About us Get email updates

Quick Clip

Print Email

Beck's Red Scare: Sotomayor appointment more evidence of a Marxist "hostile takeover" of the U.S.A.

May 28, 2009 10:33 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All

- by DAWUSS (May 28, 2009 11:09 am ET)
  7
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by solon (May 28, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
    
    I have for an avatar a picture like that but cant seem to get it from Gravatar to here.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by nerzog (May 28, 2009 11:12 am ET)
  6
  
  "I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won." - Norman Thomas.
  
  OOOOOOO....EEEEEEE! That IS a scary quote. I'm going to crawl under my bed until 5:00 tonight, when Glenn Beck will tell me why I should be so skeered.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by the Grey Path (May 28, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
    2
    
    It's too bad Beck deosn't read. He has no idea what Marxism is, either Karl or Groucho.
    
    See Marixism is ...
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by wolf kotenberg (May 28, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
      1
      
      yeah, it is crazy. I now think Mr Ailes is the real marxist here. read history and you will find the Soviet leaders picked the dumbest people to do their dirty work of oppression. I never thought I would think that in the United states but sure looks similar. I hope the saner republicans, and democrats in government, don't allow this thinking to be attached to their voting record.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by Leftym0m79 (May 28, 2009 11:19 am ET)
  7
  
  Did he just call FDR a socialist? Again, how is a 60+% approval rating a hostile takeover?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by snoopy (May 28, 2009 11:51 am ET)
    7
    
    Because it's 60% of the country deciding, not 60% of the accumulated wealth...
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by vysotsky (May 28, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
    3
    
    I think Mr. Beck just argued that democracy is inherently hostile. Can't wait for him to lead the charge against a democratically elected government. Perhaps his revolutionary army will be funded with money raised by selling Glenn Beck coffee mugs on his website?
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by nerzog (May 28, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
      2
      
      Or money from Republican Chrysler Dealers.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by dmhack (May 28, 2009 11:24 am ET)
  6
  
  Glenn Beck will be manning the barricades against the Marxist hostile takeover at the Vero Beach Laugh Factory from July 12-15.
  Come for the comedy, stay for the revolution.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by seeryer (May 28, 2009 11:27 am ET)
  7
  
  How stupid and gullible do you have to be to be a fan of this guy?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by o rly (May 28, 2009 11:38 am ET)
  3
  
  What really strikes me as odd, is that Sotomayor is really a centrist at best. In fact she has a corporate history that should greatly appeal to all these neocons! She is definitely no flaming leftie.
  
  It just shows that EVERYTHING in the right wing media is a complete knee jerk reaction, with no ties to reality. Totally bizarre that they're fighting her tooth and nail, when they should be thanking their lucky stars they don't have to contend with a real progressive. Which we DESPERATELY need, to balance out the hard right wingers on the court.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by pete592 (May 28, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
    1
    
    Thom Hartmann cut through the nonsense on his radio show after he had a chance to look at her judicial record. He has very strong reservations about her tendency to rule in favor of corporations.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by NiceguyEddie (May 28, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
      1
      
      I know!!! I'm actually a bit disappointed that Obama nominated someone so CONSERVATIVE!!!
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by historygeek001 (May 28, 2009 1:54 pm ET)
        1
        
        So am I. We seem to operate under the idea that all SCOTUS justices must either be extreme hard right or centrist. This is ridiculous.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by magnolialover (May 28, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
        2
        
        I know someone else wrote this before, but if I had known all of the hyperventilating these folks were going to do about this nomination, he should have gone ahead and nominated a real liberal to the bench.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by wolf kotenberg (May 28, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
        1
        
        could have been me, I am available .............grin.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by NiceguyEddie (May 29, 2009 7:58 am ET)
        1
        
        Which is what he's likely to do NEXT TIME if [the pub's] are basically going to dig in their heels no matter who he nominates. It's likely he'll appoint at least one more in four years, two in eight. Problem is that it's also liely that he'll be replaceing votes on the liberal side:
        
        Stevens: 89 years old
        Ginsberg: 76 (health issues)
        Scalia: 73
        Kennedy: 72
        Breyer: 70
        Souter: 69 (reitiring)
        Thomas: 60
        Alito: 59
        Roberts: 54
        
        We'll be stuck with 3 of the 4 conservatives for the next 15-20 years barring one getting struck by lightning. Though it would be nice to get rid opf Scalia (Pesident Clinton might name HIS replacement.) And/or replace Kennedy with a more reliably liberal vote.
        
