Self-identified non-partisan Beck: Democrats taking control of Congress "sounds scary"
After previous attempts to cast himself as nonpartisan, Glenn Beck claimed on the October 26 edition of his CNN Headline News program that "[t]he reason that I mostly vote Republican is because it's been the party that most reflects my values, or has been in the past." Later in the program, Beck added that "it sounds scary, but it looks like the Democrats stand a decent chance of taking control" of Congress.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Beck also recently asserted that "[i]f Democrats are elected, we are in for two years of investigation, God forbid, impeachments, while the world is set on fire," despite previously pleading to his audience: "This November, please don't vote for a Republican. Don't vote for a Democrat. Don't vote for an independent. Vote for an American." Since September 21, Beck has asked his television audience to "vote for an American" at least five times and has repeated the catchphrase on his radio program. As Media Matters also noted, after featuring a segment in which he purported to explain why his television show "doesn't talk more about politics," Beck declared: "You get stupid people voting, you know who's president? [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA]"; he later announced that he "like[s] George W. Bush."
From the October 26 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: The reason that I mostly vote Republican is because it's been the party that most reflects my values, or has been in the past. They're fiscally conservative, strong on defense, tough on illegal immigration.
[...]
BECK: Election Day less than two weeks away. All eyes are focused on Congress, where -- I know it sounds scary, but it looks like the Democrats stand a decent chance of taking control. Oop! Was that divisive?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I can't imagine wanting to hear this guy's opinion, even if I had to deal with him at family outings. He has to be this annoying, even to his own family and friends.
Does anyone on this site ever stomach an entire Beck show? I tried watching Fox & Friends a month ago and had stomach problems all day (I kid you not.) Does anyone know someone who likes this show?
I refuse to waist my time watching TV personel. I only like talk radio. Savage and Bob Doyle all the way!
If you listen to Savage you are as uneducated as OLielly viewers and "Rushbots".
You must have a mental disorder.....
Or,
You love to stereotype.....
If you listen to O reilly or Hannity or even Savage JLyon attacks you.
JLyon is very intolerant , just like most liberals on MMFA.
I have to disagree here. JLyon is very opinionated, as we all are - but she is not intolerant of other viewpoints as others are. She is very reasonable and respectful of different opinions. She never labels people she disagrees with as trolls, as many do.
I appreciate your statement. For some reason this guy is attacking me, he is allowed his opinion of course.
Just like most trolls on MMFA
At least we liberals are not psychopathic war criminals waging war on the Bill of Rights in the name of one-party rule and world domination in the name of corporatism. Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and the rest of those talking heads are promoting pure fascism, no matter which party they claim to be from.
>>>"I only like talk radio. "<<<
....and progressive web site discussion forums.
you got me there!
It seems that this website and many here don't seem to understand the meaning of nonpartisan. It doesn't mean you don't align yourself with a particular ideology - whether it be liberal or conservative......it simply means you don't follow lock step or are registered or affiliated with a political party.
Beck may be conservative and vote Republican most of the time, but technically he could very easily be nonpartisan, meaning not a registered member of either party.
Beck's ideology or conservative stances are no surprise to anyone, least of all people here.
Your definition of what Beck is doing is pretty much THE definition of partisan. Lock-step would be described as lock-step or completely partisan. But thanks for clarifying what we already knew.
Note the "party" in "partisan". If he isn't registered R or D, then he is technically nonpartisan, despite his ideology. Minor point perhaps, but accuracy in MMFA's headlines should be paramount, not sloppy.
If that's true, he's partisan. Doesn't matter how he's registered.
You can redefine terms if you want, that doesn't make them so. You are confusing nonpartisan with nonideological - they are different for reasons already stated.
What other word definition do you want to change? How about "inane"? Let's change that to say, hmmm?, how about "well spoken, well said, prophetically speaking".
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source Partisan –noun 1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source idealogue \I*de"a*logue\, n. [Idea + -logue, as in theologue: cf. F. id['e]ologue.] One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a spectator.
Yeah I'm wrong. He's a spectator who has his own show to talk about theories and fanciful ideas. Thanks for correcting me.
