Unhinged Beck lashes out in response to Obama's SOTU with attacks, conspiracy theories
Responding to President Obama's January 27 State of the Union speech on his radio show the following day, Glenn Beck offered a series of harsh and bizarre comments, ranging from ad hominem attacks on Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Vice President Joe Biden to baseless conspiracy theories. Beck claimed that Obama detailed his "enemies' list" during the speech -- a list he compared to similar lists from "radicals" including Lenin and Stalin -- and warned his audience that we may be witnessing "the beginning" of a "dictorial [sic] kind of state" and that Obama will "pick us off to send you a message."
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.
Beck attacks: Obama an arrogant liar, "punk," like a husband cheating on a "meaningless wife"
Beck jumps on conservative bandwagon: responds to State of the Union by calling Obama arrogant and a liar. Beck attacked Obama by saying "there's no humility there," and cited the "the arrogance from the moment this guy walked in" and the "arrogance of the lies that he told last night." Media Matters previously documented other conservatives responding to the speech by claiming Obama was arrogant or that he lied.
Beck compares Obama's relationship with the American people to a husband cheating on his wife. Beck painted Obama as a cheating husband with "no respect" for his wife -- the American people -- who must be "meaningless" to Obama due to his purported willingness to lie to her:
BECK: If you're cheating on your wife ... and she's got pictures of you doing it with a chick, and you're like, "Honey, no, absolutely not," do you have any respect for your wife? ... But if you're then treating her like an imbecile -- she's got access to the information -- there's no respect. No respect, and no fear. None. She's meaningless to you. That's what we have in the president.
Beck says Obama is a "punk" for calling out an "equal branch of government" during State of the Union. After playing a clip of Obama disagreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United case in his address, Beck said: "This is an equal branch of government, and the president, humiliated -- like a punk -- calls them out last night."
Beck: "Do you know how many children could be fed" with money "in plastic surgery" between Pelosi and Biden? Beck said of Nancy Pelosi's and Joe Biden's appearances at the State of the Union: "Do you know how many children could be fed with just the amount of money in plastic surgery between Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden?" Beck added: "Did you see them sitting behind them -- sitting behind the president last night? Two things came to mind. First of all, I think Nancy Pelosi was just -- she may have a cold or something, she took NyQuil or whatever -- but she just like -- she was staring out in space, a few times I thought she was going to drool. ... I can't even look at her because of the plastic surgery."
Beck producer: Obama "spit in our face" with his State of the Union address. In response to a clip of Obama's speech where he suggests his goal to move forward with health care reform, Beck's producer Stu Bruguiere said: "He spit in our face last night. I mean, that was just spit in your face."
Conspiracy theorist: Obama "made an enemies list," "will pick us off to send you a message," and the "media is complicit" in conspiracy
Beck says Obama "made an enemies list last night," suggests Obama's "TV pundits" comment was about him. After referencing Obama's criticism of "TV pundits" for "reduc[ing] serious debates to silly arguments," Beck suggested that Obama was talking about him, saying "Barack Obama, just mention us by name from here on out." He then concluded that Obama "made an enemies list last night." He later added that "Keith, our phone screener, came in this morning and he said, 'Man, I pray for you every night.' He said, 'Did you see that, what the president did?' And I said, 'Yeah.' And he said, 'The only thing he didn't say is, "Glenn Beck is an instigator." ' And it's -- and I looked at him and said, 'Oh, its coming. It's coming.' "
Beck: Obama's purported "enemies list" like those made by Lenin, Stalin, Chavez. Continuing with his theory that Obama has an "enemies' list" which includes Beck, Beck warned his audience "if you look at the radicals in the past" -- of which Beck named Lenin, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez -- "the enemies list is always the same." According to Beck, the "enemies list" always includes "the capitalists, the greedy industry owners, the banks, those who are speaking out against this movement" and "the dissenters in the media."
