Despite his own interview with Rep. Ellison, Beck asked, "[W]hy are we going to a candidate and asking about religion?"
During the December 6 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, anchor Diane Sawyer hosted the Southern Baptist Convention's Rev. Richard Land and CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck to discuss voter attitudes toward Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. In responding to Sawyer's question about whether Romney's speech, scheduled for later that day, titled "Faith in America," will, in Sawyer's words, "get it done," Beck, a Mormon, replied: "First of all, why are we going to a candidate and asking about religion? Who cares?" But Beck himself has challenged a politician "about religion." As Media Matters for America documented, on the November 14, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck said to then-Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who, that year, became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress: "OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " He added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
Beck later stated that his comments to Ellison were "poorly worded" and "wish[ed]" he "could take back and rephrase," as Media Matters noted.
Additionally, as Media Matters further documented, on the May 10 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck stated 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 what he says would be the reaction in the Middle East to electing Lieberman, who is Jewish, would prevent him from voting for Lieberman, and asserting that he wouldn't vote for a Jew for president. Beck 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 November 14 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: History was made last Tuesday when Democrat Keith Ellison got elected to Congress, representing the great state of Minnesota. Well, not really unusual that Minnesota would elect a Democrat. What is noteworthy is that Keith is the first Muslim in history to be elected to the House of Representatives. He joins us now.
Congratulations, sir.
ELLISON: How you doing, Glenn? Glad to be here.
BECK: Thank you. I will tell you, may I -- may we have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards face up on the table?
ELLISON: Go there.
BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.
With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
ELLISON: Well, let me tell you, the people of the Fifth Congressional District know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There's no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don't need to -- need to prove my patriotic stripes.
BECK: I understand that. And I'm not asking you to. I'm wondering if you see that. You come from a district that is heavily immigrant with Somalians. And I think it's wonderful, honestly, I think it is really a good sign that you are a -- you could be an icon to show Europe, this is the way you integrate into a country. I think the Somalians coming out and voting is a very good thing. With that --
ELLISON: I'd agree with you.
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.
From the December 6 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
SAWYER: First question to the two of you: As we know, there are polls that show, a quarter to a third of Americans say -- say? -- admit they are troubled by something about Mormons. And 25 percent of Americans, 36 percent of evangelicals, say they will not vote for a Mormon to be in the White House. This is my question to you. And I'll start with you Dr. Land. Is he changing? Does Mitt Romney changing with these words the way these people are gonna feel?
LAND: I think he'll change some minds. I've been encouraging the governor for over a year to give a speech about this issue and to try to do what John Kennedy did in 1960. John Kennedy came to Houston and gave a magnificent speech in which he said, "I'm not the Catholic candidate for president, I'm the Democratic Party's candidate for president." And he said: "I want to -- what should be important is the vision I believe in for America, not my faith." And I think that the governor needs to give a speech in which he can close this deal for many, many, many people. I don't think that his Mormonism is a deal-breaker for most Americans, but only Mitt Romney can close the deal in the same way that Senator Kennedy was the only one that could close the deal.
SAWYER: But Dr. Land, let me ask you a yes-or-no question: Do you consider Mormons Christians?
LAND: No, I do not. I think that if you look at their doctrine of God the Father and their doctrine of God the Son, The Doctrines [sic] and Covenants, which is one of their sacred texts, says, "As man now is, God once was; and as God now is, man may become."
SAWYER: OK, let me bring in Glenn Beck on it.
LAND: For Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, no historic Christian faith would say that about God the Father.
SAWYER: Glenn Beck --
BECK: I would tell you, Richard, I --
SAWYER: -- is the speech today going to get it done? And you respond?
BECK: Yeah. Well, first of all, let me just say to Richard, I love you, Richard, but Jesus and I are going to be having a couple conversations today 'cause Jesus is my savior and I happen to be Mormon. But, with that being said, when the media decides they're going to ask [Sen.] Orrin Hatch [R-UT] or they're going to ask [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] about their religion, and what role it's going to play, you let me know. This is the biggest non-issue I've ever heard. First of all, why are we going to a candidate and asking about religion? Who cares? If you really -- America, you really want to know about Mormons? Believe me, ask a Mormon. You won't be able to shut 'em up about it.
SAWYER: Well, but let me ask you -- let me ask you, Glenn --
BECK: Seriously, they'll send the bikes and everything else.
SAWYER: Just tackle this with Americans out there asking some of these things that you hear about. OK, Jesus will come back, but come back to Missouri, that Mormons believe in -- you can tackle all this -- that Mormons believe that Mormon -- that the Latter-Day Saints are the true church and that the Book of Mormon really is the completed version of the Bible. What about all this?
BECK: Here's -- Diane, here's -- I mean, you know, here we go in 40 seconds. I'm not the defender of the faith by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm a relatively intelligent man. First of all, the Pilgrims came here because they thought New Jerusalem was going to be set up in America. Read their own diaries. The other is -- well, I'm sorry. What -- the other one was that --
SAWYER: The question of the completed Bible is the Book of Mormon --
BECK: Oh, yeah.
