Glenn Beck, please don't stare into the camera!
By John Amato Monday Oct 20, 2008 3:20pm
I know David Neiwert did a post on this segment already, but I had to chime in for a minute. First of all, notice how Wolf fawns all over Joe the Plumber? OK, the real problem I have is this: Why do I have to see Beck on CNN's most serious political show (The Situation Room) at all? What value does he add? His whole purpose was to try and make it seem like Obama is as bad as McCain. They already have segments devoted to ideologues already.
When he stares into the camera to give America and McCain advice it practically burns out my eye sockets.
BECK: Yes. No, I don't think he -- I don't think he did.
I mean, I thought he was good, but he had to be Ronald Reagan. And he's just not Ronald Reagan. And he's not -- look, he needs somebody to be able to look into the camera and be able to say, America, I get it. You don't trust me, you don't trust him, and the reason why is because we've been lying to you the whole time.
This whole government has been telling you half-truths and nontruths for long enough. So look, here's the bad news: Blah, blah, blah. And here's exactly what I'm going to do, and I mean what I say.
If he could have connected with the American audience -- -- and also, neither of them -- you know, the Republicans need to police the Republicans and the Democrats need to police the Democrats. They need to get the bad ones out, the ones who are involved in scandal and double talk and everything else. People need to unite.
CNN, free us from Glenn Beck!
Stop, it hurts!
Login or Register to post comments.
He's moving to Fox News soon, no? I wonder why they'd give him more airtime?
The real question is why did they hire him in the first place? And why, when Conservatism has so obviously been a disaster for the U.S., do the media keep turning to the Conservatives for answers to our problems?
They have pretty much refused to air anything about the Young Political Majors registration fraud arrest, though MSNBC did touch upon it today. Me thinks McCNN is trying to pare away at the FOX News CHannel niche what with Beck, Dobs and now Bennett.
Why does the media still refer to "Joe the Plumber"? Hasn't this fool been totally debunked? He's neither Joe, not is he a legitimate plumber. Can we drop it already, call him what he is...Doofus the McCain Shill.
He's Joe the Plumber who's really named Sam, who isn't really a plumber either, who spends his time angrily worrying about the unfair taxes that he'll have to pay if he buys his boss's business - which he is in no financial position to do anyway - and which taxes might amount to an extra $800 - which would be dwarfed by his income increasing from 40K to 280K and which 280K being completely hypothetical anyway and nowhere near what the business nets in the first place.
Jesus Fucking Christ, doesn't this Goddamn Fucking Moron have any real fucking problems with which to occupy himself?
Glen Beck needs to just move on over to Fox now...
I have news for Beck - and Obama for that matter.
Reagan was a terrible stinking lousy rotten president.
You can name every school and airport in America after him, but it doesn't change anything.
He corrupted the political system, gave the rich a ton of money, bankrupted the little guy, broke the Union movement, meddled in countries like Iran - (thank you, Ronnie).
I can understand the Repubs trying to lionize this guy, but why Obama kisses his ass is a mystery to me.
Is he that ignorant?
You betcha.
WTF?
No. But like most politicians, he reflexively assumes that we are that ignorant. Trouble is, it's often a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Conservatives and the media have made Reagan a sacred cow of modern American politics. Obama would suffer greatly from the media and the millions who have drank the Reagan kool-aid if he criticized Ronnie. Be comforted in knowing that the tide is turning against the Reagan Worshipers, though. In a few years the rumblings of criticism will start. After all, he was the numskull that got us started on this road to disaster.
Obama doesn't have to criticize Reagan.
But he sure as shit doesn't have to praise the guy.
You find a counterfeit $100 bill lying on the sidewalk. If you try to turn it in, you know they'll fvcking arrest you. But that doesn't mean you run right out and try to spend it.
Amen
Obama doesn't go around praising Reagan on a regular basis (unlike many previous democrats running for president). The one complimentary thing he said was:
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Remember the other difference about Obama: HE WANTS TO WIN! and to reach out to people who haven't voted for the democrats in many years. I hate Reagan as much as anyone but I think this kind of rhetoric is more or less true and I can easily live with it if it will help win a few swing states.
as quoted by you, is one hundred percent pure bullshit.
To say that Reagan put us on a different path because we were "ready for it" is beyond stupid.
Reagan was a salesman for the corporations. He was their front man. He did what they told him to do. They were the Cheneys of the day. He was a dumbbell.
The country wasn't ready to lose its' Union movement. To have health care prices soar; to have the disparity between rich and poor grow incrementally.
And the republicans have sold us that this peanut-head made us all "feel good" about A mer i ca.
And Obama buys into it.
Or thinks he can buy some votes from the dumbass republicans.
Yeah. Obama wants to win. And lots of people who call themselves progressives want him to win.
They don't give a shit that he kisses the ass of someone who wrecked many many Americans' lives. Maybe they'll name some airport after Obama. Instead of O'Hare.
