I LOVE YOU GLENN BECK may Jesus himself grant you another year of telling the TRUTH and fighting SOCIOFASCISM!!!111

Take my advice Spensen, stay away from “open mike” nights unless your into rejection.

Congrats to Beck — an incredible year. If memory serves me correctly, the score was

Beck – 3
Obama – 0.

TIMZANK! How DARE you sir be critical of a conservative WHO WAS doing nothing more THAN speaking THE mind!!!! You sir ARE JUST scared of hearing THE truth, especially WHEN SPOKEN by a……….

Oh hell, I can’t keep that crap up. Does anyone have the first clue what the hell is up with Spensen”s shtick? I know he is angling for a quasi-Colbert vibe, but damn – is that tedious.

Give credit where credit is due, nice article.

I do find it funny how quickly Beck is back on the Republican bandwagon. Wasn’t his six million year plan supposed to be about blowing up the two parties? This is why I have always seen this guy as an opportunist and not a populist. He’s throw his support behind a pro-choice guy in Mass who voted for universal health care in his state just because he has an R after his name. How about throwing your support behind a third party Glenn? Nope? Why? Because you are and always will be a shamless hack. Just like Olberman on the left. You are a fraud.

Well Blair, who was the 3rd party choice today?

MartiniShark–

There was a 3rd patry candidate. Joe Kennedy. He got 1% of the vote.

Not sure why Glenn ignored this guy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15massachusetts.html

To hazard a guess I’d say it was because this was a special election, and the “fill a seat” time frame may have been way too short to build up a campaign. Maybe Beck was focused on first breaking up the super-majority and take it from there? As you mentioned he still has plenty of time ahead.

The special election thing doesn’t do it. Remember he was all over Hoffman in NY-23? It was b/c the guy had an R after his name. This guy is pro-choice. This guy is no tea party guy….and that is my point about Beck. When it looked like the Rs were in the wilderness, Glenn was was playing the lone wolf in the wilderness card. Now that they seem to be electable again, he is back with them. His beliefs be damned, so long as there is an R after the guy’s name.

I realize he is not alone. I just read these comments where he is this sage leading people through the wilderness and laugh. He is a dj who found a gig that made him a living. It worked for Olberman when Bush was unpopular. Now Olberman looks like an ass every nice now that his guy is in power. That is the crux of my critique about the guy.

Heck, I’d be inclined to join up if I thought for a minute that any of this was really about getting the silliness out of Washington and not just opposing Obama for opposition’s sake. But I just can’t believe how quickly those outraged about the spending and debt are so quick to put back the same team that created the lagrest federal bureaucracy ever in the DHS, took over an entire industry in creating the TSA (and took a private workforce to the govt payroll), and waged two wars entirely on borrowed money. In my opinion it is b/c Beck and his 9/12 folks aren’t about anything other than not liking Obama.

If they really are against the government and its out-of-control spending, why aren’t we seeing Mitch McConnell and Oren Hatch’s faces on posters? They voted the single largest entitlement program ever into being in the Medicare Part D program. Will the anti-incumbent rage of Beck go after them?

We both know the answwer is no. He is not serious about any of this. He is a joke.

If you think differently, I respect your right to dissent.

Well I’m no Beck acolyte. I listen to him occasionally and he has some sound ideas, but the 9/12, 3rd party idea strikes me as needing a longer ramp up time. I’m only giving you my read on this particular election, which wasn’t even a consideration until Ted passed this fall. You had to have primaries and a brief election cycle in a few short months — it seems like a too brief cycle to introduce a 3rd party candidate, especially in a Dem stronghold. Again, just my read. if he starts stumping for this fall elections now it would make more sense.

One thing I haven’t heard is how funny it is that politics bit the Mass Dems in their rears. You know they created this special election law when Romney was governor to keep him from appointing a Republican when Kennedy died. If they had simply left well enough alone, Governor Patrick would have appointed a Dem to the seat and none of this would have happened.

Law of unintended consequences, I guess.

Thanks for your thoughts. Have a great evening.

I’d like to answer Keith Olbermann’s challenge that someone prove Scott Brown innocent– a formulation particularly ironic in light of Olbermann’s chicken little rants on the death of due process under the Bush Administration. A short-lived concern on Keith’s part, lasting no longer than 8 years of the Bush Administration…

Let me say I offer up this defense in the same spirit as Keith offered up his “proof” that Scott Brown is racist, homophobe, etc…etc…which means I’ll use Keith’s own pedantic and legalistic form of reasoning.