SAWYER: -- that the Bible's not complete.
BECK: If you look at the way -- yeah, if you look at the way the Bible was put together, it has been edited over and over and over again. It doesn't mean that it is not -- it is not, itself, the word of God. We absolutely believe it's the word of God.
Here's what -- here's the way Mormons believe on other faiths. And I think we should all kind of adopt this kind of a view. We all have puzzle pieces. And if everybody would stop guarding their one puzzle piece and say, "This is the only true picture," we would be a lot better off. Because we'd be able to look at each other's pictures and see how they fit together and say, "Oh, my gosh! What a full, rich picture of God."
Anyone who thinks that this defense against religious questions is lopsided, and has only been demonstrated for politicians on the right, is obviously wishing for the destruction of the Republican party.
(Just summarizing Tommy's future posts in advance, cause, no joke, that's what he said to me in the Chris Matthews thread on this same topic.)
The "no joke" is that you took what I am saying about blind partisanship completely out of context......but whatever.
Make your point here, if you have one.
"I am far more interested in the country as a whole than the health and vibrancy of one party, and the destruction of another."
It's hard to take that direct quote out of context.
And of course my point is that I am agreeing with MMFA's catch on a double standard. For some reason, Democrats can be questioned on their religious beliefs, and not Republicans. Is this because Democrats have been painted (falsely, of course) with a more fragile belief system? I don't know. I know that Republicans have tried to hold the monopoly on faith for years now, and perhaps to question that is bothering the status quo.
Yet you still continue to refuse to address the larger point of why all these religious quesitons are being posed to candidates, from any party.
It's always about the poor Democrats and what they have to endure and fight uphill against.....blah, blah, boring.....the fact is all this religious focus placed on the candidate's faith is troubling for me, and should be for most. It is by and large irrelevant to their governing and it should be. To continue to question them on an issue that should have no impact on their policy decision making is unnecessaary.
But if all you want to do is use it to club the other party and cry foul, so be it.
Since you ignore your own quote, I will gather that you do think that my agreeing with MMFA's highlight of misinformation against Dems is wishing for the destruction of the Republican party, and not looking for a level playing field or anything. Got it.
Your point about religious questioning is only valid if it were used in defense of both parties. It isn't, as MMFA clearly proves. So, why is this defense coming up only now, and why only for Republicans? I personally think there is a very deep conversation in there, about the public perception of faith in the two parties, and the Republicans attempt to monopolize it.
But, sigh, you say what I find complex is blah blah boring, and I'm just a blind partisan who wishes for the destruction of the Republican party. Come on Tommy, give a person a little more credit than that. We are all pretty open minded and smart in here.
If you're that "open minded and smart" you certainly know that MMFA only highlights one side of the coin, admittedly. Therefore their highlighting anything here proves nothing, and is only half the story.
I am holding both parties and all questioners to the same standards with regards to this issue.
The media isn't. Hence the highlight.
I love the preemptive posting. :-)
Beautifully done watershed. Great job putting Tommy is his place. You're my hero.
Tommy: You ask why these religious questions are relevant. They should not be except for one thing--the Republicans have, for years, equated voting Republican with being a "good Christian." Have you seen the video clip making the rounds where Huckabee, while addressing the Republicans at the 2004 convention, answered the phone and spoke to "God" and told him that the people at that convention were trying to do God's work? I, for one, found that nauseating. How about the hand-in-hand ties between the Republican Party and Fawell and Robertson which went on for years? Now that the Republicans have portrayed themselves as the "Chistian" party--all questions regarding religion become relevant. Frankly, I am not going to vote based upon whether someone is or is not "the right kind of Christian", but it seems to me that if Republicans are portraying themselves as the "Christian party" then they have the responsibility to deal with these types of specific questions about what the "Christian party" does and does not believe.
Right. Republicans can vote in a guy who's not a Christian by their own definition, but don't then tell everyone you aren’t a hypocritical party, that’s all. You can’t have it both ways. Either you are power hungry secular party and you support him as your perceived best horse, or you do the right thing and not support Romney. There’s no two ways about this if you want to preserve your honor as a party. You can’t really win as a party with Romney---you decided that years ago when you when you became Christicans.
"That's not saying the same thing as I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president."
Actually, it is the same thing, you stupid putz.
You forget that the far right lives in Bizarro land where everything said means the exact opposite...
A(lways) B(roadcasting) C(rap) thinks BECK is a good 'guest' to have on an interview show whereby he gives his *opinion* to milllions of people...?? What are his qualifications besides being being a tool for the reichwingers out there...?
Uh... he's a recovering addict. So that gives him, uh... street smarts, or something.
It's funny to hear all these Troglodytes insisting that the candidate's religion should not be an issue. Let an atheist try to run for president and see what happens.
Not to mention democrats. Obama is what again?