Great.
Elect Obama.
Then what?
As BTD says, all we can do is hope that Obama doesn't believe his own bullshit.
Because, if he does, we're in for another shitty eight years.
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from the "President" who succeeded only in uniting the whole world against us. And now, this "new and improved" GOP is on the verge of uniting the whole country against themselves. Here's hoping they succeed.
Still, once the McCain/Palin disgrace is dispensed with, as far as I'm concerned, the only legitimate function left for today's Beltway Dems and Repugs is to keep each other hogtied, while the rest of us get on with the sad business of rebuilding what's left of our country.
Memo to Boeing and Lockheed Martin: shut down and start re-tooling today -- your first run of wind turbines is due by the end of last month.
First the powers that be need to create wind towers that actually work once in awhile, and can last for more than a couple years without the expense of millions of dollars of repairs. Trust me. I've built the bases for some in my area. They are junk. Right now, they are nothing more than a massive grab of tax dollars in my province.
Be that as it may, the first step is to get our corporations ready to do something other than exporting death and despair.
Wind farms, windmills, wind turbines are all going to be under the command of the energy companies. That's why you always see them on commercials with people like T Boone Pickens. We will be paying a monthly bill for energy companies to run, break, misuse, mismanage and build newer, crappier windfarms. Plus we don't know what effect it will have on our weather or on migrating birds.
Better that everyone should get solar panels first. You get to own them. At least, now you do. They may change that sometime in the future so that we will have to pay energy companies a monthly fee for solar panel use.
Believe me, the energy guys are looking at windfarms. Lots o' dough is to be made from them.
It's gonna' be hard. Having poured all our trillions into the global energy-theft industry, we're light years behind on renewable alternatives, not to mention, everything else that matters.
But it's nearly down to the wire, now. We can either restore our democracy now and have an actual future, or we can keep our doomed Gawdawful Empire for a little longer until it finally implodes and sucks half the world into the void with it.
Either way, the party's over. Our ghastly American Exceptionalism has drawn it's last gluttonous breath and is now petulantly turning fifty shades of blue...
>
LOL...he sounds like Sylvester the Cat off Looney Tunes...thame thpeach impediment.
I wrote CNN just ast week about this goon and yes, he should go home to Fox.
Talking about bad TV... I am watching some damn good TV right now, it is Richard Trumka the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO being interviewed on Hardtalk on BBC world. He is damn good.
Beck is just another corporate-fascist, American hating imbecile, who keeps setting the GOP stupidity limbo bar lower and lower.
HOW LOW CAN THEY GO?
Your pet peeve is Beck staring at the camera. My pet peeve is Cindy McCain's angry little growly face. She looks like a Pekingese who wants to follow me around barking and nipping at me with those little white teeth behind her pursed little lips.
And Cindy, lose the icy blue contact lenses.
Seriously, I get the willies when I see Cindy McCain's pale, angry little face.
If you were sociopolitically "yoked" to John McPain, you'd be an Angry Little Person™ too!
What Value Does He Add?
None.
It is an extremely poor business practice, specifically in the 24 hour news biz, to give air time to someone who is leaving the company.
It puzzles me, from a professional point of view, as to why they are doing this and what they hope to accomplish by it.
Glenn Beck is an idiot. No one takes him seriously. He's almost, but not quite, comical in his crazy rantings. But remember, he is an idiot.
Yes that's the point. It's almost an insult to conservatives to call Beck a conservative. Basically, he's just batshit crazy. And encyclopedically ignorant to boot.
But the scary bit is not that he's crazy - there are lots of kooks on the airwaves - it's that he gets invited onto Wolf Blitzer's show and treated like a knowledgeable pundit! Whatever residual respect I might have retained for CNN plummetted to absolute zero when I saw that. Clearly they are no longer running a serious news station, they are trying to become a comedy channel.
BECK: "blah blah blah terrorist blah blah blah ACORN blah blah blah..."
[snip]
"... People need to unite."
Hearing a call for unity from Glenn Beck is akin to hearing a dog meow. The brain rejects it as invalid input almost as soon as it reaches the ear.
I hate to break this to you but a legitimate argument can be made that "Obama is just as bad as McCain", such as:
* Obama, that [alleged] populist, voted in favor of granting the telecom companies immunity.
* Obama, that [alleged] populist, placed a priority on bailing out Wall Street at the expense of neglecting Main Street.
* Obama, that [alleged] populist, did not support Kucinich's proposal to impeach Bush and Cheney, arguably the most corrupt administration in this country's history.
* Obama's health solution requires that all children in the United States be required to have insurance regardless of whether poor families and the working class can afford to pay for the cost of insurance while neglecting to endorse a single payer health care plan.