Partisan definitions have nothing to do with registered party. Now please go play in the leaves and let the adults discuss Beck and his partisan views.
You mean, in your ever tolerant liberal mind, let only those that trash Beck and agree with you speak their mind? Get over it, if you don't like opposing opinions, well, too bad. If you didn't feel so threatened it wouldn't bother you, you would welcome it.
Try it, or do you not dare?
...it's just wrong. By your definition we can't call anyone partisan unless we see their voter registration form and can verify which box is checked?
Read the definition. You can call anyone anything you'd like, it means nothing. It may or may not be accurate, but that hasn't stopped you before.
Technically speaking, someone who is not a member of a party is nonpartisan. They may be opinionated, an ideologue, whatever. And I never said you couldn't call someone partisan, that is not the same thing as not calling someone nonpartisan. The meanings of them are not in direct contrast to each other.
That would be like saying black vs. nonblack. You can call refer to someone white as nonblack.
A nonpartisan can make a partisan statement.
Any sort of blind allegiance to a particular group could be considered partisanship, even if you're techinically not a member.
Perhaps Beck's statement about Democrats is technically anti-partisan. However, given that alternative is Republican control - and his history of voting Republican - his bias for Republican's is clear. That's hardly nonpartisan. [link to www.m-w.com]
But if Beck maintains he is "nonpartisan", then he would be absolutely correct in stating that if he wasn't a member of the major political parties, that's the point.
No party affiliation means nonpartisan.
...use it. You're simply making up a false definition of partisan in order to be argumentative, and then you're ignoring every post that points this out to you. By all real definitions of the word, Glenn Beck is clearly partisan.
Where in any of my posts did I define partisan? You are intentionally misleading. I defined nonpartisan, not partisan. You can argue without being deceptive, I know. Beck is partisan in the broad generalized ways, I agree.........but he can still be identified as nonpartisan in it's exact definition as well, technically speaking.
Last time I heard an argument that convincing was when Condi was in front of the 9-11 commission declaring she didn't get a plan from the Clinton admin.
So, really you're just saying that it's not inaccurate to call Beck a partisan, but it's also not inaccurate for Beck to claim non-partisanship. As usual, you've managed to be argumentative simply for the sake of being argumentative. And you've completely avoided addressing the substance of Beck's hypocrisy in the process. In fact, you've basically admitted that it doesn't even interest you. Congratulations on wasting everyone's time.
If my posts are such a waste of time, and you respond to them, then you are really in no position to lecture someone about wasting time.
Better sit this one Clams, and keep conducting that same tiresome one-note train about how anyone disagreeing here is just being argumentative. Now, that is a waste of time.
...is that it took me way too long to realize that you were simply quibbling over semantics. Forgive me for assuming that there may have actually been some substance buried somewhere in your nitpicking. I won't make the same mistake again.
If headlines posted here are factually inaccurate and it ruffles your "partisan" feathers to have that pointed out to you, then that's your problem. You want accuracy and facts from conservatives or you wouldn't be here, too bad you don't hold "your side" to the same standard.
yes that's a personal attack for wasting space arguing semantics when all you had to do was admit you're wrong.
Buh-bye.
He's obviously a partisan for fascism, so I guess your point is pointless.
Tommy Read The Title, Be A Good Republican, And Vote Your Consciense, And Vote For A Democrat!
Oversight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
.......know what your point is???
If someone is not a registered member of either the Republican or Democrat party, then by definition, that person is nonpartisan with respect to these two parties.
It's not rocket science.
That is only party affiliation. If you consistently support one party over another, then you're partisan. I'm not a registered Democrat, but I support them almost exclusively. The Republican party disgusts me. Am I non- partisan?
You are right, it is basically a semantic argument, but it is still factually correct to say someone is nonpartisan if they aren't a member of a political party. That is all I am saying. I am not talking about Beck's ideology or his integrity or anything else.
The headline here is factually and technically incorrect, that's all.
And if you are not a member of either party, then you are nonpartisan, in my opinion. You may or may not be a hack apologist or a principled liberal, but still nonpartisan.
Not registered is not synonymous with nonpartisan.
Let's see what is scary, shall we?