He is a protestant, Hilary is a methodist. Wasn't Jimmy Carter a southern baptist? And, wasn't Eisenhower a jehovah witness? There were even 3 Presidents who didn't claim any religious affiliation, does that mean they may have been atheist? What's your point?
What are the atheists whining about? They stand as good a chance to be president as anyone else. When they stop whining long enough to realize that religion doesn't matter to be President (did you pay attention to the Eisenhower notation) they might be able to get someone who has the bals to run for President. But that isn't likely since they refuse to stop whining about how poorly they are treated. They should just be glad they live in America where they are free to practice atheism. The only other country, that I can think of, that allows freedom to practice and demand rights for being atheist is Russia.
The reason an atheist stands little chance of becoming president is not the media's fault.
You're right, it's the right wing christofascists fault that nobody but a christian can be considered.
The "right wing christofascists" don't vote in numbers to elect anyone exclusively. Sorry.
hmmm...., I know many of the sort who vote- in LARGE numbers...
So do left wing Democrats, so what is your point?
But the Republicans can't win without them.
Ow! That's gonna leave a mark.
And the way the Democratic candidates cater to the far left of their party, they must feel they can't win without them.
You left out the centrists. Independants are currently leaning heavily democratic. But really, why derail the thread when the discussion is centered around why right wing christofascists are forcing a religious test on candidates and then denying it?
Tim Russert is a "rightwing christofascists"? Wow, since he asked a question recently then he must be one too.
Oh tommy, I really love watching you try to squirm out of the hole you dug!
Hole? I love it when liberals make sweeping off-base generalizations and then when confronted with specifics to challenge their validity, they insult. Better cover yourself.
Please, show me what the insult was. I'd love to understand what your definition is.
I actually meant deflect, not insult.
OK then, what was your challenging fact? All I saw you do was deflect the discussion from christofascists imposing a religious test on all candidates to something about how democrats can't win without the left. If that were the case, we'd only have liberal candidates running this year. On the other side though, it's definitely a fact that the right wing is posing some religious test, they keep trying to imply obama is a muslim, claim hillary only attends church because she'll do anything to get power, and that.s just the dem side. Romney's got about as much chance as a fart in the wind of getting the republican nomination. The right wing will pick a thrice married adulterer before they'll ever back a mormon.
Perhaps if you could possibly stop using the term "christofascists" as some reasonable descriptor and expect me to discuss it from that vantage point.......If I wanted to discuss something and kept say "leftwing lunatics", would you be so eager to delve into it? No.
Hmm, I actually thought I would respond back with some post or data or something to prove what was being said was wrong. I didn't know I was so sensative.
Well, if I ever use "leftwing nazi's" in a discussion and you, and everyone here, doesn't call me on it, then maybe you'll understand.
Tommy, the Nazis were rightwingers. There is no such thing as a "left-wing Nazi."
You may now continue purposely misunderstanding what people post to you and deflecting the truth away from yourself.
I don't believe "right wing christofascists" constitute a significant voting block. Therefore, they have to conduct campaigns of slime and fear to secure swing votes.
"And the way the Democratic candidates cater to the far left of their party, they must feel they can't win without them." -the artful dodger
Funny. Name the last President who was elected without the support of their base. Nice try at deflection at least.
Truth is that the GOP has lashed themselves to the Christian fundamentalists. Inextricably so. They have pandered, marketed and branded themselves as God's Own Party. Now for them to pretend no religious test is required as a leadership qualification is blatant hypocricy.
OMG! You almost made me spit out my drink! Are you joking? What crowd do think Rove was going after? Why eactly do think we've been stuck with W for 8 years and Reub majorities from 1994-2006? It because they got evangelicals to the polls in mass numbers! FIRE UP THE BASE! I only WISH the dem's could be half as effecive at doing this!
They duped the religious sheep. To get votes and therefore to gain wealth and power, just like the religious CEOs do.
Yep. Your being generous actually, considering your handle!
I'd say that the rich use religion to dupe the ignorant into voting for leaders and policies that go angainst their own economic interets.
But yeah - sounds like we're on the same page. It ain't about Jesus or "value" it's ALWAYS, ONLY and EVER about POWER and MONEY.
No, it's not the media's fault, but I'd love to see how Beck and his fellow professional liars would treat an atheist candidate.
They would no doubt adopt O'Loofah's "dark forces" language.
When an atheist runs we'll find out. But, one will never run, because they could never get over the hypocrosy of being part of a religion and trying to remove religion from the nation that gives them the freedom to practice that religion.
Personally, I'm glad Barack is a protestant and I'm glad Hilary is a methodist. I prefer God being involved in the lives of our leaders.
Actually, it WOULD be the media's fault if the media 'derails' the campaign and its message. Think 'Ron Paul' and how he's been mocked and villified by the press. Ron Paul supporters have been mocked and hung up on considerably by the talk-show bunch - ESPECIALLY those righty members. They have relegated Paul to the 'kook' aisle along with Kucinich. Why? Quite simple - those campaigns do not fit The Plan by any stretch.
