategy, that is, they proceed as if Beck had nothing to extrapolate from except his own “sick fantasies,” as if he were inventing arguments ex nihilo, weaving a tapestry whose threads are made out of glitter dust and synaptic orts and figments. Thus we are regaled with Whoopi Goldberg’s probing observation that Beck “is a lying sack of dog mess,” Roseanne Barr’s definitive assessment that “Glenn Beck is … a ‘death lover’,” Keith Olbermann’s frenetic denunciation that “only in his wildest dreams could an actual suicide bomber hope to do as much damage to this country as Glenn Beck does every day,” Discover Magazine’s lame tu quoque, “Glenn Beck is an idiot,” or Joe Klein’s ludicrous accusation that Beck is “close to being seditious,” among others. Notice how no one deigns to contest the facts or query the inferential arc.
At the end of the book, Beck appends a citation section of twenty-four close-printed pages, which any honest antagonist would consult and take the time to follow up, instead of lazily discarding the book and Beck along with it as wrong-headed, loony, irrelevant, or deceptive. Further, an educated critic might be expected to be familiar with much of the cited material, to be, in other words, in pre-possession of the facts. This is so palpably not the case as to beggar belief. But it is not only ignorance that is the trouble here; it is, also, sheer disingenuousness and colossal bad faith. For Beck’s contentions are fully backed up by the weights and measures of extensive research. Gun control doesn’t work. Nationalized health care is a miserable flop wherever it has been implemented. Unions were once necessary; they have now become self-perpetuating, monopolistic organizations in which the welfare of their members is sacrificed to the quest for corporative power. Invasive state control culminates in both the moral and economic devitalization of the individual citizen. In all these instances, the proof is in the pudding and Beck serves it up by the bowlful. There is no lack of documentation.
Given that the facts are well-attested, the only valid critique of Arguing with Idiots would have to focus on the middle stage of the discursive structure, namely inference or deduction, and show that it fails to connect the fact to the judgment. They would have to show that Beck has committed a variant of the error that philosophers call the “fallacy of the undistributed middle.” But I am not aware of any reviewer who has succeeded in the effort nor do I believe that Beck has faltered, except occasionally, in this respect.
One such lapse, to cite an example, seems to occur on page 278, where Beck praises Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which imposes a tax of $10 per head on the “importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit.” Beck infers that the Founders apparently felt “like there was a value to being able to live here.” The problem is that this clause might be construed to have laundered the taint of slavery, with slave owners gaining a moral bye for an affordable price. It cannot be denied that Beck has made a shaky inference in this particular case, but taken over the length of the book the logical bridges that lead from origin to terminal appear to be consistent and on the whole convincing. The cumulative effect is impressive, to put it mildly. And this is incalculably more than can be said for the majority of his critics.
It must be admitted, however, that Beck can be politically inconsistent, as evidenced by his baffling condemnation of his conservative ally and brave warrior against Islamic supremacism, Geert Wilders, whom he implicitly tarred on Fox News as an exponent of fascism. This is quite incomprehensible and reveals Beck at his most incongruous and mercurial — though it may just mollify some of his leftist assailants. I cannot account for so egregious a lapse in judgment, though others have sought for possible explanations, e.g., his unfamiliarity with European politics, or far less flatteringly, the stock recently purchased by a Saudi prince in NewsCorp. Or is it simply that sometimes the wind listeth where it will, unpredictably in so tempestuous a sensibility?
Yes, there is plainly something excessive and volatile about Glenn Beck, but on the whole I am glad of it. His virtues and his vices are really one and the same and flow from the same turbulent source: he brimmeth over. As poet William Blake wrote in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, “The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.” Fortunately, Beck’s propensity toward excess is, more often than not, indeed leavened with wisdom, though he may find himself one day in a different America, living in a pillbox rather than a palace.
I like Glenn. Yes he is over the top. However he does ask some interesting questions. and the left cant answer them. Lets face things. Obama surrounds and always has surrounded himself with socialist,marxis etc. he even said this himself. his cabinate is full of the same people. So why is it so over the top to assume that obama holds simular values as these people? his actions sure do suggest he does as well. Lets face it there are people who want to destroy america. either wipe us off the map like al-queda or ‘fundementally transform ‘ America into something else other than what the founders had in mind. its not hard to believe that these people would use any method including lying to achieve this.
I blogged on the Glenn Beck problem here: http://clarespark.com/2010/02/20/the-glenn-beck-problem/. David Solway wrote an interesting essay on the controversial star of Fox News, but missed the major point of Beck’s work: social democrats (statists) are not the same as communists and fascists (also statists). To imply that we are totalitarian already is misleading and dangerous. Second point: let’s assume that Beck is mostly correct in identifying hanky-panky: what should be our response as concerned citizens? I go into that too.
“social democrats (statists) are not the same as communists and fascists (also statists). To imply that we are totalitarian already is misleading and dangerous”
I’m not sure what you mean by this…by opening the door, (via more state control) you invite the possibility of totalitarianism, whether you are well intentioned or not; democrat or republican. I mean well doesn’t cut it, when the barbarians are through the gate.
Beck is doing the public quite a service. I don’t care for his style, he’s a bit of a drama queen, but, hey, much of the news is now as much entertainment as information (or just propaganda & misrepresentation). A more ”scholarly” approach would probably lose him viewers. Nonetheless, who else in any mainstream media organization is bringing up the issues that Beck does? Agree or diasagree, the issues should be talked about, thought over, analysed, & debated. And, you are absolutely right – Beck’s critics have only ad hominem attacks because they have nothing else, as in much political debate these days, the Left is all empty rhetoric, slogans, distortions, & outright falsehoods.
Last night, Beck had a very insightful phrase on his blackboard. It said, ”Nothing is as it seems.” No kidding!
Agreed. I don’t often have the chance to listen to Glenn Beck, but when I do I find it rewarding. For one thing, his radio show is highly entertaining. I love the banter and sarcasm between him and his co-hosts.
The other thing I’ve noticed is that Glenn will report on things that either the rest of the media just isn’t reporting, or that the rest of the media will report weeks later. For example, One of the major headline stories right now is the Greek crisis. I remember hearing Glenn talk about the upcoming Greek crisis a couple of months ago when no one else had any interest in what was happening in Greece. It’s clear that he has a quality research team that really does their homework.
lol, great piece of satire!!!
The only mass media source for sensible interpretation of events is Beck.
Everyone else skirts around what’s going on with the O gangsters, puposely misleading the public in favor of their own safety.
I gree with Mike. Only the greats can make themselves look this clueless.
