David Frum and David Horowitz debate Glenn Beck’s effect on the conservative movement. To read the earlier posts in this debate, click here.
David Horowitz: I agree with you David that this dialogue is getting more focused, and I find it much more pleasurable (and hopefully informative) as a result.
There are two issues here. One is a remarkable conservative outburst against the broadcaster Glenn Beck which includes you, Mark Levin and Pete Wehner among others, and which collectively wishes for his early self-destruction. The message from the three of you is that for the good of the conservative cause he should be silent — and the sooner the better. Wehner expresses the judgment I detect in all three of your blasts in this sentence: “The role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality.”
More than anything else, it is this that I am reacting to. I think this attitude is wrongheaded, absurd, destructive to the conservative cause and a blatant contradiction of the “big tent” philosophy which you otherwise support.
To read the rest of David Horowitz’s reply, please click here at FrontPageMag.com.
69 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Sep 26, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Horowitz:
AFAIK, Glenn Beck has never said he’s a registered Republican.
Unless he’s part of the GOP, the “big tent” argument does not apply to him.
That is, the issue isn’t whether Beck belongs in the GOP (that’s entirely up to him). The issue is whether a national political party should endorse or embrace Beck’s conspiracy-theorizing.
2 Is New Majority Trying To Say Something With Its Choice of Picture? « NewsReal Blog // Sep 26, 2009 at 8:41 pm
[...] New Majority has posted Horowitz’s reply to Frum. Thank [...]
3 anniemargret // Sep 26, 2009 at 9:05 pm
This is the GOP’s dilemma – it is not that he may not be a ‘registered Republican’ but he certainly is speaking for that party. Does anyone really think he is speaking for the Democrats?
He is the ‘face’ of today’s angry, accusatory, fear & hate-baiting, ‘conservative’… he joins Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, and a raft of others. There is nothing really ‘conservative’ about them, as to be truly implicitly ‘conservative’ one would have to adhere to some central morality . The word itself, ‘conservative’ should imply a deep reverence for avoiding chaos and supporting stability . The new ‘conservatives’ appear to like chaos, use inflammatory language to get their points across – ergo…their continued embrace of the ‘culture wars.’
Beck’s recent rhetoric calling the President a ‘racist’ and “Obama has exposed himself as a guy with a deep seated hatred for white people”… Horrible.
He is deliberately, willfully, & knowingly inciting racism and antagonism, and it could eventually lead to violence. Moral? No.
At some point, the GOP has to decide whether or not fomenting hate is worth ‘winning.’ For the rest of the country, we already have decided the Glenn Becks of this world should be denigrated, not worshiped.
The only ‘true conservative’ who even remotely comes into mind is Ron Paul. And the GOP mostly has dissed him. Agree with him or not, he is always a gentleman – a dying breed.
4 mlindroo // Sep 26, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Horowitz’ response is incredibly weak … he is clearly struggling with the fact that Beck and his “respectable” conservative critics such as Mark Levin have said lots of things recently that contradicts his original claims. The following excuse is particularly ridiculous:
> [Beck] expressed his enthusiasm for a Hillary Clinton presidency (over McCain).
> I seem to recall Ann Coulter doing the same – and not after the fact as an idle
> speculation but before it, as an incitement against McCain.
> Before the 2008 election, I heard many conversations among good
> Republicans about whether conservatism and the Republican Party
> could survive another George Bush, which is what McCain threatened
> to be. So when Beck made his remark about Hillary he could very well
> have had the best interests of conservatives in mind.
“The best interests of conservatives in mind…”
I think Beck’s contemptuous and provocative response to his critics from the Right provides ample evidence that he is only interested in helping himself and his ratings. He has clearly said he is neither a Republican nor a conservative.
MARCU$
5 Derek // Sep 26, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Beck is one of those people who when you call him a blithering idiot it is considered a phenomenological description, rather than an ad hominem attack. The guy is a joke, plain and simple. Not only are his ramblings incoherent, he flirts with racism, and lives in a world of conspiracy, a tell tale sign of ignorance.
6 Observer // Sep 26, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Horo: “One is a remarkable conservative outburst against the broadcaster Glenn Beck…”
No. What Horowitz doesn’t get is that this isn’t a conservative outburst against Glenn Beck. It’s a *decent citizens* outburst against Glenn Beck.
There is a point where someone’s behavior is so toxic, it’s bad for America, regardless of which party it hurts. There’s a point where good citizens are supposed to stop caring about what the effect of poisonious thinking might be on the polls and start caring about what the poison is doing to the nation.
And the problem with today’s GOP (and of course, with countless Democrats, too) is that too many forgot where that point is, drove right past it, and then forgot that the idea of ‘nation before politics’ ever even existed. And now Beck is trying to destroy any last shred of that memory.
And Horowitz is cool with that.
7 Moderate // Sep 26, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Horowitz: “Do I think that government rationing of health care leads to the equivalent of “death panels?” Of course they do. And calling them that – even though at this stage they’re more of a goal than a reality – was brilliant politics. The Republican Party needs more of this not less.”
Unbelievable. Mr. Horowitz is advocating on the record that the Republican party focus more on gutter politics, less on truth or basic decency.
That stance is totally nihilistic, revealing an amoral mind. I’d rather the GOP cease to exist than turn into the amoral truth-be-damned movement Horowitz prefers.
If Republicans abandon their moral center (in a misguided effort to achieve greater ends, whether they be tax cuts, continued war in the Middle East, etc.), they will have no appeal to 90+% of voters. Only the neoconservatives, corporations, and wealthiest individuals will be left.
8 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:10 pm
When you are at war, you dont play by the Queen of Marksbury rules.
