Glenn Beck Rally

[ToadBrother]

and Pliny plays the idiot card - FTW! The point of inclusiveness was one that hits squarely on the racial divide that MLK focused on... that the Beck-Palin-a-palooza presumed to exploit for their personal agendas. The absence of blacks within that '87,000' crowd number has been discussed at length across the mainstream/blogs... the "inclusiveness fail". You puffed up and stated there were blacks present - you thought it significant to highlight the presence of "MLK's niece" (too bad you didn't do the legwork to appreciate how Beck exploited her in the lead-up... to recognize she has nothing in common with the principles/ideals of MLK). You could always presume to counter the accepted lack of inclusiveness... you know... take back your idiot card!

Why are you so worried about race? Isn't the most troubling aspect of Beck's little love-in a deep and frightening disregard or confusion over the First Amendment's intent to create, in Jefferson's words a "wall of separation"?

I'm sure there are just as many blacks who have little regard for the First Amendment as there are whites, and they will all find Beck's hatred of religious liberties and the means in which they were intended to be protected a message made just for them.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure why any sensible person would want to be running the United States right now.

Because they have the ego and aspiration to do so. The grueling campaign and election process separates the pretenders from the contenders. That you even ponder this question in Canada is evidence of the job's attraction and importance.

Still the loss of control of Congress, or at least the House of Representatives, was pretty much a known quantity from the 2008 election onward. I wouldn't count Obama out quite yet. If the GOP does something really stupid like put that simpering half-wit Palin anywhere on the 2012 ticket, I think Obama will make it through.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for President Obama, but today's circumstances are not unlike those of many in America's political past. It's a train wreck by design, and the world loves to watch.

[waldo]

What difference does it make how many black people there were?

People of all races are welcome to attend, I am sure. Nitpicking about racial numbers is a distraction from the issue.

you stated, "People who support the ideals of the rally attended"... that no/so few blacks attended, by your statement, suggests blacks did not support the ideals of the rally. A significant premise behind the rally... one of the reasons it was purposely targeted around the MLK march/dream anniversary, was it's attempt to exploit the MLK march/dream in support of the ideals of the rally... that no/so few blacks attended - or supported.

[jefferiah]

you stated, "People who support the ideals of the rally attended"... that no/so few blacks attended, by your statement, suggests blacks did not support the ideals of the rally. A significant premise behind the rally... one of the reasons it was purposely targeted around the MLK march/dream anniversary, was it's attempt to exploit the MLK march/dream in support of the ideals of the rally... that no/so few blacks attended - or supported.

Who says that because few blacks attended that this means MLK would not have believed in many of the ideals of the rally? Do all blacks think alike, Waldo?

Edited August 31, 2010 by jefferiah

[dre]

Stayed the course?

In some respects, maybe. On spending he has more than stayed the course, opening up the spigots even wider.

I wouldn't call introducing and passing a national health care bill as staying the course or turning General Motors into Government Motors? Nor would I call them measures to patch a sinking ship.

The healthcare bill and the bailouts are merely tranfers of taxpayer wealth to government lobbying corporations. Theyre corporate welfare projects just like the GWOT. This is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE in Washington. Whenever people are afraid of something they hype up the fear, and invoke images of the great depression or a mushroom cloud over NewYork city, or desperate family thats going to lose somebody who cant get health insurance.... and get a virtually blank check.

Taking money from frightened Americans is the most profitable endeavor in the history of the human race.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who says that because few blacks attended that this means MLK would not have believed in many of the ideals of the rally? Do all blacks think alike, Waldo?

Yes...for waldo....blacks are a monolithic block. They're all "black"...right? What more does he need to know?

[ToadBrother]

Because they have the ego and aspiration to do so. The grueling campaign and election process separates the pretenders from the contenders. That you even ponder this question in Canada is evidence of the job's attraction and importance.

Ego and aspiration are easy enough to find in the political realm, wherever you may look. It would be nice if ability was also part of it. Obama showed precious little ability, but no lack of ego or aspiration. Not that there haven't been inexperienced presidents before, but Obama seems to be a one-trick pony, using the same sort of tactics to govern as he did to win the election, and they are really two totally different toolkits.

Quite frankly, when I saw McCain's concession speech, I couldn't help but see a little relief on his face. I actually think he would have been the best man for the job, myself, though he made some blunders. The real tragedy of the last decade of American politics, though, is that McCain wasn't the winner in 2000. The McCain of 2008 was a tired and battered version of his 2000 self.

If Karl Rove deserves to be boiled alive, it's for the awful stunts he orchestrated on McCain, a real war hero, to the aid of a phony and a moron in the person of George W. Bush.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for President Obama, but today's circumstances are not unlike those of many in America's political past. It's a train wreck by design, and the world loves to watch.

