Glenn Beck

Mellow Gold: Glenn Beck Fiesta Roundup

|

Mark Hemingway:

Just shake your boots and let it all get loose.

Rather than a political broadside directed at the White House, Beck took another page from King's book: He gave an upbeat speech, focusing on religion as a positive force for change.

"Go to your churches, synagogues, and mosques!" Beck proclaimed. He also suggested "teach[ing] in our churches the principles" to fix our politics. He later added some obligatory words of caution about mixing church and politics, but there's no doubting that the civil religion was laid on with a trowel. Regardless, it's unlikely Beck's religious themes will subsume economic liberty as the driving message behind the Tea Party.

The crowd was not composed of religious or political firebrands—just ordinary Americans extraordinarily worried. The crowd was so decent that as they streamed off, many random people stopped along the way to gather up and bag the empty water bottles near the overflowing trash cans on the Mall.

Lew Rockwell:

One might yawn at yet another anthill assembly in DC. But the purpose of Glenn Beck's huge Lincoln-military celebration—with his fellow neocon warmonger Sarah Palin (a wholly owned subsidiary of Bill Kristol)—is to try to make all the Tea Party people obedient tools of the Republican apparatus, and detach them from Ron Paul. As usual, mass killing and patriotism undermine freedom. It's more Armageddon-promotion in the Middle East, but the true Paulians will not be fooled. According to Glenn, blessed are the warmakers. It's an honor to die for your country. It's an honor to lose your limbs. It's an honor to kill other people by the boatload. But hey, Beck, don't just talk. Fly into Afghanistan. I'll help pay for your parachute.

Lisa Schell:

Glenn Beck's rally drew more people than Keith Olbermann has viewers.

Adam Serwer:

At this point, it's obvious that Beck's stunts have a self-conscious hint of irony to them. His increasingly messianic self-conception and his outsize comparisons between himself and important American historical figures seem deliberately designed to make liberals issue angry public denunciations, which only increase his profile and solidify his stature in the conservative movement, where Pissing Off Liberals is actually more important than anything else. He's figured out how this hustle works. What I don't understand is why liberals keep indulging him with their outrage.

David Weigel:

The Democrats who pre-butted Beck's rally by predicting an overtly political hateananny were played for suckers. They didn't pay attention to Beck's "Founder Fridays" episodes on Fox, his high-selling speaking tour, or his schmaltzy children's book The Christmas Sweater. It's not his blackboard that makes him popular. It's the total package he sells: membership in a corny, righteous, Mormonism-approved-by-John Hagee cultural family. The anger is what the media focus on, he says, joking several times about what "the press" will do to twist his words….Beck's rally ends just as he said it would—without incident, political or otherwise. He's just taken the world's most derided TV audience, put them in the National Mall, and presided over the world's largest megachurch.

NEXT: For Health Care Lobbyists, ObamaCare Is the Gift That Keeps On Giving

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’d pay to kick Lew Rockwell in the dick. What an unpleasant man.

    1. He is a trans-nationalist who hates the country, hates patriotism and hates the military. That is his right. But it is more than a little ironic that he is telling Beck to go to Afghanistan. Hey, Lew if patriotism is such a threat to freedom and you don’t recognize national borders, why don’t you pack your bags and try putting out your rants somewhere else.

      1. John (mentioned this in another thread),

        You’ve been been cited in a Transterrestrial Musings posting about the Glenn Beck rally. You’re even quoted in the post!

        1. Wow. Thanks.

          1. Meh. Let me know when you’re quoted on Libertarian Hotties.

            1. He broke the commenter/poster barrier! On another blog! A complete violation of the theory of general commentivity!

              1. Balko sort of mentioned me in a Tweet. All I’m worth is a tweet. I’m going back to bed.

                1. So we know one thing: John is higher in the commenter hierarchy than SugarFree. But that leaves the status of millions of other commenters in question.

                  1. Suger Free and Warty both inhabit and rule their own parallel commentator universe. Although strange, perverse and generally repugnant to polite society, entrance to it is wildly appealing and sought after although few will public admit to it.

                    1. Pure speculation. I see no evidence of a multiblog.

                    2. Warty and I are the dirty little secret of the commentariat? Woo!

                    3. “Release the WartyFree!”

                    4. I have it on good authority that Dorris Kerns Godwin, Mara Leison and Kathryn Jean Lopez have masturbation parties that consist of Doris reading your fiction aloud.

                    5. Warty’s my favorite H&R poster hands down.

                2. Well, if we’re gonna brag about it… Instapundit quoted me in “from the comments.”

                  1. That is a really good comment.

                    1. All of this self-adulation is worth how much in the real world?

                    2. Ten quatloos.

                    3. That’s quoteloos.

                    4. Edit or mock TOS at your peril around these parts.

                    5. Twenty quatloos for the newcomer!

            2. Suger Free and Warty both inhabit and rule their own parallel commentator universe. Although strange, perverse and generally repugnant to polite society, entrance to it is wildly appealing and sought after although few will public admit to it.