The Left trashed the truth a long long time ago.
Just as we compromised our principles during WW2 and the Cold War in service of the more important goals of winning the war against a ruthless and determined foe….so now we face the Western Left politically and culturally.
The Left is driving the political zeitgeist. They have been rioting, blowing things up, disregarding the truth, attacking objective truth at its very philosophical core even. Relativistic truth and personal truth, revolutionary truth.
Certainly you can lament the fact that this is where we are, but to blame Conservatives and Glenn Beck for this travesty is in itself turning your back on truth and reality. The problem isnt Glenn Beck, the problem is the Western Left. They must be defeated at all costs, the survival of Western Civilization depends on it….nothing less.
9 JeninCT // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:32 pm
I agree with Horowitz. Beck is doing what no one else has been able to do, which is to give the conservative movement a voice and a face and more importantly, a welcome mat. People like me (suburban moms without political science degrees) needed to be invited into the political discourse because we’ve never felt comfortable enough to get involved on our own. When Beck started the ‘You are not alone’ segment months ago, he struck a nerve.
I never listen to talk radio. I barely have time for TV viewing and reading. I am busy with my kids and my life. However, I want my country back from the liberals and Beck has done more to involve me in the process than Frum and Horowitz, Malkin, Levin, Limbaugh and all the rest combined.
Do I believe every word he says? No, of course not. Do I agree with every word he says? No, of course not. Beck is entertaining and informative and passionate about the same things I am passionate about, my freedom and my kids’ freedom. The conservative movement is about less government and more personal liberty and responsibility. Beyond that you’re splitting hairs.
10 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 12:02 am
First They Came for ACORN
by Peter Dreier
Huffington Post
First Big Business, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs, the Religious Right, the Wall Street Journal, Mitch McConnell, and Karl Rove came for ACORN, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not ACORN.
Then they came for SEIU, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not SEIU.
Then they came for the Apollo Alliance, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the Apollo Alliance.
Then they came for the Center for American Progress, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the Center for American Program.
Then they came for the Sierra Club, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the Sierra Club.
Then they came for the National Organization for Women, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the National Organization for Women.
Then they came for the other community organizers, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not community organizers
Then they came for AFSCME, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not AFSCME.
Then they came for the National Council of La Raza, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the National Council of La Raza.
Then they came for the NAACP, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the NAACP.
Then they came for the ACLU, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the ACLU.
Then they came for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Then they came for the National Council of Churches, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the National Council of Churches.
Then they came for the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
Then they came for the AARP, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the AARP.
Then they came for the Teamsters, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not Teamsters.
Then they came for the Catholic Worker, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the Catholic Worker.
Then they came for UNITE HERE, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not UNITE HERE.
Then they came for the Immigrant Solidarity Network, and, the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the Immigrant Solidarity Network.
Then they came for the National Education Association, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the National Education Association.
Then they came for the U.S. Student Association, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the U.S. Student Association.
Then they came for the American Association of University Professors, and the Democrats did not speak out — because they were not the American Association of University Professors
Then Big Business, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs, the Religious Right, the Wall Street Journal, Mitch McConnell, and Karl Rove came for the Democrats — and there was no one left to speak out for the Democrats.
Peter Dreier teaches Politics and directs the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College. This is based on a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), written about the Nazi regime in Germany.
11 Moderate // Sep 27, 2009 at 12:48 am
escapevelocity: “When you are at war, you don’t play by the Queen of Marksbury rules. The Left trashed the truth a long long time ago.”
escapevelocity: “They [Left] must be defeated at all costs, the survival of Western Civilization depends on it….nothing less.”
1) It’s “Marquess of Queensberry.” If you’re going to mindlessly ape conservative talking points, try to get them right.
2) Since you are openly advocating lying and disinformation, how can you possibly claim a moral high ground? You are immoral. Even if your laughable claim that the Left has abandoned Truth were true, why should anyone follow the Right instead of the Left if both are liars?
3) Western Civilization, largely defined through its emphasis on rationality and Christian ethics, has more to worry about from immoral demagogues like yourself than a hundred Democratic congresses.
12 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:06 am
Bombing German cities isnt a moral undertaking, my friend. Torching Nagasaki and Horoshima isnt sticking to your principles.
But there are no principles to return to if you lose the war.
Its a crying shame that the Left will legitimize Anti Semites and Holocaust deniers in there dispicable quest to destroy Western Civilization. But that is exactly what they are doing.
If I have to lie, cheat, or steal to stop these arseholes and save Western Civilization, I will.
If they werent such dangerous and vile threats to life, liberty, and property, truth and goodness, just a few kooks ranting on the sidewalk, I wouldnt give 2 shits about them.
They are a dire threat to Western Civilization. And they must be stopped. Full Stop.
If you are going to wage war on Western Civilization, dont get upset when someone shows up for battle, willing to do what is necessary to win it.
If you dont like the battle then quit pushing your vile, evil agenda. Its that simple.
If you dont want Nagasaki to burn, then dont attack America. And dont cry foul when the defenders of Western Civilization adopt the very ugly but successful tactics that you developed to deploy against it and them, and use them against you.
If you dont like it. Clean up the Left.
Elsewise get out the way, cause its gonna get nasty.
13 Observer // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:13 am
Um, democratic politics is not a war.
Speaking as a veteran of it.
Politics is about building support, not driving it away.
If you want a coup or a civil war instead, then say so out loud with the courage of your convictions so we can report you to the proper authorities.
14 Moderate // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:44 am
If you are war with “The Left,” then you are war with the United States.
If that’s the case, I hope the FBI puts you on the Terror Watch List.
