Mediaite » Van Jones

Van Jones: Success Of Occupy Wall Street Is ‘A Movement That Washington Has To Chase’

Frances Martel — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:56:21 +0000

As the Occupy Wall Street protests turn one month old today, progressives are making the rounds to call on those in government to listen to their demands. On tonight’s Ed Show, Van Jones, who has experienced somewhat of a resurgence with this movement, argued that the movement was growing in political significance, citing Rep. Eric Cantor‘s recent comments on income inequality were proof “the ice is cracking all around the Republican Party.”

Jones told host Ed Schultz he felt extremely optimistic about the situation. “When you have someone like Eric Cantor pretending he cares about income inequality,” he argued, “you know this movement has broken through in a big way.” The message, which he defined as “get your boot off the neck of the American people,” was a familiar one to progressives, but one that had been elusive to those in power, and near impossible to convey for progressive activists. “For so long, progressives tried to build movements that tried to chase the White House,” Jones explained, which meant they were routinely ignored. Unlike those, Jones saw in this movement the potential for development. “This movement is a movement that Washington to chase,” he told Schultz, and instead of being concerned about the movement being co-opted by Democrats, he concluded, “we should let the spirit of this movement co-opt the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the whole country; it’s the best thing in America right now.”

The segment via MSNBC below:

Glenn Beck Warns Bill O’Reilly: Occupy Wall Street Will ‘Indoctrinate Our Kids Into Marxism’

Frances Martel — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 17:37:53 +0000

Glenn Beck has been warning about something he calls the “coming insurrection” for several years now, and finally he has seen its face appear concretely in the form of Occupy Wall Street. He visited The O’Reilly Factor last night to explain how Occupy Wall Street is a part of a larger “Marxist revolution that is global in nature” intended to “collapse the system.”

Beck, who hadn’t been seated across Bill O’Reilly for a few weeks given his work at GBTV, returned reminding O’Reilly that the “coming insurrection” was not a new theory, but one that was central to his programming in the last two years. Occupy Wall Street, he argued, was nearly exclusively the province of SEIU, though it was “a Marxist revolution that is global in nature.” Arguing that “they’re openly calling for revolution,” Beck warmed that they could “indoctrinate our kids into Marxism.” He also accused them of being transparent in the falsehood of their objectives: if they were truly upset about the price of higher education, why have the protests not been centered in the only place where power exists over those prices, universities?

O’Reilly then asked about the major figures behind the movement– it took little time for Beck to explain how George Soros was involved, and tie in Van Jones. “There will be chaos in the streets,” he warned, as part of a radical, violent movement springing out of Occupy Wall Street. “And then,” he continued, “Van Jones will appear with his little organization, which is much more reasonable.” He suggested the Jones version of Occupy Wall Street would look more like the Tea Party, and thus be far more appealing and dangerous.

The segment via Fox News below:

Van Jones Hits White House For ‘Sit Down, Shut Up, We’ll Take Care Of It’ Attitude On Chris Hayes Panel

Frances Martel — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:06:48 +0000

Former White House “green jobs czar” turned Glenn Beck frienemy Van Jones has recently reemerged calling for the left to take notes from the populist uprisings America saw with the Tea Party movement, so it was no surprise that he expressed approval of the Occupy Wall Street movement this morning on Up with Chris Hayes. What was somewhat surprising, however, was his insistence in viewing the protests through a prism of failure on the left, and not on the right, with the way the nation was being governed.

Host Chris Hayes opened the segment with a clip of comic George Carlin arguing that both parties were inherently the same by virtue of being corporatist, a sentiment that he saw reflected in the Occupy Wall Street protesters that somewhat concerned him. “I worry you end up in a place of political nihilism in this respect,” he noted, though suggesting that “this is a very familiar American attitude” and nothing new. That said, he suggested the attitude would “let people off the hook” by putting all politicians on the same level.