And to think. You manage to do it without being great.
Also by misspelling the simple word “agree”. Truly, a giant amongst liberal impostors.
http://commentarama.blogspot.com/2009/06/forget-what-you-thought-you-knew.html
but the charge of racism is clearly beyond the pale.
—
I disagree. Especially considering Obama’s many years attending a church with a clearly racist pastor.
His association with other blatant racists.
Etc.
So is it now not rascist to instinctively side with the guy who is the same color as you even before you know the facts? A lot of folks who have previously been accused of rascism for precisely this bias will be relieved to know that they have been cleared.
These critics, almost exclusively on the left, employ what we might call an anti-extrapolation strategy, that is, they proceed as if Beck had nothing to extrapolate from except his own “sick fantasies,” as if he were inventing arguments ex nihilo, weaving a tapestry whose threads are made out of glitter dust and synaptic orts and figments.
–
Since this is what liberals do, they assume everyone else does as well.
Glenn Beck is a modern-day Paul Revere, except it’s not the British we need to look out for, it’s enemies of America who have lied their way into office.
Unions were once necessary;
—
I disagree.
Allow me to expand.
Wages: Wage increases have come about because technology made workers more productive. It had nothing to do with unions.
Safety: Newer technology is safer than older technology. Farming has gotten a lot safer over the years as well, but farmers aren’t unionized.
Unions have done nothing for workers. Never have, never will.
Wages: Wage increases have come about because technology made workers more productive. It had nothing to do with unions.
Not even close. Wages increase due to population increase: more competition for workers. Supply and demand. Put a factory in a spot with a low population and is the only game in town, and wages will be ridiclously low unless a union steps in. The term ‘company town’ wasn’t coined from thin air. Unions were necessary as the author claims.
Man, is there no subject on which you are not willing to display your ignorance?
If competition forces a salary to be more than a worker can make, then the job will be discarded. You cannot, under any circumstances, pay a worker more than his labor is worth.
Basic economics.
Because of competition, wages always, and I do mean ALWAYS, approach the point of marginal utility.
Nothing can change this. Not govt diktat, not union agitation, nothing.
Wages increased because productivity improved, and for no other reason.
If the wages at this company town are so low, why does anyone work there? They were quite willing to accept the jobs that were available before the factory moved in.
If the wages are really this low, then why are other factories not rushing to build there so that they can also partake of the ridiculous profit margins made available by the low wages.
You have no idea what the term company town means, do you.
GL’s “economic” analysis fails for the same reason all liberals fail at economics. They take a simple answer and then try to pretend that this is all there is.
Yes, more demand will increase prices. However, the story doesn’t end there, no matter how much people want it to. The next question is how do people and businesses respond to these changes in prices.
In this case, there are two reactions.
First, rising wages draws in new workers. New supply counteracts increased demand.
Additionally, rising wages causes businesses to look for ways to use less labor, thus cutting back on demand.
These two forces are always in play, and they always force wages back to the marginal utility rate.
Labor is ALWAYS paid based on productivity, and the only thing that can force wages higher, is increased productivity.
Look at minimum wage jobs.
When the minimum wage is increased, the first response of business is to cut back on the amount of labor that they use. The second response is to increase the amount of automation that they use, so that their remaining workers will be able to do the work that the larger work force used to do.
Admittedly, companies are always in the process of substituting capital for labor, but they do so only as the econommics makes sense. That is, the cost of the new equipment is less than the cost of the labor being replaced. By raising the minimum wage, govt skews this number, making labor less attractive and automation more attractive.
MarkTheGreat — Labor is ALWAYS paid based on productivity, and the only thing that can force wages higher, is increased productivity.
Let’s dispense with your 30′s era factory labour theory where worker bees are all interchangeable know-nothing units and discuss some recent reality.
A well known bank has branches in the midwest and the west coast. Top level IT folks are paid $80k if they live in the midwest and $105k if they live on the west coast. They all do the exact same job. These salary differences are not based on productivity, but corporate profitability; nobody worth hiring on the west coast is willing to work for the $80k rate. To compete for these people the well known bank has to offer more money. Salary equates to competition, not productivity. This is especially laughable in that the IT people are typically who actually design and CREATE most actual productivity increases in the first place.
Other banks bypass the midwest and hire Indians or Ukranians. Then they can get by with paying $20k. There is no increased productivity here, either; in fact, studies show that the opposite is true. On the other hand, they don’t care: they get their $105k worth of employee for a third of the salary (plus they don’t have to pay unemployment or pesky health insurance.)
Salaries in this case are solely based on what an employer can get away with paying. Nothing more.
In the US, it takes a great deal of training and work experience to be a top level IT type. People qualified for this could have just as easily traded majors in school and gone with any other discipline. As a rule, as companies automate they do so via IT and related technologies; their productivity increase is due to the cleverness of their IT strategists (designers.) When you hear of companies ridding themselves of their IT department and going overseas this is usually the result of the strategists having done their jobs properly and being rewarded by being tossed out like yesterday’s dinner. The remaining IT work isn’t strategic design but rather painting by the numbers (hence relatively inexperienced Indians and Ukranians are capable of doing what’s needed.)
This of course works great in the short term, until laws or situations change and they need a qualified design team to create the strategy needed to carry them to stage 2. Of course, if the companies discarded the tech workers 3 years back and enough did this, there’s now an overabundance of workers and the companies can now get by with rehiring unemployed IT people and paying them 1/2 of their original salary. (This happens a lot.)
This is a real problem in the IT world, and the solution many IT people are now espousing is unionisation. There’s a great deal of chat about this. What some of the companies are doing is predatory and exploitive, and again, this has NOTHING to do with either the overall worth of IT people or your unicorn-like productivity strawman that you dreamed up.
Do you ever stop to think about the garbage that you post?
Did it ever occur to you that productivity includes more than just the person?
As you point out, a company can pay an executive who lives and works in the mid-west much less than the a similar person working in NYC.
So now we come to the question, why doesn’t the company move everyone to the midwest. Their profits would be so much higher.
Now, if you would for once, spend a minute thinking, you would come to the obvious conclusion that there are advantages to being located in NYC that over come the additional cost of living there.
As always, I have demonstrated that wages are determined by productivity. Your problem is that as a socialist, you have no idea what the word really means.
There are many things that determine productivity. In third world countries, companies have to deal with transportation issues, both longer travel distances and a network that is not as reliable as found here in the US. They have to deal with differing customs that can affect how efficiently a foreign factory integrates with US engineers and managers. They have to deal with problems with communication, both language and time shifting issues.