Beck says Obama criticism of Congress, SCOTUS is "the beginning" of U.S. possibly becoming a "dictorial [sic] kind of state." In response to Obama's disagreement with a Supreme Court decision and his statement that because the Senate had not passed an amendment that would have established a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission, he planned to create one by executive order, Beck asked: "Do you see what we have been saying, that if you don't respect the balance of power, this could quickly turn into a dictorial [sic] kind of state? You are seeing the beginning of it."
Beck: the "media is complicit" with purported Obama lies and "damn near treasonous." Beck said that Obama will "get away" with his purported lies because Obama "knows the media won't corner him." Beck declared: "The media is complicit. The media is damn near treasonous."
Beck warned that "they" will "pick us off to send you a message," but is "begging" his audience to "pick up the torch." Beck warned his audience that "they" are coming to "shut those people up" who are dissenters, like Beck, and any one who has "a megaphone or a microphone." He added that "they pick somebody out and make an example of them...all they have to do is pick us off to send you a message." Beck went on to say that he was "begging" his audience to "do your homework now" and "know the news, know the constitution" because "there may come a time when there are no people speaking out in the media" and "there may be a time when you are the leader. You're the only voice that people will hear." He concluded: "Please, I beg of you, I beg of you: Pick the torch up, because there may come a time where you are the keeper of the flame, and if you do not pick up that flame when it is handed to you, if you don't pick that torch up, it will go out." From the January 28 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: They have to shut those people up who have a megaphone or microphone. They must shut them down. This is why I'm begging you: Please, please -- I've said this now for how many years? From the bottom of my heart, I say this to you. Please, there may come a time when there are no people speaking out in the media. There may come that time. That's why you must do you homework now. You cannot waste another minute. Doing your homework, knowing history, knowing the news, following -- knowing what the Constitution says. There may be a time when you are the leader .You're the only voice that people will hear. Please, I beg of you, I beg of you: Pick the torch up, because there may come a time where you are the keeper of the flame, and if you do not pick up that flame when it is handed to you, if you don't pick that torch up, it will go out.
[...]
What did David Axelrod say on ABC? We don't view Fox News as a news organization -- they're not. He followed it with, "And we're not going to treat them that way, and we suggest to you, ABC, that you don't treat them that way, either." They set an example. They pick somebody out and make an example of them, and then fear does the rest. So he is now getting closer and closer to saying that -- I mean, he is -- the TV pundits in the State of the Union. The only thing he has to do is destroy us. They've already -- I mean, the forces arrayed are staggering. I'm an individual, man. Staggering, the forces arrayed against us. It will happen. I don't expect to, you know -- I don't expect to go out in flames. Maybe I do, but I don't expect -- it's gonna end, at some time it will end. Especially expanding the fight to progressives -- that's both sides now. All they have to do is pick us off to send you a message: You see what we did to them? They had a platform, you've got nothing. Sit down and shut up. Don't you do it.
This is like a 1000 volts a day stuff. And where is this torch that we are supposed to pick up and hand off, the one that's burning. The guy is a certifiable wacko. He is a stone's throw from the deep end.
Just over there, next to the pitchforks (and assault rifles.) Remember, we've got to take back our country(club) from this dictator (democratically elected president!)
/sarc
I hope my translation helped.
So, what are the chances that they will actually take away Beck's megaphone?
1. Doing your homework, knowing history, knowing the news, following -- knowing what the Constitution says
Isn't this a good thing?
2. You're the only voice that people will hear.
This is the point of our government--the people have the voice, not the government.
I don't always agree with Beck, but just because you hate the guy, you always bash him as a "certifiable wacko" the "lonesome roads" Beck. However, you don't actually read or hear what he says.
o This is probably the most famous of apparently apocryphal remarks attributed to Lincoln. Despite being cited variously as from an 1856 speech, or a September 1858 speech in Clinton, Illinois, there are no known contemporary records or accounts substantiating that he ever made the statement.
I'm still waiting for somebody to point out this "Enemies List". I read the transcript of the speech. It's not there.
Sorry to say that IMO you're quite right. Isn't one of them currently on trial at this time for murdering Dr. Tiller, "the baby killer?" Didn't that moniker come from one of Beck's FOX compatriots ... errrrmmmmmm, Bill O?