True enough. I've said for some time that the GOP's biggest problem is the Tea Party, which will favor demagogic empty heads like Palin over smart cookies like Romney or Huckabee.

[ToadBrother]

Who says that because few blacks attended that this means MLK would not have believed in many of the ideals of the rally? Do all blacks think alike, Waldo?

It is kind of funny to watch everyone declaring how he would feel about abortion rights or gay marriage. I see both sides committing the same fallacies. Truth is, no one really knows, because King wasn't battling for or against gay rights or for or against abortion rights, he was battling for civil rights in an age when that meant people of color getting the same rights as everyone else. To try to extrapolate from that, well, that's just idiotic.

I don't think Sharpton or Beck know how MLK would have felt about the current culture war flash points, and neither does MLK. He's been dead for forty odd years now. Can any of these people formulate and justify a point of view on their own?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ego and aspiration are easy enough to find in the political realm, wherever you may look. It would be nice if ability was also part of it. Obama showed precious little ability, but no lack of ego or aspiration. Not that there haven't been inexperienced presidents before, but Obama seems to be a one-trick pony, using the same sort of tactics to govern as he did to win the election, and they are really two totally different toolkits.

Yours is a common misconception...presidential campaigns are not about picking the best or most experienced. They are about political competition and power.

Quite frankly, when I saw McCain's concession speech, I couldn't help but see a little relief on his face. I actually think he would have been the best man for the job, myself, though he made some blunders. The real tragedy of the last decade of American politics, though, is that McCain wasn't the winner in 2000. The McCain of 2008 was a tired and battered version of his 2000 self.

McCain wasn't the winner because he lost in the totality of his political effort(s). Hell, draft dodger Bill Clinton beat experienced WW2 veterans.

If Karl Rove deserves to be boiled alive, it's for the awful stunts he orchestrated on McCain, a real war hero, to the aid of a phony and a moron in the person of George W. Bush.

Again, you are ignoring the true nature of the process. It is not Canada.

[waldo]

you stated, "People who support the ideals of the rally attended"... that no/so few blacks attended, by your statement, suggests blacks did not support the ideals of the rally. A significant premise behind the rally... one of the reasons it was purposely targeted around the MLK march/dream anniversary, was it's attempt to exploit the MLK march/dream in support of the ideals of the rally... that no/so few blacks attended - or supported.

Who says that because few blacks attended that this means MLK would not have believed in many of the ideals of the rally? Do all blacks think alike, Waldo?

why the broad-leap? I've not stated anything about MLK beliefs (or what you interpret them to be), in terms of, as you say, the ideals of the Beck-Palin-a-palooza. But don't hesitate to step-up and parallel MLK beliefs with the Beck/Palin agenda... while you're at it, on a specific level, you could also offer comment on just why so few blacks attended the rally. On a general level, you could also offer comment on just why so few blacks support the tea-party... you know, that significant portion of the Beck/Palin base.

Beck, tea party and divisive politics

It is sad and somewhat alarming to watch Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and their tea party followers organizing and marching to "Take back America, restore our honor and return to God" ("Thousands attend Beck rally," Aug. 29).

While long on sound bites and flag waving, the group comes up a little short on specifics and real motives. Who are they taking America back from - the African-American community, Latinos, the disadvantaged, immigrants to America over the past 200 years? And what are they taking back - the America of Jim Crow when Blacks had no rights, when Jews faced hostile discrimination in housing and the workplace, when gays and lesbians could not fully participate in our society, when the handicapped had little access to public facilities, or when women had no vote and faced workplace discrimination and harassment? How about the America when there were no labor laws to protect the rights of workers and prevent child labor, the America when pollution was so bad that Lake Erie was ablaze, or America before Social Security which allows retired seniors to enjoy some semblance of financial independence?

Which God are we to return to - the Judeo-Christian God, the God of Islam or the God of Buddhists and Hindus?

With all of our problems, we have become a better and more inclusive America over the past 50 years. Glenn Beck and his followers shout down the idea of a Muslim center near Ground Zero as being insensitive, but see no insensitivity in calling our president a Muslim "with deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" or comparing President Barack Obama's America to "The Planet of the Apes." The tea party may deny a racist agenda, but their words and actions send a very different message.

We have real issues to solve in America - an economic crisis, failing schools, crime, rising poverty, and unaffordable health care. Glenn Beck and his tea party followers would do well to come up with real solutions to these issues and move away from their agenda to divide America along, racial, ethnic, class and religious lines.

[ToadBrother]

Again, you are ignoring the true nature of the process. It is not Canada.