Get out and experience the real world, and discover why your socialism has never worked.
If you want to ensure that all IT moves overseas, the best way to do that is to unionize it.
Unions have destroyed every industry they have ever touched. They aren’t going to stop now. (With the obvious exception of govt. That’s because govt is a monopoly that can force people to use it’s product, no matter how bad or how highly priced. Which is also why unions favor making all other companies govt run monopolies.)
One can doubt, entertain reservations about Beck and/or the agenda of his defender, but there can be no doubting of the superlative writing of David Solway.
I do like Glenn Beck. He does tend to paint with to broad a brush, lumping Teddy R. in with Woodrow Wilson. Yes, they may both have been Progressives, but Teddy did have Booker T. Washington to the White House for dinner, while later on Wilson resegregated the US government (including the military — anyone wonder what happened to the Buffalo soldiers?)
There are subtleties, shades of gray and additional colors that Glenn tends to gloss over in a black & white world, but he is spot on that there is an attempt by those who believe in the state over the individual to take over the US and the rest of the world.
“but the charge of racism is clearly beyond the pale.” This, I disagree with. Dear Liar does look at the world in terms of race. I don’t mean, and I don’t think Glenn means that Dear Liar considers one “race” (for whatever that means) inferior to another, but He does look at the world in terms of black people & white people, etc. And The Whine has judged the “white” race guilty and must pay a large fine. Look to His treatment of European (especially NATO) countries & Israel vs. His treatment of other nations. Obowmao bows to the Saudi king, the Japanese Emperor & the Chinese Leader (well a nod of the head to the latter) on the basis of “well, that’s how they do it”, but not to Queen Elizabeth. The US President, indeed every American, should not bow to any foreign potentate. The drunken bum lying in the gutter is the equal of any emperor. If you look at Obama as someone who views the world in terms of race & that Caucasians (& Jews) have oppressed the rest of the world & must pay for it — which is straight out of the 1960s — then His actions make more sense. Barack Obama isn’t a bigot, thinking one “race” is inferior to another, but He is a racist.
Glenn is striking a blow for liberty. Good for him. On his TV show, he brings in just the right amount of reference to first principles, patriotic history, and our Founding heroes.
Who else is doing that?
He’s claimed a powerful, overlooked corner of our patriotic legacy. He’s right to run with that, and keep on doing so until he squeezes out our overdue tears of gratitude for these patriot forbears. I hope it changes us.
Indeed Beck is doing us a service. He shows us what is going on in our country where no one else does, or will. He leaves the left unable to defend their actions/words so they attack the messenger.
ALSO<!!! I believe Obama is a racists. I wonder if he would have asked his mother to donate to his reparations plan.. Or does the man just hate America and everything we represent…
If we change as a nation…it best be quick.
Glen Beck is a public service. The man is astounding at his references and hard cold data. Alinski’s advise to the anointed is to isolate, ridicule and attack and that is exactly what the progressive left is doing. God bless Glen Beck and keep him safe from harm. All the best.
I don’t often have the time to watch Beck but I have found that his program can be very informative in a lot of areas and this is what we need. Also, I too, believe Obama is a racist. How could he sit in a pew and listen to an anti-American, anti-Semitic preacher for twenty years or so? Give me a break.
The 1st paragraph of this article could be directly ascribed to Chris Matthews at MSLSD…
Three years ago as the financial crisis was yet to begin and all the economic indicators said everything was fine, I listened to Beck because he was funny. I heard him say the economy was going to come crashing down around our ears. I nearly turned off the radio. “This man is a nut,” I said to myself. “He’s just a radio host, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
Then the things he said were going to happen started to — happen. All of them. The way he said they would.
Say what you will about Glenn Beck, more often than not, he’s been right.
Can he be a bit over the top? Yes. Does his relentless promotion of his latest book, Website or tour wear a little? Yes, but then I have no problem with a guy making a buck, and this is how he earns his living.
In the end, however, he’s usually right. I say the same thing about him I say about the columns I right for my newspaper. “You’re welcome to challenge the conclusions drawn, but I defy you to challenge the facts.
Patrick
Any newspaper you “right” for must be unreadable.
Whoops, fingers got ahead of my eyes, I’m sure that’s never happened to you before Larmeau.
petty petty you…
Glenn Beck, for all his faults, is a patriot who truly loves and fears for his country. Have watched some startling revelations coming from his show. Many should be front page news across the land. But where are the media – the public watchdogs designated by our founders to keep tabs on our government, and expose corruption wherever it is found? They don’t exist. Journalism is dead. Beck is trying to fill the void. The left does not want to be confused with the facts. Free speech is only for those with whom the left agrees.
While I can appreciate a lot of what Beck has done to help open America’s eyes (and I almost never miss a show), I did find his recent smug cover on Forbes magazine using his black suit-jacket as a ‘chalkboard’ with himself writing $$$-signs on it with chalk a bit erm…’tacky’.
As my husband recently lamented, “Why don’t these rich, conservative guys like Hannity, O’Reilly and Beck who tell us we ALL have to make ‘sacrifices’ run for office on their own dime to help our country shape up our leadership?”
I know this much, and I’m only a lukewarm fan of Beck. I do think he contains a big dose of common sense lacking in much of America, and especially the so-called professional talking heads.
Before all the TV economists, gurus, the financiers, the “experts” and “scholars”, in retrospect so wrong to now be summarily discarded as flimflam and hacks, Beck was warning about the imminent financial collapse by simply applying a little rational to the overinflated numbers – at that when the DOW sat at 14,000. And I predict Beck will also be proven right about entitlement debt finally being our undoing. In this regard, Beck was equally harsh on Bush and later proven right.
Yeah, a lot of us little guys were saying the same thing, but nobody in the national spotlight was saying as much.
Where Beck is wrong are statements like “There is little or no difference between Republican and Democratic Congress.” Still think that after ObamaCare Glenn?
Maybe so Tex; but as a conservative I’m sorely disappointed with the stances of Rubio and the Govs. of TX and FL, regarding the Arizona Law. Aren’t you”
Swhy the Tea Partiers are more and more about apolitical anti-incumbency.
DAVID WHEN HAVE I EVER DOUBTED YOU? NEVER. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD COMPLETE FAITH IN YOUR JUDGEMENT. BUT THIS!!