You need to give the media much more credit than you are giving it.
Ron Paul's problem is the Republican machine is not behind him, he is like a bothersome gnat to them. The media has nothing to do with his popularity - the internet certainly has given him some legs, but the bigwhigs at the RNC will cut them off at the knees, for sure.
Yeah... and who exactly is the mouthpiece of the party??? Who is disseminating the message???
I know many here think the media is overwhelmingly right wing, but it ain't so.......sorry to burst your bubble - look around besides what's posted here on this website.
And if they were so "rightwing" influential, please explain the spanking the rightwing got in the 2006 election, and the incredible unpopularity among the American people of Bush and the Republicans? Some influence.
It would have been an even bigger spanking if it weren't for the swift boat reporters for republicans.
The media is run by corporate interests, which happen to lean to the right, cause of, you know, that big old wide open free market with no oversight thing they love so.
I will sum up for you, Tommy- "blah blah blah".
There ya go, Tommy, follow the money.
I have heard it all before, blah blah.......but thanks for ignoring my question because that blows the whole rightwing media corporate Repubican thing out of the water.
Or let me make it easy - profits before ideology.
"Profits before ideology"
That's true, Tommy, which logically proves why the corporate owners would lean more towards the (current) Republican idology. They could give two craps about christian fundementalism or islamofascists. But what they do love is no oversight, relaxed ownership rules, no enforcement of anti-trust laws, etc. And out of the two parties, which one is currently also in favor of all of those things? Bingo-Republicans. It is only logical that the media owners would favor repubs - they serve their interests.
So, when and if Democrats control Congress and the WH, will these corporate media goons suddenly turn Democrat to gain more access and leverage? By your logic, whoever serves their interests, and if the Democrats are in control, they are also in a better position to serve their interests, correct?
Wrong, because the Democratic platform does not include relaxation of ownership rules, deregulation, etc, as I just explained. You will find, however, that more corporations are donating to Democrats now, as it seems like the winning bet that they will be in power and they want an audience, but as far as the ideology of each party goes, the repub. platform serves their interests better. Again, I thought I explained that in my first post. Did you even read my post or did you not understand it?
You are making the point that the "corporate media" is interested in how government regulations and policies affect their profits, are you not? Well if that's the case then whomever is in power is who they will cozy up too, that is exactly the point you made regarding the Republicans - well, it will be the same with Democrats......so any party allegiance is poof, gone, if that party is out of power.
Don't be naive.
Man, you are just really trying your best to not understand my point. Since I see you do this frequently, I am assuming that it is your debating style. I will try one more time, using an analogy:
I own an oil drilling company. I know from past experience that Republican politicians are much more likely than Democrats to give me tax subsidies, ease restrictions of drilling locations, ease oversight of my operation, and not make me spend a lot of money cleaning up my waste stream. I also can see that Dems are in a position to be in power soon. Since I want to hedge my bets, I will give some money to Dems in the hopes that I can win them over to my side in the event that they are in power. However, since it does not look likely that they will come over to my side as much as the republicans no matter how much money I give them, I will still give the bulk of my resources to Republicans in the hopes that it helps swing the tide in their favor and get them elected.
In the corporate media world, it is not just campaign donations that the companies have in their arsenal, but domination of favorable or unfavorable news coverage as well.
I understand your point perfectly. But you are being naive if you think the Democrat's heads don't spin when they get a whiff of lobbyist's money just as much as the Republicans do. So if your oil company knows who will be committee chairmans on Capital Hill and who is in charge of what legislation will be brought to the floor, their party affiliation is irrelevant to lobbyists, surely you must know that. That is the game in Washington. If you think one party is soiled exclusively and the other is "looking out the for working man" and wouldn't stoop to such political shenanigans, then you are seriously misguided.
Sorry, I don't buy your squeaky clean image push for the Democrats. Sell it elsewhere.
I never implied that I think Dems are above being swayed by lobbyists. The reason why I am not buying your point is because you are not making it in a vacuum. We have historical evidence of the actions and efforts of members of both parties, and, like it or not, the republicans have been FAR more likely to do the bidding of this particular interest group. Sure, there are other groups where the Dems are far more likely to do their bidding, but in this case it is the Repubs. If you don't think that each interest group has the ear of one party more than the other, then you are living in a bubble.
So, in the end, you change your arguement from republicans are favorites of: "corporate owners" to: "oil drilling company" after tommy notices your inacurate statements. Why would you do that? Just to win an arguement? jawill11,I think it would be fair to everyone here if you stuck by your statement and defended what you said instead of changing what you said to fit your defense, don't you agree?
"Or let me make it easy - profits before ideology. " roger dodger
The conservative ideology is profitability. Market fundamentalism. Profit before people, in fact.
So how is the corporate agenda different from the Republican agenda? Each worship at the alter of profit and privatization, deregulation and tax cuts. Please tommy. That argument is absolutely transparent.
