RSS Feed MenuSharp words were exchanged this morning when conservative writer Michelle Malkin called into Glenn Beck’s radio show to rebuke him for hosting disgraced former Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) on his show.
Malkin’s point was that Massa had been disgraced over charges of sexual harassment, and that his credibility was moot – any charges he would level on Beck’s show would be tainted by a desperate man seeking to salvage his reputation.
Obviously irritated by the criticism, Beck lashed out at Malkin.
BECK: I don’t understand you people, Michelle.
MALKIN: You people? Who are you, Ross Perot? We’re on the same side.
BECK: Are we, Michelle? Because it seems to me that the right has come out and attacked and attacked and attacked and attacked every single time. I don’t understand it.
What hypocrisy! This from the man who said that he wanted to kill Michael Moore:
I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out of [him] – is this wrong?
Listeners of Beck’s show would not be surprised about this freak-out. After, all he can’t stand criticism of any sort.
Check out this clip:
Beck is already under fire from other conservatives, like Mark Levin, who said in response to Beck’s recent CPAC speech:
I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It’s incoherent. One day it’s populist, the next it’s libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it’s conservative but not really, etc. And to what end?
Glenn Beck is slowly but surely alienating everyone around him, even those who are supposedly on ‘his side’. With the gratuitous crying; the lashing out at friendly critics; the pure vitriol heaped on opponents, even those who agree with him don’t seem to respect him.
WATCH: See the full Malkin-Beck confrontation below – it gets pretty intense:
Glenn Beck & Michelle Malkin disagree over Eric Massa
Uploaded by therightscoop. – News videos from around the world.
jabbermule // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 am
Well, finally this site is fulfilling some of its promise, which is to be a forum to debate issues between moderates and the more ideologically conservative among us. Save for a little sprinkling of leftist rants from trolls like LFC, this has been a pretty good debate on this subject…kudos to sinz54, franco 2, Independent and others.
We should just ignore the lefties in here who spew their anti-Bush, anti-Cheney venom (like teabag, etc) and stick to the subject between ourselves. The trolls infuriate most of us and tend to get us off-track, which is what they want.
franco 2 // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:55 am
Independent,
Very good analysis and great points. I’ve know this type for years and have had it with them. There is a constellation of things that provide an incentive for these types to operate and you have been touching on them.
In the case of politicians, I’ll use John McCain and Arlen Specter as examples. They get to distance themselves from Democrats, thus getting votes from Republicans, and distance themselves from Republicans garnering media accolades and attention. In order to justify their chronic disloyalty they get to hold themselves up as non-partisan, enlightened free-thinkers. When conservatives get angry and attack they use that to bolster their credentials with Democrats and the media.
Ultimately, however strongly these guys try to convince us they are above the fray, there are a couple glaring problems. First, the positions these men take dovetail nicely with their own career re-election chances in every case. That’s certainly a coincidence, isn’t it, for the ‘above the fray” types. Second, they have each exposed themselves many times as not being that smart (McCain especially) and not being that principled (Specter LOL) as to warrant their status as principled “mavericks”.
Then you have those who somehow can’t align with Democrats but are embarrassed to be Republicans like Colin Powell. Colin Powell was a military man, above average intelligence, not a genius but a good soldier. Being in the military you don’t have to be political – in fact you can’t be, so Powell was effectively apolitical for years and probably has very little grounding in political thought. These people don’t or can’t see ideological direction, they just see a panoply of issues from which they pick and choose. Powell an ex General and close to Republican administrations gravitated toward the GOP based on his experience with anti-military Democrats. All Obama had to do to get Powell was tell him he wasn’t anti-military.
In this group is also other so-called moderate Republicans who will not be allowed to operate among the default leftists in the media and elsewhere without being shunned or else endure continual harassment. Even as declared moderates, they are constantly challenged to rebuke and distance themselves from others who share their candidate be it Bush McCain whatever, and they have to continually disavow someone like Limbaugh or whoever. Unable to confront these people on their despicable tactics (because they will be shunned) they turn to those with whom they are being smeared, and try to make them change or otherwise go away.
These types don’t see or understand that leftists are absolutists. They believe leftists are what they say; “open minded” and “tolerant” and are simply misguided. (Actually most moderate republicans are really liberals who didn’t drink the whole tumbler of kool ade and still want free enterprise and a strong defense…JFK types.) But the new Democrats are not at all open minded or tolerant. Not at all. Moderate Republicans believe that these folks will embrace them once they see that moderate Republicans don’t want to spy in their bedrooms and whatever else. They might even think that these folks will someday vote with them for a John McCain type (not!)
Then there are the focus group voters who, often because they know very little, hide behind one of two tropes:
A) Both parties are bad/wrong
or B) They each have some good ideas but they are always fighting and that’s bad.
Coupled with this position is the conceit that they are “independent” thinkers and not swayed or loyal to any one party. This position has the most ignoramuses because they can HIDE with these positions. They also never have to make or defend an argument. This is also a typical “beauty queen” non-offensive position.
