Posted on 09/16/2010 7:56:32 PM PDT by flowerplough
Glenn Beck is no stranger to public criticism. Usually, that criticism comes from entrenched critics. But today, Beck was chided by some of his most loyal fans. What’s got everyone so upset?
Beck’s stance on playing dress-up.
Recently, Beck started imploring Tea Party supporters to lose the costumes, and homemade signs, so as not to give detractors ammunition. ( ... )
He repeated the charge on this morning’s radio show, taking umbrage with one costume in particular: “What’s more effective, you as Betsy Ross or you as somebody who looks just like their neighbor, not dressed as Betsy Ross?”
( ... )
“I‘m not saying you can’t go dressed as Betsy Ross or the Statue of Liberty –that would be a totalitarian state … [But] if you want to truly make a difference, it is now time that the Tea Party takes the next step. … And first impressions make all the difference.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
I took the reason Beck did not want signs at HIS rally was that he wanted it to be about faith, not about politics. The 8/28 rally was NOT a Tea Party rally, either, although attended by many tea partiers. It was perfectly legitimate to try to keep politics from intruding upon that rally, given its subject matter and tact.
However, other Tea Party rallies are SOLELY about politics and about INDIVIDUALS expressing their individual views on the direction this president is taking the country.
Anyone who thinks signs and costumes, etc. have HURT the Tea Party movement, or will hurt it in the future, is totally out of touch with both the zeitgeist and a basic understanding of how visual media works.
These are PROTESTS and should look like protests. What a load, Beck.
I just don’t see how “they” have been able “to make the tea party look nutty.”
“They” have tried, but “they” have failed.
This is a huge overreaction to a nonproblem on Beck’s part.
One of Saul Alinsky’s principles was that activists should do what they enjoy and have **fun** doing it!
I respect your opinion.
These tea party protests are just one increasingly-small aspect of the movement. The protests will follow the course that is “natural” for them, which may or may not change over time.
In the meantime, the Tea Party movement is also conducting serious business — which, like the protests, is being taken seriously — in grassroots fundraising, phone banking, earned media events and so on.
It’s ridiculous, IMHO, for Beck to declare that protests should not look like protests. Who would pay the slightest attention otherwise?
Think of the huge crowd on the Mall for the July Fourth festivities. A few camera shots through the crowd, really nothing much to see that. But shots of Tea Party protests tell a real, and a SERIOUS story — one that cannot be told without the use of signs and symbols.
OK. I think you’ve made a valid point that a blanket prohibition goes too far and have changed my mind about it. I still think Beck means well by it by I now agree that he went too far.
"Racist signs"?
You seem to be saying "racist signs" are a huge and prevalent and, if they occur, unaddressed occurence at Tea Party events.
You could not be more WRONG.
I have yet to see a racist sign. I did see a video of Tea Partiers telling a person with a racist sign to take it down or leave. One instance.
You must be buying the garbage put out by the NAACP. Have you been to a Tea Party protest?
I agree. I always bring my blanket to a rally.
I actually took Beck to be more concerned that it is much easier for the left to pull a set up when there are props.
This is true.
Remember they pulled this kind of stunt at GOP rallies during the 2008 election season.
What? The media loves G8 protesters. They do not portray them as crazed or kooky.
The Tea Party movement is moving forward just fine. And it’s not a problem that its protests look like, duh, protests, not assemblies of automatons lined up to listen to speakers give voice to their message.
This whole discussion is a little surreal to me. It’s as if the New England Patriots implemented a rule, “don’t go out and bang helmets, jump up and down, holler at each other before the game like other football teams do; the media will portray you as crazies and kooks and NOT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AS A FOOTBALL TEAM.”
My point is: if you’re demonstrably being taken seriously already, it’s pretty dumb of Beck to come along behind and say things need to change so you’ll be taken seriously.
We went to the 9/12 rally last year and it was such a blast and so full of fellowship. Yes, there were speakers and so on. But mainly people walked around and read signs and chatted up each other. There were so many funny (but real) signs, people playing music to small crowds that would form, people getting their pictures taken with Americans that had come from all over the place (the pics were prompted by signs or costumes) — it was a wonderful festive, fun and optimistic atmosphere!
Without the signs, costumes and people playing their instruments, it would have been difficult for all these strangers to connect and immediately know the love of country they shared. And this is the essence of the movement — INDIVIDUAL protest against our government voluntarily bonding with likeminded INDIVIDUALS. The strength is purely in the individual American.