15 Moderate // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:45 am
That should read “… [at] war with…”
16 SFTor1 // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:48 am
Let evelo watch Glenn Beck. It can’t do any harm. If it soothes his jangled image of the world it may at least him personally through a difficult period.
The Republican Party cannot survive with neither leaders nor a base that look anything remotely like Beck or evelo. There seems to be enough people here at least who understand this.
17 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 2:16 am
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!
Please send me into the White House Snitch line….which is reminiscent of the Cuban Block Snitch program….and Soviet Bloc citizen informant.
Bring on the Re Education Camps, I say. Dont be shy, show your true colors.
Meanwhile, I will be exposing the Racist Diversity Czar, who is working to build a democratic coalition of racists who support his racist policy advocations.
18 mlindroo // Sep 27, 2009 at 3:54 am
Escapevelocity says:
> Its a crying shame that the Left will legitimize Anti Semites and Holocaust deniers in there
> dispicable quest to destroy Western Civilization.
That’s ridiculous. The “left” *is* very much a part of western civilization. Social democracy for the common good in the U.S. as well as in other western nation complements and supports capitalism. It does not “destroy” it at all.
—
Chances are that Escapevelocity and other Beck acolytes will seem very silly 1-2 years from now when the economy finally starts to improve again and (most likely-) Obama — ever calm and steady in contrast to his wild eyed detractors — gets comfortably reelected. You guys have been hyperventilating for months about impeding doom and apocalypse, about Islamic terrorists exploiting Obama’s lack of spine, the disastrous results of “punishing the rich” by raising taxes by a few percent etc..
What will you do if everything turns out just fine after all?
MARCU$
19 Chekote // Sep 27, 2009 at 9:30 am
The only ‘true conservative’ who even remotely comes into mind is Ron Paul. And the GOP mostly has dissed him. Agree with him or not, he is always a gentleman – a dying breed.
Ron Paul is an anarchist. He is a crank.
20 Chekote // Sep 27, 2009 at 9:37 am
I have been a fan of Horowitz ever since I read his book “Radical Son”. I am so disappointed in him. Beck is out for himself. He has found a segment of the population that will make him rich. His defense of Palin is pathetic. The woman was chased out of office with just a few frivolous complaints. Shouldn’t we desire a “tougher” leader? As others have said, this was a very weak response from Horowitz.
21 sinz54 // Sep 27, 2009 at 9:53 am
jeninct:
The problem is, that particular “welcome mat” is LIMITED.
Beck is going to attract and excite the same demographic that the GOP has already: Older white men of the Red States.
Beck has nothing to say to urban voters.
Beck has nothing to say to moderate voters.
Beck has nothing to say to suburban women.
Beck has nothing to say to minorities.
Beck has nothing to say to young people who were raised on the Internet with its implicit cosmopolitanism, and don’t understand what all this right-wing nativism is all about.
Beck’s message is not a message that will bring in groups that the GOP doesn’t already attract.
That is a doable job. Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney managed it nicely. But Beck can’t. He’s speaking to the Angry Right–and to no one else.
22 sinz54 // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:07 am
mlindroo:
If that happens, I’ll be the first one to congratulate President Obama.
Which is far more credit than the Left gave either Reagan or Bush 41 when the Cold War ended peacefully, with the U.S. triumphant. (When the Berlin Wall came down as Reagan had demanded, there was absolute, total, dead silence from the Western Left. You could have heard a pin drop.)
But, I’m going to go out on a limb with a prediction: By 2012, the voters will be impatient to get rid of Obama.
You see, I lived through the Carter Administration. And while history doesn’t exactly repeat itself, it often rhymes. Like now.
23 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:15 am
What will you do if everything turns out just fine after all? — milindroo
ROTFLMAO!
Surely you cant be serious.
They are ramping up and expanding the CRA program again!
And that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
But I dont blame you, the education system has failed America, (purposely I would add). Producing a bunch of indoctrinated to untruth buffoons with gigantic senses of entitlement.
24 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:17 am
The Cloward-Piven strategy combined with Alinsky style deception.
Im sure everything will turn out fine.
:rollseyes
25 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:49 am
Sinz,
Does Keith Olberman appeal to those demographic groups? If so does he alienate other demographic groups?
Im not equating Beck and Olberman. But trying to show you that its not Beck that is the problem. Beck is an asset, exposing the corruptions and radicalism on the Left, Democrats, and the Obama Adminstration.
He is doing his part.
Romney and others can do there part. There is no reason to attack Beck, for not being your favorite commenter or appealing to you.
You seem to think that White Men should be shoved aside and certain groups favored over them, which is symptomatic of the Leftwing Zeitgeist…and its anti Westernism…disdain for dead white guys in history.
The battle goes much deeper than Beck.
Its an attack on the core of Western Civilization….its history and philosophical foundations.
White Christians are people too….and not just any people, but the people who created Western Civilization. The one the Left and assorted angry resentment filled “minorities” are trying to tear down and redistribute wealth from it to others.
There is going to be a violent backlash in Europe with regards to the zeitgeist created by teh Western Left and its sustained assault on Western Civilization. Islam and Muslim immigration is the lightning rod, which combined with mass immigration, Mulitculturalism, Political Correctness, and positive discrimination is creating a very resentment filled indigenous population.
26 sdspringy // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:18 am
Annie writes,”He is the ‘face’ of todays angry, accusatory, fear & hate-baiting, (add political party)
Well Annie a few past and present hits from the loving libs.
Behar-on the View- Bush administration are liars and they are murderers
Keith Olbermann – accused the President of “panoramic and murderous deceit,” and of “creating” an America that “includes ‘cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives,’” contending that “they are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.”