So how do we explain, despite the conservative media majority, the public disenchantment with conservatism?
The proof is in the pudding my friend. Conservatism has failed to fulfill it's promise to working Americans. It's simple. Fiscal irresponsibility, lies, corruption, THE INTERNET.
I have heard it all before
But it hasn't gotten to the understanding phase with you yet, has it?
Well, we all know that the Right essentially 'owns' talk radio... a few exceptions, of course, and they - save Ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes - do not have anywhere close to the reach that the 'big boys' have.
We all know that the Right has Fux News. Nuff said on that one.
We - perhaps all - know that MSNBC has a healthy share of Righties in its squad - Russert, Matthews, Scarborough, and Buchanan chief among them. Yeah, they have Olby and Abrams but who do you see hosting the Sunday shows on NBC? Oh, and remember Donahue? Why was he canned? Think it may have had something to do with his politics by any chance?
Oh, and let's not forget that NBC seems to have given Ann Coulter a VIP card that allows her unlimited air time, especially when she has another scum book in the works.
Online? Plenty there too... WND immediately comes to mind.
It was a very mild 'spanking'. Seems to me that the Repubs are still in control.
tommy: that is precisely what drew me to this site: the rarity of journalism in the Corporate Media, the visceral antagonism toward Democrats and liberals.
I am likely not alone, and the only use I can even imagine for this poor substitute for a fourth estate, is to incinerate the bones to replenish the calcium in the soil.
Let an atheist try to run for president and see what happens.
While it is a fact that an atheist couldn't win now, things are changing. The total portion of the population that identifies themselves as secular has shown a small but significant increase. The reason it's significant is that it came from sizable jumps among the young.
Research has shown that religious faith in a given age range changes very little as that group ages. The percentage of those born from 1950 to 1960 who identified as religious in their 20s was almost identical to the percentage of that same group who identified as religious in their 40s. That has been pretty consistent among all groups.
This means that almost all of those young people who are currently secular will likely stay that way through their lives. They will raise their children in that environment and the number who reject theism will increase at an increasingly rapid rate with growth at the bottom and death reducing the more heavily religious demographics at the top.
And, obviously, an increasingly secular nation is something to give us hope for our future.
AMEN!
Well - it's NOT an issue if the candidate has the good sense to be at least some kind of Christian. (Even if it isn't the right kind.) I mean COME ON - we are a christian country aren't we?
(Excuse me while I go wash my hands, they're covered in sarcasm.)
The Beaver is clearly the "Chance Gardener" of our time. When I watch people actually asking him questions about serious subjects, good old Chance always comes to mind. And that folks is entertainment.
Mow, in my interpretation Chance was the second coming, remember when he walks on water at the end of the movie? Hard to imagine Beck being a cultural reference in 30 years.
Sorry, meant Moe not mow, forgive me?
Not really sure of the point of this thread is other than MMFA hates Beck , ok we get it.
Now how many want to play bet and say that Olbermann will use this thread to name Beck WPITW tonight? My bet is yes, he is using MMFA material alot lately.
Once again, it's no secret that Keith uses a lot of MM material for his show so your 'bet' would really be a waste of your time. No-one will challenge it.
WWOA?
Yes, MMFA "hates" Beck because they expose his hyprocrisy. Sue, if he can't stand the heat, then get out of the glow of those TV lights and nasty microphones.
You know, this 'hate' thingy is really bugging me. Why is it that 'disagreement' or 'exposure of hypocrisy' is labelled as 'hate'. I really don't understand this... is it a Righty thing, along with saying 'Democrat' Party all the time?
It's part of the wingnut talking points, akin to the "hate our troops" phrase applied to anyone who disagrees with the bloodlust-y decisions of the HWICs (head wingnuts in charge).
I hate Beck.
The Right hates dissent, and projects their own feelings upon others. Since the Right can imagine no way to deal with dissent other than with hatred, they have to believe that is the only way to deal with it, and can't imagine that the Left can do so.
Therefore, everyone who disagrees with any right wing pundit must hate them.
It's classic projection, and it's classically moronic.
Maybe the point is that it's hypocritical for Beck to ask Ellison about his faith (in terms about them being a potential enemy, no less) and then suggest we shouldn't ask politicians about religion.
But please, don't let the obvious get in the way of your blather about hate and your ridiculous obsession with Olbermann.
Yes, Sue, it's all out of "hate" for Beck, but when everyone's favorite troll, Justice and Truth uses a thread about the campaign office hostage situation to make a sick joke about molesting interns, it's just a "differing opinion". You may think your selective scorn isn't apparent, but it is.
Did you even read the headline?
Beck questioned Rep. Ellison's loyalty to our country because of his Muslim faith. Now Beck is complaining that because Romney is a Mormon the media is against him.
A persons faith should not be held against him as Beck is saying now. Yet, Beck is the first one to question someone's fitness for office because of their faith.
