Beck wouldn't vote for Lieberman for president "because of the way the Middle East would use it"
On the May 10 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, CNN host Glenn Beck said that he "wouldn't vote for [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT] as president ... because of the way the Middle East would use it," but also asserted, "That's not saying the same thing as I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president." He did not explain the distinction he drew between asserting that he would not vote for Lieberman, who is Jewish, and asserting that he wouldn't vote for any Jew for president. He stated that although he believes Lieberman "knows how to fight this war," and "even if I didn't disagree with him on so many social issues," he would refrain from voting for him because of the "complications it would add in this country or on the planet right now."
From the May 10 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
CALLER: You know, we were just having this conversation yesterday about -- with some friends of mine. None of us really could care less. I've met some Mormons --
BECK: Look. Look, [caller], here's the thing. It is -- this is the epitome of bigoted thinking by saying that you won't vote for somebody because they're a Mormon. It is the epitome of bigoted -- can you imagine if I said, "I won't vote for somebody because they're a Jew"? "I won't vote for them because they're a Muslim"? Can you imagine coming out and saying that? And yet, it's OK in America to say that I, "I won't vote for them because they're a Mormon." It's bigoted.
Now, I have said on this program, "I would not vote for Joe Lieberman as president of the United States." I think Joe Lieberman knows how to fight this war. I think Joe Lieberman really gets it. However, even if I didn't disagree with him on so many social issues, I wouldn't vote for Joe Lieberman at this time because of the complications it would add in this country or on the planet right now because of the way the Middle East would use it. That's not saying the same thing as I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president. And yet, people can get away with that.
But again, let me go back. This discussion -- [Rev.] Al Sharpton is a genius! Because what are we talking about? We're talking about whether you'd vote for a Mormon or not. The question is, Al Sharpton said Mormons aren't Christians. Mitt Romney said that's a bigoted remark. What does Al Sharpton do? He says, "Well, I stand by that they're bigoted. They are bigot -- now that he's used that word. They are bigoted." Instead of apologizing. Who's talking about Al Sharpton? This guy's a genius. Is anybody talking about Al Sharpton? No. Huh-uh. Huh-uh. Talking about Mitt Romney and whether or not you'd vote for a Mormon. It's incredible. Just incredible.
So among his many faults, Beck is an appeaser.
Exactly!! Beck is 'backing down' from the war on terror by not voting a competent person in... he is doing EXACTLY what the enemy wants, people!! Wake up!
It's lucky for him that Leiberman ISN"T RUNNING for president. Otherwise, he'd have to vote for the Democrat instead.
Nice one.
I've said all along that conservatives are more concerned with the thinking of Al Qaida than they are with what's best for this country.
Except when it came to Iraq. In that, they played completely into the hands of militant muslim propaganda by dutifully invading.
Figure that one out.
According to the Constitution, there shall not be a religious test for any elected Governmental office in the country.
I will never vote for a Republican for anything, but religion sure isn't on my list of reasons why.
One's personal voting criteria is not what the Constitution is talking about.
Now, if the FEC came out and said Jews couldn't run for president, I'd be with you.
Bush uses his Christainity and hears God telling him to do things, Beck! Religion, on its own, complicates the world too much, no matter which one it is...
Bush and Beck and everybody are muslims. Everybody is born a muslim, that is man's natural state. Muslims love all people and we wish the world to be at peace.
Well of course Beck is saying he wouldn't vote for a Jewish candidate. How else could his saying he couldn't vote for Lieberman because of the *problems* that might ensue in the Middle East be interpreted any other way?
A bigoted comment to be sure, but also probably with a degree of truth to it.
Sharpton, is a bigot. No if, ands, or buts. But he'll skate away basically unscathed...as he has many times in the past.
I agree Jeter
Sharpton(in my mind) is only a tad away from being considered a black supremesist. He makes a nasty comment towards a man's religion that was totally innappropriate. However, I see very few people on the right condemning James Dobson for saying that Mormonism is a cult. It seems like a double standard to me....
However, I see very few people on the right condemning James Dobson for saying that Mormonism is a cult. It seems like a double standard to me
Excellent point Barry [BTW great to see you back posting]
I wonder if Romney has challenged Dobson or any on the Religious Right that have made disparaging remarks about the Mormon Church.