Jones saw the cause for concern, but noted that, to him, it did not undermine the message that the game was broken, and not just the players. Comparing the protests to a “bad report card” a child would get, “you could say ‘the teacher doesn’t like me,’” but that wouldn’t change the failings. Despite having a majority and “the best Speaker ever” in now Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Jones argued Democrats were “stuck on stupid for months now as the pain threshold has gotten worse,” and that wasn’t exclusively the province of Republicans. Hayes countered that “the path of least resistance was to do nothing” with much legislation, and yet Democrats had “expended tremendous amounts of political capital” on the stimulus package and “Obamacare” that demonstrated and effort to make the system work. Jones did not see the solution to the problem, however, as possible from Washington. While mostly supportive of the protests, particularly given that they were the first major left-wing political expressions of their kind in some years, no one on the panel objected to poking a little fun at the “hugs,” “drum circles,” and “tofu” at the event.

“We didn’t mobilize the people,” he responded, adding that “what made a difference in America is what you see right now… we spent two and a half years where the only people who marched and protested in America were the right wing.” This silence he attributed directly to the White House. “There was a sense from the administration that you need to sit down, shut up, and we’ll take care of it.” The Occupy Wall Street movement, he concluded, was simply the pendulum swinging to the other side after years of this mentality. Fellow panelist Naomi Klein of The Nation had an alternate explanation to that silence, however– the nation’s “obsession with electoral politics” that made potential protesters wait to make their voices heard at election booths without trying to sway the votes of others.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Van Jones On Tea Party: ‘I’m Not Mad At Them For Being So Loud, I’m Mad At Us For Being So Quiet’

Zara Golden — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:57:12 +0000

In a speech this morning, former White House environmental adviser Van Jones called on progressives at the Take Back The American Dream conference to act more like the Tea Party. ”We have been on a one-sided offensive in this country where the worst people in America with the worst ideas have dominated the discussion,” he said of the surge in Tea Party in recent years. “And I’m not mad at them. I’m not mad at the Tea Party. I’m not mad at them for being so loud. I’m mad at us for being so quiet.”

Jones suggested that much of Barack Obama‘s success in 2008 stemmed from his campaign’s ability to join together progressive groups as a “meta-brand.” They have since, he argued, let their movement flag from a “movement to a movie.” Change, he argued, will not come at Obama’s doing, but from the ability of progressive groups to continue working together to gain collective momentum, perhaps under the “Rebuild the Dream” banner, much like the Tea Party has. ”They’re not wrong to stand up for what they believe in — silly as it is,” he said. “We have the wrong theory of the presidency.”

“We have to remember, [Lyndon Johnson] did not lead the civil rights movement. He signed a bunch of laws we liked, but he did not get out there and lead that movement. That was people like us right here in this room,” Jones said.

This is not the first time Jones has credited the Tea Party, earlier this year he called them “a right-wing populist movement” that was able to come out of nowhere to reframe and ultimately “win” the debate on emissions regulations, health care and immigration. “We had very, very smart ideas, but we didn’t have emotional resonance,” he said at the time.

This morning he suggested that Occupy Wall Street movement was showing signs of that Tea Party resonance, and that if continually pushed for change, the White House act. “The White House is talking different because we are walking different,” Jones said.

Watch segments of his speech below, courtesy of Huffington Post:

Why Can’t The Congressional Black Caucus Be More Like The Tea Party?

John S. Wilson — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:58:36 +0000

Editor’s note – this column was first published on Loop21.com and appears on Mediaite via content sharing agreement.

The Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference kicks off this week in Washington, DC. The influence of the event is probably at its highest, with President Obama set to speak at the closing dinner and thousands scheduled to be in attendance throughout the weekend. But the same can not be said for the influence of the Congressional Black Caucus itself (CBC). Why isn’t the CBC the liberal equivalent of the Tea Party? Seriously, no other Congressional organization could lay claim to having a singular voice that represents liberal strongholds throughout the country and puts the disenfranchised, including minorities, at the forefront of their agenda. Here’s how the Tea Party became so influential and the three reasons why the CBC isn’t yet capable of doing the same thing.

The Tea Party’s power isn’t in really in numbers — it’s a specific kind of numbers. Poll after poll has shown that their popularity ebbed a long time ago and it isn’t mainstream America that supports them. Instead, the Tea Party has focused on something far more effective — intimating to legislators the power they have at the ballot box, particularly the primary ballot. The Tea Party’s power can be attributed to three things: (1) simple, singular messaging, (2) unwavering leadership, (3) being a disruptive force in political landscape.