              John, all you have to do to enter is look in the mirror and utter these words: “Cuntwrinkle! Cuntwrinkle! Cuntwrinkle!”

              And if that doesn’t work, I dunno, do some drugs or something.

      2. He also is said, by former Paul staffers and others, to have been the author of those racist newsletters that got Ron Paul in trouble.

        If that’s true, that Paul would allow his name to be drug through the mud to protect a shitstain like Rockwell boggles the mind.

        1. It wouldn’t surprise me. I got the Rothbard-Rockwell Report for a couple of years and a more than a few pieces in it made me raaise my eyebrows.

      3. I like Rockwell, in general, but I think he’s trying too hard to be the Murray Rothbard that cheered Kruschev’s motorcade. Is he sincere or is he just going for a putrid differentiation?

        1. It’s the macho libertarian flash. I dig it.

      4. Actually, Glenn Beck DID went to Afghanistan on USO tour. I wasn’t aware that Lew Rockwell went anywhere near there.

      5. That isn’t ironic at all. You’re logic is a bit strained there.

        And patriotism, in the modern sense, is rarely a force for good.

    2. I don’t know exactly what Lew Rockwell’s deal is, but in my limited exposure to his writings, he has always come off as an anarcho-douchebag.

      But maybe I’m just catching him when he’s on the rag or something.

      1. Nope, he’s always like that.

      2. I kinda like Glenn Beck. But I still can’t tell if he is going to to eventually be just another tool used to subvert the Libertarian impulse, or if he will continue his bumbling, (and IMO genuine), trip towards some form of libertarianism. But I don’t mind if Rockwell plays watchdog along the way, and don’t have a problem with anything he said in the excerpt.

        1. I can’t stand that a man who has cried more often on network TV than I have in my entire life is representing libertarianism.

    3. Lew Rockwell is a libertarian hero. He has done more to promote liberty in a meaningful sense than Cato and Reason combined.

      1. No.

        That is all.

      2. No, you really haven’t, Lew.

      3. Oh puh-leaze!

        That he helps run the LvMI is great. But it is his only redeeming quality. He is an arrogant asshole who insists on being surrounded by other arrogant assholes, who can find no good in anyone not named “Ron”. The excerpt above is typical.

        His anger is not limited to Lincoln and Beck. He had similarly vile words for Friedman and Hayek. Friedman was merely a pagan, but Hayek’s lack of orthodox Rothbardianism put him into the category of apostate.

  2. “What I don’t understand is why liberals keep indulging him with their outrage.”

    Because outrage is their indulgence.

    1. +1

      Good (and correct) observation.

    2. Doesn’t speak well for our continuing to respond to Edwin, Max, etc.

    3. The left always has to hate somebody…

      Lisa: “‘Nuke the Whales’??? You don’t really believe that, do you?”

      Nelson: “Gotta nuke something.”

      Lisa: “Touche.”

      1. Those bastards with their fucking blowholes, and their stupid wave music. They’re the fat hippies of the Ocean.

      2. I have a question. Is your name Pete and you masturbate, or is Pete someone who you masturbate?

        1. Don’t ruin the magic, Gob.

        2. Why can’t it be both?

          1. Stop dodging the question, onanist.

            And what relation do you have to Slippery Pete?

        3. Aren’t those the same thing?

    4. For a chuckle, search for Glenn Beck on Facebook. Evidently, there are scores of people who bought into the idea that “the hate will only make you stronger.”

      I was hoping I could “like” a page titled “I don’t care about your panty-wadding and desperately whiny hatred of Glenn Beck.”

      1. Why can’t you start your own? Mind if i steal the idea? Or would facebook not allow it.

        1. Why? Laziness. But, please by all means, may you have at it.

          I suspect that as long as festoon your page with dope leaves, you’ll be good.

  3. Don’t care for Glenn Beck, but can’t understand all the angst and fretting over him. MediaMatters has WAAAAY too much time on their collective hands.

    1. Every partisan wants to get in on the ground floor of hate. “Oh, I’ve been hating him for years.”

      1. And they have to have someone to hate. They can’t hate Bush anymore, he is out of office. So, they latch on to figures like Beck.

        1. Bush hatred will never cease, whereas Obama will be absolved of all his sins forever.

          Not that either of them deserve any breaks, mind you.

        2. *Anyone* who violates the orthodoxy will be on the receiving end of a big ‘ol can of slanderous and dubiously honest whoop ass from the Democratic blathering head machine.

          Why are leftists so intolerant today? You’d swear that dissent was invented by the Nazzies or the (gasp) the Republicans.

          1. Dissent isn’t scheduled to resume its status as the highest form of patriotism until at least noon on January 20, 2013.

            1. +100

      2. They hated him when hate was on vinyl.

    2. The best hand-wringing money can buy.

    3. That’s my favorite part. These guys keep getting outplayed (I almost said outsmarted) by ‘idiots’ like Bush, Beck, & Palin… But they’re sooo educated and world-wise. The internal rationalization that takes place to keeep their world-view in place must be epic.