If Sharpton is being criticized, then they should be also.
Jeter, honestly, you know why Sharpton doesn't take more heat from the left? Because he's considered almost a non-entity. I'm not saying he's a bad man, and, in fact, despite his occasionally offensive remarks sometimes I enjoy hearing some things he says; B aL Sharpton does little of any real importance or has any real power. It's his job to champion African Alerican-related causes... and that upsets some people. But it always puzzles me why the right takes Al Sharpton so seriously and gets so upset. (And, BTW, Don Imus and his sponsors brought Don Imus down... not Al Sharpton.) Sharpton's constituency is smaller than you think... he's on TV a lot because he's entertaining to some.
Jeeeeesus, I've got to get my eyes checked... ;>)
Sorry for all the typos.
you know why Sharpton doesn't take more heat from the left? Because he's considered almost a non-entity.
aL Sharpton does little of any real importance or has any real power
Irony, I gotta disagree with you here. Wasn't it just this past April that the Democratic nominees all made sure they attended & spoke at Al's annual [National Action Network] conference? If he was that unimportant or a "non-entity", I doubt they would have ALL fit his conference into their schedules. The man, for better or worse does hold more that a bit of sway with the Democratic Party.
Now I like Al...most of the time. He's interesting, intelligent, and entertaining. Makes a great guest on TV. Even Fox welcomes him with open arms.
Al is also a bigot, and a race baiter. And should, like others be called out for that behavior, just like anyone from the Right would be.
I agree. I have often thought it wise for candidates to distance themselves from Sharpton. Sharpton knows how to give a good speech, but the downsides are too huge. The lack of proper judgement/wisdom is apparent in the man.
The Tawana Brawley(sp?) and recent bigoted remarks should remind politicians and the public that Sharpton (and probably his organization) should be condemned and avoided.
"...the Democratic nominees all made sure they attended & spoke at Al's annual [National Action Network] conference?"
I know... but that's kind of an obligatory base they all have to touch. I understand and agree with much of what you're saying about Sharpton. My point, or my opinion, rather, is that Sharpton is overrated. He makes a lot of noise... that's his job. But I don't think he got as much stroke in the black community as some people think. I still like to listen to him now and then... sometimes he makes sense and he's on the correct side of some issues, But then other times he's just trying to get attention. Just my two cents...
You are correct; it's the power (politicians-media) elite that gives Sharpton his status. There is no one person or no two people who speak for the entire Black community. Sharpton can't apologize for me or accept an apology on my behalf. The fact that there seems to be some who believe that we Blacks must have an all powerful leader that speaks on our behalf amazes me and it seems that Sharpton or Jackson have been designated as the go to guys when there is a Black problem. Many AAs resent this even though we often come to Sharpton’s-Jackson’s defense when the same people that prop them up start beating up on them. By the way, who is the leader of the White community? Isn’t the mere idea that there is a single or a couple of leaders that speak for all White people is utterly ridiculous? Obviously there are times when Sharpton's concerns will be shared by the AA community at large and we take advantage of the celebrity that the power elite has granted him. His celebrity can help shed light on a problem, but often Sharpton’s presence overshadows the issue we’re concerned about, and it becomes all about Sharpton and what he said 2o years ago. He’s a double edged sword. The powers that be have propped up Sharpton to the level where he is and it is them that sustain him. They keep him featured prominently in the limelight that he so obviously enjoys.
"By the way, who is the leader of the White community?"
I believe that would be Dr. Phil. But even he has to answer to Oprah.
Actually, Romney himself stated that even though it sounded inappropriate and wrong, he didn't believe that Sharpton meant it that way.
He makes a nasty comment towards a man's religion that was totally innappropriate. However, I see very few people on the right condemning James Dobson for saying that Mormonism is a cult.
No double standard. Mormonism is not Christian and Mormonism is a cult. Why would people on the right condemn two factual statements? Check out Mormon beliefs on Jesus, I think you'll find they are not Christian. And check any definition of the word cult and Mormonism will fit perfectly into that description.
But, that's another good try at condemning Christianity and Christian leaders by the liberals.
But you have a problem with Al Sharpton saying that Mormons aren't Christians?
