Posts Tagged ‘Glenn Beck’

Glenn Beck Abandons Rick Santorum

Sunday, March 11th, 2012

Beck Jumps Ship

I’ve been waiting for Beck to say this for some time, and I think it’s been part of his plan all along. While he supported Michele Bachmann, and then Rick Santorum, if you watched the coverage he gave to all of the candidates, you might have noticed that he was reluctant to criticize Mitt Romney. There are those who believe this comes down to the Mormon faith he shares with Mitt Romney, but I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. On Friday evening, he appeared on FNC’s O’Reilly Factor to say that it’s time to be done with the primaries, and that Santorum and the others should get out in order to give Romney an unfettered run to the general election.

Here’s the video, courtesy Mediaite:

I couldn’t possibly disagree more. I really don’t understand how with Santorum challenging Romney closely, Beck can justify walking away. He mentions the numerical impossibility, but that’s a lot of hogwash if you examine things closely. It’s entirely possible for Romney to stumble, and for Santorum to pick it up, or even for Newt Gingrich to rise back to the top, and Beck’s position in this seems at least somewhat self-defeating if we are to believe he has supported Santorum since Bachmann’s withdrawal.

From my point of view, it appears that Beck’s support of Santorum wasn’t all that strong from the start, and he seemed to be moving in Romney’s direction all along. A number of conservatives have questioned this change in Beck, and it’s really a bit disturbing, but Beck will likely discount such talk as “conspiracy theories.” It will be interesting to see who else caves and goes along with the Romney ticket before the outcome is clear. After all, much of the whining at present is based on the notion that a brokered convention would be a disaster for the party, and thus the country.

I don’t believe that. I think the Republican party could stand the cleansing provided by a good floor battle. It would likely lead to either a real moment of unification or a moment that will lead to what I see as the inevitable split in the party. The problem is that false unity will not provide victory, and the proof of that was in 1976, when the party suffered a defeat after conservatives had a dishonest theme of unity shoved down their throats. It took them another four years to get their act together, and for the conservatives to take over the party, but the result was Ronald Reagan presidency.

Some argue that we can’t afford four more years of Obama, because the country might well collapse under the weight of his maladministration. I am inclined to agree, and that’s why I believe it is more important than ever that when the GOP nominates a candidate to face Barack Obama, that such a candidate must be up to a real fight, and must be able to draw distinctions between the GOP and the Democrats in clear terms. I don’t think a contrived unity will accomplish that, but if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we may indeed find ourselves faking it come November, and while fakes and frauds may win as Democrats, it’s not going to work on conservative Republicans. Too many will simply stay home in disgust, and I won’t blame them.

Advertisements

Mr. L Strikes Again

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Mr. L’s Tavern continues to make entertaining and informative Video Blogs, and this time, he takes on the story I covered yesterday on the hit-piece on Sarah Palin by one of Glenn Beck’s writers, Eddie Scarry, on The Blaze site as well as the subsequent attack on Stacy Drake.  As always, Mr. L covers a variety of sub-topics, and takes on the ridiculous reporting by Scarry.  More, he takes on other attackers of Sarah Palin.  Watch the latest, and remember, he can be a bit rough:

Beck Challenges Tea Party Over Gingrich, Race

Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Is it about Obama's Race?

In case you missed it, Glenn Beck appeared on FBN’s Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano and had some provocative things to say about Newt Gingrich.  Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com has the story on what Beck had to say to the Tea Party with respect to their potential support of Gingrich.  Beck asked the following question of Tea Party folk who support Newt: “Ask yourselves this, Tea Party: Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me.”  Now, while this is going to require some background context, what you should understand is that Beck is making a point, but I think he chose the wrong way to make it.

Beck’s known for his bombastic remarks and challenges, and it’s fair to say that this is his stock in trade, but let’s give the man his due, because he is making an important point about Newt.  His allegation is that in interviewing Gingrich, he decided that Gingrich is a Republican Progressive after Gingrich referred to Teddy Roosevelt as his favorite President.  When Beck challenged Gingrich on this, Gingrich backed away a little, qualifying his statement by saying that he liked Roosevelt before his Osawatomie, KS speech in which he came out as a full-blown progressive.  Here’s the real problem with that, and to his credit, Beck picks up on it: Theodore Roosevelt was ever a progressive.  He merely came out as a progressive, basically a socialist, in that speech. What Beck contends is that he cannot support Newt Gingrich because he is like Roosevelt before that famous speech.  On this point, Beck makes perfect fence, but like so many other instances, this is also where he “jumps the shark.”