Ed Shultz – “The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her
Congressm an Pete Stark – of Bush gaining amusement at US troops having their heads blown off
Congressman Keith Ellison – compares Bush to Hitler, hinting that he might have been responsible for 9/11
David Corn “The military no longer trusts Bushitler and the people are starting to distrust Bushitler
Bush reminded the left of non-Nazi villains as well. He was depicted as Attila the Hun, serial killer Ted Bundy, Mussolini, Ahab, Hannibal Lecter, the Anti-Christ and Frankenstein’s monster (on the cover of the British edition of book by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman).
So it is obvious to me that you Annie and the other libs spend too much time watching Fox and should just tune in MSNBC. You want to watch hate, Keith and Big Ed are your kind of people.
You libs have to get off the your high horse and loose the victim mentality. Lefty hate has been spewing out for 8 years and now your panties bunch because you have had to listen to 8 months of criticism. My eyes have no tears for you.
Go Glen, point the spot light on ACORN, Apallo Group, and all 37 Czars, even Suntein. Frumm you are just going to have to get over Suntein.
27 brandon // Sep 27, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Of course, I wish our conservative voices were men like Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, William Rusher, and Irving Kristol instead of shock jocks and tv entertainers like Beck, Limbaugh and O’Reilly.
National Review is probably the most popular conservative publication and it has a circulation of 155,000. Beck is watched by 3 million a night.
When the mainstream media and Hollywood are in the hands of the far left, how would we as conservatives get our message out if it wasn’t for Fox News and talk radio.
28 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 12:34 pm
David “Obama’s pants leg” Brooks on the Newshour and David Frum in Newsweek magazine.
Havent you been paying attention Brandon?
Kathleen Parker, another fantastic conservative getting the message out.
29 cwillia11 // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Beck is an entertainer, just like Limbaugh. Sometimes he makes us cringe and sometimes he scores big. Conservatives and/or Republicans are not responsible for him. We do not need to criticize him when he crosses the line. Nor do we need to support him when he is right. The issue is Obama, who is the president, and what he and his party are doing. Expressing our repugnance for Beck facilitates what Obama and his supporters are doing, deflecting public attention from the real issues by demonizing an obviously flawed opponent.
What we sorely lack is leadership that is worthy of making our case. In its absence we are vulnerable to strategies of this sort.
30 Thanos // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:44 pm
When there’s a leadership vacuum the ones who speak loudest and most stridently aren’t necessarily the ones you should follow. Buck up everyone, there is an election season coming and the real adults will be back to the fray soon.
In the meantime pundits need to stop with the crazy, and everyone needs to look for real candidates who can win in populous states. If you can’t point to one stop wasting time and find one.
31 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Newt Gingrich is the right man for the job.
32 el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm
cwilla…
What do you think that the Obama administration is doing to the country. Something insidious? I honestly want to know.
And I’m also a bit exasperated with this “only an entertainer” defense. In my opinion Beck crossed over the “entertainer” line when he organized his 9/12 movement, which ended up getting picked up by Dick Armey and ended up in a political protest march on Washington. Most of the GOP kow-tows to Limbaugh, and many Repubs use his talking points. I wouldn’t call them “entertainers”. Right now they are the core producers of GOP ideology.
33 el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 2:12 pm
escape…
Funny how you vacated the last Beck thread when I busted you out about the Reagan speech. Would you care to mount a defense of his massive budget deficits?
P.S. Jefferson Davis sucks.
34 sinz54 // Sep 27, 2009 at 2:39 pm
escapevelocity:
Olbermann is indeed the mirror image of Beck.
He appeals to young hip urbanites–while infuriating white Southerners and white Mountain State folks.
escapevelocity:
Really?? I thought all those more moderate conservatives and moderate Republicans were “RINOs,” to be driven out from all influence within the GOP.
35 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 3:34 pm
P.S. Jefferson Davis sucks. — el gato
Best line ever on New Majority!
What a hoot!
36 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 3:35 pm
PS – There is nothing hip about Keith Olberman
37 el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Escape, I just love it how you avoid talking about things when you’ve been called on your BS.
And I’m glad that you realize that Jefferson Davis sucks.
38 cwillia11 // Sep 27, 2009 at 5:47 pm
The problem with people like Beck, Limbaugh and Palin is that their rhetoric appeals only to the converted and to some extent panders to people’s baser appetites. They are playing an aggressive defense. This has its uses but to win we need an offense capable of taking ground in the center of the political spectrum without compromising basic principles. We have to persuade people that we have been on the wrong course domestically for a long time, that the Obama Administration is doubling down on the policies that have brought us to where we are today and that in foreign policy, Obama is a reckless naif. This requires people who are capable of leadership, people who are truly like the Obama that was sold to the American voter. No one on the immediate horizon fills the bill.
With respect to Beck, he is an entertainer. The focus of the Obama administration on discrediting Beck and Limbaugh deflects attention from the real issues. Beck has a following and no doubt is making somebody a lot of money. We should not be attacking Beck, we can’t make him go away, we should be leading the opposition in a credible way and point out again and again that this tactic of the administration is nothing but a distraction.
39 balconesfault // Sep 27, 2009 at 5:52 pm
The first I’d ever heard of Beck was years ago, listening to Cenk Ungar’s “The Young Turks” show.
Cenk, who like John Cole at “Balloon-Juice” is an ex-Republican who “flipped” sometime during the Bush administration, was relating a conversation he was having with his dad, when his conservative dad was asking him “Cenk – how does this man have a radio show? This is the stupidest man I have ever heard!”