* Congress (That evil senate is going to force him to skip them entirely and issue an executive order... why do we need congress at all then, Mr. constitutional scholar?)
* Media (especially FNC)
* The people (a majority of people HAVE to be wrong about healthcare, so ram it down their throats anyways!)
* Bush (If it works, call it historic, if it doesn't, Blame Bush)
He criticized pretty much everyone but himself in the speech, if not by name.
His other opinions aside, is Napolitano's analysis false in this case?
The issue is not with FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, it is with FOREIGN CONTROL OF US CORPORATIONS, which then spend unlimited amounts of money from their treasury on political advertising.
I am on the board and a major shareholder in more than one US corporation. I will soon have foreign investors in one of my corporations. It is possible they may invest more money and gain majority ownership. With the ruling of the Roberts' court what restriction is there on our foreign investors dumping money into my US corporation so they can funnel money to political advertising?
From what I read, there is no limit.
Say our US corporation grosses $10 million in revenue, and spends $20 million on political advertising, showing a loss. No problem. We stay in business by selling more shares of the company to our foreign investors. I don't have to cook the books, we create intellectual property which has a future value that increases the value of the company, thereby enabling us to continue selling equity. No government agency can claim our IP is worthless.
If you think this type of financial manipulation isn't possible you weren't here in Silicon Valley during the dot com era.
I invite an attorney to explain what restricts this manipulation, because I see too many loopholes.
Who is the straw man here? Obama only mentioned foreign corporations, and that's all that Napolitano refuted.
Think I'll go with the supes!
Case closed.
Executive orders are a problem for you now? Since when? And can I have your opinion on signing statements as well? And on Cheney's view on the Unitary Executive powers of the President? Or is your view dependent on the party who's elected into the WH?
Presidents criticizing the Media is a problem for you? Since when have you become such a staunch defender of the "liberal media"?
Presidents blaming previous presidents for the real, alleged, or perceived mess they leave behind is a problem? Sjeeeez. Carter and Clinton can look forward to a huge apology from Reagan and Bush (I ánd II), I guess.
And FYI. Foreign-owned corporations is sooooo 19th C thinking in a Global Economy. Shell, Toyota and Aramco - to name just a few -, are they foreign-owned corporations? Or what? And what about their subsidiairies? Etc. etc. etc.
"Activist" is highly subjective and is not even worth getting into.
I never even implied that the Bush executive orders were good (I briefly thought about saying Bush was wrong in expanding his power, in fact, because he was). My point is that the Executive Order is not a legislative tool, and it doesn't carry any power that the president doesn't already have given to him by the Constitution, yet somehow Obama thinks it does.
I have a problem with any government official attacking the media, be it Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, Bush, Obama, the FCC, any official.
I'm not saying Bush was any good, I'm saying you shouldn't bash your predecessor when something goes wrong, I don't know of anyone else who did that. Using the SotU address to bash "media pundits" or another branch of the government is, with what little I know, unprecedented (if you want to show me someone else who has done something similar I'll happily disagree with that instance too).
No, it's pretty traditional.
Really?! I think you may want to look into that one again. I'm thinking your research was not very extensive. Try looking at it again without your extreme partisanship.
You can't be serious? Have you not noticed all the support and backing that former VP Cheney has received and continues to receive while continually bashing a sitting President? Just how often do you step out of your cave? For the record, even Bush knows better.
Bush at fault should be pointed out whenever possible because the right wing is doing an effective job at pretending it's all Obama's fault & Bush never happened. It's a counter punch to that very vocal opinion.
BTW, Fox News as a news source isn't credible especially when you're refering to an opinion piece.
Mostly Faux though--Since Obama "has repeatedly declared war" on them. Beck and O'Nutty's ego's are apparently the "Most Wanted".
The actual "list" though is stored somewhere between the rocks in Beck's head.
You all can have fun banging away at Beck...I don't have any interest.
But the AP Factcheck lists a pretty long laundry list of falsehoods in Pres.Obama's SOTU.