(1) Tea Party – simple, singular messaging

Their message: “limited, effective and Constitutional government must be our collective goal in order for this nation to maintain its place as the world’s leader.” Which candidates and voters have taken to mean a vow to spend less, reduce taxes and lessen the size of government.”

And even the White House got the message. According to the NY Times, Van Jones, former green jobs czar, “credited [the Tea Party with being] a right-wing populist movement” that in his mind somehow managed to reframe the debate and “won the argument” over the scope of government involvement in carbon emissions regulation, health care and immigration.” So if president’s own adviser found the message strong enough to blunt the White House’s efforts, it’s clear the Tea Party has been in its own league.

CBC Poor Messaging
The Tea Party showed that there is tremendous power in a cohesive voice, whether it be informed or not. While the CBC is indeed focused on issues affecting blacks, they have not a particular issue that black voters can rally around.

The jobs tour was popular simply because people are out of work. And it did gain attention and attract 30,000 jobseekers, but enough to be a catalyst for a change in the way one will vote or which candidate they will support? Not even close. And in their defense, the jobs tour may have just been about that – helping folks to get actual jobs. But the CBC isn’t headhunter or career services at your local university. While they should be focused on jobs – as all politicians should be at this point – they should be looking for solutions that enable the public and private sectors to make large scale investments in hiring workers. In other words, legislative solutions. Job tours won’t cut it.

(2) Tea Party – unwavering leadership

Really only one name should come to mind: Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). Not only was he rallying the Tea Party as early as 2009 as Pres. Obama was just measuring the drapes in the White House, he also funded in the 2010 midterm elections the most Tea Party candidates, five of whom won their elections including, Marco Rubio (FL) and Mike Lee (UT).

And DeMint didn’t only hand out checks. He along with Sen. Lindsey Graham are credited with pushing the White House to the brink on the debt ceiling deal this summer and making clear that any deal would have to include spending cuts and zero tax increases. Why is this significant? Never in history had the U.S. defaulted on its debt. Usually raising the debt limit is a cursory vote where dissenting congressmen hem and haw and allow their ‘Nos’ to be tallied fully aware that enough votes for it to pass have already been counted. Not this time. DeMint, and by extension the Tea Party, had made it very clear to the GOP: Vote for a debt limit increase that includes taxes and you’re guaranteed to lose support your next election.

CBC – Wrong Leadership
Not to slight current CBC Chair Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver but steadfast leadership isn’t synonymous with being invisible. While Cleaver is known as an even keel, goodhearted, intelligent leader, that just may not cut it at this time with black unemployment at nearly 18%, the highest it’s been in 27 years. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the emotion? Interestingly enough, Cleaver’s demeanor is very similar to President Obama’s. So even keel as to warrant the questions: If nothing offends your principles, how will defend the defenseless? If nothing excites you then how will you excite others?

Cleaver’s leadership style is even more ironic when you consider that the CBC is putting more pressure on President Obama’s administration than they have in the past. Rep. Maxine Waters even confronted an administration official at an event on camera questioning why he couldn’t say the tea party was behind efforts to block jobs bills. So if the administration’s style is too passive for the CBC’s liking, how is Cleaver’s any better?

(3) Tea Party – Disruptive Force

Ask Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Bob Bennett (R-UT) or Russ Feingold (D-WI) how disruptive the Tea Party was in the 2010 midterm elections. Murkowski may be the hardest to reach – because she still has a job. Elected in 2004, she won her Republican primary by over 20 percentage points. Fast forward to 2010 and she was beaten by Joe Miller, who had Tea Party backing. Murkowski had to run as a write-in, and, of course, was ultimately successful. Bennett and Feingold, not so much. Between them, they were in office for 36 years.