The far right is becoming like some oddball cult, where the idiot is treated like a savant.
40 balconesfault // Sep 27, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Olbermann is indeed the mirror image of Beck.
Really? Did Olbermann try to use his pulpit during the Bush years to make borderline appeals for violent insurrection against the administration?
Perhaps he did. I don’t watch enough. I do know that his “worst person in the world” has become pretty self indulgent and petty (hell – maybe it was that all the time, but there is something about repetitive self indulgent and petty that gets really old). I do know that he took Bush to task for acting without Constitutional mandate, at a time when nobody else in the Corporate media was really doing so. But I haven’t seen the regular childish demonstrations on Olbermann that is Beck’s stock in trade.
Then again, perhaps it’s like you say – an appeal to a specific audience. Olbermann uses cool cliche to appeal to the urban hip … Beck uses inflammatory stupid to appeal to … well, those people who like inflammatory stupid.
41 sinz54 // Sep 27, 2009 at 6:19 pm
el-gato-libre:
May I respond?
I believe that the Obama administration is doing everything feasible to move the nation to the Left. They are admirers of European Social Democracies, with their industrial policies, invincible unions, and cradle-to-grave welfare-state economies. They regard the move toward free economies and free markets in the last 30 years as an aberration to be corrected. And while Obama is realistic enough to know he can’t turn America into Germany or Canada or France within just 4 years, he hopes to set America on a course toward Social Democracy.
As regards America’s role in the world, Obama clearly sees that role as less one of dominance than one of influence. Similar to the role Britain has had, after it gave up its Empire. Of course, Britain could feel safe in pursuing that course as long as it could pass its torch to America. If America gives up that role as well, who will be the new world leader then? China? Would that be such a good thing for the world?
42 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Olbermann uses cool cliche to appeal to the urban hip — balconesfault
This thread is paying off big time!
LOL!
Olbermann is one hip dude, that really informs the Leftwing youngsters and keeps them hyped up for riots and Convention bombings. Keeping the troops fresh for battle, ready to blow up a Star Bucks or National Gaurd Recruiting Station at a moments notice.
What a hoot!
And you wonder why Conservatives arent the same ole dullards they used to be.
You are facing the wrong direction. If you want the Right to settle down, then you need to reel in the Radical Left. However since the Radical Left is the largest majority on the Left. Its way past that time.
Welcome to the Hell, the Left created.
One thing you can be sure of, is the Right wont back down anymore…..its to the death.
43 balconesfault // Sep 27, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Olbermann is one hip dude, that really informs the Leftwing youngsters and keeps them hyped up for riots and Convention bombings.
Tell us how, please?
44 balconesfault // Sep 27, 2009 at 6:35 pm
They regard the move toward free economies and free markets in the last 30 years as an aberration to be corrected.
No. They consider the results of the way we’ve moved towards free economies and free markets in the last 30 years to be a disaster that needs to be remedied.
Now, feel free to defend the Bush economic record that they’re reacting to.
45 el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 6:49 pm
sinz…
“They regard the move toward free economies and free markets in the last 30 years as an aberration to be corrected.”
I just don’t see the evidence for this. Sure, the health reform bill is a massive new government program. I also think it’s a justifiable one, depending on the specifics of what gets passed, which is completely unknowable now. I think the reform has the potential to not only help out people who need care, but also to lift the burden of health care costs off businesses.
But besides the health reform, where is this creeping socialism? Are you talking about TARP? Using taxpayers money to prop up banks hardly strikes me as socialism, and of course (as you know) it was pushed through under the Bush administration.
Then there’s the whole GM thing. I am not an economist and really can’t get into the nitty-gritty of the GM takeover, but it seems to me to be an attempt to save a major employer, not an attempt to take over the means of production.
I guess if one has a preoccupation with creeping socialism, these things could look pretty insidious. But what I see in this is an attempt to stave off total economic collapse. But we all see things differently.
“As regards America’s role in the world, Obama clearly sees that role as less one of dominance than one of influence.”
As the events of the last eight or so years have proven, America CAN’T dominate the world. The Iraq campaign has stretched our military to the breaking point. We simply do not have enough troops to run around and invade/attack every country that we have a disagreement with. We can be the strongest player, and we can have more influence than anyone else, but “dominance”, as you put it, would require a compulsory draft, and massive amounts of new military spending–not to mention an attitude of warmongering belligerence, and even then dominance is probably unattainable.
And that’s only on the military side of the dominance equation. In the current global economy it’s simply impossible to achieve hegemony over the entire world. For Christ’s sake, this country hardly has a manufacturing base anymore! Are we going to dominate the earth with IPods? We were the arsenal of democracy for much of the twentieth century because of our immense industrial capacity. That capacity is now GONE, due to globalization, and it ain’t coming back. What eroded this capacity? Laissez-faire global capitalism. Which brings good things and bad things.
Also, one of the major factors in our current insecurity is that we owe a tremendous debt to foreign nations–A debt that was built up by a Republican administration, just as Reagan built up a tremendous debt in his time.
Given all these factors, an acknowledgement of the fact that we can have the primary influence over, but not dominance over the world is not weakness but mere realism.
Even Bush’s swagger could not hide this fact. He talked a big game. Look where it got us.
46 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Here is one of my favorites…
After the crass commentary then they get to the serious stuff.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/16/garofalo-outdoes-herself-tea-parties-all-about-white-power-says-d-lister/
Here is another classic when those 2 get together….just hip cliches which resonate with teh Urban youngsters.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/27/video-olby-and-garofalo-salute-michael-steeles-racial-self-loathing/
The hate mongering and villification by the Left of certain groups is going to end badly. In Europe its already starting. 50 years of villification and hate mongering is working its magic. The Left should be ashamed of itself, but they are what they are, so no shame forthcoming. Horowitz is ashamed of himself…and rightly so, any decent human being would be….but their is redemption available, but one must be repentent.