See if you can follow me here, AUTOPSYCHOTIC. The issue is NOT whether Mormonism is or is not a christian religion. The issue is that the people who beat All Sharpton over the head for his comments, then FAIL to treat right-wingers the same way for making the same type of comments. Glad I could clear that up for ya. BTW, if that wasn't clear enough, go back and read it again, SLOWLY.
The funny part is that you go to all the trouble to C/P a quote, and then go off in a TOTALLY different direction with your rebuttal. NURSE, my head hurts.
I love how he says, "Can you imagine coming out and saying that?" right before he comes right out and says it.
yeah, he wouldn't say he won't vote for him because he's a jew, but because he's a jew he won't vote for him because of what would happen. In a different country. That doesn't matter to us come election time, because they can't make a difference in what we want in a president...
All people are born as muslims. That is your natural state. We get away from that state when we become 'worldly' and our egos and desires get the best of us. Jihad is returning to our natural state of being. Muslims and Jews are the same as everyone is muslim at heart. Peace.
That's kinda like, "I wouldn't say it, but SOME SAY".
oy veh
As much as MMFA hates Lieberman, I thought they would be happy Beck wouldn't vote for him.
Where do you get your information? I disagree with him about this war, but I've voted for him quite a few times.
With the exception of the war, in the past, he's been pretty good to his constituents.
It isn't all about love and hate, black and white, on and off, yes or no. Life is not as simple as all of that.
Life IS that simple when you're a non-thinking conservative.....
I wouldn't vote for Lieberman at this time because of the complications it would add in this country or on the planet right now because of they way the Middle East would use it"
Hey Beck did you consider this when you cast your vote for junior in 2000 and again in 2004?
Junior is jewish???
No... but, you see,Bush is a Christian and the Muslims and Christians have been fighting for like a very long time. I think I read that in a history book somewhere... ;>)
All Christians and all man is muslim.. we are all born muslims them sometimes deviate.. goal of Jihiad is personal struggle to become muslim.
***THIS JUST IN***
Joe Liberman has just announced that he wouldn't vote for Glenn Beck, either... even if Beck was Jewish.
***MORE JUST IN***
This is incredible...!
Ayman al-Zawahiri has just released a new video in which he says that he wouldn't vote for Glenn Beck even if he pledged jihad against America.
And Rosie O'Donnel has just said (shouted, actually) that she wouldn't vote for Glenn Beck even if he presented a one-hour special on CNN proving that Bush masterminded 9/11.
Barney Frank announced he wouldn't vote for Beck even if he was gay... and available.
Even Bush said he wouldn't vote for Glenn Beck... even if he knew who Glenn Beck was.
Why is everybody so down on Glenn Beck?
***WAIT, THERE'S MORE***
Al Gore's office has just issued a statement saying that the former Vice-President WOULD vote for Glenn Beck... because, aside from himself, Beck has presented the most convincing presentation yet that removes any doubt of the existence of global warming.
Glenn, you serve a great purpose in life... even if it's just as an example of how vacuous cable news shows are.
This just in!
I pressed play to hear Beck's rant and all I got was this awful headache.
Several times I've called Glen Beck a dumbf*ck's dumbf*ck.
I want to take this opportunity to sincerly apologize to all of the our nation's dumbf*ck's.
Apology accepted... ;>)
Why would you want to abologise to Beck's viewers, M? No offence to you Irony, you can no more speak for the DFs than Beck can speak for us.
My point is, Uneasyone, that Glen Beck is NOT a dumbf*ck's dumbf*ck... as DUMBF*CK IS A MANTLE TO WHICH BECK COULD ONLY ASPIRE!
Now, I would agree that his viewers ARE dumbf*ck's, but that's another post entirely.
wouldn't vote for [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT] as president ... because of the way the Middle East would use it," but also asserted, "That's not saying the same thing as I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president."
Here folks, is the "Beckspeak" for the rightwing & conservatively challenged......repeat after me....can you say...
R-A-T-I-N-G-S !!!
I must admit, this is pretty clever. As others have pointed out, Beck is saying that he can't vote for Liebermann because he's a Jew, then denies that it's because he's a Jew, then berates Al Sharpton for being a religious bigot. I would think that even his Troglodyte viewers are scratching their heads over this one.