* Obama, that [alleged] anti-war candidate, wishes to leave anywhere between 32,000 to 80,000 American soldiers in Iraq even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal plan has been finally completed. In addition, he also wants to leave 100,000 civilian contractors in Iraq which would include the infamous para military organization Blackwater. These recommendations, of course, will simply make the Iraqis hate and fear the United States just as much as they do now.
* Whereas McCain wants to place more troops in Iraq, Obama, the [alleged] anti-war candidate, wishes to redeploy approximately 10,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and by doing so will certainly increase the misery and suffering that Afghans are already feeling by being under the yoke of the United States military. Both parties, apparently, realize that that pipeline which runs from Central Asia to the Caspian Sea is a priority and must be protected at all costs.
* Obama, the [alleged] anti-war candidate, agrees with Bush that the US should go after "terrorists" in Pakistan even if that means more innocent Pakistanis will be killed [as happened a few weeks ago, when US troops killed six innocent Pakistanis, two of the suspected "terrorists" being children].
* Both Obama and McCain agree that the US should isolate and, if necessary, attack Iran.
* Both major candidates agree that Russia and China should be confronted in Central Asia.
* Both the Democrats and the Republicans approved of another record military budget of over $600 billion on top of $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over $3 trillion while the poor and the working class struggle in this country to make ends meet.
All this would seem to indicate that while McCain is more overt in the policies that he advocates it can certainly be argued that Obama can be seen as being more dangerous than McCain as Obama's lofting rhetoric and soaring oratory may very well conceal his covert and insidious connection to the corporate and vested interests and the murderous policies of the military industrial complex.
"...it can certainly be argued that Obama can be seen as being more dangerous than McCain as Obama's lofting rhetoric and soaring oratory may very well conceal his covert and insidious connection to the corporate and vested interests and the murderous policies of the military industrial complex."
It can certainly be argued that the earth is flat.
And that Supply Side Economics works great!
And that monkeys might fly out of my behind.
And that his lofting rhetoric and soaring oratory may well conceal that he is a Muslim and also(insert 'Theme from The Omen' here) - The AntiChrist!
But it's pretty clear that what is really going on is that he is a Democratic Presidential nominee who has moved to the center in order to win the general election. With large enough majorities in the House and the Senate he will end up governing from the left.
Joeedugan
You did an excellent job of not be able to refute one word that I had written concerning Obama while practically claiming that I was attempting to smear Obama by calling him a Muslim [as it that would be a terrible thing for a person to be labeled] as well as other bizarre assertions. You believe that if elected Obama will somehow turn to the left [which you admit that he is not] which ignores the fact that the Democrats have been unable to end the occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq when they were swept into office in 2006 by cutting off the funds for those occupations. Likewise, the Democrats and Obama ignored the will of the people when they voted to grant the telecom companies immunity. More recently, they again ignored the wishes of the American people when 170 Democrats including Obama voted to bail out Wall Street while ignoring the plight of the working class and the poor in this country.
Like Lucy snatching the football away from Charlie Brown, liberals and Americans continue, to use Obama's word, to hope that Obama will somehow do the right thing, despite all evidence to the contrary.
You may wish to pick The Democrats: A Critical History by Lance Selfa and Savage Mules by Dennis Perrin, both of which demonstrate how little difference there is between the Democrats, the [alleged] party of the people and the Republicans, both of whom are in the pockets of Big Business and the military-industrial complex.
In the 70s and 80s, I really used to love this TV show Leonard Nimoy hosted that was called 'In Search Of'. It was a documentary investigation into various mysterious and paranormal subjects like UFOs, Bigfoot and the like. In each episode Nimoy would present all the 'facts' - and there were a lot of them - and then postulate 'Is it not possible that a large primate could have survived for years in the dense little explored wilderness of...' or 'Could it not be true that these many well documented cases of mysterious lights in the night sky might well be...'. The viewer thinks, 'That might be possible...' or 'That could be true...'. Nimoy presented no dissenting opinions and no real facts, just speculation. Highly entertaining horseshit but horseshit nonetheless.
Years later when the Bush Administration made its argument for invading Iraq, I thought, 'Ah it's 'In Search of' all over again, except I'm not twelve years old anymore and I know what a bogus, chock-full-of-holes, dishonest argument looks like.' If you don't wish to be ridiculed then don't use speculative phrases.
If you have a serious argument to make then skip all the 'woulds' and 'coulds' and 'mights' and 'cans' and 'mays'. Otherwise you are just shoveling horseshit.
The 'bizarre assertions' you refer to are just my illustrations of the shaky ground you find yourself on when you start using phrases like 'It can certainly be argued...' and 'may very well conceal.' Obviously LOTS of things 'can certainly be argued' - many of them quite silly. Many, many things 'may very well be conceal(ed)' by other things - or not.