47 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm
I guess if one has a preoccupation with creeping socialism, these things could look pretty insidious. — El Gato
Well guess who has a pre occupation with freakin Socialism? Answer: The Freakin Western Left! for the freakin last century and doubly the last half century. Get a freakin clue.
You misssed 1 Trillion Dollar Porkulus.
Cap & Trade Doomsday Enviro-Whackadoodlism (Designed to control businesses, the economy, and individuals) and which will be a huge tax increase and produce artificial scarcity of the the one thing we need to maintain high wages (cheap energy) in the freakin middle of the biggest recession in 30 or 40 years. GOOD LORD!
Combined with the other things you mentioned, like Nationalizing 1/4th of the nations economy under “Health Care Reform” and massively increasing Regulation on the Banking industry.
Who do these boozos think they are fooling? The dumbed down and indoctrinated kids coming out of New Leftist Radical Universities. The ones that have 50 percent unemployment because they voted for Hopeful Changiness!
48 el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Sorry for that diffuse post. Just want to clarify one thing here.
Sinz, when you talk about Obama relinquishing America’s dominance, it seems that you’re responding to Obama’s new tone on foreign policy. I think that this tone actually enhances our position around the world. Bush’s bellicose tone was catnip for the NRO/Weekly Standard crowd, but while this style puffed up their neocon egos, did speaking in this manner actually increase American hegemony? I think more often than not it made us weaker. The Iraq war was a great display of the American war machine, but ended up miring us in a quagmire which has siphoned away military and financial resources, and also has made America look incompetent. It’s a net loss of power. There’s no shame–or weakness–in attempting to take a more open posture to the rest of the world.
49 el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 7:20 pm
escape…
You usually don’t get this belligerent until after 11 PM. Did you start drinking early today?
50 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Is that you cookie?
51 el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Who’s cookie? Your probation officer?
52 mlindroo // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:41 am
Sinz54 wrote:
> [...] And while Obama is realistic enough to know he can’t turn America into
> Germany or Canada or France within just 4 years, he hopes to set America on a
> course toward Social Democracy.
…which makes the hysterical over-the-top reaction of Obama’s detractors on the Right all the more difficult to understand.
—
Let’s suppose that Obama’s domestic reforms (health care etc.) indeed will nudge the country in the direction of Denmark or Canada. SO F*CKING WHAT! We are talking about a type of society that has proved wildly successful by almost any measure, differs from the U.S. in only minor aspects (New Majority had a sidebar link to a great statistical survey on this topic a few months ago pointing out that the difference between America and Europe in fact is quite small). As of 2009 Canada is generally about as affluent, peaceful, entrepreneurial etc. as the U.S.. If you had to move to another country I bet most of you would choose Canada. Yet you guys make it sound as if these other Western societies are as awful as Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s Germany or North Korea!! “Death panels”, “indoctrination camps” etc..
MARCU$
53 sinz54 // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:49 am
mlindroo:
Wildly successful?
You’re talking about societies that have no hope of being superpowers, or even anything close to it.
The adoption of socialism by a nation must necessarily lead to its declining power in the world. Britain adopted socialism and thus accepted second-class status as a world power. At one time, the British Empire was a lot like the U.S.–a capitalist superpower. Not any more. Canada adopted socialism and NEVER aspired to true world power. And so it hasn’t got any. It has influence–but the influence of an advisor, not as a leader.
Of all the nations you mentioned, let me remind you of what they CANNOT do:
When a dictator like Saddam or Milosovic threatens the peace of a continent, they can’t stop him. Only the capitalist U.S. could.
If Russia wants to go back to her ancient imperialisms, Denmark couldn’t stop them. Only the U.S. could.
When a tsunami kills 200,000 people like in 2005, their navies can’t do much without the U.S. Navy answering the call. (Does Denmark even have a navy?)
If we detected an Earth-crossing asteroid on a collision course with Earth, about to wipe out our species just like the dinosaurs, Canada and Denmark couldn’t stop it. Only the United States could.
There are no socialist superpowers. The Soviets tried that and they collapsed of their own weight.
This is NOT a peaceful world. This is NOT a cooperative world. It’s an anarchic world, the equivalent of America’s Wild West, and also sitting in a fairly hostile universe.
If America were to degenerate to the level of Canada, I tremble for what this world will be like. It will be dominated by China and radical Islam. And Denmark will likely be swallowed up, just like she was the last TWO times a hostile power (Germany) appeared.
54 balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:57 am
There are no socialist superpowers. The Soviets tried that and they collapsed of their own weight.
How’s that federal debt thing working out for us every time we bump up our military spending?
It is sad that for a temporary day in the sun, there are people willing to sell off our country to the Saudis and Chinese.
But I’m beginning to understand your fear of the world that surrounds you, Sinz. While you are sensible on so many issues, it explains why you feel Republicans must maintain power no matter what flaws the current party structure possesses.
55 sinz54 // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:06 am
mlindroo: It’s also true that it’s the vibrancy of the U.S. capitalist economy that has remade the world through science and technology.
Who invented the airplane? Canada? Nope.
Who invented the Model T car? Canada? Nope.
Who invented the silicon chip? Canada? Nope.
Who invented the basic protocols of the Internet? Denmark? Nope.
Who invented jumbo jets? Canada? Nope.