This guy is a hopeless putz, but clever, nonetheless.
ERP....no, they would not recognize it for what it is, evidenced by thier continued support of the unsupportable. You give the Beck listeners and viewers way too much credit.
Then again, Nerzog, Beck's troglodyte viewers ALWAYS do a lot of scratching... though not always on their heads.
The best part of this, I think, is that Beck loves calling others Nazis.
Clinton supports universal healthcare? That's like eugenics, she's a Nazi!
Global warming? Goebbels would be proud!
Voting for a Jew? Not on your life.
Beck makes bigoted comments. I think you all should breath a little bit though...this was actually an attempt for Beck to own up to past statements and clarify them in terms of what he was discussing there.
What Beck was saying was that he didn't think voting for a pro-occupation Jewish man would be best for our image in the Middle East. That's not bigoted...it's the truth. Lieberman is Jewish. The Israelis are mostly Jewish. Lieberman is pro-occupation, an occupation that is wildly unpopular in the Middle East. Beck is using common sense and not being bigoted in any way.
If Russians hated black people, even though it's racist on their part, would it be good sense to appoint an African-American as Ambassador to Russia? I think not.
So by using that logic, it would be safe to assume that Beck might support a Bin Laden presidency?
You've either completely missed the logic, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I missed NOTHING. You basically said (speaking on behalf of Beck) that having a jewish president would piss off the middle east extremists. So it follows, logically, that Beck might support Bin Laden. I CLAIM the point.
That's not what I said at all. I said that I believe Beck was stating that electing a President who could be conceived as Pro-Israel and Pro-Occupation, true or not true, would not be the best idea at this point. Other points that make you wrong and me right:
1. Israel and the Iraq occupation is widely unpopular in the Middle East, not just among "extremists".
2. Bin Laden is not some popular figurehead among the mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, so supporting him for president (besides the fact that he is a terrorist mastermind) wouldn't make any more sense.
3. See the analogy I made in my original post.
4. Beck did not say he wouldn't now/wouldn't ever vote for a Jew. Just that Lieberman's Jewishness, along with his other political characteristics, makes Beck believe that he wouldn't be the best for Middle East relations.
The Bin Laden thing was just nonsense, and you know it. You don't like Beck, I defended him, you went off on some crazy notion based on an incorrect interpretation of the logic I used.
Whatever? I was being a little tounge-in-cheek there. Maybe YOU should just BREATHE A LITTLE. I have to go take a Tylenol.
BTW, the mercy on my soul reference, WTF? I'm an agnostic dyslexic with a sleep disorder. I lie awake at night, wondering if there IS a dog.
I was trying to keep it light. That mercy on your soul reference is from "Billy Madison" a la Adam Sandler.
"If Russians hated black people, even though it's racist on their part, would it be good sense to appoint an African-American as Ambassador to Russia? I think not. - dexteritas0071418 / Friday May 11, 2007 10:39:53 AM"
There is a world of difference between choosing an ambassador who has to interface daily with a particular nationality -- in which case at least considering the preferences/prejudices of that country might be apt -- and electing a president who is supposed to represent our nation as a whole. Many countries are still rather mysogynistic in their outlook, but we have had two women Secretaries of State at this point. Are you of the opinion that we should put a stop to this practice until women are accepted as equals in Saudi Arabia? We have also had two black SoS's. Should we discontinue this in fear of insulting your hypothetical version of Russia?
I definitely understand where you're coming from. "Being black" in my Russian analogy was meant to compare to being "Jewish, pro-israel, pro-occupation" to the Middle East.
Again, you can disagree with Beck that Lieberman's religion wouldn't be the straw to break the camel's back in Middle East relations, but his comment wasn't bigoted.
"I definitely understand where you're coming from. 'Being black' in my Russian analogy was meant to compare to being "Jewish, pro-israel, pro-occupation" to the Middle East."
I understood your analogy, though Beck's comments seemed to be based on Lieberman's religion (generically speaking) being potentially offensive to the Middle East, not his positions on Iraq and Israel per se. I'm willing to at least cede that his statements are open to alternative interpretations though.