        In truth, at the end of the day, I'd rather have 3-7 true "swing votes" and no more than true 1-3 liberals and 1-3 true conservatives voting in blocks. But given the reality of the court's current makeup, I'd much rather have strong liberal activists on the bench than the strong conservtaive activists we've got now.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by historygeek001 (May 29, 2009 11:45 am ET)
        1
        
        It would definitely be nice to have a strong liberal voice on the bench, and I'm simultaneously hoping that it will happen and pessimistic enough to doubt it.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
  - by NiceguyEddie (May 28, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
    3
    
    You got it! They scripted and reherearsed their opposition so well that they went and used it without realizing that they were WAAAY off base. The problem is that they believe their own BS when it comes to Obama (most liberal senator, socilist, radical, angry black, etc...) and so now that's all they can see. And they see this pick as an extension of that, facts and evidence be damned. They're fools, trying to fool fools into following fools.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by big2xrube6146 (May 28, 2009 11:42 am ET)
  2
  
  BS
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by wolf kotenberg (May 28, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
  3
  
  What is the reason FOX has this guy on tv ? What is Roger Ailes trying to accomplish here ?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by tbone (May 28, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
    2
    
    Profits. Since Fox News gave up (mostly) on actual "News" years ago, I can only surmise that pandering to the 20%ers is profitable.
    
    "The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." John Lawton
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by sluggo (May 29, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
      1
      
      This is the central point.
      
      Think about it, if you were selling something on the TV and you wanted an audience that lacked fundamental reasoning skills (who were willing to buy things like the "Wonder Saw" that cuts through anything or the "ESP Pet Communicator" so they could talk with their cat), could you ask for a better audience than those people that watch Beck?
      
      Reply Report Abuse
  - by the Grey Path (May 28, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
    2
    
    Cause CNN finally fired him.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by tman418 (May 28, 2009 8:52 pm ET)
      1
      
      He should have been fired for asking Keith Ellison "Prove to me you're not working with our enemies".
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by open_mind (May 28, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
  2
  
  By conservative reasoning: If you quote George Orwell, you are a socialist. If you quote Ayn Rand, you are an Atheist. If you use a quote often attributed to V.I. Lenin such as calling someone a "useful idiot", then you must be a communist. If you quote anything in the Old Testament or even Jesus Himself (in the NT), you must be a Jew.
  
  Gee, you guys are freaking brilliant.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by magnolialover (May 28, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
    2
    
    Come on man, you know they love the "guilt by association" tactic, even though it hardly ever works.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by tman418 (May 28, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
    1
    
    Isn't Ayn Rand the girl who wrote that conservative book in the 1950s that experienced an up in sales after Obama became president?
    
    Sorry if I'm wrong, it just sounds familiar.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by Luis81 (May 28, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
  3
  
  The only hostile takeover I can think of is that of the airwaves by conservative talk radio.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by jduran4007681 (May 28, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
  2
  
  i doubt he works too long on anything he says cause then hed find out its all bs
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by quiff1 (May 28, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
  2
  
  A hostil takeover? Anything and everything is better than the Traitors who ruled our country for eight years. We must try BUSH. CHANEY, WOLFOWITZ, PEARLE and RUMSFELD as war criminals. They killed and maimed thousands of american military personnel. Thousand upon thousands of Iraqies and Afganie civilians for oil. They must be tried. They are as guilty as the NAZIS in Nurenberh
  President Obamma please set up a commision to investigate 911 and its ramifications.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by blesscurse (May 28, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
  3
  
  Glenn Beck is a deranged amalgam of Father Coughlin, Joe McCarthy (not the one on Facebook), Robert W. Welch Jr., and Jimmy Swaggart, combining the Paranoid Style in American Politics with some bizarre perversion of 12-step dogma.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by mescal (May 29, 2009 5:36 am ET)
    1
    
    You said it, BC. The Rancid Doughboy is the modern voice of fascism.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by nativeofsf (May 28, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
  3
  
  It is most shocking, the level of listener dullards, who actually strive to believe the horse-dung this bloviating zit orally excretes daily.
  
  Reply Report Abuse

Fox's Bolling Hypes Flawed Heritage Study To Pit "The Takers" Against "The Makers"
February 09, 2012 7:53 pm ET
Fox's Gutfeld: "The Oval Office Is Becoming The View. What's Next? They're Gonna Have Lamaze Classes There"
February 09, 2012 7:11 pm ET
Hannity: "If You're Not Gonna Be Responsible For Your Behavior," Don't Expect Religious People To "Fund Your Lifestyle"
February 09, 2012 7:05 pm ET
Hannity Stands By His Point: If Obama "Had His Way, No Gitmo, No Rendition, No Enhanced Interrogation, No Bin Laden"
February 09, 2012 6:05 pm ET
Rush On Obama's Mortgage Plan: "There's A Racial Component," Poor Minorities Vs. Wall Street Bankers
February 09, 2012 3:29 pm ET
"The Possibility Exists": Loesch Agrees With Caller That Soros, Occupy Could Force "Martial Law" If Obama Is Losing Election
February 09, 2012 2:33 pm ET


	Username or Email Password Forgot your password? or Create An Account Email Username (required, for posting on forums) Zip Code Click here to subscribe to Media Matters action alerts and newsletters. or Log in to an existing account

RSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

© 2012 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.