Where you got that I said that you called Obama a Muslim Is something mysterious to me. It can certainly be argued that it is an accusation that you may very well have pulled out of your ass. I only brought up the 'Muslim' and 'AntiChrist' stuff because they are the smears Conservatives make - using the very same dishonest speculative 'In Search Of', WMDs in Iraq, arguments that you make.
DISHONEST Argument:
"All this would seem to indicate that while McCain is more overt in the policies that he advocates it can certainly be argued that Obama can be seen as being more dangerous than McCain as Obama's lofting rhetoric and soaring oratory may very well conceal his covert and insidious connection to the corporate and vested interests and the murderous policies of the military industrial complex."
RESPONSE: Errol, that's a bunch of speculative horseshit.
HONEST argument:
All this indicates that, while McCain is more overt in the policies that he advocates, Obama is more dangerous than McCain as Obama's lofting rhetoric and soaring oratory conceals his covert and insidious connection to the corporate and vested interests and the murderous policies of the military industrial complex. (And that last part IS dishonest speculative crap - it's no different than the Right's alleged 'covert and insidious' alleged connection to William Ayres.)
RESPONSE: Occam's Razor states, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Errol, rather than going down Paranoia Road with your entirely speculative 'covert and insidious connection' to the power structure, I state again that Obama is just the latest in a long line of American politicians maneuvering to the center in order to run in the Presidential election. Maybe he isn't as far to the left as you like, but he is a damn sight farther to the left than John McCain. If you don't like him, then vote for Nader, or write in Chomsky.
Impress your friends! Befuddle your enemies! Be the envy of the Beltway, with the All-New Ad Hominem Automotron™!
Just wind it up, and watch it sneer!
New, from Rove-O-Matic!
Joeedugan
Before irrationality lashing out at me, did you actually take the time to read what I had said at my comments at 16:20? If you actually had, then perhaps, just perhaps, instead of lapsing into knee jerk profanity and claiming that what I had written was "speculative", you would have tried to refute what I had written [though I seriously doubt that you can] which lists the reasons [ten of them I believe] why Obama is just as dangerous, if not more so, than McCain. If you do not know what the word insidious means, then please let know, as I can recommend a few dictionaries that can enlighten you as to its meaning.
You again make the same tired old argument that Obama is running to the center but then will magically turn to the left after he is elected president. As I attempted to explain at my comments at 18:12, apparently to no avail, Obama did not heed the will of the people when he voted to give the telecom companies immunity nor when he voted to bail out Wall Street while ignoring the plight of the working class and the poor in this country. But like so many Obama fans, you wish to believe that Obama will somehow listen to you, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Rest assured, that because I have not fallen under the spell of Obamamania, I will most definitely be doing that which so many liberals and Americans dread and that is to vote for a candidate who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican and who is not bought and paid for by the corporate interests and the military-industrial complex.
* Obama, that [alleged] populist, voted in favor of granting the telecom companies immunity.
If he hadn't voted to renew FISA, then McCain would have hammered him for not providing the intelligence agencies with the tools they need 'to protect America.' A cynical vote? You bet! Do I defend it? No. Does it fit the profile for running from the center? Absolutely.
* Obama, that [alleged] populist, placed a priority on bailing out Wall Street at the expense of neglecting Main Street.
I hate and despise plutocrats. I sincerely believe there should be a guillotine on the front lawn of every country club in America - just as a warning to keep the elite in line. But everything I've read says that we can't let the credit markets fail or everything else will fall after them and we'll have another Great Depression, and we almost DID let the credit markets fail. The socialist Europeans are not doing anything very different than us, so much as it is distasteful, the Wall St. bailout is the most EFFECTIVE thing that we can do. Main St., by the way, are the same group of people who have elected Reagan, Dubya, Gingrich, Kemp, Gramm et. al. They have voted FOR huge deficits and deregulation for years. There is a lot of blame to go round on this.
* Obama, that [alleged] populist, did not support Kucinich's proposal to impeach Bush and Cheney, arguably the most corrupt administration in this country's history.
I love Dennis Kucinich. Bush should be in prison, but if it was possible to get elected President by advocating impeachment, then why isn't Kucinich the Democratic nominee?
* Obama's health solution requires that all children in the United States be required to have insurance regardless of whether poor families and the working class can afford to pay for the cost of insurance while neglecting to endorse a single payer health care plan.
A single payer system would be ideal. Bill Clinton tried to implement that in 1993. Clinton was a popular centrist, one of the most skilled politicians in U.S. history and had 10 years experience as a governor in working with a legislature to pass laws. He tried to get his plan through a congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. If ANYONE was the perfect vehicle to achieve a single-payer plan it was Clinton. The result was the plan failed, the subsequent backlash led to the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 and Republican control of Congress, Clinton lost almost all of his political capitol and he had to hire Dick Morris and move far to the right politically in order to save his presidency. Nobody wants to go through that again. It's a great idea, but currently it's politically radioactive in the Democratic Party.