To reiterate my original concern with your post, I felt that substituting "ambassador," which has a narrow function, for "president" which has a far wider scope was not the most apt of analogies. Not voting for a person for president based on the calculation that what-they-are (in terms of race, religion, etc.) might be offensive to constituents in another country seems an extremely poor basis on which to choose a national leader. To my above list of Secretaries of State, I'd have to add Henry Kissinger, who was in power during a period, like now, in which there was no love lost for Israel in the Middle East. My own extreme personal distaste for Kissinger aside, I would never have suggested that his religion should have disqualified him from the job.
"Again, you can disagree with Beck that Lieberman's religion wouldn't be the straw to break the camel's back in Middle East relations, but his comment wasn't bigoted."
I for one wasn't arguing that Beck's statement was inherently anti-semitic, but Beck does have a track record of lumping all Muslims into one basket, so religious intolerance is not exactly out-of-the-question when discussing Beck.
I appreciate the discussion. Have a nice day.
If policy were the reason Beck wouldn't vote for Lieberman he could have come right out and said it, instead of dealing in imprecise language. He would also, from all he's ever said, not vote for a gentile who didn't support the occupation. Furthermore, since no politician who doesn't support Israel has a snowball's chance of capturing the nomination of either party, that can't be the policy difference.
You've mounted a spirited, but specious, defense. The jerk doesn't deserve it.
So, if I say that I can't vote for Romney because he believes looney religious stuff, and the terrorists will consider him someone who is easily fooled...does that make me a religious bigot, or just "careful"?
I don't think one comment makes anyone anything, so if you made a comment like this (which is a bit bigoted), I still wouldn't say "Nerzog the bigot."
But I think there's a difference between stating "Romney is a Mormon" and "Romney has loony religious beliefs." I also don't think there's enough evidence of Middle Easterners trying to take advantage of "looney religious leaders" to compare it to the proven statistical unpopularity of Israeli Middle East policy among Middle Easterners in general.
Point taken, but both are basing the decision on how our "enemies" will perceive the person in question. Is that how we want to choose our leaders? How long before Beck says we shouldn't vote for Hillary because the terrorists don't respect women?
Fair point, but this is a slippery slope, and a good area for liberal "gray area" analysis =>
Nerz, you'd have to admit (I can't speak for you personally) that more than one poster on this site who is anti-Beck also despises Bush/US unpopularity in the world right now too. Being anti- "do or don't do based on non-American's opinion" is a bit disingenous coming from those people.
Maybe so. Will you agree that anyone who supports Bush has little credibility when expressing concern about how our leaders are perceived overseas? Using that yardstick, I think Liebermann would be a vast improvement over the current White House occupant.
I'll just agree that Lieberman would be an improvement.
"If Russians hated black people, even though it's racist on their part, would it be good sense to appoint an African-American as Ambassador to Russia? I think not." --dexteritas
By your reasoning, the Brooklyn Dodgers never would have played Jackie Robinson for fear of offending the fans (which predictably happened).
It is one thing to respect superficial customs of some of these countries as a sign of respect. We do not have a similar obligation to further enable their bigotry by allowing that bigotry to influence our selection for president.
No. Again, I've explained more than once that I considered Beck's clarification part of a the total Lieberman package that wouldn't be the "best" idea.
Well then I disagree with you. Even if it is part of the package, it is enabling bigotry.
In case you don't remember, we elected a wildly unpopular president with the rest of the world last election cycle. Since when does Beck make decisions on support for a presidential candidate based on how well the candidate will be received around the world?
Beck is a hypocrite if he even places a minute amount of importance on what other people/nations think (especially with regards to religion), since it seems he didn't mention any of those concerns last election when they were arguably just as relevant.
The funny thing about people is that they take Becks statement but they don't look at how many times he has supported Lieberman and said we need more politicians like Lieberman. I know plenty of Dems who won't vote for a president that is very religious.
"I wouldn't vote for Joe Lieberman at this time because of the complications it would add in this country or on the planet right now because of the way the Middle East would use it. That's not saying the same thing as I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president."
So, Beck, you'd consider voting for a Jew for president once, what? Israel has been accepted by "the Middle East"? That's very forward thinking of you.
The president could be a Reformed, anti-zionist Jew who would handle terrorism firmly but reject the Iraq occupation.