      1. It’s because:

        (a) the general public is too stupid to know that Democratic policies are good for them; and

        (b) Rupert Murdoch and the Koch family are funding everything behind the scenes, while pro-Democrat rallies have to rely on the kindness of volunteers and a bunch of $5 online donations.

        1. I don’t know about you guys, but I would absolutely love Barack Obama were it not for money being passed out to conservative and libertarian think tanks by two dudes I’ve never heard of.

        2. Are the rest of you guys getting your Koch checks via direct deposit, or do you prefer the gold shipments?

          1. I get my Jew Gold directly, straight out of the bag.

            I hope it’s not the fake bag, though…

          2. Taking mine in silver. 30 pieces per shipment.

            1. +1 for the Biblical reference.

              And I never went to Catholic school or attended church regularly, so +1 for me for recognizing it.

          3. Copper is what the rednecks are stealing these days. My guess is it will be a pretty liquid asset to use when the underground economy gets going.

    4. Of course they do. They are supposed to be exposing conservative bias in the media, and unless you’re coming from a Trotskyite point of view, there just isn’t much to expose.

    5. I’ve never watched a minute of Glenn Beck, so all I have to go on is what I hear from others. From what I’ve heard, I probably wouldn’t care for him. But my goodness, he does make the right people furious, doesn’t he? Anyone who makes the Asshole Left lose their shit the way Beck does is OK in my book.

  4. Beck’s rally really creeped the hell out of me.

    Also, the Sharpton rally really creeped the hell out of me.

    1. Yeah, I saw pictures of the Sharpton rally, they wore the same shirt, the same angry expression, and marched lock step. They did not exactly seem diverse.

      There was a greater variety of humanity and human action and reaction from what I could see from the pictures of the Beck rally, but it had a bit of a Koresh compound feel to it (NTTATWWT).

  5. Regardless, it’s unlikely Beck’s religious themes will subsume economic liberty as the driving message behind the Tea Party.

    Then what’s the point of them? Other than signaling any agnostics or atheists to GTFO of the Tea Party? Assuming Sarah Palin didn’t already, that is.

    1. Then what’s the point of them?

      I think the point is that much of the Total State’s expansion has been filling a vacuum, as “traditional” values and civil institutions have been eroded by a variety of sources.

      The Total State isn’t going to be pushed back by nothing. If it retreats, it will be in the face of values and civil institutions that force it back and fill the void that it leaves.

      You can certainly argue about how much a society needs in the way of shared values and civil institutions to avoid dominance by the Total State, (the argument around “deep libertarianism”), but Beck seems to be coming down on the deep libertarianism side.

      1. It just seems that an outwardly neutral philosophy of libertarian values would gather more adherents, than a metaphysically partisan one.

        Just like the natural law/right of self-ownership is the same idea coming from different moral bases, I think the better way of dealing with libertarian ideals is to have them be a freely-chosen stance rather be rooted in either religion or secularism.

        1. A full movement, incorporating politics, religion and action, works better than a simple political stance because philosophy doesn’t stop at liberty’s edges. People want to feel that their actions and beliefs fulfill something greater than themselves.

          ‘Outwardly neutral’ libertarianism doesn’t work for the vast majority of people because it pays no attention to the reality of Good and Evil, and so reacts against any judgement on those grounds. A radical philosophy of non-engagement (on the social battlefield, of which politics is a part) with Good and Evil alienates those who would otherwise be sympathetic to Libertarian concerns, especially in the face of the arguement that good choices can only be moral, only have any ‘divine’ value if they are free choices.

          The problem with libertarians is that they are more concerned with an immature “Freedom” than with the strictures of “Liberty”. Freedom is the exultation of the self and one’s own desires above others and morality; Liberty is the moral conception that harm and coercion should be avoided in dealing with others, and that moral choice should not be constrained. Freedom is a grand philosophical concept – Liberty is a political concept with roots in religious notions of sin and salvation, among other traditions. Liberty is more powerful in the vanguard of a movement dedicated to fulfilling mankind’s potential, moral and material, than arrogantly sulking because morality imposes on you.

          1. Thank goodness atheists are the smug ones.

            1. Hey, I’m a Deist. But liberty as a concept is very tied up in questions of morality, and if libertarians want to win, we need to talk to the human condition as Christians, Commies, Progressives, and all the others, good and bad, do.

              A partial philosophical movement will always be a slave to any movement that claims to explain more than it can.

              1. Libertarianism can be considered a ethical stance and more inclusionary. By asserting that it can only be understand a metaphysical principle; you confirm all the non-Christians worse fears when you try to argue them out of their trepidation about imposed moralities. You are never going to keep hold of the anti-authoritarians with God-talk.

                Maybe they don’t care, maybe they don’t want my vote, but they shouldn’t ever express surprise that a coalition can’t be built.