YOU CALL IT NATIVE EXUBERANCE WHEN IT IS REALLY LUNACY. IF EVERY DESCRIPTION OF HIM YOU POSTED IS TRUE, AND I KNOW IT IS, THEN WHAT MORE IS THERE TO SAY. FROM THE BLACKBOARD, TO THE CRYING, RIGHT UP TO NOW THE ANVIL WITH THE HAMMER, I MEAN REALLY, GIVE HIM A REST; WHAT HE NEEDS IS A SANITARIUM. YOU WANT TO COMPARE HIM TO OLBERMANN A PIECE OF SHIT RIGHT OUT OF THE GARBAGE DUMP? OK COMPARE HIM. TIE UP THE 2 MORONS AND SEND THEM BOTH INTO OUTER SPACE WHERE THEY COMMUNE WITH THE STARS AND COMMUNICATE WITH THEMSELVES.
OUT, FOUL SPOTS.
Glen Beck himself, said he is an entertainer and not a reporter. Let me quote him here “If you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.” He is in it for the money and you lap it up because it is what you want to hear. It is like that south park where they have Ann Coulter say I am just trying to get that red neck money. Beck made 30 million dollars last year. I do not hold it against him, clearly it was a good personal move for him. If he did not fill the niche then someone else would have written a similar book to take your money. The funny part is people like David Solway here take him seriously and defend him. This article goes to great intellectual lengths to rationalized Glen Bekc, when he does not want to be rational. Your defending someone who does not take what he says seriously. He plays off your deepest fears and milks you. It is funny that people talk about how the rest of the country are sheeple. He gets paid by a company that sells gold, and tells you to buy gold, and no one here thinks that was sketchy with all your abilities to connect the dots.
Beck goes to great lengths to tell you ,the listener ,to check out the facts that he is giving you… Not that his facts are not true, he just wants you to have the real facts to actually check out and realize that they are true!
No one else thinks we as voters actually have enough sense to know our butt from a hole in the ground, and they believe we will follow them like sheep.
I like Beck .
So you see the classic liberal response. Attack Glen, but at all cost, don’t deal with any of the points he raises.
We want to hear we’re headed for trouble with a double dip recession, social is going bankrupt and in the red this year (seven years sooner that your lefty experts promised us), and we have almost a $100 Trillion (with a “T”) in unfunded entitlements coming down the pike?
Brian, you’re right. You do need the nanny state.
You seem to misunderstand, I am not attacking Glen. I am attacking you for thinking what he says is real. I think what he is doing is incredible. He is a very good businessman and entertainer. Not to mention him overcoming his substance abuse issues. The problem is that he is not news, nor does he even consider himself news. You do because he appears on a network that also has news programs. It does not matter if his facts are right or wrong, or if his arguments are logical. That is not the reason for his show. He just wants money, than has always been his goal. You just happen to be suckers.
Your argument is so …sock “sucker”ish…
Back with the lies so soon?
Glen never said that someone who believes him is a fool. He said that people should check anything they are told, even stuff he tells them.
A big difference, but apparently one that liberals aren’t able, or willing to understand.
You might be right and Glen might just be part of the ‘controlled opposition’, laughing all the way to the bank.
Or you might be wrong. One thing that seems self-evident: the higher up the power curve you advance, the less likely you are to stay there if you try to maintain your humanity. The crabs will always pull you back into the bucket
Liberals tend to believe they can have it both ways, and demonize the opposition as part of the self-delusion.
You don’t seem capable of using Reply, so it’s difficult to know who you’re responding to here, other than yourself (talk about an echo chamber mentality), but…
- … I am not attacking Glen. I am attacking you …
Glad we have that straight. Another leftist, attacking.
- … for thinking what he says is real.
And you have some reason to assert otherwise? Obviously you’ve never once watched his program.
- The problem is that he is not news, nor does he even consider himself news.
That’s actually your problem. Few people I’m aware of watch Beck for “news”, they watch because he has something interesting to say, because he clearly loves this Republic as it was originally intended to be, and because he doesn’t expect his audience to blindly accept what he says.
- You do because he appears on a network that also has news programs.
Actually, no. And I’d wager few people do. Personally, I don’t watch FNC. But I do DVR Beck’s show to see if he discusses anything interesting. That just blew your illusion, I’m sure, but… that’s life.
- It does not matter if his facts are right or wrong, or if his arguments are logical.
But of course it DOES matter. His facts are verifiable. His arguments are logical. That’s what has you so frightened.
- He just wants money, than has always been his goal. You just happen to be suckers.
So… by DVR’ing and occasionally watching his show, *I’m* the sucker? You really don’t seem to have the slightest clue about any of this. Did it cost me anything other than a few minutes of my time (while doing other things) to listen to and watch what he has to say? No. So enlighten me… how am *I* the sucker?
In fact, YOU are the sucker, Brian, because you’re clearly just regurgitating crap you’ve read on some lefty infotainment site, oblivious to the fact that pretty much everything published attacking Beck is either a lie, fabrication, exaggeration or straw man. And you fall for it.
Brian,
Since you seem to be the only “enlightened” one here about Beck leading us astray, which by itself seems a little odd since your posts never do much to enlighten or enhance, perhaps you can convey to all of us suckers what Beck is wrong about?
Try watching Beck’s show on FOX for a couple of weeks,..not hearing about it from anyone, you watching it and listening, come back and have a serious discussion.
So if the only valid means of disseminating facts and information is through some medium that you nebulously describe as “news”, would you care to explain to us all what purpose books serve? Or university professors?
Professors- indoctrination.
Books- depends what you mean. Back when most people were generally literate, books were similar to any other mass medium of communication. Now they are little more than slow drip pornography, propaganda and infectious cognitive dissonance achieving the ultimate oxymoron of the postmodern Western world: “book learning”.
“If you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.”
—
You can lie by taking things out of context as well.
Glen’s statement is that if take things he says as gospel, and don’t check them out for yourself, you’re an idiot.
Entirely different meaning than what you tried to portray.
One of these days I’ll find a liberal who is willing to tell the truth. Today is not going to be that day.
Glenn Beck is doing a remarkable job. Self-educated, on domestic issues he goes straight to the sources,follows the facts wherever they lead him, doesn’t get misled by the fashionable conclusions of approved authorities. He deserves a medal just for sending us back to Thomas Paine. He is invaluable on domestic affairs. But he is not knowledgeable about foreign affairs and he is often very wrong on those — especially his refusal to recognize the threat of the long-range Islamic attack on the West, which targets America and American freedom as much as Communism ever did and is being ignored by Washington (which won’t even use the accurate words to describe it).
Or perhaps it is indeed possible that the Saudi investment in Fox News has silenced its voice on that issue, as the multi-million-dollar Saudi contributions to Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown, Oxford and other major university departments of Islamic studies has co-opted their voices.