Sue, so glad you've shown up for daily "2 minutes of anti-hate"TM
Send Olbermann your naked picture and get it over with. Beck asked Ellison to prove he wasnt a terrorist because he is Muslim and then asked why Mitt should be asked religious questions. If you dont understand why THAT is a double standard I suggest you find a five year old to explain it to you.
Oh, does Sueeld have a problem with Olbermann? I HADN'T HEARD!
You don't get why this is here? If you need this explained to you, I'm amazed you can use a computer
Whenever Sue mentions K.O all I can think is "Marsha, Marsha,Marsha!"
In terms of integrity I assert that Beck has none, but what is truly disturbing is how pundits generally get a pass on thier outrageous and wrong statements because of their status as "Media Stars.' Coulter, O'Reilly, Mathews, the circus parade of TV/Book/Radio hybrids that are exposed here rarely get scrutiny (and in O'Reilly's case, he just played the victim card). I love for some vapid morning host to say to Beck, but what about the time you tried to call out Ellison for HIS religion? But alas, their research probably stops at the marching orders their "producers" give them (straight from the owners above).
How to make a Sueeld post-
Start with a stick of "Hate!", add a cup of "Olbermann?", and slowly stir in some "WPITW??". Bake slowly with absolutely no distractions of any kind.
Should be enough for about two years of material.
I love Sue's reduction of complexity. MMFA articles exist because MMFA hates the wingnut psuedo-pundits.
Using her good red logik, I say Sue posts here simply because she hates MMFA.
She REALLY 'hates' Olbermann. What happened - was she jilted by him?
He fell asleep on her.
Does anyone else think maybe "Sue" is really O'Loofah ?
For decades the republican party has received the so called "Christian vote" in this country, all the while screwing them like they do every one else who isn't part of an elite class. Glenn Beck is the same guy that had the audacity to ask an elected official, someone already in office, "how do we know you're not working with the enemy," and he now asks why are we asking religious questions? Sue do you not see the hypocrisy? It's not about hating Beck, it's about hating conservative misinformation. He basically accused Rep. Ellison of being in bed with the enemy, without any proof. Don't be so naive.
Olbermann needs to pounce on Beck for this one. Even I am outraged by this blatant double standard from Beck.
Why are people like Beck, Matthews and others suddenly questioning why religion is taking a front and center role in today's politics? Have they been hiding under a rock for the last 11 years? Did they fall asleep during the 2004 election when issues like gay marriage allowed Republicans to gain more seats in Congress?
The Republican party used religion as a divisive issue and now it's come back to bite them in the butt and I for one say it's well deserved. The Christian Evangelicals ability for political mobilization and money caused the Republican party to become their mouthpiece. The Christian Evangelicals made phone calls, advertised for Republicans and turned out to vote is large numbers. The Republican party sold it's self by promising to overturn Roe v Wade, make heterosexual marriage the only legal marriage available, appoint judges that think exactly like Christian Evangelicals do and bring prayer and God back in public schools. Why are Republicans trying to run aways from the issues they created when taking all that money and voting support from Christian Evangelicals? Why are questions regarding religion so difficult for Republican to answer? And why do they want to take it off the table for discussion NOW when it should have NEVER been there in the first place! I for one want to leave it there to expose the Republican hypocrisy and hopefully remove religion from politics once and for all.
Brava, Pearlene. Hear hear.
Sorta off topic , but I have a question for all you Mediamatters posters out there. Would you, vote for a candidate that was non-Christian. By non-Christian, I mean Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim or Atheist.
I could see myself voting for the right candidate as long as they weren't atheist or wiccan. Just my personal bias.
My opinion is, the more secular the better.
I agree with Bill J - more religious usually means more irrational. Just take a look at George W.
Huckabee scares me a little, too, but I think he's a long shot.
I'm with you both. Seperation of church and state. Religion has NO PLACE in public policy. And Huckabee scares the hell out of me. I'm not writing him off as a longshot - he's too dangerous.
Another vote for you. Huckabee IS scary. I think he would be even worse than Bush.
Huckabee's saving grace, for those of us who are leary of him, is that, while he has a certain amount of charm, like W, he doesn't have the power of the Bush name and support system to quash inconvenient truths. Stories of the viciousness and avarice behind that charm are coming out of Arkansas. At present only the blogs are interested, but that will change as he becomes more viable.
I agree that Huckabee is a threat. With Rudy and Mitt fading and the Huckster surging, we should take the Huckster seriously. With the right image-building, many voters could go for him without being aware of his warts.
No worries ... I don't think Huckabee is going anywhere except back to Arkansas ... his Willie Horton problem is blowing up big-time.
I second BillJ-MN's comment.
The more secular the better. Candidates should leave their religion at home and at church, where it belongs.
If he or she was an upstanding individual, lived up to their political promises and was a good leader, then yes, I would.
If I had the chance I'd vote for a straight Wiccan ticket. (or at least a sticky Wiccan ticket.)