          2. The problem with libertarians is that they are more concerned with an immature “Freedom” than with the strictures of “Liberty”. Freedom is the exultation of the self and one’s own desires above others and morality; Liberty is the moral conception that harm and coercion should be avoided in dealing with others, and that moral choice should not be constrained. Freedom is a grand philosophical concept – Liberty is a political concept with roots in religious notions of sin and salvation, among other traditions. Liberty is more powerful in the vanguard of a movement dedicated to fulfilling mankind’s potential, moral and material, than arrogantly sulking because morality imposes on you.

            I have to disagree with this assertion. I have had discussions with others who have made this proposition that “Liberty” and “Freedom” are unique conceptions that are distinct in their origins and applications, but I have not been able to find any convincing source for such an argument.

            Likewise, I have personally found secular moral realists/objectivists to be far better advocates of a reasoned logical conception of morality than religious advocates. Arguing from an ancient text, where one cherry picks which lines they will follow and which they will ignore, which lines they will read literally and which they will interpret, doesn’t reach the level of intellectual honesty and rigor that deduces real knowledge.

            I grant that our current system is highly influenced by religion and many brilliant intellectuals of religious background, but to claim that one cannot be moral without a foundation in religion is patently false.

            1. Thanks for the reasoned response. To start from your last comment, I absolutely do not believe that religion is necessary to be a good person or deduce morality. My point was part-philosophical, part-political: the concept of ‘liberty’ as well as most other political terms we today use (e.g. ‘justice’) are founded deeply in the soil of Judeo-Christian history and culture, though also in Hellenic conceptions. This does not mean they are slaves to this history, but we should be aware of the depth of our debt to it. This finds its grand-political expression in the wisdom of a movement which incorporates religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, because we share deep moral premises about humanity’s structure.

              I think you misunderstand religious philosophy. While it is in part based around holy texts, it incorporates more of the Burkean ‘accumulated wisdom of mankind’ that Hayek recognised. Moral reasoning in this case has marginally different premises, but I do believe that the vetting of centuries must suggest some respect for these texts.

              Finally, ‘liberty’ is a creature bound up in the Western separation of Church and State responsibilities. This is not an assertion – I’m treating it as a concept rooted in political concepts of force. Freedom, or any word meaning the same thing, has to be a separate concept because its implications across realms of life (politics, religion, family) are broader.

              1. Thanks for the reasoned response. To start from your last comment, I absolutely do not believe that religion is necessary to be a good person or deduce morality. My point was part-philosophical, part-political: the concept of ‘liberty’ as well as most other political terms we today use (e.g. ‘justice’) are founded deeply in the soil of Judeo-Christian history and culture, though also in Hellenic conceptions. This does not mean they are slaves to this history, but we should be aware of the depth of our debt to it. This finds its grand-political expression in the wisdom of a movement which incorporates religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, because we share deep moral premises about humanity’s structure.

                I think you misunderstand religious philosophy. While it is in part based around holy texts, it incorporates more of the Burkean ‘accumulated wisdom of mankind’ that Hayek recognised. Moral reasoning in this case has marginally different premises, but I do believe that the vetting of centuries must suggest some respect for these texts.

                The idea that religion and it’s adherents are engaging in an intellectual endevour where they are parsing out the false aspects of their doctrine rings highly improbable. The idea of the Judao-Christian religion is that the text is the very word of God. To deny this is to deny the omnipotence of God. The fact that the institutional policies have changed over the centuries, IMO, is more to do with the incorporation of secular ideas that took hold in the culture and the Church finally acquiescing to the public will.

                Because I hold that religious individuals played a key role in the current day political system, doesn’t mean that I must take up the religious texts again to further the discovery of moral and political theory.

                1. The idea of the Judeo-Christian religion is that the text is the very word of God. To deny this is to deny the omnipotence of God.

                  Just in case you were wondering, this is where people with more than a passing understanding of Christianity decided that whatever else you have to say on the topic isn’t worth reading.

                  1. Just in case you were wondering, this is where people with more than a passing understanding of Christianity decided that whatever else you have to say on the topic isn’t worth reading.

                    Really? So you’re telling me that to the average Christian, the Bible is not the word of God?

                    1. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Christianity isn’t a revealed religion.

                    2. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

                      And in relation to my question, you are totally wrong. To a HUGE portion of Christians, they perceive the Bible as the Word of God; a divinely inspired text. I have no interest in arguing the validity of this perception, just stating that this is what Christians believe.

                    3. You use the term ‘inspired’, but do not, apparently, grasp what it means in relation to the Bible.

                      While the ‘inspiration’ came from the One God, the means were fallible men. Thus, the text is open to interpretation–which can mean ‘cherry-picking’.

                      Contrast this with the Quran, which is said to be a copy of the same book which is with Allah.

                    4. Also, for Christians, the Word of God is Jesus. And the Bible ain’t Jesus.

                      I’m certain that you can find any number of people who are confused about this, but they’re wrong.