I'm curious as to why you think it's different in Canada, or any democracy? Obviously the game is different in some respects, but at the end of the day ability is inevitably a distant second. In our system, however, what's favored more than a pretty face is a skilled party manager, and yet again it's an example of how skills for one role don't always translate to skills in another. But democracy is a popularity contest, and sadly popularity seldom has a damned thing to do with ability.

I still think McCain would have been the best man to deal with 9-11. Even if he had decided to invade Iraq (by no means a certainty), he certainly wouldn't have done it the ludicrously under-manned fashion that Bush did.

[jefferiah]

On a general level, you could also offer comment on just why so few blacks support the tea-party... you know, that significant portion of the Beck/Palin base.

I don't feel a need to. People of all races are welcome to attend. There is nothing racist about their rally. The tea party is about less taxes, smaller government etc. Why don't more people of a particular race support it? I do not know. Who cares? Either you support it or you don't. Finding out that a certain demographic does not support something is not a reason to stop supporting something you believe in.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm curious as to why you think it's different in Canada, or any democracy? Obviously the game is different in some respects, but at the end of the day ability is inevitably a distant second. In our system, however, what's favored more than a pretty face is a skilled party manager, and yet again it's an example of how skills for one role don't always translate to skills in another. But democracy is a popularity contest, and sadly popularity seldom has a damned thing to do with ability.

It's different than Canada (and other democracies) for several reasons, including constitutional technicalities, funding mechanisms, media complicity, two party politics, and fickle voters. Skilled party management is a priority for House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, not necessarily the sitting president.

I still think McCain would have been the best man to deal with 9-11. Even if he had decided to invade Iraq (by no means a certainty), he certainly wouldn't have done it the ludicrously under-manned fashion that Bush did.

This is just more conjecture atop conjecture. Iraq was invaded...pretty or not.

[Jack Weber]

In the sense of being one-dimensional you have strong opinions.

I would hope that no one would construe what I said to mean we hold the same opinions.

Actually, calling someone two-dimensional is pretty much a leftist slur, painting the right as seeing only themselves and everyone else as a leftist. Leftists know there are all kinds of different political views and there should be at least ten different political parties to more properly represent all the people.

Honestly though all those political parties are usually single issue parties, running their entire political platforms from the perspective of their own special interest. The Green party, The workers party, the Humanitarian party, etc. Now that's being multi-dimensional according to the left. You can roll them all up into the big government socialist party.

It's a pity but Canada is pretty much a single minded politically left wing nation. Americans tolerate different views more than Canadians will and this thread is an illustration of that.

Harper to me is not very right wing but whenever he enacts any kind of legislation that he perceives to be the reason he was elected it is painted as right-wing fascist extremism. Basically, I think he tries to be mainstream and not cater to special interests and the special interests are offended and vocal about not being catered to. The Gun registry, the long form census. Special interests want to keep the status quo on these issues but the general populace thinks most of it a superfluous unnecessary expense or government intrusion.

But really Jack, doesn't everything on the right harbour some fascism and everything on the left harbour some socialism with you "centrists" the only logical bunch?

I might err in referring to you as a centrist. You aren't a centrist in my view, you are of the lib-left and harbour some socialist views. Do you consider yourself a centrist? I am a proponent of small government so if you're a centrist I don't know where I sit.

I am a centrist...And I have strong views on both sides of the poltical spectrum...This hardly makes me a part of the Lib/Left..

You area a conservative libertarian who would have to admit to feeling all things from the left are some sort of long creep into Socialist/Marxist totalitarianism.I don't hold that view...I contend that the extreme left and extreme right have done enough horrible things all on their own,seperate and distinct from one another,and,the motivations of both totalitarian forms come from completely seperate starting points.

You and I do not agree on economics but we do agree on the issues involving Enviromarxists...

You and I do not agree on organized labour but I'll bet we do agree on issues involving the state of Israel...

So,and so forth...

That's not one dimensional,and because I seem to hold diametrically opposing ideological viewpoints on certain issues,that's not even two dimensional.Being two dimensional,in this case,means one only see's things in an either/or fashion(good or bad,black or white etc.)Now I've just given away Professor Kitzel's answer for him...That would be the one he did'nt have the intellect to admit to...

Edited August 31, 2010 by Jack Weber

[waldo]

why the broad-leap? I've not stated anything about MLK beliefs (or what you interpret them to be), in terms of, as you say, the ideals of the Beck-Palin-a-palooza. But don't hesitate to step-up and parallel MLK beliefs with the Beck/Palin agenda... while you're at it, on a specific level, you could also offer comment on just why so few blacks attended the rally. On a general level, you could also offer comment on just why so few blacks support the tea-party... you know, that significant portion of the Beck/Palin base.