I don’t know what you are referring to regarding Beck being not aware of an Islamic threat. I recall on his radio show and on his television show many references to Iran, the 12th imam, Islamicists with some terrifying video of mass adoration of Ahmadinejad and shouting the typical “death tos” Was there a change in stance or opinion, or more of an attempt to treat the immediate sickness (the undermining of the Republic) now and a cessation of focus on the external threat? Not sure, please clarify.
I enjoy Beck’s approach, although I don’t consider him the most solid of commentators. Earnest, folksy, smart.
Compared to the venomous Olberman, he’s a model of decorum and reason though. Heck, who wouldn’t be when compared to the most overrated clown in the LSM?
Beck should be given the highest civilian Medal of Honor for his defense of the Constitution of the United States.
With ALL the time sensitive, mega important revelations which Beck has to deal with, there is no other way to convey its essence than through a certain amount of melodramatic intonations.
Let’s be honest, most people have short attention spans, therefore, it is imperative to keep their attention for as long as possible-their very lives depend on it.His grasp of history, his keen instincts re the American pulse, and his ability to sift/see through bull crap is like none other.
However, I am very baffled by his insistence on denigrading those who take issue with BHO’s eligibilty. Not only are many lucid, non-hysterical types jumping on the ‘birther’ bandwagon, but many high profile leftists who supported Obama are doing so as well.
At the very least, one would expect Beck to question the obvious-IF there was nothing to hide, why is Obama and his team spending millions to hide his documents, when producing them would put this to bed once and for all? In fact, the very fact that a State Dept employee met an ‘untimely’ death after delving into to his records, should have sent Beck’s usual spot on radar bleeping to alarming decibels.
That being said, Beck is on a mission to save the US Republic, and the nation owes him a huge debt of gratitude.No doubt about it.
I even ordered FOX on YES satellite specifically to listen to his explosive revelations.
Beck’s ratings i.e., tv, radio, books, appearances, show him to be “extremely” well liked and listened to..
You do not like the message so you try to berate the messenger..However,that tactic does not appear to be working.
20. Manny222
DAVID WHEN HAVE I EVER DOUBTED YOU? NEVER. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD COMPLETE FAITH IN YOUR JUDGEMENT. BUT THIS!!
Gee Manny222, we can all scream. It seems that those who hate Glenn are those who have never listened to him, but see the few scibbs people like “Ober” (the other O) shows on his shows or any of the other msm, which are completely taken out of context. Glenn does what no one else will. He continually asks you to check it out for yourself and educate yourself. The msm makes fun of him because he didn’t go to an ivy league college, (and neither did Rush). I have no more to add than most of you above. I love to watch him and know that he sincerely loves his God, his family, and his Country. You don’t like his tears? Tough! I wish I lived close enough to be there on 8/28 to show support for all he does. Because of the left and their minions he has to protect himself and his family from death threats etc. Good going progressives!
The neo-communist left is just upset that he’s exposing what they are and what they’re doing. As a former hardcore leftist I can confirm that 90% of what he says is true. The left really are Marxists and they really are trying to setup a one world government for the purpose of wealth redistribution. It is a conspiracy theory but it’s one of the few conspiracy theories that’s actually true (another one is that islamists are literally trying to takeover the world). The idealistic communists believed that they were right. They believed that they had discovered the next revolutionary advance in socioeconomics which would correct the faults of primitive, inhumane and outdated capitalism.
They believed that the only way to achieve world peace was to achieve economic and social equality both in their own countries and across the entire world as well. They thought if everyone had roughly the same amount of wealth and there was no upper or lower class and no rich countries and no poor countries, but instead everyone was middle class, then there’d be no more crime, no more wars, no more poverty, no more hunger, no more disease, no more racism, no more sexism and no more “social injustice”.
It’s a beautiful and utopian world view that managed to win over billions of both very smart and educated people and also very desperate and hopeful poor people across the entire world – including in the West. In reality of course, forced equality and “social justice” ended up being hell on Earth where everyone became equally poor and tyranical governments killed and oppressed literally billions of people.
Both the hardcore communists (who preferred to think of themselves as socialists) and the more moderate Western leftists (socialists) have their world views based in Marxism. The Western left was originally very supportive of the communists but when their barbaric tyranical regimes became more and more exposed the Western left started to distance themselves from the communists (although many still did and still do support them).
Once the Stalin’s, Casto’s, Mao’s, etc, of the world exposed socialism/communism for what it really is the Western left and communist cultists tried to play damage control by saying “Oh, that wasn’t really left wing socialism or communism. Communism supports equality and democracy. It was really a right wing ideology since fascism is right wing!” But make no mistake that the Western left shares the same exact idealistic goals as the communists. They just think they can do it without the in your face tyranny or the inevitable economic collapse that the communists experienced.
I’ve known that for years (because I once believed it myself), as have many well informed conservatives, and Glenn Beck is now articulating that on national television. Good for him! Thank God the truth about the left’s world view is finally starting to get out there to the masses. Maybe leftists themselves will finally wakeup. I eventually did. Where Glenn Beck might go too far off base is when he says the upcoming global economic collapse is intentional. But even there he’s probably right for the truly demented left. He has shown documented evidence that indeed quite a few influential leftists support collapsing our economies in order to remake them as “socialist utopias”. It’s not his fault some people on the left truly support that crap.
And I know people roll their eyes at the new world order types, and I do as well, but the left really is trying to create a one world government. They believe national sovreignty, patriotism and national borders is a primative and tribalist mindset which increases hostility and fear of the “other” and retards “greater understanding” and international cooperation. They think creating super internationalist governance, kind of like the UN on steroids, is the best way to end wars and achieve “social justice”.
That’s what they really believe. Just look at the left’s worship of the UN and what they’re doing with the EU if you don’t believe me. The far left completely dominates Europe, where people openly and proudly vote in socialist and communist parties, and they’ve been steadily creating a super-national government within Europe for decades. And that’s a system they want someday to be spread across the entire world. And it has some merit to it. The rich countries in the EU are funding the development of the poor countries in the EU – which has greatly raised their standard of living – and the likelyhood of another war erupting in Europe is very small. It seems to be working for them so why not for the whole world?
That’s convinced the left even more that their world view is correct and has only motivated their zeal to now expand it beyond Europe. And Glenn Beck is right once again about the Greens really being Reds and how they’re trying to cleverly use global warming hysteria to convince fiercly xenophobic countries – like America – to accept global governance. Because afterall, “global problems require global solutions”.