            2. My feeling is that liberty is a subset of freedom (namely, liberty is the freedom from external compulsion). The other chief subset being license (the freedom from consequences). To some extent, these two are in conflict as beyond a certain point, increasing your license requires reducing others’ liberty (so as to be able to compel them to mitigate your consequences).

              One of the biggest roadblocks to libertarianism, is that to many people have a conception of freedom that lies closer to maximizing license than maximizing liberty.

              1. My feeling is that liberty is a subset of freedom (namely, liberty is the freedom from external compulsion). The other chief subset being license (the freedom from consequences). To some extent, these two are in conflict as beyond a certain point, increasing your license requires reducing others’ liberty (so as to be able to compel them to mitigate your consequences).

                One of the biggest roadblocks to libertarianism, is that to many people have a conception of freedom that lies closer to maximizing license than maximizing liberty.

                Good post. Definitely a better reasoned argument than most I have come across.

              2. Excellent post. Though I feel that even the maximisation of liberty must be qualified (and here is where I think the principal libertarian problems begin in earnest). Total freedom from coercion is impossible for Man as a social creature: most, and the most effective, forms of external compulsion rely on social exclusion and judgment, rather than force. Here is where the problem for libertarians of temperament begins. The operation of any society, and of any community within it, involves either the exclusion or the persuasion of those within (or those seeking acceptance) to bow to the norms of the group. This can be a destructive operation, when it quashes the moral individuality of members, and forecloses chances for progress. Mostly, however, it is ambiguous, its moral worth being derived from its aims.

                This external coercion’s penalties can greatly pain humans: the anguish of a woman unable to find a love because her opinions are unacceptable is real; the line between Man and his community is not so bright as we like to think, and separation is painful. So the power of this compulsion should not be discounted as nothing. This does not mean that it is wrong, however. Individuality can be selfish, destructive, and blind. Its taming, by family, society, and morality, is a worthy and necessary goal in a society that wishes to take advantage of the fruits of liberty.

                Libertarianism is virtuous in its humilty, in its self-limitation, its willingness to unleash the creative and moral forces of human nature. Libertarians should not forget that there’s more to life and the universe than this, and we should remember that most people seek more than such a small philosophy.

                1. Sorry, GoW, but your posts are becoming more and more disconnected from the discussion. While I don’t doubt that there may be purely hedonistic libertarians, I disagree that this is a fundamental ideal in libertarian ideology (although I agree that this is how many mischaracterize libertarians).

                  At least for myself, I have no concern that individuals hold to a particular religion, or even that the majority hold to a single sect. Where I disagree is when people posit ideas that without religion, morality and liberty cannot exist.

                  1. I should apologise if I’ve given the impression that I think hedonism is a fundamental ideal in libertarian ideology. I don’t. And I don’t care that individuals hold to any particular religion. And I don’t think that religion is necessary for morality.

                    I do, however, think that libertarian philosophy has a choice between duelling strands: between a movement that attempts to argue for liberty within the context of a transcendental order, within which morality can be deduced through observation and reason; and a movement that eschews any notion of morality so long as you do not impose in any way on others (that disapproves of evangelism for example). I think that the first responds to the human condition and the social nature of Man better.

                    I don’t care which religion men choose (within a Burkean framework I prefer that we maintain what we know, Christianity), but I do care that it should be one whose traditions and philosophy encourage the flowering of Man’s better nature, and one whose culture lives well with the libertarian sensibility. Of the major religions, Judaism and Christianity (I don’t know enough about Buddhism) certainly fulfill those conditions well enough. Most importantly they are the context we actually live in, and mankind doesn’t change quickly.

                    Religion isn’t necessary for morality for an individual, but in a society, it sure does help, if you survey history. Religion, unlike individual moral reasoning, deploys the sense of community, a source of joy and an added help in the fight to improve oneself. It builds identity, and the desire for communal identity is inevitable in Man. The established religions also contain the wisdom of centuries of editing, debate, commentary and insight: there is a very Hayekian virtue to the old religions.

                    1. I do, however, think that libertarian philosophy has a choice between duelling strands: between a movement that attempts to argue for liberty within the context of a transcendental order, within which morality can be deduced through observation and reason; and a movement that eschews any notion of morality so long as you do not impose in any way on others (that disapproves of evangelism for example). I think that the first responds to the human condition and the social nature of Man better.

                      I agree with the position that without an objective moral theory, libertarianism has no foundation from which to stand. Without an objective reason why individual self-direction is a right or that property is a right, then libertarians have no argument. One could not argue against oppression because it would simply be a subjective preference to be left alone.

                    2. Absolutely. What I think is important is to recognize is that the objective moral order extends into a variety of human behaviors and realms, not just the political realm. We can argue about what is the correct moral response to a situation, a discussion only possible within the context of liberty (from violent coercion), but if the moral order is objective for the political regime, then social and personal morality cannot be wholly created, rather than deduced, either.

