Thanks.
Posted on 09/13/2009 4:37:15 AM PDT by NCBraveheart
A football analogy; when he went back to his desk and on with his show, it was a momentum killer for me. I could have had me, and others glued to the FOX coverage and his analysis.
Thanks.
Google "glenn beck bipolar" and you will see that I am not the first person to suggest the possibility.
proves my point.........why cannot conservatives stand by their man? he is standing up for us.
I’ll look for the birth cert while I am there.
BECK RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A VERY HIGH UP DEM WHO IS ALSO OUTRAGED AT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY, TOLD GLEN
HE OR SHE IS AFRAID OF THE POWERS THAT BE. THEY DESTROY PEOPLE, THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR FRIENDS ECT. GLEN SAW HOPE DUE TO THIS CALL HE RECEIVED. THE CORRUPTION NEEDS TO BE STOPPED. WE HAVE TO STOP IT. A YEAR UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION
IS TO LATE,THE POWERS THAT BE ARE ON A MISSION, THE CORRUPTION OF ACORN HAS BEEN EXPOSED. GLEN IS NOT OFF HIS
GAME HE IS DEAD ON. TERM LIMITS IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!
I AGREE WITH YOU I ADORE GLEN BECK, WHY ARE WE EATING OUR OWN GLEN IS SLOWLY GETTING THE JOB DONE, EXPOSING THE CORRUPTION PAY ATTENTION TO GLEN, EACH AND EVERY DAY.
THANK YOU YOU ARE RIGHT, WE NEED TO STAND BY GLEN HE IS
GREAT. STAND BY GLEN, ALL OF YOU, STAND BY GLEN!!!!!
This would give the conservative movement a bad reputation. What was done on 9/12 was marginalized by the MSM, but was classy and non-violent. That will go A LOT FURTHER with the people of this country, who we are getting to vote our way, than disrupting DC for a day.
I get mad when the anarchists disrupt cities. I see them as counter-productive. Your idea would get a lot of attention, but it would be negative attention and the independent voters we want to serve as model for, would be really turned off. JMHO.
I see your point.
Thank you.
What can you do? Beck is doing terrific work. His delivery is pretty bad - he trips over his teleprompter often. He can be too heavy handed. He is too nice and not slick in the least, so his self-promotions are painfully obvious.
With people, you get what you get. He is a huge net plus right now. I can forgive him his faults and indiscretions.
Where are the rest of the conservative hosts and commentators? I see a lot of harping by them, but not a lot of true activism. They need to step up and expose far more NEW REVELATIONS about Obama, his people, supporting organizations, and agenda.
People like Rush just spout off too much without really teaching us anything new. Hannity needs to let go of Jeremiah Wright and start hammering on new revelations, and to be fair, he has been doing EXACTLY that lately, so KEEP GOING SEAN!
I disagree with your opinion that Beck equates the Republicans with the Democrats. He does say that. I don’t think he entirely believes it. I give him more credit than that.
I think Glenn Beck’s entire plan is trying to get to the left-of-center independents who, when combined with conservatives, can reduce government.
I really think he knows he runs a severe risk of losing Democrats and he is bending over backwards to bring them into the anti-government flock.
On 9/12, Patty Ann Brown read another facebook post against the tea party protest. Specifically, she read a post denigrating conservatives for “wrapping themselves in the flag”. I was as shocked as Patty Ann when Beck went on to mirror the critic on facebook. He bent over backwards to say he doesn’t show flags on his show because he doesn’t want to co-opt the flag as representing only his opinions. Reading between the lines he was saying he doesn’t want to alienate those who disagree with him at this point by implying they are not patriots.
Glenn’s method of madness looks very crafty to me. All of his statement are meant to try to be inclusive of all political parties against the government. It is part of his strategy for reaching out to people. Part of the reason he is so effective, is that he has stayed on message and stayed true to his “independent” claim.
Many who are independent are transparent disgruntled Republicans. Limbaugh and Hannity are transparent Republican supporters. These hosts can’t sell their message to those center left independents who can be brought into the fold if they are educated to the tyranny of big government. Beck is trying to ride that very fine line, and look what happened — he pissed of a conservative like you. I think he realizes that people like you are already on board the pro-constitution, small government train, and he doesn’t really need to get through to you.
I think Glenn Beck’s entire plan is trying to get to the left-of-center independents who, when combined with conservatives, can reduce government. Limbaugh and Hannity are preaching to the choir — nice but not as effective. Beck is looking to change minds. That is far more useful.
Absolute Bullcrap. There is huge difference. As much as the Republicans are power-mongering elitists, they have not been co-opted by the communist movement, which the Democrats have. You need to have your head examined.
Bush sucked, but he gaves us 2 solid Supreme Court justices. Look what Obama and Clinton gaves us - ACLU hacks.
You need your head examined if you think there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. I am very disappointed with the freedoms robbed from me by the Republicans, but to say they are the same as the fag-loving, atheistic, communist, radical Democrats that have destroyed the family, destroyed the schools, crippled us with taxes and now want to shove socialized medicine down our throats, as well as cripple our energy sector and put control of our production in the hands of government -- is flat wrong.