The left has let the cat out of the bag a few times with their legislative and verbal support for allowing international bodies to regulate our CO2 emissions and to create a carbon tax (and other taxes) which would flow to global international governing bodies. And the left of course has also advocated allowing international courts and human rights treaties to overrule our own national Constitution and sovreignty for years. So it is what it is. The left thinks their vision and world view is right and they’re going about implementing it. Simple as that. It’s not a dark conspiracy. Instead it’s pretty much right in your face for you to see and consider the merits and down sides for yourselves.
I happen to agree with Glenn Beck that it wouldn’t be a good thing since it’s simply too naively utopian and thus will never work. Instead of being like Europe’s EU, it will be more like the Soviet Union (eventually). But since it’s a moderate version of communist idelogy it will simply take a little longer for it to experience the same fate as the former and current communist states. It’s also a mistake in my opinion to assume that the entire world is like Europe where peace treaties and diplomacy actually work and government micromanaged societies can actually operate more or less sucessfully. Europe is a mostly civilized, intelligent, well educated and moderate region of the planet which is centered upon Enlightment Era values. The majority of the rest of the world simply isn’t.
The politically incorrect truth is that the countries that are already developed today are the ones that deserve to be (except a few oil rich countries) and the countries that are underdeveloped now most likely never will develope simply becuse their culture is so inherently backwards. Only some countries that were enslaved and retarded by communism have a chance of developing with slight external boosts such as Eastern Europe, North Korea, China, etc. As the failures of foreign aid has proven time and time again, you can give some countries billions upon billions of dollars in development funds and it won’t make a bit of difference. They’ll still be 3rd world hell holes despite your best efforts.
And as the islamist and communist hijacking of the UN has proved, greatly increasing the power and scope of international governmence will most likely take humanity backwards rather than forwards. And as Glenn Beck has also argued, making us more economically dependent on one another also threatens to collapse our entire economic system. Taking our domestic welfare system and making it an international welfare system will most likely eventually kill our entire economic prosperity. That’s because socialism is like a vampire that slowly kills your desire to work hard and innovate.
It’s also important to keep in mind that Europe’s success is by no means certain, as their current economic woes display, which will likely get even worse as Europe becomes more and more centralized and socialist. It’s also very important to keep in mind that Europe is also a bit artificial since their national and regional security (and their prosperity) is subsidized by America’s immense defense spending. America’s security umbrella allows them to spend a lot less on their own defense and therefore spend a lot more on their insanely generous (and unsustainable) entitlement programs.
And if America goes down that same road of internationalist socialism, who then will Europe – and the rest of the world for that matter – depend on for international stability? The left foolishly thinks they can rely on an increasingly strengthed international governing body such as the UN to provide global stability. The left also believes such an international body can best maintain global prosperity and equality. And Glenn Beck and I both think they’re terribly wrong and that it will instead lead to global catastrophe.
Well said
Thanks for that. Concise and on point. David Horowitz?
The “excess” of Beck is precisely due to the fact that he is NOT a trained pundit or a real journalist… which he admits ALL THE TIME. He is just a radio guy turned TV guy whose lighthearted entertainment show has been put on the back burner while he reluctantly addresses the existential difficulties in which he finds his nation at present. He’s just like the Americans who had rifles behind their kitchen doors and who heard the call of Paul Revere and stepped out the door, to become reluctant soldiers. They had families and lives, and did not WANT to go to war. But duty called and it has called an ordinary guy named Beck.
I like him.
The best proof of his ‘rightness’ is that silly red phone. Its as true as he says– if he EVER gets anything WRONG, factually wrong, the White House can call and correct him. If he was as crazy and wrong as they say, that phone would ring every day throughout the show.
But it never does. Because Beck is not wrong. End of story.
As soon as they openly engage Beck, they open their Kimono
You’re also wrong about Beck’s reasoning behind calling Obama a racist. He said it was because he attended a racist and Marxist black nationalist church for over 20 years which was lead by Rev. Wright who is unquestionably a racist and is who Obama considered an extremely influential father figure in his life. Obama’s books also contains numerous anti-white statements such as “white folks greed runs a world in need.” He’s also exposed several anti-white racists within the Obama administration. None of which is very surprising frankly as a former hardcore leftist myself. Leftist ideology is full of anti-white bigotry and when I was a leftist I was actually ashamed of being white. The left is constantly demonizing white people. And frankly most black people are racist as proven by my own personal experience and the unbelievable percentage of black people who voted for and still support Obama – over 98% (which we all know was and is motivated primarily by race). Whites are just reluctant to point out bigotry in other ethnic groups due to deeply ingrained white guilt.
I enjoy Beck’s show. He is entertaining, and as a history major, I enjoy the depth of his research and his fact checking. When I saw this article, I was excited to think we would get some lefty trolls attempting to counter Beck’s arguments, thereby generating a meaningful discussion. Bumber, nothing but a few weak-kneed leftist who failed to even attempt going after the content of Beck’s message. Too bad, could have been fun. Keep up the great work Glenn!
I wish Glenn Beck would do less of the moral/religious stuff and more of the kind of investigative inquiry he did yesterday, exposing a web, a literal nexus, of self-interested parties and organizations driven to cap and trade as a function of personal profit and a deeper agenda of complete command and control of the economy.
Because from every self-interested agendist from Valerie Jarrett to Al Gore, I believe this is the case.
Generally Beck is alright, but when he talked down the Armenian Genocide, the Turks massacre of Armenians in 1915, that went over the line.
OK, when I look at the comment numbers I see 56. When I come to the comments we have 32. Where are the rest?
Goldi, they’re all here (with the exception of comments that haven’t made it through the web caching, which means they may be delayed for up to about 300 seconds). The thing is the numbers on this page are thread numbers, but the number on the front page is total comments.
Before we implemented the reply function, this wasn’t an issue. With replies, there are some complexities that we haven’t really figured out yet.
I think Beck is pretty amazing. He is a tireless and humble guy who is doing more than anyone could imagine and doing it so well.
His efforts to ferret out the nefarious dealings and the liberty-destroying schemes of these progress-o-communists of the Obama cabal are nothing short of incredible — how such a small group can do so much, so fast, is pretty remarkable.
What REALLY gals me is the fact that the other conservative talk radio folks are ignoring him — the only time I’ve heard Rush talk about Glen was to rake him over the coals for his address at the Conservative Leadership conference (actually that WAS one of Glen’s poorer efforts — I thought).
Caveat: I only hear Rush for 30 minutes each day at lunch so I could be wrong about that.