I read those earlier too and they are definitely reasonable points to question Obama and the "facts" he laid out last night. And reasonable people should, Beck is just one of them, in my opinion. I don't care two twits about Beck either, but some of his stuff is so damn off the wall that it begs a little mocking. He deserves it.
I hear ya...and it doesn't bother me one way or the other about the bashing of "Lonesome Rhodes" Beck. He makes himself a rather large target with his out-there comments.
But for the record...Beck is not the only one claiming untruthfulness from Pres.Obama.
It's because "Glenn Beck offered a series of harsh and bizarre comments, ranging from ad hominem attacks on Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Vice President Joe Biden to baseless conspiracy theories."
It has nothing to do with Beck claiming that Obama wasn't truthful. That's not conservative misinformation if the accusations are true!
And there is still no "Enemies List".
2006 900 terrorists killed
2007 3400 terrorists killed
2008 8000 terrorists killed
2009 12,600 terrorists killed
Now, this is just in Pakistan, but Obama increased attention and troop strength in Afghanistan too this past year after years of neglect, and the number of drone attacks has doubled. We've done a lot in Yemen, and Bush did virtually nothing.
It's pretty clear that Obama's claim is accurate. Many of the AP's objections seemed to be similarly poorly sourced or weakly supported.
Its not like Obama is just making things up!
Here we finally have from a certified leftist the truth about Bush and WMD! Bush did not lie! He asserted an unsubstaintiated claim just as almost every other politician did back then.
Thank you for having the courage to admit you people have been so wrong about Bush all these years. You deserve a great big atta boy!
There's not a problem with people relying upon the best information that they could get. That's what educated people SHOULD do.
But then when Saddam tells us that they don't have any WMD's any more, and all of his scientists and military people tell us that they were all destroyed in the early 1990's and they haven't created any new ones in the last decade, and the UN Weapon Inspectors check all the likely sites and find absolutely nothing, and they check all the files and have unrestricted access to anyplace they want to go....
Then we have actual evidence. And despite that evidence that totally contradicted the intelligence we had (remember, intelligence is only educated GUESSES), Bush still invaded.
So, no, we shouldn't really fault anyone for believing the intelligence when that was all we had. But we SHOULD fault ANYONE who believed the intelligence over the actual evidence we learned in the months before Bush invaded. We should fault Bush for invading in March of 2003 because he knew that there was almost certainly no WMD's, and the UN Weapons Inspectors were almost done surveying ALL the potential storage sites.
What's NOT impossible to verify is that we're dropping more ordinance in the tribal areas of Pakistan (where we KNOW Al-Qaida operates) than we ever have before under this president. Ask Pakistanis who's killed more people.
The whole comment was a cheap sop to those who think body count = victory. These are presumably the same people who think we'll wake up one morning and say, "Well, we killed the last terrorist! I guess that's over!"
The successes he mentioned I have been reading about in foreign publications and on the McClatchy web site.. It is the American MSM that hasn't been doing its' job informing the citizens..
See, Weasel, the topic is Beck. About his rants. About his failings.
Lets send the AP to the Glenn Beck Show and see what they come up with there. Something tells me you're going to see a longer, more egregious list from a far shorter show.
The argument isn't about the difference in 1.6 and 2.0. The argument is whether his actions saved any jobs at all.
The CBO says "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package".
Suits me if it makes you feel better to have the AP factcheck Beck...but he's not the leader of the free world.
Seriously, please point out even ONE 'falsehood' in the AP article.
It's a decent example of proper journalism where journalist did the hard work and collected other pieces of information and put them in context.
Shall we compare this SOTU with the one Bush gave on 28 January 2003?
I'll stick with today's issues...and I agree with you...it would be nice to see more journalism like the AP Factcheck everyday...about all the policymakers...and all the issues.
Dream on, baby
And then they object when the defense of Obama involves identifying the actual culprit.
The ONLY reason we mention Bush, et al, is to defend Obama from unfair attacks! Obama's being unfairly attacked about his SOTU address, and so Bush's gets brought up.
It's important to get out of this ditch, but it's equally important understand how we got here. By ignoring Bush policy that helped create this mess (conservative media is doing an effective job at just that) we're doomed to repeat it.