For Beck though, he'd also have to be a social, economic and environmental conservative. Good luck with that one.
So if Lieberman became President, according to Beck his Jewness would agitate the Middle East so he wouldn't vote for him but it's not because he's Jewish. Perfect circular conservative logic.
No, my opinion is that Beck is factoring in more than Lieberman's "Jewishness" in saying that he couldn't support him for president. His religion would definitely be a notable factor.
IMO, anyone who uses religion as any basis for excluding a presidential candidate is either being a bigot or at best enabling bigotry.
It is like the old argument that you shouldn't vote for a black candidate, because they will only be assassinated. If it isn't directly racist, it is enabling racism.
I just really think the reason Beck mentioned that he would vote for a Jew, despite that he won't for Lieberman, meant that he thinks the Middle East couldn't get over the total package of Lieberman's policies and personal characteristics. Don't blame Beck for some middle easterners not being able to draw a line between "Jewish" and "Israel."
I blame Beck for enabling that bigotry through his rationalizations.
"Don't blame Beck for some middle easterners not being able to draw a line between 'Jewish' and 'Israel.'"
Maybe, but Beck himself seems to have trouble distinguishing between a Muslim congressman and the terrorists. He also confuses Gore with Hitler and innocent civilians with terrorists (when he called for nuking the "entire Middle East" if terrorists took over). You seem to be giving Beck's latest statements a nuanced benefit of the doubt. That is your right, certainly, but I'd suggest in light of his past comments that he doesn't deserve your spirited defense.
If Beck thinks we shouldn't elect a Jew (Zionist, hawk or otherwise) because it might play poorly in the Middle East, I wonder how he squares this with his threatening Muslims in this country with staring out "through razor wire" if they are not acceptably vocal in condemning terror. Beck has done his own share of fanning the very flames that he purports to fear a Lieberman Presidency would provoke.
But....have we ever had a president who wasn't pro Israel? A Pro-Israel Christian is acceptable, but a Pro-Israel Jew is not? Since the only difference is their religion, how is it not discrimination based on religion?
Straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back?
Wow, this is ones JUICY:
Evidence - Beck doesn't support a candidate because his religion is the same as a people who are the sworn enemy of our "enemy" that we are fighting...
By neo-con logic, we conclude that:
Becks is appeasing the "enemy" of our enemy
Thus, I am justified in saying the following:
Beck is a America-Hating, treasonous, Hypocritical Anti-Semite, who doesn't support our troops. By making his comments ON A NATIONAL TV PROGRAM, he is clearly emboldening the enemy to follow us home and shake our hands for supporting them... and then suicide bomb us to kingdom come...
Just sayin...
Don't think Rush or Hannity could say anything negative about your analysis.
I find it interesting that when liberals express concern over what the people of the Middle East think, as in "why they hate us" or "why they don't want us to kill their children and bomb their homes", the troglodytes accuse us of being "soft on terror". Yet, they get all appoplectic about what the Terrorists might think? Go figure.
Hey DTRAIN, that hurt my brain. But I kinda liked it.
correction:
Beck is trying to appease our enemies in this war on terror.
Thus, I am Justified......
hey almost forgot:
</ultra-convenient satirical parody of ultra-conservative logic>
A war is as much about image as it is about brute strength. If your enemy thinks you are weak because of who you have in command he will become more bold in his attacks and many more will die.
I am not disagreeing or agreeing with MR. Beck but it is a valid point.
<ultra-convenient satirical parody of ultra-conservative logic>
A war is as much about image as it is about brute strength. If your enemy thinks you are weak because of who you have in command he will become more bold in his attacks and many more will die.
i'm sorry wha?? All of our presidents have been PRO-ISRAEL and israel has won every war they have ever fought! I think any islamofacist terrorist would be shaking in their boots if a zionist took the American presidency. So you think that now its necessary to appease the enemy as to not NOT embolden them? You sir are a traitor and are denigrating strength and will of the troops.
I am not disagreeing or agreeing with MR. Beck but it is a valid point
supporting Becks radical and irresponsible policy of appeasing the enemy is agreeing and is quite unpatriotic of you.
</ultra-convenient satirical parody of ultra-conservative logic>
dammit, "not NOT"? when the hell did I type that!!