* Obama, that [alleged] anti-war candidate, wishes to leave anywhere between 32,000 to 80,000 American soldiers in Iraq even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal plan has been finally completed. In addition, he also wants to leave 100,000 civilian contractors in Iraq which would include the infamous para military organization Blackwater. These recommendations, of course, will simply make the Iraqis hate and fear the United States just as much as they do now.
I haven't heard the same things that you've heard on this, but if the consensus is that we were wildly irresponsible in getting INTO Iraq, then why would we want to get OUT in any way other than a very careful and considered manner? As to the Iraqis - they will hate us no matter what. The conservative argument is to stay until they love us and your argument is to get out quick so they won't hate us quite so much. Sorry, but they just plain hate us. Obama has run on getting us out more than any other thing and it's reasonable to believe he's sincere on that, but we won't rush out as thoughtlessly as we rushed in. Any plan will take a couple of years.
* Whereas McCain wants to place more troops in Iraq, Obama, the [alleged] anti-war candidate, wishes to redeploy approximately 10,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and by doing so will certainly increase the misery and suffering that Afghans are already feeling by being under the yoke of the United States military. Both parties, apparently, realize that that pipeline which runs from Central Asia to the Caspian Sea is a priority and must be protected at all costs.
It could be all about oil pipelines, or it could be about Osama bin Laden. He was the reason we went in there in the first place, and he's still in the area. We went into Iraq for oil and Israel, sure, and if we want to steal someone's oil, we'll stay in Iraq and steal theirs - that way we don't have to go head-to-head with the Russians, as we would if we began f-ing around in the Caspian Sea. But, as I've said, Obama has run as the 'get out of Iraq' candidate and staying in would be too dangerous to him politically. We could just forget about 9-11 and get out of Afghanistan, but wouldn't that be just an invitation to other parties to attack us because they know we won't retaliate? Turning the other cheek is admirable, but it's never been anybody's idea of a workable foreign policy.
* Obama, the [alleged] anti-war candidate, agrees with Bush that the US should go after "terrorists" in Pakistan even if that means more innocent Pakistanis will be killed [as happened a few weeks ago, when US troops killed six innocent Pakistanis, two of the suspected "terrorists" being children].
I believe he said it before Bush did anything, but a long time after I thought we should have started doing it. Pakistan's Tribal Areas are havens for the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda do not qualify as 'terrorists' in your book? The Pakistanis should take care of this problem themselves, but if they choose not to, and if all creditable evidence says that Al Quaeda is planning the next 9-11 from inside Pakistan, then what is our alternative? If Al Quaeda chooses to surround themselves with civilians, don't they deserve some responsibility for those civilians deaths?
Oh, and I think you confuse the concept of somebody being anti-war with them being pacifist.
* Both Obama and McCain agree that the US should isolate and, if necessary, attack Iran.
Haven't we just spent weeks watching Obama being ripped to shreds by Palin and McCain because of his 'anyplace, anytime' position on talking with the Iranians? Did I imagine all that? That qualifies as a policy of isolating? And you said that I made bizarre assertions?
* Both major candidates agree that Russia and China should be confronted in Central Asia.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Georgia? Tibet? Are you talking about a military confrontation or a diplomatic confrontation? I had not heard that Obama advocated the first one - that would be McCain and Palin. But I see no problem with the U.S. putting diplomatic pressure on either country over human rights issues or their bullying of their neighbors. Putin would love to see Russia surrounded by puppet states like Belarus. After trillions spent in the Cold War to bring down the USSR, should we stand idly by and let that happen? Promoting democracy and advocating human rights can be policies of idealistic values, as under Carter: they don't have to be just cynical lip-service, as under George W. Bush.
* Both the Democrats and the Republicans approved of another record military budget of over $600 billion on top of $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over $3 trillion while the poor and the working class struggle in this country to make ends meet.
Again, the bailout, if implemented properly through stock buy-ins, which give the taxpayers value for their money and not just 'toxic' bank assets, is clearly the best possible solution to a very, very dangerous situation. McCain has supported deregulation his entire career and his tax cuts are more of the same 'borrow and spend' conservatism. Obama has proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts on the rich, on corporations, on estates and on capital gains, while at the same time cutting taxes for the poor and working class. Clinton achieved balanced budgets and even surpluses by standing up to the Republican 'borrow and spend' supply side crowd: Obama can do the same.
Obama, as a state Senator, went on record opposing the War in Iraq and he has consistently opposed it. He has voted to fund those troops we have put in harm's way because the alternative would be morally reprehensible. McCain voted for the War and has been a huge advocate. Obama wants us out of Iraq, while McCain has vowed we might stay 'for a hundred years.' These are two VERY different men.
