Posted on 01/12/2013 9:47:01 AM PST by Mozilla
Again, you are distorting my comments. And we seem to be treading over old ground.
Because my only interest was in your original claims, not in following you around as you started weaving and bobbing, and rewriting them, while refusing to retract the original and ignoring that you made them.
I distorted nothing, that is what I am not letting you do.
So, I am your target, not Beck?
To: Rockingham
Buckley was a big fan and supporter of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio.
I was a subscriber of National Review until they endorsed Romney in 2007, and I don’t remember them being disdainful of “Limbaugh, talk radio, and Fox News”.
21 posted on Sat Jan 12 2013 11:56:26 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by ansel12
Wow, after all this wasted time, you now agree with me, and my point.
Just as Limbaugh, talk radio, and Fox News prompted some initial disdain from the old Bill Buckley/Firing Line/National Review crowd,
When Limbaugh began his national program, his manner was often criticized as jarring and brash, and his venue -- talk radio -- was new and decidedly declasse for the National Review readership and Buckley fans.
We National Review readers and all of the conservative world were thrilled to get Rush, and 8 years later, thrilled to get Fox news, we weren't waiting around like children to see if Bill Buckley approved, or if National Review would write an editorial telling us it was OK to listen to this first national conservative, or to watch Fox news when it came out 8 years later.
You make us National Review readers sound like out of touch, fearful, children, waiting for permission, or too elitist and snobbish to watch a new news channel, or the creation of a national radio talk show, rather than jumping on board enthusiastically, from the beginning.
You were projecting your own personality and timidness, onto the rest of we National Review reading conservatives.
After 11 years, you are still covering for Beck by pretending that he is new, and that like Rush and Fox, conservatives will come to accept him (which wasn't true either, our acceptance was full bore from the beginning), something that we never went through with Rush or Fox, Beck is already old news, he is in his 11th year, and he is still seen as a huckster and more and more is referred to as an untrustworthy guru, and more importantly, the Mormon cult member is open about not being a conservative.
Beck is not a "responsible" conservative, he isn't a conservative at all, he is a libertarian/liberal.
“We National Review readers and all of the conservative world” . . . You seem to have an air of royal absolutism.
We National Review readers were pleased as punch, not every single one of course, there was you as the exception.
Here is a fresh thread that tells the truth about Glenn Beck.
Andrew Breitbart exposes Glenn Beck: "It's kind of like dating a stripper"
I am listening to it at the moment. Brietbart is making some effective points.
Allow me to add today’s Beck Show stupidity:
Coming from the same Glenn Beck who
- Claimed “nothing good ever came of revolution or civil war”, forgetting this nation’s very history.
“My larger point is that Beck has a following that adds to conservative strength. Taking a clue from Buckley, we ought not to be too critical of Beck on stylistic grounds. “
There is nothing conservative about supporting homosexual marriages and laying down our arms. That isn’t style, that is liberalism, that is Glenn Beck.
I am not aware of Beck supporting either measure.
Brietbart’s comments were new to me. Put the tub thumping aside: when and what specifically turned you against Beck?
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.