I’ll start with Olbermann’s “proof” that Brown is a “supporter of violence against women” because he failed to apologize for saying “we can do this” in response to a supporter who yelled “stick a curling iron up her [Coakley's] butt”:

First of all, Coakley may be a woman but she does not represent all of womankind. It is possible to bear an animus to an opponent that would not be extended to every member of their particular gender.

For example, if Coakley was a male and the campaign supporter had yelled “ream him!” or “bend him over!” (or some other similar expression that Olbermann has surely heard a thousand times by locker room jocks and MSNBC would-be political jocks), Olbermann would not assume that this sentiment extended to all of mankind, let alone that it was an actual threat of violence. Hell..he wouldn’t even assume that THAT sort of expression was even sexist. Was it an ugly remark– no doubt. Was it an actual inducement to violence– no.

That Brown did not apologize for his supporter’s remark proves nothing other than that he refused to be drawn into a scenario where he escalated the story in the media by making an apology. Ditto for the fact that Brown did not deny that his statement “we can do that” was in response to the man’s remark. By not being drawn into game of having to explain what could easily have been a nervous unthinking lapse in a public situation, and having this explanation aired and discussed continuously, Brown effectively squelched the story in all but internet blue blogs. Any denial (no matter how accurate), would have only extended the news value of the story.

You could argue that this would “prove” that Brown is a politician, but it’s certainly does not prove that he advocates violence against anyone.

BTW– it’s not for nothing that Olbermann ignored the shout of “suicide!” by one Brown supporter. Olbermann once told one of his critics via email to “kill yourself”.

As for the charge of homophobia, Olbermann is aware that pols he has supported (both Clintons, John Kerry, Pres. Obama) have expressly been against gay marriage. In order to imply that Brown’s stand is essentially different than…..merely being against gay marriage…. Olbermann must base this upon some perceived difference between a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act (that Clinton advocated) and the stated preferences of John Kerry and Pres. Obama that states be allowed to choose their own marriage laws.

But if being against gay marriage means you’re a homophobe then the matter of whether you’d go as far as constitutional amendment or just to the point of letting states settle it as they see fit, is of little consequence in mitigating the fact that you are against extending that privilege to gays. And in terms of Olbermann’s characterization of a concern for “states rights” as being code for “we don’t want to extend rights to minorities”, such a stand by Kerry and Obama should be of PARTICULAR disgust to Mr. Olbermann!

It’s significant too, that Olbermann did not quote Brown entirely in his comment about a gay political opponent adopting a child with her lover. Brown said, “It’s unusual for two women having a baby. It’s just not normal, in terms of what’s normal in today’s society.”

Perfectly true and certainly more consistent with the natural law premise that underlines Obama, Kerry, and Bill and Hill’s objections to gay marriage.

Olbermann is willingly to ignore what he labels as homophobia in one candidate, if he thinks his pols are merely turning their heads to gay civil rights out of political expediency!

I assign the appellations of “teabagging” and “reactionary” as a given from leftwing types.

Finally, let address too, Olbermann’s remarks that tea party protesters have only themselves (and Griff Jenkins) to thank for the implications of teabagging jokes. If there’s anything that exhibits how disingenuous this man is, it’s this.

It is a pity that Tea Party protesters and Mr. Jenkins weren’t aware of the pornographic definition of the slang term “teabagging”.

However, it took MSNBC news hosts and journalists to do snickering interviews airing the slang definition of the word and to double entendre about “nuts”, “Dick Armey” and “balls”, etc.

Olbermann ignores this and then points his finger at this own target and saying that they are responsible for not only not knowing porno slang but also of not understanding too that a television news network would then belittle and berate everyday joes with this information and make every effort to use it as a means of marginalizing them in the public eye.

If this doesn’t put anything Olbermann might say about anything or anyone into perspective then you don’t have a perspective you merely have a grudge and a control-freak insistence that sooner or later all will acquiesce to your way– FOR THEIR OWN GOOD…

I have to say you are singularly obsessed with Olbermann. I find this most unhealthy. I would be interested to know, however: How does due process, be it the 5th or 14th Amendment variety, apply to the puerile remarks of an obscure television personality? It was my understanding that both Amendments were limitation upon the action of government or mandates for government to act. I did recall that this was changed when the previous Administration ripped habeas corpus from the Constitution. Have Ailes and Murdoch brought about a change of which I am unaware?