Lol. Interesting
I have a question for you August Heat: Why are you biased against athiests? (I could understand Wicca, since it is really just another religion)
Personally, I'd vote for an athiest in a heartbeat - at least I would feel more secure in a belief that they have no hidden religious agenda to inject into our government.
Ah. I'm glad you ask. I'm biased towards an atheist candidate because of my core belief that without faith in something higher than our own creation we are lost. To me there is a difference between good and evil. Hate to sound like Bush, but I do believe evil exist, if you don't believe in an ultimate punishment, or an ultimate reward how can you have a conscience to govern millions of people who do? Again, this is all a personal bias, so if anyone is offended I'm not typing these things to be offensive. Just my personal views.
Hmmm. And why do you think athiests are incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil? I know evil exist - I just don't see evil as something that is controlled by an invisible deamon.
What would make you think athiests have no concience? When did God give you this capability - was it at baptism, or confirmation? And if "born again" GW Bush has one - alot of good it has done him, as he is surely ignoring it anyhow.
I'm really trying not offend you here, either - I do admit though, I have a hard time staying away from sarcasm. Just because religion has brainwashed (it sounds like a severe word, but it fits) you with such ideas - it does not mean that what you have been taught is true. I am offended by someone insinuating that I have no concience, or concept of right from wrong, simply because I do not believe in something that has never been proven to exist.
So to paraphrase your questions, mine would be... How can I trust someone to govern millions of people if their belief in an "ultimate reward" might somhow inspire them to trigger Armageddon or other such religious prophecy?
How can we encourage "religiously inspired" political world leaders when both Christianity and Islam inspire and promote fire and brimstone as part of a prophecy indicating the final coming of their respective gods and their "ultimate reward"?
Us athiests can't be the only ones who see how crazy and scary it is that this whole scenerio could be playing out? The religious may think it is their god's will and prophecy coming to trueition, but athiests look at each other and say, "Is this world crazy or what - and how do we change it before it's too late?
Just my personal views.:)
I don't care what religion they were. I'm an atheist, so I'm pretty much stuck voting for people who don't share my religious views. I might have a hard time voting for a satanist, but outside of that I don't think I'd really care.
Anyone who says they won't vote for someone because they are an atheist is a bigot.
Here's a thought experiment that will help explain why Beck is cited here. Replace his all american, slightly chubby good looks with a disfigured, brown skinned, anemic woman with a headscraf on. Now, with exactly the same words, can anyone imagine him being on a big time national morning show? No, thus his ideas and speach are suspect.
Good point, Pithaughn. You probably hit on the main reason why "political" TV shows hosted by the likes of other scary-looking neocon creeps like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage were taken off the air - vs. the popularity of Faux News.
Average channel-surfing Americans (especially Republicans, I'm sure:)) aren't looking for intellectual content - they're looking for eye candy to masturbate to (Figurativelly or litterally? We report, you decide!)
Beck is the repug slime of the year, why t.v. shows his mug is incredible, I hope Keith makes him the worst tonight.
Despite his own interview with Rep. Ellison, Beck asked, "[W]hy are we going to a candidate and asking about religion?"
I think all religious text calls that Hypocrisy. The noun is Hypocrite.
The Media is biased against non Christians. This, I think, can be neatly exemplified by the likes of Anderson Cooper's question of Huckabee, "What is your favorite Bible passage?"
When a candidate comes along with a religious affiliation that differs from the Main Stream Media's bias, he or she will be questioned as if it is appropriate to questions them. When a candidate of a Main Stream Faith has his or her faith questioned, the Pundits, like Beck, will cry foul!
This is how American "journalism" works, as anyone should realize, since JFK.
People may say that the "Media" is not biased to the right. Perhaps, if one looks at the majority of newspapers, magazines and books being published, but, without a doubt, the majority of PUNDITS are: the Op-Ed columnists, the cable news hosts, the radio show hosts, ARE RIGHT WING in their views. "If it's Sunday..."
The "Main Stream Media" does not include this website, or other Internet media watchdog groups. It does not include blogs. It does not include small time papers, or low circulation magazines.
The MSM are those whom Media Matters documents! And they document a decided Right Wing Bias.
Those who disagree should create two lists. One of all the "Right Wing" pundits, and one of all the "Left Wing" pundits. Just the ones that are on the prominent Cable TV, Radio Shows and Newspaper/Magazine Op-Ed pages.
I am a former morman. Read "The Spalding Enigma" and you will learn everything you need to know about the morman religion.
Mr. Spalding wrote a fictional book about the lost tribes of Israel and their times here in america. Joseph Smith's buddy stole this book. They rewrote the book with a more religious tone and walha......the book of morman. This isn't some conspiracy theory, its the truth.
Real Mormons probably know how to spell the name of their religion.
Joseph Smith is probably the best con artist the united states has ever known.