Some could argue that elections inherently pack surprises every now and then and that maybe the Tea Party just had good timing. Maybe the Tea Party’s strength is one-off. However the GOP is quickly learning that is not the case. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) can both bear witness. Last week they introduced a continuing resolution vote to prevent a government shutdown. So confident were they that the GOP caucus was on the same page, Cantor is quote as saying “All is well.” Yet that vote didn’t pass, primarily because the Tea Party members believe more fat can be cut out of the budget. Steve Bell, a writer at Frum Forum, surveyed senior congressional staff members and “none of them could recall such a public humiliation for any Speaker of the House in the past four decades.”

Could the CBC threaten something similar? There are strong reasons to suggest so. In some states Democrats could be hurt if the CBC could sway voters from turning out. In other states, the black electorate is either too small in number or isn’t significantly courted anyway to make an actual difference. But even a small number of states will impact close national elections.

“Given where the enormous rise in Democratic turnout and where those turnout increases occurred…it is virtually certain that African-Americans were a major factor in Democratic turnout increase and Democratic victories in Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia,” said Curtis Gans, director of American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate. In other words, the African-American vote was a deciding factor. This will only become more evident in places like North Carolina where black voters already make up 38% of all Democratic voters.

CBC – Not Disruptive Enough

The CBC could be more disruptive to the Democratic party by becoming a bigger influence on delivering – or withholding – the black vote. The purpose would be to ensure the Democratic party is taking the CBC, and by extension black voters, seriously. The Tea Party has done the same thing in regard to primaries. They’ve been successful in defeating incumbent Republican legislators that did not represent the Tea Party’s positions, by fine-tuning their message to Republican voters, getting the vote out, and supporting a candidate who does represent them and is able to win.

The CBC must disrupt the normal course of business in Democratic politics if it wants to have an outsized influence. You can’t ask for power; you have to take it. And by that I mean hit the Democratic party where it hurts: wherever they need black votes the most. Start in North Carolina, Mississippi, and other areas where the Democratic party absolutely needs high African-American turnout to win.

The long-term gain is that the Democratic party bears witness to a powerful organization that might as well be their double-edged sword: passionate advocate or principled adversary. This isn’t for the purpose of breaking the Democratic party. Clearly the efforts of the CBC align with Democrats more than any other party. And if voters believe the party speaks to the issues and their concerns the way the party should, then support them.

John Wilson is a health policy analyst in Maryland, and also a staffwriter for The Loop 21. He frequently writes about health policy, education policy, and politics. You may reach him at john@policydiary.com.

Van Jones: Budget Talks Are Stuck Because ‘A Small Number Of Extremists Hijacked The Base’

Frances Martel — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:48:59 +0000

As the budget talks continue in Congress, Democrats and Republicans resume negotiations on whether increasing taxes or cutting spending (or what combination of both) would work best. But progress is slow, and on The Last Word yesterday, Van Jones blamed “a very small number of extremists” on the right who refuse to raise taxes, even when Ronald Reagan would.

Jones visited Thomas Roberts (sitting in for Lawrence O’Donnell) to weigh in on the debt ceiling talks, and argued that raising taxes was the only way to ensure that the budget would be reasonably balanced. He noted that even the architect of Reaganomics suggested raising taxes, but “Washington, D.C. is so far off the rails” that only electing new leaders would fix the problem. “You talk to ordinary people, they’re not talking about the debt ceiling– they’re talking about these veterans coming home to no jobs, no hope,” Jones argued.

Jones and Roberts also discussed a comment Rep. Michele Bachmann made about a worse economy potentially being better for Republicans, which Jones found “awful.” Thomas noted that it was likely that “the worse the economy is under President Obama, the better the chances a Republican will beat him,” but that didn’t justify the comment to Jones. “The only people who should be qualified to serve in our country at any level– at the dog catcher level– should say they’ve put the welfare of ordinary Americans before any political ambitions,” he concluded.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Van Jones To His ‘Stalker’ Glenn Beck: ‘Quit Smearing Me And Lying’

Matt Schneider — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:12:50 +0000

Van Jones appeared with Ed Schultz last night and reiterated his challenge to Glenn Beck to have a debate. Schultz was shocked that Beck didn’t jump on the offer, but Jones wasn’t surprised that “entertainer” Beck laughed it off and would rather focus on distractions than have a substantive debate.