Whining about Obama being critical of Bush does absolutely nothing for no one. So get over it.
That's called cause and effect, wesley. Past actions can have substantial consequences on the present and future.
I think you know this basic truth already, but are feigning ignorance to take a not so subtle swipe at people who can actually remember the crummy policies of the previous administration.
I'm sure the families of the 4,200 dead soldiers will appreciate Your sentiment.
Thank you for granting me "the right" to speak out about a hellish government that I survived 8 years of. The right will eventually come back to you, Wesley, and when it does ... run with it!
Your posting amounts to a falsehood because the AP Factcheck is not, in fact, "a pretty long laundry list of falsehoods." A more honest description of the AP Factcheck is that is a list of caveats, counterpoints, and qualifications to a handful of statements the President made in the SOTU.
Now, lets take a look at a couple of those items:
Item 1: freeze on spending. where in the president's message did he say anything about how much would be saved? How can it be untrue when he never said it?
Item 7: arms control agreement. Did they really point out anything that he said that isn't true? No, they did not.
Item 8: more success than last year in hunting down al Quaeda. The AP admits it is impossible to verify, so how is it wrong or a lie? It may or may not be - but it is an exceptionally weak "fact check" is they start by admitting they don't even have the facts.
So, that leaves 5 items - and they aren't very convincing, either.
You really think that proves anything? Geez, Bush lied about WMDs and you want to point out this AP fact check as important?
You are exceedingly dense.
Wrong. Bush did NOT lie. See below statement from your buddy nerzog.
"by nerzog (January 28, 2010 6:36 pm ET)
That doesn't make it a falsehood. An unsubstantiated claim, yes. Not unlike "Everybody thought Saddam had WMD"."
Please cease and desist any further claims that Bush lied. Thank You.
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
I suggest you keep abreast of current events and cease and desist from spreading more disinformation. Bush and his administration lied us into war in Iraq.
Thanks anyway. Sincerely, retired
If I'm reading it right, Nerzog was saying that the statement "Everybody thought Saddam had WMD" could have been an unsubstantiated claim at some point in time.
That is,before much more information came out, many people (not literally "everybody", but "conventional wisdom") believed it to be true.
Realtired has misinterpreted this to mean that Bush (and the right wing media) continuing to cling to this long after the facts were available doesn't constitute lying.
You're talking about the facts, and rtinsf is stuck on what he thinks Nerzog said, thinking his misinterpretation trumps the facts.
You'll get nowhere with this, I'm pretty sure.
What we might be seeing here could be paranoia, an anxiety disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and possibly other disorders. He also has problems with personal boundaries that prompt him to think of the actions of others--those in government, members of the media, "liberal" political activists--directly affect him. Conversely, he over-identifies with his viewers, calling upon them to "save" him from these terrible attacks--which are the fruits of his paranoia.
This could all or mostly be an act by Beck, intended to raise his ratings. If not, he should undergo extensive therapy. Anyone out there really want him near a gun? Think he owns one?
Let's try a game. I'll call out Obama on a lie and you all come up with a way to spin it so he isn't a liar. Here we go:
Obama:
Ready, set, go!
Glenn Beck offered a series of harsh and bizarre comments, ranging from ad hominem attacks on Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Vice President Joe Biden to baseless conspiracy theories. Beck claimed that Obama detailed his "enemies' list" during the speech -- a list he compared to similar lists from "radicals" including Lenin and Stalin -- and warned his audience that we may be witnessing "the beginning" of a "dictorial [sic] kind of state" and that Obama will "pick us off to send you a message."
Is Beck's statement wrong? Obama said in his speech he will completely bypass checks and balances and just void supreme court decisions and write his own legislation via executive order if Congress won't!
Amazing.
[i][/i]
Do you see black helicopters?
But for the sake of argument let's say that any theory he creates is a conspiracy theory, does that mean that they are automatically wrong? No, he has presented the evidence that they are true, now it is your turn to either refute that evidence or prove the theory false, until then it is a legitimate theory.