You are delusional. Get help.
Shhhhh. All caps is shouting.
bttt
A bipolar diagnosis is of course impossible over the television. Glenn has himself spoken at length on his show about his trials with being too hyperactive from ADD, and the medications he has been experimenting with to make his job performance more smooth, and how it is hard on his staff when he isn’t on his medication:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/12741/
Now, I have tried different medications, et cetera, et cetera, and don’t like most of them and it is really an odd thing to mess with, especially at my age, mess with what a lot of — I believe a lot of my ADD has led to my success. But to be able to regulate it in such a way to where you don’t drive everybody out of their mind crazy around you, I started taking something called Vyvanse. It’s a new drug, and it has — if I may point out my staff knows when I’m not on ADD medicine. True or false? I called Chris Balfe when I was on tour and he was — and he’s our president of our company and I said, you know what, I just realized something, I’m off my medication and that’s why all of this stuff is going on in my head. And he said, Glenn, you’re telling me like this is a surprise? I was on the other side of the country. I hadn’t seen him in a week. And he said, Glenn, day one every member of the staff called and said, could you please get Glenn back on his medication? Because I was keeping people up at 3:00 in the morning going, no, no, wait, wait, wait, I got a better idea.
God works though all kinds of people. He is working through Beck, who, like all of us, is an imperfect vessel.
I hope you are right in assigning Glenn Beck such benign motives but I am not fully persuaded.
The problem is it plays right into the talking points of the Democrat party playbook who routinely equate George Bush's overspending with Barack Obama's even though Obama's is several orders of magnitude greater- so the comparison is simply absurd. Second, I do not think it is a good idea to attract people to your party by telling them that it is infested with crooks. Third, Glenn Beck is a self-confessed libertarian (I too have confessed to pesky libertarian impulses from time to time) and it is typical of a libertarian to vent his wrath against the Republicans even though the Democrats are far greater sinners against his catechism.
I fear that Beck has a vision of forming a new party which would be a move of catastrophic consequences. I much prefer your analysis.
I would add to these thoughts the repetition of my original post in which I say that if Glenn Beck has no ambitions to start a third party, he utterly misconceived how the two-party system in America works. It is all well and good to pander to independents who make a fetish of despising both parties-you will also often hear libertarians beat this drum-but the problem is that the premise of that pandering is that there is something wrong with Republic party which requires apology. To a conservative the failing is that they were not conservative enough. But usually the apologies run to explaining that the Republicans not really that conservative. Ultimately, the attempt founders on its internal inconsistencies.
I have posted a very long post dealing with the art of filling the big tent; it is not done by pandering to the mushy middle. I am going to impose it on you despite its length and ask for your reaction:
Governing is about exercising power. Political parties are about appropriating that power to one's own purpose. The founding fathers created a government containing many checks and balances in an effort to frustrate human tendency to consolidate power in one tyrant or, on the other hand, to concede power to the mob. Political parties in America are designed to overcome the checks and balances put by the framers into the Constitution.
The peculiar architecture of the American federal system with its bicameral legislatures, tripartite "coequal" and branches of government, staggered elections for various branches, Constitutional limitations of government power especially freedom of the press and speech, are designed to make government impotent in the absence of a general consensus. The purpose of political parties is to provide that consensus for its constituents' point of view, to provide a consensus about how power should be wielded across the various competing entities of government.
The peculiar architecture of the American federal political system with its checks and balances means that it functions properly as a two-party system. Any successful attempt to form a third political party invariably condemns the political party from which it shoots off and to which it is most closely ideologically aligned to oblivion. Since it is human nature to entertain incessant arguments over the proper application of political power, political parties in America have developed a survival mechanism, they co-opt the principle grievances of the splinter group and make the dissidents' platform their own. This has been the history of political parties in America since the beginning. When a new ideology becomes popular, one party or the other seeks to absorb it.
If the party misjudges the public mood and embraces a splinter ideology in an effort to co-opt when that ideology is too radical to be palatable to the general public, the party loses the next election because it moves out of the mainstream. If the party misjudges the other way and declines to co-opt a movement which happens to be of sufficient strength, the party loses the next election because it has fractured its base. If a party attempts to absorb views of the other party, or approaching that of the other party, it risks losing the next election by alienating its own base. If it fails to absorb views approaching the ideology of the other party, it risks losing the next election by isolating itself to its own base.
Political parties are eternally faced with the same dilemma: should the party dilute its core message to attract less ideologically motivated voters or should it confine itself to a pure message and energize its core constituents? In attempting to solve these tensions, political parties are like amoebas or yeasts, everlastingly dividing or growing.
These realities which have been laid out above are regarded to be descriptive not necessarily desirable. The first reality is that America functions with a two-party system. Any deviation from that dialectic means that the system is wrecked and the dissidents almost always engage in self-defeating behavior which brings governance to the other end of the political system and accomplishes precisely the opposite of what they intend. This is of course not always the case as when the nation is confronted with a tectonic issue such as slavery. But it was the case for example with many other movements in America. Strong movements are absorbed by one or the other of the political parties and unpopular dissident movements simply die off.