Jones explained that after Beck “attacked the American dream” he couldn’t stay silent about Beck anymore:

“I have tried to be a turn the other cheek kind of guy about this type of stuff, but I only got four cheeks and I’m running out. I mean the guy has been relentless for two years, it’s like having a stalker. He knows these are lies, he just says the same thing over and over again.”

Schultz still wasn’t entirely sure why Jones waited two years to “punch back” at Beck, but Jones concluded with a message to Beck: “quit smearing me and lying and making up stuff, let’s debate the actual issues and so far he’s running away from it.” It’s unclear why Beck would want to deprive his viewers of the ultimate confrontation between good and evil (of course who plays those roles depends on your perspective), yet maybe Schultz is right, he just wants to save Jones for his Internet TV adventure?

Watch the clip from MSNBC below:

Van Jones’ Lawyer Sent Cease And Desist Letter To Fox News, FNC Says ‘It’s Under Review’

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:00:53 +0000

Former “green jobs” czar Van Jones sent Fox News a six-page cease and desist letter claiming that Jones has been called, among other things, a Communist, a 9/11 truther, and other “sensational and inflammatory charges” across Fox News’ programs.

A Fox News spokesperson confirmed that “we’ve received the letter and it’s under review.”

Jones’ attorney, Joseph Sandler, says that “Mr. Jones is not a member of any Communist Party or Marxist organization whatsoever, and has not expressed any support for any form of Communist or Marxist ideology for many years.”

You may recall that Glenn Beck recently responded to Jones’ invitation to engage in a debate by insinuating Jones was deranged and denying Jones’ claims that he has launched some sort of smear campaign against him.

h/t HuffPost

Glenn Beck To Van Jones: Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

Jon Bershad — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:28:14 +0000

This weekend, Van Jones, the bald-headed Lex Luthor to Glenn Beck’s slightly less steel-y Superman, offered up an excoriating critique of Fox News as well a challenge to Beck to debate him on one of his last shows, a debate which we can only assume would turn into some kind of competitive Martin Luther King, Jr. quote-off. This morning, on his radio show, Beck responded to the challenge, claiming the speech was a clear sign that Jones and his like were becoming deranged and that the “mask of the left” was coming off.

Gee, Glenn. Van is only trying to help. This is where the narrative of your show has been leading all along. If you guys don’t debate it would be like The Fugitive ending without Dr. Kimble fighting the one-armed man!

Beck and his co-hosts went through audio of the challenge bit by bit, making sure to point out every time Jones’ voice got raised as clear proof of just how terrifying and threatening he was. (However, they notably cut out the clip where Jones talks about how much he loves Popeye cartoons. I guess that part was less scary.) They gave their rebuttal to every thing Jones said including his condemnation of Beck’s smear attacks against him. Beck and company argued that they have never made any smear attacks because everything they said was true which isn’t really the definition of a smear attack but whatever.

The long and the short of it though is that Beck didn’t accept the challenge itself. He barely responded to it which, I suppose, is as good as declining outright. Rather, Beck focused on the part where Jones claims he “loves” Beck as a brother and, instead of pointing out how silly that is, fought back by claiming that he totally loves Jones too! Heck, he loves him better!

Ok, forget what I said about the MLK quote-off. A debate between these guys would probably just be an hour of two grown men trying to see who could hug each other better.

Strangely, that would still make for a pretty suitable finale.

Watch the clip from GlennBeck.com below:

Van Jones Slams Fox News And Challenges ‘His Brother’ Glenn Beck To A Debate

Matt Schneider — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:08:45 +0000

Glenn Beck‘s final days at Fox News are quickly fading and one person who surprisingly wants to make one last splash on Beck’s show is none other than longtime Beck nemesis, Van Jones. Jones, speaking at the Netroots Nation conference, said “I’ve had all I can stand FOX TV and I can’t stand no more.” However Jones also admitted that he is open to an epic debate with Beck, that is of course, if Beck is willing to accept the challenge.