Who invented the Apple II, the Macintosh, and the IBM PC? Denmark? Nope.
How many Nobel Prizes in the sciences has Canada won?
How many Nobel Prizes in the sciences has Denmark won?
How many patents do Canadians have vs. Americans?
America’s culture of individualism as OPPOSED to socialist collectivism made all that possible.
Tim Berners-Lee invented the HTML protocol for the World Wide Web. But then he came to live in America, to productize and expand the technology.
I was a computer engineer before I retired. You can list the nations that are pre-eminent in that technology. Like Japan. Notice: they’re all capitalist.
Now: Do you REALLY still think Canada is a role model to be copied?
56 el gato libre // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:16 am
sinz…
What do you think about my argument at #48. Do you really think that an all-belligerent all the time attitude towards other country is the way to maximize American power?
57 sinz54 // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:27 am
el-gato-libre:
Of course not.
But that’s a strawman.
We have NEVER been that way.
Not even during the Bush Administration, which made stronger alliances with India and Ethiopia. (Remember when the U.S. backed the Ethiopian military’s suppression of Islamist violence in Somalia?) Bush defended the rights of Africa in the World Trade Organization.
You have exactly ONE major example to point to: When the U.S. defied worldwide public opinion and toppled Saddam anyway. We got that one. I agree with you, that was a mistake and a disaster.
But the U.S. had every right to feel and act belligerent. On 9-11, we were attacked on our home soil, and 3,000 Americans killed. That’s 50% more than were killed at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/1941. Yet look at the comparable reaction:
After Pearl Harbor, we created the mightiest military machine the world had ever seen, fought in dozens of nations on six continents, and inflicted over a MILLION civilian casualties on enemy nations. And in the end, atom-bombed two enemy cities, till the enemy surrendered unconditionally.
Now THAT is belligerence.
Anything Bush did in the last 8 years pales by comparison.
Given this precedent, the U.S. had every right to lay waste to the entire nation of Afghanistan for what they did to us on 9-11. We didn’t. The world should breathe a sigh of relief.
I can guarantee you, had Osama bin Laden bombed the Kremlin and killed 3,000 Russians, Putin wouldn’t have shown that kind of restraint.
58 sinz54 // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:32 am
balconesfault:
Bump up???
During the Cold War, we spent far more as a percentage of our national wealth.
During the JFK Administration, we spent 10% of our GDP on national defense.
During the Reagan Administration, we spent 6% of our GDP on national defense.
Now we’re spending less than 4% of our GDP on national defense.
Defense spending here at home has created jobs and new technologies. Radar, microwave ovens, commercial satellites and the Internet being major spinoffs. Southern California blossomed under defense spending. (Notice that when Hughes Aircraft went under, so did the city of Fullerton CA.)
The major difference between Reagan and Bush was simply that Reagan wasn’t fighting two quagmire wars. Reagan used military power mostly as a bargaining chip in negotiations with our adversaries. So defense spending went mainly into local economies, rather into foreign countries. There won’t be many commercial spinoffs of our fight in Afghanistan.
Military spending isn’t the issue. The issue is Reagan’s “PEACE through strength” versus Bush’s “war with weakness.”
59 el gato libre // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:44 am
Also, sinz, let me add a little local color to this debate about socialism vs. free markets. You bring up the example of innovation in the computer industry.
I happen to be typing my posts out from one of the hotbeds of computer innovation–Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, home of the good old University of Illinois.
As you’ll probably know, the first web browser, Mosaic, was developed here. More specifically, it was developed at the NCSA (National Center for Supercomputing Applications). The funding for the NCSA comes from a mix of State, Federal, and industry sources. People come from all over the world to study at the U of I’s computer science department. In fact, in a minute or two I’m going to hop on the bike and ride to work, straight through the “North Campus” which is where all the computer and engineering stuff goes on, and as always I will have to take great pains to avoid the primarily Asian and Indian computer students who, like the stereotypical geeks you see on TV, have very little body-sense, and walk around with their head in the clouds (or on the pavement) and do their best to wander into my path. But I digress.
The point is that a lot of this computer development is done with a mixture of business AND GOVERNMENT funding. Do you call this socialism?
Bah…I’m gonna be late for work now. Can’t give more examples of this but I guess you can catch my drift. In the USA computer innovation game, Government is lending a hand in the process of development. Is this a bad thing?
60 SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Sinz says Obama’s policies are pushing the country into socialism, but when asked what specific Obama policies are having this effect, he can’t cite any. In light of the fact that most of the policies that people on the Right complain about (e.g. TARP, auto bailouts, etc.) were started by Bush, one can only assume Sinz is referring to Obama’s desire to have a public option as part of a plan for universal healthcare.
Sinz and the other flat earthers now believe that universal healthcare with a public option will result in socialism and, in turn, the inevitable loss of U.S. superpower status. Of all the arguments against a public option, this is absolutely the dumbest one yet.
According to Sinz, the U.S. must be the only Western democracy in the world that is not socialist because all other Western democracies have a public option or something substantially similar. And, what happened to all the other conservative dire predictions about the “socialism” and loss of freedom that were to inevitably result from public schools, social security, Medicare and Medicaid? Each of those were far less capitalistic in nature than a public option for health insurance, yet the U.S. had no problem whatsoever maintaining superpower status after these were enacted. If anything, a very strong argument can be made that creation of public schools and social security laid the foundation for the U.S. becoming a superpower.
Sinz’s arguments are nothing more than the product of a shallow, fearful thought process (I use that term loosely) that is more concerned with labels and ideology than with empirical evidence. He is truly a flat earther.