I just read the transcript from his Sept 16th radio show about this topic. I am in agreement with his stance.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/45534/
He may go in circles trying to express what he means but he has very valid points and opinions. IMHO
As to the media loving the G8, they do show them and love them but they do portray them as kooky and lovable, something not to be discussed except their cute costumes and those mean police. You wear a silly costume you will get media coverage, lots of hits on you tube and more people will friend you on facebook, but how many gawkers will see and understand the true meaning in wearing that outfit.
Maybe, but it is certainly throwing the baby out with the bathwater to conclude it’s better to have no signs than have to deal occasionally with an imposter.
Personally, I think the occurrence and impact of any imposters has been way overblown. Can Beck even name an instance when this truly set back the movement or dented its influence?
In fact, the only instance I am aware of, and the only instance that to my knowledge got any net play at all, involved tea partiers firmly denouncing an iffy sign and asking the man to take it down or leave. That was powerful.
With the number of hoax “crimes” and incidents that occur today, I think the public is becoming much less apt to jump to conclusions about a movement based on an isolated incident. Which, as I mentioned, haven’t really happened anyway, so far as I know.
Do you think the Tea Party movement is or is not getting its message across, to both the general public and the political establishment, that what we want is a return to limited government and “it’s the spending, stupid”?
In your view, is the movement “working” or not?
Beck works in the TV industry. He knows well how the image is used to defeat a person.
The truth is, we need to be very serious from here on out. We are fighting for what is left of the country after Hussein gets through with it.
The outfits are cute, but what we are doing needs to be far more than cute. The left was stunned at the 8/28 rally in DC.
Why? because masses of people showed and were very serious.
The left has been unable to make fun it with images of people in costumes and a carnival atmosphere.
The best they can do is get a couple leftist “comedians” to try to diminish the effect. Al Sharpton certainly failed.
D'Souza is making the mistake of believing deceivers.
http://gulagbound.com/5250/what-dsouza-doesnt-get-quite-right
WADR, Jack Cashill doesn't even have it quite right. Obama was a committed Leninist Communist even at Occidental College, according to fellow student, John Drew.
He's simply a Communist.
And Glenn Beck is a hoarder, by evidence of his hoarding -- and an insulter of patriots, by evidence of his insults of pattriots.
It has worked and is still working. I don't want to see it stagnate. It is getting the message across to those that will go beyond what the media portrays us as, but now I think we need to get the 'eye rollers' to listen and understand what we are about. I am in MA and I'm a Tea Party 'member' - I've been out there since Feb '09 - I still get the 'rolling eyes' (Republican and Democrat alike)when I bring up the Tea Party - these are people who only see the silly costumes and quirky signs(I've been in newspaper articles holding funny signs)that the media can grab and run on their programs.
A snip from the link above from Beck~
First impressions make well, for anybody who hasn't been with the tea parties and see, you are not going after the Republicans. You're not. You're not getting that. You've done that. Now you're and you've done the independence. They get it. They'll stand with you. But now you have to go after the Democrats, and the Democrats have been hypnotized by the news saying they're not like you, they're dangerous, they're racist, they're they're saying these things all the time. And what are they doing? They're playing the pictures over and over and over again. So what is more effective to be able to get the Democrats to listen to your message? Believe me I've I've been talking to liberals, my friends who are diehard liberals who will say I can't get again let me turn it around in the opposite way.
We have to get everyone on board - there are more out there that are 'We the People' that aren't seeing the message through the costumes and cute signs - we got the ones that understand the message, we need to teach the ones still wearing the medias rose-colored glasses.
The Tea Party is working "within the framework" they ARE NOT the same as the GOP - and shouldn't be. The Tea Party, like FreeRepublic - needs to keep their unique identity.
I agree whole heartily... the GOP needs to trust their fellow conservatives. Tea Party members have an important voice - they DON'T need to be an echo... or a 'stepford wife'...
I agree with your points, but I don’t agree (if this is what you’re suggesting) that it’s an “either/or.”
I was done with this guy long ago....but some here adore him....not that he doesn’t have some decent points and I bought two of his books I found lightweight compared to Levin .
He says way too many things that are either at odds with historical fact or just plain odd period...like this one.
If anyone need fear giving the Left ammo to use against us it’s him.
(not that I live to worry about giving my political enemies fodder)
I wonder if he sees that in himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.