                      I simply think that a flourishing human society, with good and creative individuals who do not prey on one another, is most likely realized within the context of liberty and morality; and I further think that humane religion best encourages virtue in society, if not the individual. I think that the value of moderate religion is borne out by history.

  6. It is amazing that two private citizens with no official responsibilities–Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin–get 90% of the attention from the left. I suppose it’s partly explained by the fact that there is no high-profile republican in power right now. John Boehner and Mitch Mcconnell would strangle a bunny to get their publicity.

    1. In part I think it’s because Palin and Beck are what they most fear: popular leaders of the mass of American morlocks, leaders the left are sure will drag us back to the Dark Ages. They can’t be voted out of office or counteracted by Congress or the courts. They’re the evil, mirror-image versions of the “community organizer” that they so desperately want to lead the country to the progressive paradise.

    2. They used to do the same thing with Limbaugh (and still do, of course). I think it’s because there’s a lot more leverage to be found in attacking a talk show host, who has a lot more in the way of public comments to dissect and who has an entertainment bias that requires a certain amount of provocative statements, than in focusing on the opposition. An opposition which, when in power, ain’t different enough to screech about.

  7. Krugman:

    By the way, I’m not talking about the rage of the excluded and the dispossessed: Tea Partiers are relatively affluent, and nobody is angrier these days than the very, very rich. Wall Street has turned on Mr. Obama with a vengeance: last month Steve Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman of the Blackstone Group, the private equity giant, compared proposals to end tax loopholes for hedge fund managers with the Nazi invasion of Poland.

    And powerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rage. Jane Mayer’s new article in The New Yorker about the superrich Koch brothers and their war against Mr. Obama has generated much-justified attention, but as Ms. Mayer herself points out, only the scale of their effort is new: billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife waged a similar war against Bill Clinton.

    1. Tea Partiers are relatively affluent,

      I thought tea partiers were a bunch of dumb, trailer trash hicks. I’m confused.

      1. They’re whatever serves the writer’s criticism at the moment.

      2. Those cars up on blocks in the front yard? They’re Ferraris.

      3. The circle is squared by positing that the Tea Partiers are a bunch of drooling retards, swindled into hating Barack Obama by the Koch Brothers and their Jew Gold.

        I saw a comment on one of the boards at the New York Times the other day: the lefty thought that the cause of liberalism would be helped by requiring an IQ or civics test for voting.

        1. the lefty thought that the cause of liberalism would be helped by requiring an IQ or civics test for voting.

          They should be careful what they wish for.

      4. The circle is squared by positing that the Tea Partiers are a bunch of drooling retards, swindled into hating Barack Obama by the Koch Brothers and their Jew Gold.

        I saw a comment on one of the boards at the New York Times the other day: the lefty thought that the cause of liberalism would be helped by requiring an IQ or civics test for voting.

    2. Lol, suck on it Krugnuts. It’s sure going to be entertaining to read his columns after November 2. Schadenfreude 🙂

      1. I should now program my cable box to switch to MSNBC on November 2. I had so much fun watching it the night of Scott Brown’s victory.

        1. I was watching Rachael Maddow when Brown’s victory was projected. Seeing that man’s face fall was one of my highlights of 2010.

          1. Seeing that man’s face fall was one of my highlights of 2010.

            Shit, gotta clean tea off my monitor now.

    3. Delightful, Pauly Krugnuts. The slide from “relatively affluent” to “super-rich” probably had them rolling in the aisles at the NYT.

      I bet your average Tea Partier is less affluent than he imagines, and almost certainly less affluent than the average Dem donor.

      1. It’s not the average that’s interesting about Dem donors, it’s the standard deviation.

    4. Krugman, wealth envier.

      Tony should be along any moment now.

    5. ?
      This is what it sounds like…
      When the Dems cry…

    6. In the left’s talking points, there is no such thing as the rich anymore. They’re all “super rich”. Usage of the new phrase is an easy way to tell if someone’s been properly indoctrinated or not.

      1. In the same way that there are no conservatives, only ultraconservatives.

        1. And there are no liberals, there are only ‘moderates’.

          1. Why are we always looking for “moderate Muslims”? How about some liberal Muslims?

        2. Ultraconservative and superrich have a doubleplus quality about them.

          Language always gives you away.

    7. le sigh. Krugman is one of the 8 people who, if I saw him walking on the sidewalk, I would take the inevitable assault charge for the simple pleasure of backhanding him with all my might.

      So there are 2 billionaires against Obama as opposed to the fuckton for him, including, but not limited to:

      Eric Schmidt
      Penny Pritzker
      Bill Gates
      Steve Ballmer
      George Lucas
      SOOORRROOOOSSSSS!!!!!
      Steven Spielberg
      Larry Page
      Warren Buffett
      David Geffen
      Ken Griffin
      Norman Lear
      Arthur Blank
      Jeffrey Katzenberg
      Steve Tisch
      Oprah Winfrey

      1. Oh dear God, I work for one of those men!

        <puts jagermeister into IV tube…>

  8. Oh bother, they’ve lit the Weigel beacon.

    1. And Rohan will answer! Summon the Rohirrim!

    2. Ah yes, the old “two rats humping” silhouette.

      1. I thought it was a silhouette of a ProActive bottle.

        1. Nah, that one just looks like a generic bottle, and they were worried they might summon Keith Richards instead.

    3. Oh bother, they’ve lit the Weigel beacon.

      “Batman’s really let himself go.”