The question is how does the conservative movement seize the Republican Party and exploit that vehicle to bring conservative governance to the country and save the republic from Obama? Despite what I wrote above concerning the eternal give-and-take between absorption and rejection of splinter movements by a political party, I nevertheless believe that a political party, especially one that enjoys ideological agreement by a 60+ percent of the country, wins elections by the purity of its message. Anyone who can find an inconsistency between the prior post and the following post can make the most of it.
I wrote this reply before the debacle of last election but in anticipation of the disaster to come:
Here is a portion of a post which I published in response to a Politico article calling for Republicans and conservatives to move left to fill the big tent:
As we conservatives drag the remnants of our movement into the wilderness with no idea how we will emerge or whether we will ever emerge as an electoral force in America which is recognizable by my generation, we must inevitably engage ourselves in the most soul- searing inquiry of what went wrong. This will be an agony but equally it will be effective only to the degree that it hurts. It will not succeed without bloodshed. There must be finger-pointing and bloodletting. We must carve to the bone. The process must be Darwinian. Those whose ideas are false must be bayoneted on the trail.
The object is to find our soul - nothing less. In a come to Jesus sense we must get absolutely clear what it means to be a conservative. Only at this point do we look to the tent flaps and open them. Those who cannot subscribe to the hard-won consensus, to a confession of faith as to what is a conservative, should walk out through that flap. Those who are attracted from the outside to the core message of conservatism should be encouraged to walk through the flap and enlarge the tent. What the left wants us to do is to expand the census in the tent prematurely and thus turn a movement into a menagerie.
The Soul-searching must be conducted by conservatives without the earnest ministrations from liberals like those of Politico. This article, of course, has nothing whatever to do with explaining why Republicans lost 2008 election across the board, it has everything to do with first efforts by the left to sabotage the rebuilding process on the right which must be done exclusively by the right.
We did not lose the 2008 election because we were excessively partisan while Obama was enlightened and transcendental. We actually lost the election because George Bush and Karl Rove betrayed the soul of conservatism. A party without its soul is like an army which does not believe in itself, it cannot win the next contest. A party which had abandoned its principles and so lost the last two elections and frittered away both its power as the ruling coalition and its status as the majority philosophy of the nation, cannot expect to swell its ranks by recruiting to a lost cause. The party must first know what the cause is and only then can it recruit. To again borrow the military analogy, a party like an army disintegrates without a mission. Armies are assigned missions but a political party finds its mission only through soul-searching.
As this process occurs we will be told by the left that only a big tent party can win and that to become a big tent one must move to co-opt the center. That is not how it works. That is the reverse of the way it works. The center is not peopled by voters with fixed notions about the exercise of power who wait for one of the great political parties to surrender their values and embrace the tempered and resolute opinions of the middle. That happens with splinter parties but not with the mushy middle. When an unaffiliated voter bestirs himself to enter the polling booth he is confronted with one of two options: right or left. He does not consider who has moved the farthest geographically from right to the left or left to right any more than he commits because of his own long held political beliefs. He votes for the fella who best tickles his fancy at the moment. Put more charitably, he votes for the candidate who persuades that he is the best, and has the best to offer.
[Since writing the above I have been exposed to data from Rasmussen and Gallup which assert that the Republicans, although the minority political party as compared to the Democrats who represent a plurality, in their conservative political philosophy are in the majority ideologically. Therefore I think that a majority of undecided voters react according to their predisposition, which is essentially to be conservative if it is not distorted by the Democrats, and default toward the Republican or conservative position. Thus, when one talks about undecideds and those who inhabit the "mushy middle" the matter comes down to who is best able to articulate an attractive set of policies, a contest in which the Republicans enjoy the ideological advantage and the Democrats enjoy the media advantagea.] If we as conservatives do not believe that we have the best to offer we should get out of the business. A candidate, like a party, who is centered in and his philosophy and who has integrity will simply be persuasive.
Because of his race, Obama was asked only to demonstrate that he could walk and talk like a president. Obama has won the middle, not because he pandered to them, which he did, but because he had the wind at his back.
As John McCain reverts from titular head of the Republican Party to United States Senator, it falls to the rest of us to contrive a governing philosophy which he, unfortunately, did not own and therefore could not bequeath to us. We had such a legacy from Ronald Reagan but we squandered it. We must construct our own. We must do it in the wilderness. We must do it unaided by intermeddling liberals. Their's is the serpent's way, the easy way, a pander to the superficially popular, the accommodation to the middle. The bed of birth has always been a bed of pain. The pain must be embraced if we are to receive a new life.
---------------------------------------------------------
I do not see how we can do it by pandering to the media or by accepting the Libertarians damning both houses, or Glenn Beck's approach which is to say that there is no difference between the parties. We have got to find a philosophy which is attractive and draw people to us. Glenn Beck, as you describe what you think he is doing, is doing the opposite-at least as far as his incessant references to the Democrats and the Republicans being equally blameworthy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.