There's your point by point refutation, but again, if your argument uses the same sort of language that Colin Powell used in the U.N. to argue for war or Leonard Nimoy used for proposing the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or the Chupacabra, than you really should reconsider your thesis. I've written a lot Erroll, and I'm sorry, but your original post is still horseshit. It's not always an ad hominem attack: sometimes it just is what it is.
Joeeddugan
I have absolutely no idea what your reference to Leonard Nimoy and the Loch Ness monster is supposed to mean. That makes about as much sense as claiming that Barack Obama is an anti-war candidate even though he has voted to continue funding the illegal and immoral occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Congressman Kucinich has pointed out in the past, apparently to no avail, there is already enough money in the pipeline to provide for the welfare of the troops. Claiming to be against the occupations is one thing. Doing something about it is quite another.
Your argument why the United States military should remain in Iraq is equally bizarre, which is that "the Iraqis will hate us no matter what." It has been proven time and time again that it is the inflammatory presence of the US military that is exacerbating the violence in Iraq. Try reading the works of such independent journalists as Nir Rosen, Dahr Jamail, Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn, et al, which backs up this assertion. Unfortunately, as is typical of so many Americans, you seem to be bereft of the word empathy. It would seem that if you actually possessed that attribute, you would then realize the last thing that an occupied country wants to see is a foreign soldier who is wearing battle fatigues and especially carrying an assault rifle walking on its streets and neighborhoods. Try actually asking yourself how you would feel if there were almost 200,000 foreign troops and civilian contractors in the United States. If you are able to do that, then you might finally be able to realize how the Iraqis think and feel about the less than benevolent presence of the US military in their country.
You use the same gung-ho argument about Afghanistan and Pakistan, stating that the United States must stay in Afghanistan in order to go after bin Laden [though you do admit that it could be, as I and others have pointed out, about that oil pipeline running through Afghanistan]. You make absolutely no reference to the innocent Afghan civilians and children who have been slaughtered by American bombs and bullets. Or are you and Obama going to claim that those charred remains of the children were somehow "terrorists"? You also believe that the US has the right to invade and send troops into Pakistan to go after Al Quaeda [sic] even if it means going against the wishes of a sovereign country like Pakistan. I seriously doubt if those six Pakistanis who were killed by US troops, two of them being children, were part of al Qaeda.
What you and other hawkish liberals such as Obama do not realize is that the presence of the US military is acting as an extremely effective recruiting tool for the terrorists. It is like putting gasoline on top of a raging fire. The best way to go after the terrorists is by combining police work with intelligence agencies around the world and with the possible use of the army of that host country. It makes absolutely no sense to send invading armies after these people since they do not belong to any one nation state. They should be thought of as criminals and treated as such by having the police and other intelligence groups go after them. Otherwise, it becomes a bloody exercise in futility and self defeat.
As I mentioned at the Lucy and Charlie Brown comments, you may want to try reading those two books that I had mentioned as it might help broaden your horizons as to the similarities that there are between the two major corporate and war making political parties in this country.
I'll agree that Erroll's missive comes a tad unglued at the end, but your response is nothing to put on a resumé either. If Erroll had foregone the absolute, saying instead "Obama is potentially as bad as McCain," I'd have been forced to agree, as I lack the clairvoyance you seem to be claiming.
Obama will govern from the left? How? By nuking Wall Street? And K Street? Does he plan do abolish Congress? Let's not forget that today's DC Dems have distinguished themselves quite solidly as the slightly-less-right-wing of the Corporate Party. And -- holy shitonastick! -- take a look at Obama's lineup of prospective cabinet members! I mean, Madeline Albright, for gawdsakes? Let's face it, the only difference between neoconservative corporate globalists and neoliberal corporate globalists (wiki-up "Scoop Jackson Democrats" for a little background) is that the neocons wear a Protective Father face, whereas the neolibs wear a Tickle-Me Elmo™ face. They're just two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Biden aside, Obama is the only sane choice on the ballot simply because he might be able to derail Senator Hate-Talk -- and we already know for certain what a scumbag McHatey is.
Now, setting all that aside, the Really Big Hazard that Erroll fails to address is Palin. We can only sit and cower in terror at what nightmares this Madame Jackboot Freakpageant might rain down upon us, even as a mere veep. Even if McCain himself were not so scary, Palin would be more than enough to earn the GOP my most strenuous opposition.
With Obama/Biden -- and thus, the thwarting of McCain/Palin -- there is at least the possibility of a somewhat less psychotic America. And even if that's the best we can do, it's still worth voting for. But don't kid yourself: an Obama victory is just the first step -- and a pretty small one at that. This election is about holding off imminent catastrophe, not waking up in the Land of Oz.
Hey, if he's not far enough to the left for you, and the studies say he is one of the most liberal members of the Senate, than make your mark for Nader.
Sorry, if when I said 'the left', I didn't clarify for yourself and Errol that I meant the left side of the American political continuum. I thought that was obvious. Maybe you guys are writing from Europe and thought that I was declaring Obama to be some kind of a 2nd Mitterrand or an American Ken Livingstone.