It's simple...While I agree that Beck asked a "poorly worded question" of Ellison, the fact is that radical Islam is responsible for 99.9% of terrorist activities around the world and unless you consider wearing a white shirt and tie and riding a bicycle door-to-door a terrorist act, there is no comparison between Mormons and Muslims.
Well we both know you cant back that statistic up as it is ludicrous. When the worst terrorists in the world were Jews during the thirties and forties. When they were sinking ships like the SS Patria, blowing up trains like the Cairo to Haifa train and hotels like the King David Hotel and assasinations like of Lord Moyne and Folke Burnadotte, no one blamed it on Judaism. They knew it was the political motive taken advantage by extremists. Even though they became the leaders of Israel. When it was the IRA no one blamed Catholicism. Again we accepted not the acts but that it wasnt their RELIGION that was to blame. Now that the instability is in a Muslim part of the world bigots fall all over themselves to blame terrorism on Islam. So yeah its the same thing. Yes right now for POLITICIAL reasons the worst terrorists in the world are Muslims and they are doing most of the terrorism. Which is only an excuse BIGOTS would use to say its acceptable to ask a Muslim to prove he isnt a terrorist. Any more than asking YOU to prove you are not a serial killer because the vast majority of serial killers are white males. Assuming you are a white male. Beck had no problem asking Ellison about HIS religion and is now saying people shouldnt be asking about religion. Its a blatant double standard that no one NOT A BIGOT would accept.
Here, Here. Well put. Do you know Fox News initially reported the Omaha mass killings to be done by an African American. I don't care what color the person is, a heinous act is a heinous act. But seriously, what is up with Fox?
GOODFELLA57: Let's just say that personally, I've hidden in terror, barricaded myself in my house, and let the dogs out to protect myself - from Mormons and Jehovahs Witness 100% more often than Muslims. Then again, I'm the type of guy who has always been more scared of white shirts and ties than I am burkas.
radical Islam is responsible for 99.9% of terrorist activities around the world
Likewise, 99.9999% of the world's muslims are NOT terrorists.
Why are you so afraid?
Of all the people to ask such a question!
This is a stupid post...even by Media Morons for Asininity standards.
Ellison is a terrorist sympathizer and enabler who believes that Shari'a law should supercede US constitutional law.
You don't see Mormons decapitating infidels...do ya?
You are actually getting stupider and I wouldnt have though that possible. You are a liar. Show where Ellison is a terrorist sympathizer or supports Sharia law in the US. You are nothing but a lying moronic bigot. Go away and let the adults talk.
Ellison is a supporter of Hamas, Hizbollah, and CAIR, and as a practicing muslim believes in the supremacy of Shari'a law.
Romney listens to old Donny and Marie albums.
Which do the leftards demonize?
Riiiiight.
Ellison lied about being a member of the Nation of Islam and was forced to admit it when evidence that he was was brought forward.
He then said...and I kid you not...that he quit when he found out the Nation was anti-Semitic.
You simply cannot make this stuff up.
Really? You just did.
Oh no I di-int.
Read Ellison's own words.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/015415.php
Proof or just blowing smoke up your ass, again?
Ellison is a terrorist sympathizer and enabler who believes that Shari'a law should supercede US constitutional law.
Ellison is a supporter of Hamas, Hizbollah, and CAIR, and as a practicing muslim believes in the supremacy of Shari'a law.
This ultra-conservative hysteria over the imaginary impending implementation of Islamic Law in the US is an interesting phenomenon. Can they really believe what they are saying or is it another fear-mongoring tactic? Or perhaps both.
Exactly HOW are Muslims going to force Sharia law on Americans? It would take 100 years just to close all the bars! Christians have tried for centuries (literally) to establish laws enforcing conservative Christian values (dry Sundays, prayer in school, anti-sex education, bible verses posted at State institutions, biased immigration laws) and they have failed to turn Americans into observant Christians. So how are radical muslims going to enforce an completely alien legal system on the US?
If the people who actually BELIEVE this "sharia agenda" actually OBSERVED the real world, they would see that the radical muslim agenda has failed even in countries where the population is historicaly muslim, and you would think somewhat sympathetic to muslim laws. So how would it succeed here?
Another more relevant observation is the case of the Balkans, which are part of Western civilization and live out a Western-style culture. Parts of the region have had a majority muslim population for about a 1000 years (maybe not that long) and they have retained their Western identity. They have not become, and never were, an "islamic state." So again, I ask the sharia-hysterics, what makes them think muslims are on the verge of implementing islamic law in the United States of America?
Finally, to call an elected congressman a terrorist sympathizer and supporter, without proof, is beyond the pale. It just destroys the credibility of the poster.
As far as Glenn Beck goes, it's hard to watch his show and not get a headache - so I stopped watching a while ago.
I remember when CNN was the gold standard in reporting.
About a week ago I was flipping channels and I landed on CNN long enough to see Glenn come back from a commercial and start hawking his new book, then immediately followed that up with the comment "The barbarians are not at the gate, they've aleady come through the door.."
Objective journalism at its finest!