You mean the three criteria you made up ? Or do you have a source for those criteria defining conspiracy ?
Below that definition is this, which is the more fitting definition here;
conspiracy theory
A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely.
NO, it's not up to others to prove that Beck is wrong, it's up to him to show some sort of evidence for his insane theories that Obama wants to destroy him.
Why would a president want to push through so much legislation that the people clearly don't want? Thousand page bills in less than 24 hours, against campaign promises to let the people read the bills. The final marked up version of the cap and trade bill wasn't even available for reading when they took the vote! Why would they propose a health care bill, over a thousand pages, that expands demand by millions of people, without increasing supply, and say that somehow lowers costs, when common sense economics says that isn't possible? It's absolutely perplexing, and the only theory that seems to make sense, as wild as it is, is that they WANT to collapse the system. Obama is on record enumerating the flaws in the Constitution and how he would like to interpret it however he feels like it, as well as being well educated in the Cloward–Piven strategy to end poverty that literally calls for overwhelming and collapsing the system. Bush is no better, getting us into multiple wars just to spread democracy (where as Obama prefers international organizations like the UN to do that), increasing the deficit, not securing our borders while perusing this war on terror, and unconstitutionally expanding his authority, the only difference is that Obama is saying "Change we can believe in - step on the gas! Drive us off a cliff faster faster faster!"
To support this he has cited many sources, perhaps a hundred quotes, video from campaign events, books, radio, interviews, and speeches by Obama as well as other campaign officials, congressmen, people known to be influential to Obama, and occasionally the former administration.
These are fruitcake, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that Beck is promoting. And not even very good ones, they're sloppy and childish.
I've watched his show occasionally, and have a hard time accepting that anybody can see Beck as anything but the confused, paranoid snake oil salesman that he is. I wish you luck.
Even if you didn't catch his few minute speech on the quotes and clips he provided, you still know that the White House is actively attacking FNC, right? This isn't a conspiracy, it's right out in the open. Obama and people in his administration have actively talked about silencing media outlets or making them more "democratic."
Calling these claims "conspiracy theories" is just an easy way to dismiss it as wild lunatic fringe, when in fact, for example, enemies lists have been used before by presidents! Just because an enemies list is unthinkable doesn't mean it's impossible. If you bothered to follow his evidence you might come to some of the same conclusions he is, instead of thinking it's unthinkable and just dismissing it.
RFLAO.
Do you see this, right wing? Do you see what your rabid partisanship and your party over civility has wrought?? We have sunk so low in our political discourse that people like diamonds (who seems actually capable of intelligent thought) now believe this statement is a legitimate theory in modern day politics.
Obama and doctors conspiring to kill the old people was a legitimate theory from Sarah Palin and Charles Grassley. The Democrats purposefully bankrupting the country for their socialist takeover is a legitimate theory. And now Obama and his administration coming after his enemies like Stalin to destroy them is a legitimate theory. When you look around years from now and wonder why nothing ever gets accomplished by our government anymore you will know why. Because we have lowered our discourse to our lowest common denominator. We now listen to the simplest of minds amongst us and pretend like they are leaders. Where are the statesmen in the Republican party? John Danforth where are you?!
You never started first year of law school, did you?
Nor have you learned to use the Internet to check basic law.
Conspiracy does not require secrecy, but it does require a crime. Beck speculates there is an agreement - but there is no crime, hence without a crime the conspiracy is only a theory not a fact.
I prefer to stick with patent law and inventing. I appreciate FindLaw, having met the founders in '98 and still have one of their original TV shirts.
Glenn Beck offered a series of harsh and bizarre comments, ranging from ad hominem attacks on Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Vice President Joe Biden to baseless conspiracy theories. Beck claimed that Obama detailed his "enemies' list" during the speech -- a list he compared to similar lists from "radicals" including Lenin and Stalin -- and warned his audience that we may be witnessing "the beginning" of a "dictorial [sic] kind of state" and that Obama will "pick us off to send you a message."
Just because you invite someone to your birthday party does not mean they'll show up and participate in party games/activities.