Beck, tea party and divisive politics

I don't feel a need to. People of all races are welcome to attend. There is nothing racist about their rally. The tea party is about less taxes, smaller government etc. Why don't more people of a particular race support it? I do not know. Who cares? Either you support it or you don't. Finding out that a certain demographic does not support something is not a reason to stop supporting something you believe in.

and... you make another broad leap - I've not stated anything about whether someone should support, or not, or to stop supporting... based on demographics. Since you're defining the tea-party in terms of, as you say, "less taxes, smaller government, etc"... perhaps you need to elaborate on the "etc"

[jefferiah]

and... you make another broad leap - I've not stated anything about whether someone should support, or not, or to stop supporting... based on demographics. Since you're defining the tea-party in terms of, as you say, "less taxes, smaller government, etc"... perhaps you need to elaborate on the "etc"

What's the ratio of people with those signs to tea party rally attendants?

[Shady]

What's the ratio of people with those signs to tea party rally attendants?

There's only ever a few. In fact, there's so few, that people like waldo have resorted to pretending to be part of the rallies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrY5dEeDtio

BREAKING NEWS: he's a liberal activist. Here is a picture, from Collins's now-suspended Facebook page, of the future fake tea partyer campaigning for Barack Obama

Slate

[Moonlight Graham]

I would tend to be concerned if Beck and Palin actually had any hope of carrying the momentum into power. they don't, because they keep stumbling over and over. Like with the rally... if they had any hope of feeding off the civil rights legacy of MLK, it failed miserably the moment Beck showed his complete cluelessness by evoking MLK in support of the military.

But they DO have power. They don't need to hold elected office to influence legislation & politics. They influence public opinion and which issues are talked about. Glenn Beck & Bill O'Reilly together rake in over 5 million viewers daily (which includes the repeat of O'Reilly's show at 11pm that has higher ratings than Olbermann's primetime show!). Beck and O'Reilly are arguably the 2 biggest political pundits in the US.

As for MLK, he was a proponent of non-violent resistance & i know he certainly was much against the Vietnam War. But the truth doesn't matter much if people listen to Beck and then believe whatever he says rather than stick their noses in some history books. Anyone who thought Beck was an idiot wouldn't be listening to him or reading all his books. People like Beck (like any pundit) have the power to change/influence opinions, and make them believe "facts" even if they are not so.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

But they DO have power. They don't need to hold elected office to influence legislation & politics. They influence public opinion and which issues are talked about. Glenn Beck & Bill O'Reilly together rake in over 5 million viewers daily (which includes the repeat of O'Reilly's show at 11pm that has higher ratings than Olbermann's primetime show!).

Yeah, hows that working out for America... Having voters getting their political education from guys like Hannity, Olbermann, Oreilly, and Beck?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, hows that working out for America... Having voters getting their political education from guys like Hannity, Olbermann, Oreilly, and Beck?

Working out just fine....hell, even you know about them as part of your own "political education", and you don't even live there!

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, hows that working out for America... Having voters getting their political education from guys like Hannity, Olbermann, Oreilly, and Beck?

Yes, because they're the only people talking in the entire United States.

Look, the fact is that the guys like Beck and O'Reilly are preaching to the converted. I doubt very much you're dealing with a lot of Democrats at that particular rally.

This is what always makes me nervous about my fellow countrymen. We always seem so nervous that someone might say something that doesn't coincide with the perceived orthodoxy. It's all those people who don't want a Fox North. Surely our freedoms are best served by a multiplicity of voices, and not by the kind of monochromatic view put forward by the "Establishment".

Worse, in a way, is the underlying notion that the electorate are a bunch of simpering morons.

Edited August 31, 2010 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

It's all those people who don't want a Fox North.

What's scary is they say they don't want it even before ever hearing or seeing Fox North. The word that comes to mind is censure.

[ToadBrother]

What's scary is they say they don't want it even before ever hearing or seeing Fox North. The word that comes to mind is censure.

I don't really care one way or the other. Heck, put that maniac Rachel Marsden on there. It's supposed to be a country where free expression is honored. If they want to put 24 hours a day of moronic invective on there, then so be it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Having a conservative news channel in Canada would be fine, great in fact. It's healthy to get different viewpoints on issues. However, i wouldn't want something like FOX News. Too much B.S. and twisting truth.

Have people on there like Lowell Green, a conservative who criticizes left-wing policies in Canada but is well informed & doesn't spread complete B.S.

Canwest is conservative-leaning though (the newspapers more so than Global TV i find) so it's not like the right doesn't get a voice in Canada.

[jefferiah]

Having a conservative news channel in Canada would be fine, great in fact. It's healthy to get different viewpoints on issues. However, i wouldn't want something like FOX News. Too much B.S. and twisting truth.

A lot of people think CBC spins stuff. Who decides who is spinning too much? Aside from that it is the media which has dubbed it Fox News North. Even if it is. What's wrong with that?