Jones seemed extremely angry at first, discussing the smear campaign against him and addressing Fox News generally:

“It’s not just immoral, it’s un-American. To abuse the airwaves and to abuse the ears of our children with your lies and your filth. We’re tired of it – we’re sick of it.”

Yet by the end of his speech, Jones said he doesn’t hate his enemies and even wants to have a battle of ideas with Beck:

“I issue a personal challenge to my beloved brother Glenn Beck. I will debate you any time, anywhere, at any point. I give you an hour, you give my five minutes and I will stand up for our values, but you will have to stop talking about us and start talking to us. You got one week left before your show goes off. My phone is ringing. Call me!”

If Jones is sincere about debating anywhere, and is willing to appear on one of Beck’s last shows, how could Beck possibly resist the opportunity to create a memorable confrontation as part of his final Fox farewell? Beck previously had a phone in his studio that he would wait by for someone from the Obama administration to call, and now it seems Jones is giving Beck some of his own dramatic medicine and waiting by his phone, waiting for Beck call.

Watch the clip below of Jones’ speech at Netroots Nation:

Van Jones: Paul Ryan’s Budget Is A Greater Threat To Our Country Than Al Qaeda

Matt Schneider — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:55 +0000

Former Special Advisor to President Obama for Green Jobs, Van Jones, is always outspoken and is now trying to stir the pot again when it comes to discussing Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan. Speaking yesterday at an event for for Yes! Magazine, Jones seriously suggested Ryan’s budget proposal is more threatening to America than Al Qaeda and therefore represents a “cheap patriotism.”

Jones described what makes Democrats and Republicans different in his mind:

“On this side of the political aisle we don’t tend to brag on our patriotism . . . I’m not afraid to say that Paul Ryan’s budget is a threat to our country. Paul Ryan’s budget would knock out more critical infrastructure than Al Qaeda ever dreamed of.”

Suggesting Ryan’s plan to be a form of “cheap patriotism” that would be similar to someone using “a wrecking ball and [painting] it red, white and blue and [ramming] it through our communities,” Jones certainly has an affection for dramatic, over-the-top imagery. He argues that his alternative vision for the country is what actually represents “deep patriotism” and he wants his political allies not to be too embarrassed to own it.

Watch the clip below from Yes! Magazine’s Anniversary Event:

(h/t The Blaze)

Donald Trump On Racism Charges: ‘I Am The Least Racist Person There Is’

Matt Schneider — Mon, 09 May 2011 14:52:22 +0000

Donald Trump returned to the airwaves this morning with his rhetoric about President Obama‘s job performance remarkably toned down. Trump gave Obama high marks for his handling of Osama bin Laden and said about Obama, “he’s riding high, he’s doing well and I thought he did a good job on 60 Minutes.” Trump instead turned his focus to Pakistan and to the online company Groupon.

Trump suggested he knew two months ago that Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and declared Pakistan should no longer receive any aid “unless they get rid of their nuclear weapons,” since “much like China, these are not friends of ours.” Asked whether Obama will likely cruise to re-election now, Trump proved his own appeal as an atypical politician by bluntly offering a realistic assessment, “it certainly helped him, there’s no question about it . . . but ultimately it’s going to be about the economy.”

The conversation shifted to a campaign by former White House advisor Van Jones to get black celebrities to denounce Trump’s “racism.” Trump adamantly declared “I am the least racist person there is” and reminded the Fox & Friends hosts that Randal Pinkett (an African American) won a season of The Apprentice. And for any advertisers like Groupon that back out from supporting his show because of pressure from Jones or others, Trump says it’s no big deal because “NBC’s biggest show” will do just fine without them.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Glenn Beck Implies He’s Leaving Fox News Because The Audience Is Older

Jon Bershad — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:33:45 +0000

Wow. Well, here’s a new theory as to why Glenn Beck is leaving Fox News. Here we thought Beck’s move further towards Internet news with The Blaze was just a canny admission of where the industry is heading. However, today, Beck made comments that seemed to imply that he just doesn’t think he can reach a young audience on his current network.

The comments came as Beck was reviewing clips of Van Jones speaking to students. Jones made a joke about the young people in the audience confronting “Uncle Joe” at Thanksgiving, the family member who “loves Fox News.” Beck stopped the tape there.