In speaking with Napolitano on Freedom Watch, Beck explains his view on Gingrich, but then takes it that next step: He challenges the Tea Party by asking: “Is it about Obama’s race?”  Here’s what Beck is really asking:  Since Obama is a leftist Democrat progressive, and Gingrich is a Republican progressive, both are nevertheless progressives, a.k.a. “socialists,” so if the Tea Party will support one, but won’t support the other, what is the real difference upon which that support turns?  Here is where Beck wrongly plays the race card against the Tea Party.  He offers that it must be about Obama’s race.  While I understand the point he is trying to make, I think he could have made it without dragging the race card into this.  There are other simpler, more plausible reasons than race for this seeming contradiction on the part of Tea Party members who support Gingrich, but not Obama, and in order to help Beck, I’ve made a list of them:

  • Gingrich is a Republican; Obama is a Democrat: While Beck can gloss over this difference as insignificant, and in some ways he’d be right, the truth is that the people who he is challenging don’t see the difference as entirely meaningless. They have some perhaps reasonable expectation that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
  • Gingrich is smarter than Obama:  Many, in the Tea Party and otherwise, see Gingrich as a more thoughtful fellow, and if faced with a choice, would rather have the smarter of the two.
  • Gingrich and Romney appear to be leading: Both men are progressives, and of the two, Gingrich is at least willing to talk to the Tea Party and reach out to them. Tea Party and conservative folk are likely making a judgment about the reality they see developing, and responding accordingly.

These are only three of a whole range of reasons you would naturally come to long before you get to some cock-eyed notion about Obama’s race, as Beck has managed to do.  I think it is folly on Beck’s part to try to play this angle on the Tea Party patriots, and rather than trying to make a point by suggesting that supporting Newt Gingrich is some sort of back-handed admission of racism on the part of those conservatives who are supporting Gingrich, he ought to instead try to educate them about the history of progressives without insulting the motives of Tea Party conservatives, or giving leftists a video clip they will later use to assail the Tea Party.

Beck’s basic point is sound: Gingrich is a progressive, and always has been, but if he’s a progressive, why should Tea Party and conservative folk support him any more than they would support Barack Obama?  One could make this same argument about Romney, and it would fit just as well.  What Beck should have done is use the moment to explain his meaning, rather than throw down the race card.  He would have served his audience and the debate in a more positive way, and we wouldn’t now have this additional distraction from the cause for which we begin now to gather: To select the candidate who will face Obama next November.  Challenging the Tea Party by suggesting their choice of Newt Gingrich is evidence of racism is simply deplorable.  I understand what he was trying to say, but I think he could have found another device for demonstrating his point.  The race card is over-used in American politics, and to see Beck making this argument was disappointing.

You can watch the video here.

Beck Honored as Defender of Israel

Monday, November 21st, 2011

 

Defending Israel

TheBlaze is reporting that Glenn Beck was honored with the Defender of Israel award at the Zionist Organization of America’s Justice Louis Brendeis Dinner.  Beck has been active in defending Israel against those who would smear and assail the Jewish nation, and he recently held his Restoring Courage event in Jerusalem.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joined in the praise of Beck.  H/T The Blaze:

GBTV: The Smear Lives Here?

Friday, September 16th, 2011

You know, as a conservative, if you wish to be demeaned, you can go to almost any media outlet and find yourself denigrated, defamed, debased, and demoralized, but you’d think an outlet like Glenn Beck’s new GBTV.com wouldn’t be in that crowd.

You’d think Beck would understand, as an ostensibly conservative guy, that some things just go too far, and while laughing at ourselves is one thing, piling-on with muck-rakers like Joe McGinniss should be something a conservative must not do.  Having debuted his new network on Monday, you’d think that he’d be careful not to offend so many in his audience, but his little bit of comic relief in the person of Brian Sack simply wasn’t funny, and isn’t up to the standards Beck’s previous work has generally achieved.  I am deeply disappointed in this, and while the credit card subscription is still freshly minted, I am now demanding a refund.  The lesson is simple to those who wish to succeed in new media: You can’t simply dump on the people who have supported you and expect there to be no blow-back.

Beck will likely offer that he didn’t know what Brian Sack would say, but during the un-funny comic’s routine, he employed a graphic depicting the Palin family with a whole new member in answer to McGinniss’ smear-filled book.  It wasn’t funny, and many in the audience weren’t amused either.  If you must, you can watch a clip from the show on the GodandCountryFirst blog, but I won’t be re-posting it here.

This is your ground-breaking network, Mr. Beck? I’ve tuned in either live, or in replayed on demand, and this was shocking to me.  It’s not that I don’t expect your show to be fun, but Brian Sack channeling SNL’s weekend update while heaping smears on the Palin family isn’t exactly that for which I subscribed.  I am certain there are others who feel the same, and I think you can reasonably expect them to say something about it.  This was crass, inaccurate, vulgar, and worst of all, a move in collaboration with the popular culture you said you’re trying to defeat or transform with your new network.   If this is the “transformation of media” you offer, I must say that I don’t like it any better than Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of our country.

I simply don’t understand what the point could have been.  I don’t understand how Glenn could permit his new platform to be used this way.  In truth, I don’t think anything that goes out on GBTV can do so without his endorsement or approval, so let’s not pretend he’s off the hook because the words came out of Brian Sack’s mouth.

It wasn’t informative, entertaining, or even funny.  In short, in seeking to be like Bill Maher or John Stewart, Glenn Beck became Bill Maher or John Stewart.  Glenn has said he wants to appeal to a younger audience.  Does he believe this is to be accomplished by smearing conservatives in the name of comedy?  Does he think Brian Sack will appeal to youth?  If this is Beck’s vision for his new network, I can tell you unreservedly that there is at least one Texan who will have no part of it.