      1. +Eleventy

    4. There is but one penalty for setting alight the Weigel-shaped beacon.

  9. He’s just taken the world’s most derided TV audience, put them in the National Mall, and presided over the world’s largest megachurch.

    Even larger than Yoido?

  10. What I don’t understand is why liberals keep indulging him with their outrage.

    Mostly because he’s effective. If nobody had showed up there on Saturday, the left would have been able to merely laugh and dismiss him.

    It’s critical to understand though that when the left spews their rage towards Beck, he is merely serving as a proxy for America in their minds.

    The left is absolutely furious that the nation has already rejected them a mere year and a half after assuming the most power they have had in this country in decades. These people totally misread their mandate after the ’08 election; they truly believed that the American people had fundamentally changed their whole way of thinking rather than seeing it as the rejection of George W. Bush and the sorry-ass establishment republican party that it was.

    1. ^ This. The most revealing comment from a leftist in many decades was what Michelle said, ‘For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.’ There is a pussball of decadence festered in the collective heart of the left in need of popping.

    2. It’s critical to understand though that when the left spews their rage towards Beck, he is merely serving as a proxy for America in their minds.

      Reminding me of the thing that most annoys me about Beck: the constant implications that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is a fake american, a complete reprobate, and possibly in league with Satan.

      Particularly galling example was his assertion on today’s program that people who weren’t at the rally Saturday don’t care if their children die.

  11. I thought Weigel’s take was the best.

    Doesn’t hurt when you can get “pre-butted” and “hateananny” in the same sentence.

    1. Definitely a step up from “ratfucker.”

      1. MICE! I only fuck MICE!

      2. What about tacofucker?

    2. Just as a piece of writing, it was decent. But I like Glen best when he is being Alex Jones’ mini-me (a.ka. “at the chalkboard”). I find him boring and lame when he gets all patriotic and churchy on us.

  12. “hateananny”

    One day I’ll be dead, and Delaware Dave will be the only person left to carry on this great neologizing tradition.

  13. I saw the head of the Urban League this morning on the cable TV, lying about how there was no mention of Martin Luther King (a historical figure wholly owned by Black Folk) at the Beck rally. Never mind that one of King’s nieces, who’s last name is King and who invoked her famous uncle again and again during her conventional Baptist rant, was there. The Urban League guy lied about it and his bimbo-host left the lie unchallenged.

    1. Bimbo-hosts should dress more like bimbos.

  14. Kochtopus. The -topus may be the most versatile appendage in paranoid political discourse.

    The Reasontopus. The Libertopus. The Wartytopus. The Epitopus. The Johntopus. The SugartopusFreetopus.

    Grasping, wriggling, multi-armed, and suction-cupped, with a beak and monstrous slitted eyes.

    Octopus.

    1. Are people pronouncing it “Cook” or “Kotch”? Because if it’s the latter, I’d love to say that Barack Obama has been Koch-blocked.

      1. It’s “Coke.”

        1. It’s Kock, though the actual German consonant at the end is not found in English. It is most definitely not ‘Coke’. If they are embarassed of their German name, for some childish reason, I suggest they change it. Same goes for ‘Bayner’ Boehner and all the others with creative interpretations for their ancestors’ non-English names.

          1. Just realised the simplest way to explain the last syllable — Think of the sound of the end of Bach (like the composer), whose name is also similarly not pronounced ‘Bake’.

          2. Just realised the simplest way to explain the last syllable — Think of the sound of the end of Bach (like the composer), whose name is also similarly not pronounced ‘Bake’.

          3. Just realised the simplest way to explain the last syllable — Think of the sound of the end of Bach (like the composer), whose name is also similarly not pronounced ‘Bake’.

      2. Wikipedia says “/?ko?k/.” I’m not sure how to pronounce the ill-made horseshoe.

        1. I believe it’s pronounced ‘mee-thane.’

        2. I despise the new phonetic system of pronunciation (joe did too, to give him a little deserved credit). It appears to be designed to be as far removed from the English language as possible at a time English is as close to universal language as humanity has ever had.

    2. The Barracktopus.

      1. Racist.

  15. It needs to be stated and re-stated: Lew Rockwell is a fucking cocksucker. I can’t believe people I respect such as Andrew Napolitano associate with that America hating piece of shit. How many people actually agree with him? It has to be an incredibly low percentage I bet there are more radical Islamists in America than paleo-libertarian pieces of shit.

