AsburySkinsFan Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-25/conservatives-glenn-beck-backlash-doesnt-go-far-enough/2/ Is the right turning against Glenn Beck? This week in Commentary, Peter Wehner became the latest conservative commentator to call out the Fox News host’s absurd ramblings. He joined Bill Kristol, who criticized Beck’s coverage of the uprising in Egypt, Rich Lowry, who piled on, and Matthew Continetti, who called Beck’s oeuvre “nonsense” last summer. That brings us to their fellow conservative Jennifer Rubin, who writes for The Washington Post. “What should thoughtful conservatives do? I’ve said it before, but it is especially relevant here: Police their own side,” she advised this week. “Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives? Conservative groups and candidates should be forewarned: If they host, appear with or defend him they should be prepared to have his extremist views affixed to them.” That brings us to their fellow conservative Jennifer Rubin, who writes for The Washington Post. “What should thoughtful conservatives do? I’ve said it before, but it is especially relevant here: Police their own side,” she advised this week. “Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives? Conservative groups and candidates should be forewarned: If they host, appear with or defend him they should be prepared to have his extremist views affixed to them.” As a Beck critic who criticized the creepy aspects of his on-air personality even when he was touting awesome Friedrich Hayek books, I’d love to see more folks in the conservative movement adopt Rubin’s attitude. But they won’t. One reason is that it’s difficult to condemn Beck in isolation. Acknowledging that his show is indefensible—that’s the core of her critique—means confronting the fact that Fox News under Roger Ailes knowingly broadcasts factually inaccurate and egregiously misleading nonsense every day. How many conservatives are willing to stipulate that? It also means departing from the conservative movement’s standard approach to its entertainers: It’s verboten to criticize anyone on “your own side” in an ideological conflict many see as binary. rest of article at linkarticle closing Do I think all these people should be drummed out of the conservative movement? Actually, I’m not one for purges. I’d be happy if their ideological allies would merely call them out when they’re egregiously wrong, rather than giving them a pass to avoid disagreement. It doesn’t matter to me whether every conservative shares my assessment of the controversies I’ve pointed out. But the views I’ve quoted are anathema to so many on the right. It’s time for them to explain as much, rather than reflexively rising to their defense. Otherwise it appears that among regular conservatives this stuff is uncontroversial. That isn’t true. Jennifer Rubin is right: Glenn Beck is a nut. A person of integrity who valued truth and a broadcaster’s responsibility to his audience would never allow the man a platform as big as the one he’s been given. But if the right stops treating ideological allies with kid gloves, it needs to call out nonsense and conspiratorial idiocy that goes far beyond Beck. That makes the prospect of doing so more daunting, and more necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 What a world when Bill Kristol becomes a voice of reason. Good for all these conservatives who are stepping forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Beck's take on the Egyptian uprising had me, for the first time, really believing he needs mental help. I am not a psychiatrist, but the way he tried tying that to all kinds of crap sounded either paranoid or schizophrenic to me. What was the difference between Beck's explanation of the Egypt's uprising and Ghaddafi's explanation of Lybia's? Not much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Beck's take on the Egyptian uprising had me, for the first time, really believing he needs mental help. I am not a psychiatrist, but the way he tried tying that to all kinds of crap sounded either paranoid or schizophrenic to me.What was the difference between Beck's explanation of the Egypt's uprising and Ghaddafi's explanation of Lybia's? Not much. Or to be honest, his description of democrats including the President of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 About damn time, I say. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 The real test will be whether these folks continue to vocally wish for Beck to STFU after the upcoming election season ends. Particularly if Obama keeps the White House, which he will do if the economy continues to improve. It's easy to tell your more radical goofballs to cool it when you're trying to appeal to voters in the center. I can foresee plenty of vocal "Beck/Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Other Idiot doesn't represent me" stuff as November 2012 gets ever closer. But after the election? That's when we'll really see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Beck's take on the Egyptian uprising had me, for the first time, really believing he needs mental help. I am not a psychiatrist, but the way he tried tying that to all kinds of crap sounded either paranoid or schizophrenic to me. Welcome to the club, I'm just glad that some on the Right are beginning to test the waters in their criticism of Beck, it's almost like they are using a twig to see if the electric fence is really on, hopefully more will follow their lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Beck is an idiot who rather blatantly mixes facts with fiction to craft taylored arguments using any provocation with predicatable conclusions. My thoughts are the daily beast article is rather nieve. Beck is today is the most popular conservative voice. Millions listen to Beck every day, I have never heard of Peter Wehner or Jennifer Rubin. In today's GOP loud mouth provocateur's are not merely tollerated as was suggested, they rule. When Rush Limbaugh the previous most popular talking head on the right spoke out of turn, no less a figure than the ruling chairman of the GOP was foced to recant his clarification of Limbaugh role in the party less he face civil revolt. That's the world we live in. The nut jobs aren't tollerated on the right, they are at the wheel. This is not to say the right doesn't have it's intellectuals and honorable thoughtful voices. It's just to point out the fact that these people haven't been able to compete with the Becks and Limbaugh's in decades for control of the rights message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Peter Wehner and Jennifer Rubin have been writing for awhile....perhaps ya need to turn off the boobtube? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Not to say Beck isn't a nut: But Using the Washington Post? That is not your most conservative source around here. The Washington Examiner is like Newsmax.. Now those two rungs down from Beck. Edit: I take it back: In her biography: Nearly all wisdom is found in the Godfather movies (no, not Part 3!) and the Torah. (i'm sold). ASF: Please man: Switch out Daily Beast: with Fark.com for just 1 little tiny week and lets see if your mood improves. That site makes you angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Peter Wehner and Jennifer Rubin have been writing for awhile....perhaps ya need to turn off the boobtube? I will repeat myself using more colloquial jargon. If Rush Limbaugh could get RNC Chairman Michael Steele to cry uncle with a silent prolonged stare, Peter Wehner and Jennifer Rubin's brush back of Glenn Beck are not only meaningless, but career ending opportunities. The core of the GOP is Beck's audience. Those who realize he's a windbag preying upon intellectually addled processors are a minority on the right. Becks audience like Rush's audience are the folks who distrust intellectuals and have outward distain for professional news organizations other than Fox. That is by design as it leaves no voice of reason acceptable other than the wingnut in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 ASF: Please man: Switch out Daily Beast: with Fark.com for just 1 little tiny week and lets see if your mood improves. That site makes you angry. Nice subtle use of the genetic fallacy. Still entirely unconvincing, yet clever. BTW, the Beast isn't what makes me angry, unless of course Beck is the Beast...actually I think he would be the Beast from the land with the horns like a ram that speaks on behalf of the beast and has all the powers of the beast and who's job it is to mislead the people..... sorry, I've been working on a Revelation Bible study for about 2 months now so that stuff comes pretty easily right now. ---------- Post added February-28th-2011 at 10:56 AM ---------- I will repeat myself using more colloquial jargon.If Rush Limbaugh could get RNC Chairman Michael Steele to cry uncle with a silent prolonged stare, Peter Wehner and Jennifer Rubin's brush back of Glenn Beck are not only meaningless, but career ending opportunities. That's why I said it seems like testing the waters. However, Bill Kristol criticizing Beck is definitely a step up the influential ladder. That said I do not disagree with your position that the powers that be in the GOP (say that out loud it rhymes) are not the RNC chair but instead Rush et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 That's why I said it seems like testing the waters. However, Bill Kristol criticizing Beck is definitely a step up the influential ladder.That said I do not disagree with your position that the powers that be in the GOP (say that out loud it rhymes) are not the RNC chair but instead Rush et al. Kristol doesn't really have much credibility either. He was a leading Neocon voice in favor of the Iraq war. I think all the neocons have crawled back into the shaddows. Just to demonstrate how far these folks have fallen, the Glenn Becks of this world have convinced many in the GOP that the Neocons were really liberal Democrats who infiltrated their party. Idiotic I know but many otherwise rational folks on the right believe that. Being a leading Neocon, cost Kristol a lot of moderate credibility and also credibility on the right. Taking a shot at Beck might be his attempt to climb back up on the saddle... I think they are both decietful windbags. Both use words not to inform, but to twist the meaning of what's going on for their own ideological means. If I were still on the right I would much prefer George Will, Pat Buchannon, or David Brooks messages. At least they start with reality when they puzzle out their message. Beck, Limbaugh, Kristol, and Anne Coulter are all basically different intensity settings of the same non informative shock show. What sets Limbaugh ahead of this crew is at least Limbaugh used to call himself an entertainer. Today he calls himself a "conservative strategist" and I think his success has kind of gone to his head. I remember when he was pro choice and equated himself with comedians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Glen beck's Google theory was hilarious! The guy is a great entertainer, I enjoy watching his comedy show. Only problem is that millions of American actually believe in his comedy routine -- and that's downright scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I am almost afraid to ask.. .what was his Google theory? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I am almost afraid to ask.. .what was his Google theory?~Bang Beck Google Conspiracy LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Beck sees a boogeyman in every bush......well maybe not EVERY Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.