61 balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Sinz and the other flat earthers now believe that universal healthcare with a public option will result in socialism and, in turn, the inevitable loss of U.S. superpower status. Of all the arguments against a public option, this is absolutely the dumbest one yet.
I think that Sinz actually understands the value that universal healthcare would bring to America – but he also knows that in the long run, if any healthcare bill is passed that expands coverage and provides additional security to Americans … at this stage, Republicans will be in opposition to the last moment, and Democrats will get all the credit. And in a few years, if the program is very successful and well liked, the Democrats are going to reap huge electoral successes as a result.
Now, one way to deal with this inevitability would be to encourage Republicans to join the process, work for cost-containment (instead of using any talk of cost-containment to raise the specter of “Death Panels”), and be viewed as part of the success. But Sinz also knows that given the current makeup of the Republican congressional delegation, this isn’t going to happen.
So status quo, as disasterous as that is going to be for our economy over the long run, is preferential to change that might end up causing a major shift in party affiliation. Thus is the corner the GOP has painted itself into. And they really can’t blame Obama for that maneuvering – he has given them every opportunity to come aboard and take credit.
62 SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 28, 2009 at 3:53 pm
balconesfault, I’m afraid you are exactly right – and the rest of the country may have to suffer because of this childish game.
63 mlindroo // Sep 28, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Sinz54,
I find it truly baffling that any sane person could describe Canada as “socialist” nation while (still using the same yardstick-) the United States is described as “capitalist. You make it sound as if “non-socialism” basically “massive military spending” which is the same as being a superpower.
I am curious, though. Are New Zealand and Australia also “socialist” by your definition? And how many nations can be described as “capitalist”?
But those are questions for tomorrow…time to go to bed.
MARCU$
PS: Returning to my original post, I hear from Andrew Sullivan that there has been a major “Take America Back” seminar hosted by Phyllis Schlafly & co.. Here’s Phyllis:
“Kitty has pointed out the parallels between the slow, incremental Hitler takeover of Austria and some of the things that are happening today,” said Schlafly, asked about Werthmann’s “How to Recognize Living Under Nazis and Communists” session. “She’s an expert on that. I see what [Obama] is doing as absolute socialism, as government ownership of the means of production.”
I am sure Sinz agrees:-)
64 anniemargret // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:03 pm
So reforming the skyrocketing healthcare costs which are putting working class Americans into bankruptcy, and ignoring the dire plight of the 45000+ Americans is making American into a ’socialist’ nation? So sayeth the Republicans.
90% of the backlash against Obama and his efforts are political. For 8 years, the Republicans ignored the issue . Now that Obama has taken the reins, they are scared to death. It might mean the Democrats might do something constructive for America, and we can’t have that. DeMint let the cat out of the bag with his Obama and his ‘Waterloo’ wish.
In the meantime, while Republicans are spending more effort to scare the bejesus out of Americans that our country will devolve into some third world state, China is busy attending to business. While Republicans are marching to DC about ‘death panels’ and Obama is the devil incarnate, etc…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
They are well on their way to a viable new industry. Other nations have also taken the reins. Have we? Why not?
Why not put those great new American minds into renewable energy sources…..thereby ending our addiction to oil, forcing an end to the power of the Middle East oil rulers. By putting them out of power, we can redirect our monies to re-strengthen our military, (instead of future oil wars as peak oil continues unabated).
A bold step for strengthening American industry, self-containment, renewable sources of energy, job creation, and a boost for our military.
65 athensboy // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:15 pm
anniemargaret is right about China and alternative energy. Tom Friedman stated that China has the jump on us as far as alternative energy goes and we could end up importing Chinese technology and its products as far as alternative energy products. Doesn’t this country ever learn? Our industries are at a disadvantage against countries that have national health care. All I see from the gop is scare tactics. Are they willing to slash and burn if it gets them back in power. Even the guru of politics, Frank Luntz says, you have to be for something to win elections, you just can’t be against something. The Party of No just won’t cut it IMHO
66 balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:36 pm
said Schlafly, asked about Werthmann’s “How to Recognize Living Under Nazis and Communists” session. “She’s an expert on that. I see what [Obama] is doing as absolute socialism, as government ownership of the means of production.”
Well, they may be crazy paranoiacs … but at least they understand the definition of socialism, as opposed to many here.
And Annamarie – you’re right – they are afraid. And what they really have to be afraid of is that it is looking more and more like the public option will pass (latest polls show 65% support versus 28% against). And after it passes, and is implemented – people will see that most private businesses in America actually benefit from the public option, with a boon to small busness development, and large businesses happy to over time surrender the additional administrative burden of being health insurance providers – the rhetoric from the right over the last 9 months is going to look like Gingrich’s predictions back in 1993 that Clinton’s tax cuts would result in years of financial collapse in America.
67 balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:46 pm
athensboy: Doesn’t this country ever learn?
Only very slowly. We have made some progress in the last 9 years – at this time in 2000, Al Gore was going around saying that if we moved towards renewable energy and CO2 reduction in America, the technologies we developed would propel our economy in the 2000’s the way that semiconductors did in the 90’s.
In 2008, we actually elected a President who was making essentially the same pledge. Of course, the 8 years in between cost us dearly, but hey – we got some great tax cuts to fuel a derivatives bubble with!
68 Jim // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:38 pm
jeninct:
They view us with contempt. Try not to let it get to you. If you read between the lines, you can learn something from these a$$holes. Just be aware that they’re trying to use words to turn us into their sheep.
69 joedee1969 // Sep 30, 2009 at 6:20 am
This is why C. Rich is calling for David to have his own show:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/09/calm-conservatives-this-is-our-time/
You must log in to post a comment.