But if this big Crime Incorporated scheme Glen outlined for the carbon credits is even partly true the rest of the guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and at least some of the others at rest of FNC ought be on it like flies on stink (where am I wrong?).\
Bill O’Reilly is perfectly willing to exploit Glen on the “Bold Fresh” tour why doesn’t he pick up on some of Glen’s more provocative leads? Weak on intestinal fortitude Mr. No Spin Zone? It really ticks me off.
Just wonder what others think.
Weak on intestinal fortitude Mr. No Spin Zone? It really ticks me off.
Just wonder what others think.
I think O’Reilly is so focused on the “fair and balanced” image inside his own head that he gives a lot of air time to complete morons.
Beck has the backing of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, while the WH is always free to phone in to dispute any of his presentations & arguments.
You know they’re watching his show
I agree. O’Reilly will never abandon the image he loves to stand for truth when it conflicts with the image. Limbaugh, et. al.? They have no excuse. Beck so often leads the charge with well-reasoned research and facts, and they leave him to hang in the wind alone. It’s unconscionable. What would happen if several high-profile conservatives actually stood up with the same courage that Beck has shown, all together on the same front?
In the case of Limbaugh, I think it’s possible that a touch of pride and jealousy are involved…
(Just an aside… I called the show once, with a good angle that Rush had completely neglected when discussing a particular topic. The screener took my point and had me hold for a while. Rush had already moved on from the topic. While on hold waiting for my turn and listening to the show continue, I then heard Rush return to that topic and add a further brilliant insight that he’d had — the point I’d called with! The screener got back on and said, “Now you get on air and back him up.” Well, you’re welcome for the material, Rush. Gotta wonder how often that happens.)
B. O’Reilly is a gutless punk bully poseur! Glen Beck should avoid B.O. in order to avoid b.o.
I think Glenn Beck is doing more to help us know what is happening than any of the news media. And as mentioned, he has that red phone. You know they are watching his show and yet the phone never rings.
I admire him for what he has taken on. He has to be near exhaustion, with having a radio show, TV show, writing books, and all the personal appearances. On top of all the late night reading he has to do to educate himself before doing any of the other things.
May God bless him and keep he an his family safe.
He is a true Patriot!
Sorry, but this is a really stupid piece on a number of levels, the most important being the continued unwillingness of well-intentioned people to call Obama what he is. I’ve heard him called everything from a “statist” to a “corporatist” to a “standard issue liberal.” He is none of these things. He is – repeat after me now – a communist. He is a black-liberation-theology racist and hater of all things Western and American (except money.)
It is frustrating in the extreme to listen to people on ‘our side’ refuse to say the obvious. A rudimentary search through the people with whom he has surrounded himself from his childhood (his own parents, grandparents, and Frank Davis) through his school years, to his early political career (Harold Washington, Bill Ayers) right up to the White House (Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Carol Browner and, literally, a hundred others)turns up nothing but hard core marxist radicals. Nothing. Not a single person of significance in his life has been anything but a confirmed hater of American freedom and the “white people” who invented it.
Ask yourselves this simple question, folks: If your teenage son surrounded himself exclusively with drug addicts and drug dealers, what would you think he was doing when he was away from the house?
The first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one. The first step to dealiing with the problem of Obama is to say what he is. Don’t be afraid: they’re going to hate you no matter what you say so you might as well get it right.
James,
That bears repeating.
Not a single person of significance in his life has been anything but a confirmed hater of American freedom and the “white people” who invented it.
Never realized the Left’s hatred of whites was due to the white mans’ “invention” of American freedom. It helps explain it.
Sorry James, but this is not a stupid piece, but a fine, well written, thoughtful article by Solway. Your opening crack aside, however, I fully agree with the rest of what you say about the well-intentioned mincing of words on Obama by folks who ought to know better. I would extend this — and hey, you might disagree with me here — to those who won’t go near the question of Obama’s eligibility to be president, and also wave off his executive order to keep his school records etc., under lock and key.
@James: :…Ask yourselves this simple question, folks: If your teenage son surrounded himself exclusively with drug addicts and drug dealers, what would you think he was doing when he was away from the house?…Don’t be afraid: they’re going to hate you no matter what you say so you might as well get it right.’
Good for you! What a great way to convey the concept! I just wish it would fit on a bumper sticker! I’d like to have it as a placard for the back of my Jeep!!
If Drug Users hang with Drug Dealers, how is Obama not Marxist Socialist?
Fox News == News for Dummies
Glenn Beck == News for Extreme Dummies
BC, since you are too ignorant to even make a proper “equals” sign I guess were are allowed to think you are just a reverberation of some left-winger’s left over fart (smell included?).
I gotta hand it to the liberals — just when you think you’ve found the dumbest one they have — someone like BC comes along and you know you’ve only scratched the surface. (<:
American Liberals = a bottomless pit of ignorance, self-hate, and incompetence!
Glenn Beck thinks that all this started with the “Progressives” at the start of the Twentieth Century. Actually, the argument dates back to the earliest years of Capitalism. At that time the convential wisdom was called Mercantilism which simply meant that the state controls the economy. Arguing against that was Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations” (1776). The argument has been raging ever since. Simply put, there are only two ways to go like in a two way street. One way reads “State Control of Every Day Life”. The other way read “No control of every day life”. Call it Marxism, Fascism, Corporatism, Judicialismo or Whatever, you’re still on the same street. Some say that they would like to park in the middle of the street. That has not proved to be possible. You’re going either one way or the other.
I watch Glen Beck via my computer, and found he is hilarious. Obama must HATE him: Beck is so good at trashing the entire cohort of GoldmanSachs – Commie – racist – unelected czarist regime by making us laugh at it. And he manages to deliver up some really relevant history for Americans at this moment in your time. He has people reading and memorizing the Constitution. Thomas Paine is becoming popular again!
Also, note that his history lectures have made the word ‘progressive’ verboten, and when Hillary and Co were just getting to love that word, too!
@Bernie “One way reads “State Control of Every Day Life”. The other way read “No control of every day life”. Call it Marxism, Fascism, Corporatism, Judicialismo or Whatever, you’re still on the same street. Some say that they would like to park in the middle of the street. That has not proved to be possible. You’re going either one way or the other.”
I agree with this statement — but so does Glen! In fact, if you listen regularly to him the idea that these various “-isms” all lead to the same place (tyranny) is one of his main points so I don’t think you are saying anything that he is not.
I started watching Beck about a year ago. I followed my father’s lead and became a history buff and also had ample exposure to politics in my career. Beck has done the country a great service in educating people to the history of this country and the principles it was founded upon. School systems should be ashamed of themselves for having done so little and even that more in the nature of conditioning than teaching anyone how to think.