There is an element to some of these people that is quite like the c- teasing date who makes the guy jump through hoops for her, only to leave him hot and bothered anyway. It’s just an expression of power and as soon as they commit they lose all their power, so it’s not in their interest. They are never going to vote Republican themselves, they just think that those Republicans should be “more centrist”, just like I wish more leftists would be “more centrist”.
I think Sinz actually votes for Republicans and is one of these moderates, but most of the other trolls here are just voyeurs. And I suppose I am too. I am monitoring this site because it gives me yet another perspective – one that keeps me away from the deluded middle. And to read comments. I learn more from comments than I can cite. And thanks for yours.
kevin47 // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“On his radio program, Limbaugh pointed to Massa as someone who really knows what’s going on with the Dems and who’s telling it like it is. WRONG.”
Do you think that if Massa was a reliable vote on healthcare, we’d be seeing these charges? You think Barney Frank doesn’t hear all the Houseboy gossip? I think the Dems would have been willing to sweep it under the rug until the fall.
Independent // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:21 pm
jabbermule, thanks for the compliment.
franco 2, your examples of McCain and Specter are fair. It seems like whenever a Dem or GOP moves their position on an issue toward the center –they get a pass as being bipartisan or noble or “effective” or, as you suggest, “free thinkers”. No questions on whether the move is calculated to secure votes back home… or gain some media attention… or polish their star a bit for some later inside ballpark gamesmanship. It’s noble. McCain did this over and over, was courted like a King by what appeared to be a loving, adoring media in the 2000 prez nomination campaign, continued that until 2008 and then got dropped like a lead brick when the media got their real candidate the nomination.
When someone on the right or left dig in, draw lines in the sand or won’t budge on principle –it’s labeled “politics”. And it’s usually accompanied with that tsk-tsk look that should be reserved for playground aides lecturing sandbox kids about sharing toys. It happens here at FF and hundreds of other drive-by media outlets, day-in, day-out.
I’m always reminding my classes that its ALL politics, all the time, that’s why they are there in Washington… to engage in politics. We didn’t elect anyone to go to Washington and become a film critic or –worse– a pundit. Politics is the oil that makes govt work; been that way since the Greeks first practiced democracy.
Independent // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:30 pm
LFC, I don’t doubt you’d miss almost any qualification on any statement if it helped you lash out at your superior.
But the word was “falsely”. False as if to suggest the GOP was the only party engaged in corruption. We now know that Democrats were using SEIU and ACORN to engage in voter fraud and electoral corruption. We now know that several Dems were as corrupt and ethically challenged as the worst GOPer who was caught (see Barney Frank, see Charlie Rangel, see Wm Jefferson, see Bill Clinton –and I’ll leave off all those NJ Dems and local Dems caught mired in corruption).
The charge of corruption is one that is best laid on both parties –and it was a charge that Nancy Pelosi often made in her rush to the Speaker’s Chair. That’s why the Dem’s charges for 10+ yrs were false… compare all of that corruption plus the corruption Nancy Pelosi has brought to bear against the Bush Administration –which was the most ethical and prudent administrations ever.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/
LFC // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:59 pm
which was the most ethical and prudent administrations ever.
This HAS to be GOPProud. He’s the only one who said things that dumb.
Independent // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:58 pm
LFC, if your standard is Bill Clinton, the impeached, disbarred ex-president, Bush had one of the most ethical and prudent Administrations. If your standard is indicted senior officials… I’m guessing that Slick Willy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, Jimmy Carter’s and Dick Nixon’s would exceed the Bush record by a far, far pace.
Of course, the truth is that you have no standard –just the gut feeling of a partisan apologist.
Despite what the farLeft trolls here like to advance in the vacuum of their echo chamber, neither Bush nor Cheney were as close to being indicted by anyone as their Democrat predecessors –Slick Willy and his cheatin’ wife– were.
Granted, with the Clintons as the benchmark of ethical conduct inside the WH, proably anyone can above their standard. Except, probably, Obama; he has such promise.
kevin47 // Mar 11, 2010 at 2:49 pm
“I think the Dems would have been willing to sweep it under the rug until the fall.”
And… I called that one.
franco 2 // Mar 11, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Absolutely kevin47 you called that. Not to take anything away from your powers of prediction but, in light of Democrats craven desperation and their record of corruption, this is minor.
Something is wrong with our system when guys like this get elected and fly under the radar. He’s positively weird. Washington is a magnet for them.
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:01 pm
kevin 47, franco 2: the democrats did try to sweep it under the rug for quite a while… from the very beginning when Massa made his first run for the House (and lost), former Navy peers and shipmates of Massa’s approached one of the House leadership’s major players with a reputation of decency, Dale Kildee of Michigan, and told his CofS that Massa had a problem with sexual harassment of men and subordinates.
I guess when the Party elevates a president –who is himself a legendary serial sexual abuser of subordinates and vulnerable women– to the position of “Party Statesman”, it’s kind of hard to see the problem in yet another democrat? Leaving aside the sexual misprisons of all the Kennedys and their extended clan on vulnerable women and male subordinates.
The democrats indeed have been sweeping Massa’s reputation and record under the rug for a long time and I don’t doubt for a second that a Chicago Thug like Rahm Emanuel probably tried to use outing Massa in order to coerce a vote out of him.