Posted on 09/29/2009 4:38:33 AM PDT by steve-b
When Glenn Beck made his Fox debut, some shrewd conservatives responded with a wink. Maybe the show was paranoid and hysterical. Maybe Beck was none too scrupulous about facts and truth. But why be squeamish? The other side did as bad, or nearly. And see how usefully he mobilized the base!
Those shrewd conservatives assumed Beck was working for them. Big mistake. Beck is working for himself – and he chooses his targets according to his own scheme of priorities....
Glenn Beck is not the first to make a pleasant living for himself by reckless defamation. We have seen his kind before in American journalism and American politics, and the good news is that their careers never last long. But the bad news is that while their careers do last, such people do terrible damage.....
(Excerpt) Read more at newmajority.com ...
Huh?..Cum'on ain't chu lernt nuttin from AKORN?
Speaking of working for yourself, how odd that it was Frum who wrote the phrase 'Axis of Evil', but couldn't resist letting the world know it was his idea. (which rightly gets you canned)
Now there's liberal hypocrisy on display.
Of whom, may I ask?
The GOP and surrounding fruities doesn’t get it. No more than the Dims do. We are tired of the ESTABLISMENT screwing us.
Its the Government CLASS we are sick of.
You hearing me now?
(crickets)
I wasn’t expecting them to get it now either...
But the attack was a generalization. Frum used one instance where he disagreed to try to make Beck look like he is always reckless to defame Beck. KPretty hypocritical in his attack.
And why should I care what that loser Frum thinks?
"I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes."OK. Now, we can see that, in such a context, the idea that you might have to grant animals the right to sue, as a legal matter, in order to give standing to a person who wants to use civil litigation in order to stop clear cases of animal abuse. I presume by that argument there is no current way to bring a civil suit against, say, Michael Vick, as the damage he caused was to dogs, and not humans, and dogs have no standing to sue (an owner could probably sue for the loss of the dog or for the emotional damage the owner suffered)....
Beck’s entire case against Sunstein rests on a throw-away suggestion in one speech that it might be a good idea to allow concerned individuals some standing to bring lawsuits on behalf of abused animals. But in a July letter to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Sunstein made clear that he would not use his new position to advance this concept: “If confirmed, I certainly would not use my position at OIRA to promote animal standing in civil litigation; such standing would indeed be an intolerable burden on farmers, ranchers and hunters.”
So here is where I fault both Glenn Beck and Frum. Frum argues that Beck is essentially lying -- but it is clear that Sunstein DID think about giving animals the right to sue, and it is clear that, once you open that can of worms, for whatever noble reason, it would be abused and cause no end to trouble.
But Beck could well have been deliberately misleading about Sunstein's intentions, because it's easier to get people riled up against a target instead of explaining a slippery slope.
I'm inclined to believe that Sunstein did NOT in fact intend to try to give animals the right to sue, and that he is not in fact a far-left animal-rights activist.
But I'm not convinced that Sunstein is as pro-gun as he tried to make out in his testimony. Other quotes suggest that his "pro-2nd-amendment" view is more of an historical acquiesence than a heartfelt personal view.
So I don't think it was wrong for republicans to oppose him, but I could agree with Frum's general observation that talk show hosts tend to be polarizing. I don't think that is surprising -- it's how they get audiences. Nobody seems interested in a show that actually discusses the issues and has a chance to conclude the "wrong" answers.
People like listening to talk shows where they are always validated, not ones where they are always challenged and asked to think.
My personal opinion is that you can observe that here with discussions of Medved's show. Medved tends to be a thinker. When he agrees with what I'll call the "conservative party line", people here applaud him for his thoughtfulness. But whenever he comes up with a conclusion that isn't the "accepted norm", he generally gets attacked for being a RINO.
Fact is, we need more discussion, more thought, more questioning of everything. Conservatism isn't right because it's "conservatism", Conservatism is right to the degree that the policies, positions, and values it espouses are ones that are correct, that can stand up to scrutiny, that advance the cause of humanity, that strengthen our country, and that best provide for liberty and freedom.
You are so correct, no one does a better job of carefully
explaining, and teaching the everyday person about the
corruption in Washington. He is like a high school history
teacher, I know I can’t wait for his show each day like
a government corruption soap opera. I pray each day he will
get his 56, I am also very sure most of his 56 will come from the CIA and they know where the bodies are buried.
OH NANCY I WOULD BE PACKING UP MY OFFICE IF I WERE YOU!!!!
For starters,Sunstein is an animal rights advocate, but never claimed they should be able bring suit.
Frum is a mole. I remember him saying on a liberal talk show that conservative should be glad that Medicare is cutting 500 Billion over 10 years. He wants to take the untenable bogey man positions that alienate everyone and ingratiate himself to Chris Matthews. He needs to run as a third party candidate for the governor of Guam
Frum is working for the DNC.
Nailed it.
ditto
just heard on Glenn’s radio show
(http://player.play.it/player/player.html?id=81&onestat=wpht-am) breitbart will be releasing an audio of people praying to Obummer within the half hour
“he doesn’t intentionally lie? So he just lies by mistake?”
The point is that he is very passionate and occasionally that passion manifests itself in exaggeration, which I would not characterize as lying. I have seen a few times where even his guests will correct Beck when Beck deems a particular conclusion having been proven by evidence when such evidence doesn’t really get you all the way there. When this happens, I have seen Beck gracefully agree or do futher research to prove his point.
And when this happens, it is my view that Beck never does it intentionally to deceive. Hell, I do the same thing sometimes- jump to conclusions not necessarily justified by the evidence. Olbermann on the other hand, intentionally LIES in order to influence people to come to conclusions he KNOWS are not true. Check out Olbermann’s video on FISA, where he calls Bush a fascist lying terrorist.
The world in not black and white.
Glenn Beck is a Conservative Libertarian, he is not a Republician. He does not march to the GOP beat.
I dont mind the fact that Glenn is a Libertarian and I am a registered Republician. The GOP let me down the last two years. We are still a two party system and I dont see that changing anytime soon. So I will most likely be VOTING GOP, I just want those politicians to be honest to principles and STAY honest.
Glenn’s popularity and activism is not hurting that - I see him helping to clear out the RINO’s
“They are alarmed at nothing so much, as attempts to awaken the people to jealousy and watchfulness; and it has been an old game played over and over again, to hold up the men who would rouse their fellow citizens and countrymen to a sense of their real danger, and spirit them to the most zealous activity in the use of all proper means for the preservation of the public liberty, as ‘pretended patriots,’ ‘intemperate politicians,’ rash, hotheaded men, Incendiaries, wretched desperadoes, who, as was said of the best of men, would turn the world upside down, or have done it already.” -Adams
Point being... The radicalization of conservatives is a good thing, no... a necessary thing... If we are EVER to achieve REAL freedom and liberty. Not the kind where you can move here and live under the boot and at the whim of this local, state and federal government or move over there and live under the same conditions just a different location. That’s not freedom, that’s just consistency of tyranny.
Anyone who can “whip up” the freedom loving folks in this collection of states into a frenzy of radicalization is A O F’ing K in my book. Hopefully we can direct that energy and focus it on breaking the back of the marxist fedgov and or separating from the idiots who vote marxists into office.
step 2, calling all your buddies.
If you want.
FRiends, CharlesWayneCT wrote: "repeat a lie often enough, and ..."
But then he was asked:
"Listen, FRiend, if you are referring to post #21,
which URL listed is a "lie"?"
So at the end of the day, CharlesWayneCT assents.
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.