His heart is definitely in the right place. What he refers to as “progressivism” and Marxistm I think of as totalitarianism. No matter as they are all based on self-appointed elites intent on imposing their communal ideas on the masses; to hell with the consequences as the ends justify the means. He is a “firebell in the night” and the Republic needs people who will do that.
Perfection is not required; but character and persistence are. Those he has.
Hopefully Beck wouldn’t agree with you, but you write as if you might consider two bad outcomes of progressivism to include Social Security and Medicare. If so, do you think there were self-appointed “elites” who imposed, in the 1930s and 1960s, the communal ideas that low to moderate income older people should have a few bucks to live on when they can’t work anymore or receive good health care when ill? Those seem to be rather decent ends brought about by democratic means. (The self-appointed so-called elites you mention who voted those bills into law were elected representatives–not members of a totalitarian politburo.) What Beck does with his blackboard m.o. is pander to an audience deluding themselves into thinking they can correctly understand history in an hour of simplistic television interrupted every few minutes by ads.
@Tom Casey “[in dealing with the marxists/communitsts]…Perfection is not required; but character and persistence are. Those he has.”
Tom this is a great insight and great advice. Actually it could have come from a page in the “Rules for Radicals” (<: But I'm not being critical. Maybe that was your point?
Anyway I agree we on the conservative side tend to always take the high road, Marquess of Queensberry approach to a fault. MOST of what the D-rats and the progressives say say is an outright lie — I don't at all say we should lie but we don't have to waste time dotting every "i" and crossing every"t" either.
We can use hyperbole and we can make charges and accusations that LOOK like they might be right too. I don't suggest that we get careless or start drinking our own brand of Kool-Aide but its time to fight and the gloves need to come off.
When we do get control again — NO MORE Mr. Nice Guy and asking "how can we get along?"
We need to aggressively set the "Progressive Movement" back 200 years!
I watch Beck as often as I can. I think he’s great. yes, of course he goes over the line sometimes. but one thing he doesn’t do is ad hominem attacks.
if you watch MSNBC you will hear Matthews and Olbermann and all those idiots just tearing people apart. Sarah Palin, Beck, George W. Bush (still), all the usual suspects. it’s never about their policies: it’s about themselves.
Beck isn’t interested in attacking people’s children or lifestyle or clothing choices. he talks about American history and the founding fathers and what it means to be an American. he acknowledges we’re not perfect, but admits that he believes this is still the greatest country in the world.
how people can think he’s some sort of bigoted hater is just astounding to me.
I don’t care what “theatrics” Glenn Beck uses, I am glad to defend him. He is the most honest and informative person on TV today. He welcomes criticsm if anyone can provide him with info that what he says is not true. Thus far, other than kooks (most of whom leftists), not even the WH has called to take him to task for lies. And, he has an established direct line to the WH in case anyone from that “residence” wishes to tell him he is not telling the truth. Of course, to this date, there has been no call from the WH. It’s more Obama’s style to ridicule Beck and others when he is on the campaign trail (which is non-stop). Obama and his cult followers never provide any concrete info to show that Beck has lied about anything. Trouble is, when you are dealing with the LAME STREAM MEDIA, you know the truth will never be told to those who do not listen to conservative radio or watch Fox Cable News. Wake up people and be sure to vote in 2010 and 2012 and elect conservatives who really represent THE PEOPLE!!!
Re: “but one thing he doesn’t do is ad hominem attacks.”
Except for that time when Glenn claimed Rep. Kucinich looked like Gollum, and proceeded to mock his voice and marriage for the next ten uninterupted minutes on-air.
Or that time on his TV show when he made fun of Nacy Pelosi’s face.
Or that time he lied and said Van Jones went to prison for engaging in race riots.
Or that time he made fun of Obama’s aunt and people who are crippled.
Or that other time when…
Re: “And, he has an established direct line to the WH in case anyone from that ‘residence’ wishes to tell him he is not telling the truth. Of course, to this date, there has been no call from the WH.”
Of course not. Not because the WH can’t easily refute Beck. Quite the opposite. The presidency is above responding to slimeball radio hacks like Beck and his transparently dishonest tactics.
Re: “Obama and his cult followers never provide any concrete info to show that Beck has lied about anything.”
Where do you want begin?
For starters, how about the fact that Beck lays 100% of the blame for Prohibition on progressives, while conveniently failing to mention that it was the evangelical movement (i.e. theocratic nutjobs like Beck) that overwhelimingly drove the issue. In the end, progressives like Woodrow Wilson and FDR got rid of Prohibition. Of course, Beck never mentions this. I wonder why??? Beck has the dumbest audience in media. His chalkboard history lessons make my kid cousin shoot milk out of his nose.
Truthteller: “Of course not. Not because the WH can’t easily refute Beck. Quite the opposite. The presidency is above responding to slimeball radio hacks like Beck and his transparently dishonest tactics. The presidency is above responding to slimeball radio hacks like Beck and his transparently dishonest tactics.”
Oh really, I guess you haven’t heard the president responding to Glenn, or Rush, or a number of others like a street fighter, or a community organizer as he is, instead of a president. You would never hear President Bush respond to all of your ilk who called him all sorts of names, but he let it ride. The white house calls msnbc all the time to even give them their lunch menu. Boy is that important. Get a life, these people on this site and who listen to Beck could stand you up in any argument about history or what is going on with the bills the pres is trying to pass, or has shoved down our necks.
By the way, he corrected the statement about van jones, but the rest of it was right on.
One has only to do a bit of follow up googling regarding Beck’s interview with M. Stanton Evans on Evans’s book about Joe McCarthy to understand why Beck is playing us for fools by making McCarthy a hero. David Oshinsky, history professor at the University of Texas, is the author of “A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.” To quote Oshinsky in his analysis of Evans’s book, “As McCarthy raged on, the perils of supporting him became apparent to all but his most rabid admirers. In 1954, Whittaker Chambers, a revered figure in conservative circles, expressed his concerns in a prophetic letter to William F. Buckley Jr. “None of us are his [McCarthy's] enemies,” Chambers wrote, “but all of us … have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions … will lead him and us into trouble. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will … discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come.” The prophecy came true on national television: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-460953942838272185# Or, since life is short and good political satire can be entertaining, rent the movie, “The Front.”
It is the best time to make a few plans for the long run and it’s time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I want to recommend you few attention-grabbing things or suggestions. Perhaps you can write subsequent articles regarding this article. I want to learn more issues approximately it!