1. Beck with a News/Political Commentary Broadcast!!!
2. Beck with a political opinion!!
3. Somebody should think he has a clue!!
4. Beck doing a Presidential Interview!!
5. The President inviting him into the Oval Office to discuss the Message!
I could do this for a while, but the point is simple, if you get your opinions about American Politics from Mr. Beck, you need to go back to 2nd grade and finish what you started.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
claimed to be an "Independant", and Al Frankens book showed a copy of his voter registration card (public document) that showed him as a registered Republican.
that's "Independent".
I actually watched part of his very first broadcast, because I had heard some of his comments and wanted to judge for myself. He opened the program by stating that his show wasn't going to be "for" Republicans or Democrats, but would objectively examine issues of importance. He then went on to introduce a guy he described as the show's "token Democrat" and proceeded to bash Democrats. Case closed, judged "guilty" of hypocrisy, and sentenced to the channel surfing trash bin.
not O'Reilly's.
BECK: The reason that I mostly vote Republican is because it's been the party that most reflects my values, or has been in the past.
Let's see, Beck himself has admitted that in the past he was a directionless, alcoholic failure. So I think he's being quite honest here.
He hates the victims of tragedy. Yep, sounds like a Republican to me.
That does sound right. He apparently agrees with hypocrisy, adultery, corruption, homophobia, xenophobia, racism, fiscal indisicipline, starting wars based on lies and pre-existing agendas, and covering up for a child predator in order to preserve political power. It seems right on the money that he would agree with those things.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Glenn Beck actually thinks he is funny and profound. But I prefer people like him to sell me used cars and not have a following.
Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh...don't want you to hear the whole story and I know they are leaving a graveyard of stupid Americans six feet under. They will talk about a story and then never give you the follow ups. What’s up with that?
And don't forget questioning peoples' patriotism and comparing them to the terrorists, even when those people are war heroes and the people attacking them are draft-dodgers. And not listening to experienced veterans who advise you to not invade a country and then doing it anyway for whatever sick reasons. And don't forget draft-dodging. Clinton was a draft dodger as well, but he didn't get us into a quagmire. By the way, before you start screaming about Somalia, it was George Bush's father who first put U.S. Forces in Somalia, something the troglodytes love to conveniently forget.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
I always find it funny when conservatives and or republicans try to say liberals, such as myself, are compassionate and open minded, and or accept others viewpoints. Nah, if you don't agree with me, I'll try and change your mind, and if I can't, then to the garbage with you. The democratic party never said that they were all touchy feely and nice, you guys on the right hand side of the spectrum just think that is the way it is. Kind of like how republicans attack Dean for being firey, and high energy, and dismissive of republicans. Good for him. We need more leaders like him.
Clinton was not a "draft dodger." That's an urban myth that got planted by the rightwing smear machine early in his presidential campaign and came to be accepted as fact . . . the FACT is, Clinton avoided the draft through {legal} student deferments until late 1969, when he subjected himself to the lottery . . . only a high number kept him out.
As for Beck, the only thing I find scarier than his thinking Dems controlling congress is scary, is Beck continuing to run his mouth . . . well, actually I find that more comical than scary . . . what's scary is people thinking what he has to say is fact . . .
If globalization, privatization, ruthless taxation, outsourcing and foreign oil dependence are what America needs then the Republicans are the party to support.
BECK=nazi, any time I could tolerate to listen to him he made Nazi sense.
I can never understand why particular personalities like Glenn Beck are on the air. If you read his Bio you don't see any special education in social or political theory (all I can see is that he finished high-school).
If he is not on the air because of his knowledge, it must be because of his ability to entertain people or to explain current events (since his show appears to be primarily about current political events). If he has a staff that creates good insightful material that Glenn then forcefully reads on the air, then I could understand his show.
But he appears to present a lot of half-truths and distorted information. He engages in personal attacks on people he apparently does not like and sometimes comes up with some really crazy stuff about the rapture.
Since he does not really have any kind of professional reputation to protect (as either an academic or news person) I can only conclude that his value is his willingness to take positions that cast the presenter as a clown so that people will keep watching and then buy the stuff being advertised on the commercials.