    1. When you are such an American hating cock sucker that you can’t admit that FDR was preferable to Hitler and that ours was the better cause when compared to the Japanese and Germans, your political views are more of a reflection of your insanity than reality.

      1. Maybe by “Jeffersonian” he means George Jefferson.

        1. I think you guys are getting carried away. I don’t always agree with Rockwell, but if you go to his site you’ll find some of the most biting, insightful commentary on current events available on the web.

          And John, questioning the “righteousness” of WW2 isn’t the same as saying FDR=Hitler

    2. There are lots of nice sensibel paleo-libertarians. Rockwell is not one of them. Rockwell and his syncophants are in a class by themselves, walled up in a castle of self-delusion.

  16. where did he say FDR wasn’t preferable to Hitler?

  17. I’m old school. I remember being pissed when this “Beck” character showed up in the record bins and made my search for Jeff Beck albums more complicated.

    As for Mr. TV Personality, this weekend reminded me of the Promise Keepers phenomenon from a few years ago. Middle America wallowing in thin religious soup. If anything remotely libertarian comes of it, then I guess that’s a good thing.

    1. How can anyone be a libertarian while obeying the dictates of an imaginary being? Religion is by definition irrational. The principles of libertarianism cannot be promoted through faith. It takes a ruthless dedication to reason. Anything less will fail.

      1. I sure wish I had some fat-free sour scream to dip my balls in.

      2. That may be true, but nearly all the freedoms we enjoy came from the agitation of radical Christians who believed all the words in red about every man and woman being a brother or sister. Which is not to say that people of other faiths or people without faith have not been staunch supporters and defenders, but you can’t just ignore the history of the 17th-20th century because it is incovenient to your commitment to rationalism. Also, if your rationality becomes solely deductive in nature, it only tells you what is logically valid without informing you about the truth or good.

        1. all the freedoms we enjoy came from the agitation of radical Christians

          Some of the Founders were Christians, but their rationality trumped their religious beliefs. There’s a reason why God is banished from the Constitution.

          1. It was banned because the founders were only a couple hundred years removed from the religious wars in Europe and only a hundred or so years removed from Cromwell and the English civil war.

            Cromwell died in 1658, just a hundred and seventeen years before the Declaration of Independence. That civil war was fresher in their mind than the American civil war is in ours.

            They didn’t separate Church and state because they were atheist or they gave a rat fuck about the sensibilities of atheists. They separated it because they didn’t want Christian sects killing each other over here like they had in Europe.

            1. Mixing government with religion doesn’t make government any better, it just makes religion worse.

          2. Rationalization != rationality

      3. Yes, because building a movement on only half of the human condition, half of the human mind, and half of the human heart has worked SOOOO well up til now.

        I hope your ‘ruthless dedication to reason’ makes you feel good while lesser political movements (*cough* *socialism* *cough*) advance by appealing to reason and the deeper aspects of humanity. Libertarianism could, if it wanted to, draw on the best traditions of religion and reason, on art and science, the creation of business and the kindness of altruism. But no. Mr “-” wants it his way. Good luck.

      4. Actually, the principles of non-coercion and “heal thyself” are baked pretty firmly into both Christianity and Buddhism. Islam is another thing altogether, since it’s as much a social and political “instruction manual” as it is a religion.

        Christianity has a bit of a contradiction between focusing on one’s own salvation and the bit about being your “brother’s keeper”. However, I think it’s safe to say that many of the intellectual foundations of libertarians, like many other western political philosophical traditions, have strong Christian roots alongside the ancient Greek traditions.

        I say all this as a devout atheist. If you want to preach libertarianism to the unconverted, you’ve got to speak their language.

  18. Why won’t people just embraced the freedom to do what they are told?

    1. Some of us are just ornery that way, SF. I think they call it oppositional defiant disorder now. I’d go check, but I also suffer from amotivational syndrome.

  19. Glenn Beck’s rally drew more people than Keith Olbermann has viewers.

    Isn’t the same true of a McDonald’s drive-thru at midnight?

  20. I didn’t see it. Just one question. Did Glenn cry at the rally?

    1. I think crying was mandatory. If you weren’t crying flagellation with Sarah Palinisms was used to induce tears.

  21. Is it me or has Weigel getten significantly more douche nozzely. It seems like since the cat got out of the bag he’s thrown caution to the wind and gone full retard. And everyone knows you don’t go full retard.

  22. Question: is Lew Rockwell and actual person? How can someone who is such an arrogant asshole exist? I thought I was real arrogant, and I’m damn proud of it, but this guy just makes me pale in comparison. I’m not sure if I can deal with the idea that there is a guy like this who gets respect from some for being…well what exactly? Bitter that Any Rand has a bigger cock than he does?

  23. good site for every one people and best design……..

  24. Lisa Schell couldn’t be more wrong. Keith Olbermann gets over a million total viewers. Glenn Beck’s rally didn’t even get 100,000 people. Beck’s total viewers is double Olbermann’s viewers, I guess most of them didn’t want to attend the rally.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.