Hopefully the Democrats will get enough seats in the House and Senate that they will no longer be at the mercy of the Bluedog Democrats and will be able to push through liberal legislation. I think strength in numbers will embolden the more liberal Democrats. The number of new seats they get will, together with the election of Obama, determine the ideological tenor of the next 4 to 8 years.
Your post, while it annoys me, is certainly resume(`) worthy, if only because I am so mightily impressed with your ability to type an accent aigu.
You're so wonderfully linear.
I'd like to lock you in a room with Dr. Phil -- with a few control rods, the reaction would power the Eastern Seaboard for the next twenty years!
XD
'Rove-o-Matic' and Dr. Phil? You must watch a lot of infomercials and daytime TV. Why am I not surprised?
XDI - If we're counting in Roman numerals.
If it's internet shorthand for how funny you think you are, well good for you. Try not to poop yourself.
Best Wishes,
Joe
Better not fill up on bait. It'll spoil your supper.
;-)
I think you meant XDII.
XDIII
dkmnow
If I may say, you, like the commenter Joeeddugan, seem to have missed the point of my final paragraph. The reason why Obama is more dangerous and more insidious than McCain is because while McCain is more overt in his radical positions Obama tries to come across as being a populist which, as his voting for the FISA bill to grant the telecom companies immunity and caving in to Wall Street while refusing to come to the aid of the working class and the poor in this country reveals that his interests lay in helping the corporate fat cats while stepping over the backs of the people who have had their homes foreclosed by the financial institutions.
Likewise, Obama claims to be an antiwar candidate compared to the hawkish McCain. But as I attempted to point out, seemingly to little avail, that label, like a tissue of gossamer, dissolves on closer inspection. Obama cannot claim to be an antiwar candidate when he advocates leaving close to 200,000 American troops and civilian contractors [which includes the infamous para military organization Blackwater] in Iraq even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal plan is finally completed. He cannot claim to be an antiwar candidate when he has proposed to redeploy approximately 10,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan, where they will unleash more havoc and bloodshed upon the Afghan people.
It is for these reasons why Obama should be considered more dangerous than McCain because he wishes to give the appearance ob being something that he is not. He does not condemn the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq as being criminal and immoral because he says that he will somehow be able to manage those occupations better than McCain. Obama as a benign imperialist? A wonderful oxymoron which might make a great bumper sticker for Obama's supporters.
Although you make some valid points,lets not forget that an Obama win will mean a Democratic Party win.We've had 8 years of Republicans.Enough already.Obama may not be the "Liberal" he's been endlessly characterized as,but his victory will certainly engender more Liberal policies and programs than a McCain upset.
prez????
must be cuz he is black
Dems could offer up the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, and the GOP would still sneer "socialist!"
That's their whole schtick, and in thirty years, they've used it to drag the whole spectrum so far off-center that "liberal" now means center-right. The great mass of actual moderates are now referred to as "liberal extremists," and everyone accepts it, as a function of classical groupthink.
I wonder...
If Obama wins this election and America enters a whole new political landscape,will Liberals be hired to discuss politics and push the propaganda the way hard right Conservatives like Beck were during the Bush era?It's been 8 years of the most partisan rightwing blather on tv,radio and printed media at large.Do Liberals,assuming an Obama win,now get to wallow and crow and gloat for the next 4 years,or will these rightwing mouthpieces get to keep their jobs?Golly gee willikers I wonder what will happen?
Glenn Beck is a special kind of Republican. His views are not just extreme they are dangerous and crazy. He needs to be a special place where like minded people can hear his drivel uninterrupted. Maybe he should be at that undisclosed location with Vice President Cheney.
This goes for news organizations, too.
Wolf Blitzer, too!
OT: I sent an email to CNN saying that if I heard Wolf Blitzer say somebody was "working the story" one more time, I'd scream, and asked that he find another verb to alternate with "working", and gave examples such as "researching", "reviewing", "looking into", "analyzing", and "exploring".
Of course, nobody pays attention, but Wolf Blitzer's presentation style drives me nuts, even beyond his deadly repetition of "working the story" and his obvious Republican leaning. I guess he thinks that's cool.
is an imbecile. Sadly, since Ted Turner sold CNN it has turned into Fox lite. Why any network (other than Fox) would allow this moron to speak is mind-boggling. Beck's salary must be paid by Rush so that Limblob isn't the stupidest puppet head.
Sounds to me like he wants to be the reichwing version of Keith Olbermann.
and I think I cracked up B Bob with this one if I remember right. The first time I saw Glenn Beck on his Headline News show I thought CNN was doing a parody show and cashing in. Like a new Jon Stewart or something. I watched the entire half hour and laughed my ass off. I even watched a second week. By the third week I realized this guy was FOR REAL. Shit, did I ever feel stupid.