The republicans in Congress produced and introduced two pieces of legislation: a budget coloring book of 8 pages with no monetary figures, only graphs; a health care plan list of only a few items, with no cost saving items. If they were locked out and dems didn't want to listen to them, why did they produce these items?
Boehner and McConnell went on the record early last year, and said that the republicans don't have to create policy. Their job is to criticize and attack Obama's policies.
DeMented let everyone know early that on the issue of HCR, they'd use tactics to block it, and that it would be Obama's Waterloo.
Gregg crafted a specific set of instructions for republicans to use to block and delay HCR. If they were locked out, why were the tactics needed?
Some republican members of Congress hosted town halls against HCR on the Capitol steps, aided by Fuchs Noose. They never did this when GWB was in office. Democrats in Congress were not invited to these events. Why not?
Both democrats and republicans often meet in caucuses during which the doors are locked, and there are no members of the opposition party present. This is a common practice. Rep. Cao (R-LA) asked the congressional black caucus if he could meet with them, and they told him yes, except when they are discussing issues specific to planning democratic strategy. If they are being locked out, why did they welcome Rep. Cao to sit in on their caucus meetings?
I watched CSPAN during the HCR debates. The republicans were in the committee meetings, offering and voting on amendments to the bill. The Senate version of the HCR bill includes one of McCain's main campaign planks on HCR. Crooks & Liars has videotape of an interview with Rep. Clyburn (SC) stating that the republicans were involved in all congressional policy issues.
If I were president, I would have left the republicans alone a long time ago. One can't bargain with someone who isn't interested. I also disagreed with the president's idea of having regular meetings with the republican members of Congress because they're not willing to to work with him.
Obama did. He brought them together, he even personally went to the Republicans before he went to the Democrats. Would you have preferred he had put all of them in one Big Brother House and threw away the key? Or would you have screamed bloody murder then and accused him of dictatorial intimidation and acting like Hitler or Mao or Stalin.
Oh wait. He doesn't even have to that. You and Beck will accuse him of that no matter what he does.
If Obama had said, "I BROUGHT all parties together, I DID NOT negotiate behind closed doors, we DID broadcast those negotiations on C-SPAN", those would be verifiable lies, as in "not factual".
Just call him out for not fulfilling his promises instead of mucking up your point with such an easily refutable premise. Sheesh, it's so hard to find good trolls these days....
Obama:
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process" --MagCyn
Did you even bother to take the time to watch the Q&A session that the President held with the Repubs in FL following the SOTU address? I think this very question was posed and was answered.
Which one of these quotes are wrong? They are all true, you can verify that with a little searching. How are any of these quotes even controversial?
Moreover come speak to me when you have some actual evidence that left wing policies are hurting this country. ppsssst try to avoid the opinions of a 24 hr attack machine "news" channel.
Granted, he does use this thing called sarcasm from time to time (you can pick up a T-shirt supposedly endorsing terrorism: "Torches and Pitchforks - Protecting Americans From Politicians Since 1791"). But in serious conversation he has always warned against violence - saying it would absolutely kill liberty as we know it (figuratively and literally).
We're not talking about them, we're talking about Beck's audience.
I would love to hear what the actual criticism of Obama is from this guy. That he is Stalin and he going to destroy Beck because Beck is his enemy? That would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening that you actually believe it.
>>The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.
And here is Beck's clumsy Republican lie.
BECK: They have to shut those people up who have a megaphone or microphone. They must shut them down. This is why I'm begging you: Please, please -- I've said this now for how many years? From the bottom of my heart, I say this to you. Please, there may come a time when there are no people speaking out in the media. There may come that time. That's why you must do you homework now. You cannot waste another minute. Doing your homework, knowing history, knowing the news, following -- knowing what the Constitution says. There may be a time when you are the leader .You're the only voice that people will hear. Please, I beg of you, I beg of you: Pick the torch up, because there may come a time where you are the keeper of the flame, and if you do not pick up that flame when it is handed to you, if you don't pick that torch up, it will go out.
It's the same reason I refuse to commentate on people like Olbermann who I don't watch.