I can't believe CNN is giving this jerk more airtime. He's an idiot. Prior to Beck I thought CNN had at least a small shred of credibility left but now I can't give them even that.
I like to read the comments on his ridiculous 'commentaries', on the CNN website. A surprising number seem to begin "I'm not a thinker like you, Glenn..." "A thinker"! He's considered "a thinker" by his fans! But he does seem to get through to a very large number of people. Personally I think he is a lot scarier than Limbaugh or Hannity. He says evil things and then mugs for the camera and giggles. He's fascism with a human face and a goofy grin. I fear what he might become a lot more than I fear bin Laden.
Goodness I can't stand this a hole! At times he attempts to appear more moderate and even-handed, (as in this clip) but the truth of the matter is that Beck is about as far to the right as the talk/TV pundits come. He has gone after the Obamas with every little smear, he repeats all the standard Malkin/Rush/Ingraham talking points,and then he wants us to laugh at his horrible jokes. He isn't funny, he twists, distorts and mangles the facts, and then he wants to be listened to when he acts serious. Beck is a joke!
Silly! LOL. You are supposed to stay close to the remote control. Always have it within EASY reach. Glenn Beck is about to appear on your TV...you have been warned by Wool Blazer himself...right after these commercial messages! What does that TELL YOU, huh??
Hmph. I was watching that day, and I knew EXACTLY what to do.
Are we sure that Beck had damaged done to his ass ? Not his brain ? I think I would rather look at his ass than listen to him " think "
Does Beck remind anyone else of the "token white guy" on a BET or UPN sitcom? You know, the white guy who screws up everything and says stupid things all the time on shows like "Steve Harvey", "Sister Sister", or "Moesha"?
broke last thursday was his last day on HN they have put a new show in his timeslot though "Not Just Another Cable News Show" is still there and I am pretty sure that was 1 of his pet projects while on CNN so can they cancel that now it's like a Con version of "Worst week ever" and it's ratings a probally about the same as Glenn now defunct CNN show.
Glenn Beck, is he actually clean and sober? Because he still talks like the drunk at the end of the bar, that everyone else rolls their eyes at and wishes that he would be even a little quieter.
....he is so wacky, is because he converted to Mormonism when he gave up the booze.
So, Glenn is a dry drunk who's found god......sound like anyone you know????!!
He is just a mouthpiece for the GOP. That's probably why CNN hired him.Like Rush Limbaugh- he is a crazy, right-wing nut job. Beck has the lowest rated program at any time, on any network.
Glenn Beck -blab, blab, blab blab, blab, blab-he makes my ears bleed.
It was bad enough a few years ago when Nancy Grace was the most obnoxious offering on CNN. Then they added Glenn Beck.
I haven't watched CNN since(except for Cafferty excerpts posted here).
I still cling to MSNBC -- first, for Rachel Maddow, and second, for Olbermann. (Maddow surpasses Olbermann because she attempts to bring guests of opposing views onto her program and actually lets them speak without the ego-driven interruptions of Chris "Tweety" Matthews.)
But until MSNBC scrapes Joe Scarborough off the bottom of its shoe, even that's a hard slog at times.
CNN's the habit which I'm finding hard to break at the moment. I can't tune in MSNBC on my dial and CNN's the only American MSM I can access on television at all.
CNN is also the safest insomnia remedy available. It's the most trusted name in snooze.
I feel bad for Blitzer, an actual journalist, being forced to interview this dork. Did he lose a bet?
I don't feel sorry for Blitzer or any of the overpaid cable news talking heads. These "news readers" as they are called in Great Britain, are well compensated to read a tele-prompter and parrot the agenda of the corporate dirtbags who sign their paychecks. They sold their souls a long time ago, but it wasn't for rock and roll.
Video link is still broken! Says "http://www.crooksandliars.com/?mid=6614"
and any semblance of brains and talent. Dunno why, but he's always reminded me of this guy:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8S_Kv89IU
The key concept that we the people need to understand (Glenn has mentioned this on the radio) is the foundation and core of our Constitution.
Our Rights come from our creator (God, nature, chance, the big bang, whatever)to "We the People." Then we choose to lend some of those rights to a Government, in the hopes of creating a safer society in which all have the chance to thrive.
The most important point to remember here is this: you cannot lend something you do not have. "We the people" cannot, ever, lend rights (read: powers) to the Government that we ourselves do not have.
This bares repeating as it essential to understanding the foundation of a free society.
We, as a group cannot give the Government rights (powers) that we ourselves, as individuals, do not possess.
All laws made by, and all action taken by our Government must first be judged under this standard before even beginning to discuss whether an idea, proposed law, or program, etc., is "beneficial" to our society.
I can't shut down a radio station. I can't slap my neighbor in the mouth for saying things I don't like. Can you?
Login or Register to post comments.