Can you point me at a transcript of where Beck said a similar thing about G W Bush? and how many parties do you think Beck wants? just the one presumably, HIS!
More utter nonsense. Who does he vote for? Who does he interview? Who does he support? Who does he make excuses for and promote and prop up? Who does he work for?
Oh, right... Beck often says in his act that he hate the GOP. I guess that makes it fact to you.
Egads, man.
We only can commentate on Him if We don't use His real words. diamonds can't allow truth to enter the knot of circular arguements it takes to be in that much denial.
'diamond knot', see how I did that?
I'm sorry, but I don't recall beckkk ever calling Bush a "rascist", "socialist", "marxist", "communist", "punk" or a "radical". If you can find audio or video where he has said similar things about Bush, please let us know.
And how shameful that such a person [Beck] can be celebrated for publically calling the president a racist and yet pretend to be such a pious, God-fearing man? And I think the majority of us here also know just what he meant when he called him a "punk," after his SOTU address. Oh, wait ... it's his RIGHT. How blessed he is to live in a country that protects such rights whether we agree with them or not.
What makes it right for him to be name-calling this President but not right for us liberals to name-call President Bush? Oh, yeah, it's the ol' double standard something women and other minorities have stomached for years.
Drill Berry Drill !
Nuclear Generating Plant !
I can see the Billboards in San Francisco this summer...
Narcissist dangerously paranoid delusional insane stuff. And people believe him. Beck sounds just like Stalin!
GLENN BECK.
----------------------------------------------------------
Much like my comment to other day with Malkin, I say the same: This guy wasn't listening to the speech, he was looking in the mirror.
This is the end result of year of drug addiction, alcoholism and mental illness. It runs in his family.
He is on the same path that his mother and brother took. In that respect, it will all be over soon for Mr. Beck. Hopefully, someone sane will fill the fetid hole he has left in civil discourse.
I feel very sorry for his kids.
The man is definitely a paranoid schizophrenic.
-- Matthew McConaughey (as Jake Brigance) in A Time to Kill
Diamond, you can’t use fox no news as your “source” of fact, they don’t care about facts. Pundits like beck, hannity, orielly and limpballs think the President is trying to shut them down but he is really trying to advise their followers, like you, to get another source for the facts. He declared them “other” than news because they are void of the facts. Where did you get “a majority of people HAVE to be wrong about health care, so ram it down their throats anyways!” line? The majority of Americans want an affordable universal or public option health care system, like the rest of the civilized world. You must believe the government wants death panels too?
I look for him to go the way of Lou Dobbs.
1. Beck appeals to a fringe group that is not a reliable base for Conservatives. Aligning with Beck and trying to ride his coattails to capture the vote of his followers is dangerous. Beck has staked out a separatist position that insists on no cooperation with "Socialists" (which is anyone not in the Beck camp). Real Conservatives that want to make policy changes understand that the only way to make such changes is by working inside the existing political system.
2. The continuing promotion of Beck by FOX (for purely commercial purposes) huts Conservatives in this country. They must constantly deal with explaining to their core base why the don't completely agree with Beck. The only chance Conservatives have of making changes politically is by somehow appealing to Independents. These people are typically turned off by partisan and just plain crazy talk and, if they associate Beck with Conservatives, won't even listen to Conservatives.
3. Because Beck's separatist position, he can't be seen even cooperating with the other side because his followers (most of whom are likely even crazier than Beck) won't understand.
Conservatives should either ignore Beck or try to craft some statements that refute him in such a way that they don't bring down the wrath of Beck's crazy followers on themselves.
Frankly, the best thing that Obama could do is agree to be on Beck's show. His debating skills would allow him to easily refute anything Beck says and Beck would then be seen as cooperating with the "Enemy". If Obama manages to link Beck's ideas with the Republicans, it would be a win. In such a situation, the only chance Beck would have would be if he went completely nuts on air and did something crazy like go after the President with a chair.
There is an obvious direct correlation between the level of stupid's rancor and Mr Obama's over all effectiveness.
As we can see,the President was very effective in his meeting with the GOP and Beck is crying like a baby.