“I will tell you this, in a side note. That is why I’m leaving this network. This network has this audience cornered. You are here because it is telling you the truth. We have got to get to the youth. Listen to what he is saying.”

I’m sure there are a number of reasons that Beck is leaving Fox News, however, I wouldn’t doubt for a second that this is one reason why he views the leave as a good thing. After all, Beck, for all his mocking of “the students” and their Facebooks and Googles, has made it very clear over the years that he sees teaching young people as a number one priority. Just think back to all the clips he showed last summer of children at his Rally, pleading to parents they needed to let their kids know how to be proud of America. And, it’s no obscure joke that Fox News’ audience skews older.

Beck talks a lot about his talent for understanding the enemy and knowing how they think. If he believes that the likes of Van Jones and Al Gore are trying to “brainwash” our kids, of course he’d want to find a platform where he can beat them to it.

On the upside, no more “Hooray for Old People!” episodes.

Check out the clip from Fox News below:

Glenn Beck Asks Audience: ‘It Really Is Getting Boring, Isn’t It?’

Jon Bershad — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:33:03 +0000

Today on Glenn Beck, Beck said the same things (the “Insurrection” is coming, his viewers need to prepare for dark times). He blamed the same groups (unions, Communists, Socialists, Islamists). He showed clips from the same people (Frances Fox Piven, Van Jones). And then, in the end, he tied it all in to the same arch-villain (George Soros). After that, he asked his audience, “It really is getting boring, isn’t it?” Well, now that you mention it…

Maybe we’ll just leave this without comment. I mean, I get what Beck was getting at but it’s still probably not a great question to ask. Watch the clip from Fox News below and then, please, go ahead and answer it for yourself.

Andrew Breitbart Tells Mediaite: Howard Kurtz Has Joined The Effort To Try To “Silence Me”

Matt Schneider — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:16:16 +0000

The fallout from the short-lived editorial relationship between The Huffington Post and Andrew Breitbart continues as CNN’s Howard Kurtz has now stepped into the conflict. On today’s Reliable Sources, Kurtz criticized Breitbart and agreed with the decision to remove him from the front page of The Huffington Post. Now Breitbart returns the favor with some criticism of Kurtz’s report.

Kurtz quoted Breitbart telling The Daily Caller that the founder of Color of Change, former Obama aide Van Jones, is “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak. And a commie. And an eco-fraudster.” Then in response to this quote, Kurtz concluded:

“The Huffington Post said that Breitbart’s remarks violate the tenants of debate and civil discourse. You think? I’m all for people speaking their mind, but if you want to hang out in nicer neighborhoods, you can’t shout quite as loud.”

In addition to the obvious disapproval of his statements to the Daily Caller, the reference to a “nicer neighborhood” does seem to carry with it an implication that the conservative websites Breitbart runs– where he normally resides– aren’t as sophisticated as the left-leaning Huffington Post. A somewhat weird and possibly unintentional slam by Kurtz? Speaking to Mediaite today, Breitbart seems to find more disappointing that Kurtz “creates the false impression” that Breitbart’s comment was made in response to being called a liar by Jones. Instead, Breitbart argues his thoughts on Jones were only a result of Color of Change launching a “relentless, Soros-funded, now AOL-propagated campaign to systematically kick me off of mainstream media outlets.”

Breitbart tells Mediaite:

“Howard Kurtz cannot lecture people every weekend on the ethics of journalism and then fail to call me for a quote and selectively edit out the context of how Color of Change tried to silence me and get me kicked off of Huffington Post. He is tacitly endorsing an anti-free speech campaign to silence me by selectively editing out why I made my truthful criticism of Van Jones.”

The successful campaign to have him removed from the prominent position on The Huffington Post left Breitbart to conclude that “AOL is now a battlefront in the progressive war to silence conservatives, Tea Party, and mainstream media critics.” While Kurtz only addressed the relative civility of Breitbart’s comments, others pointed out to Kurtz via Twitter other questionable language, such as Aaron Sorkin calling Sarah Palin “deranged” and a “witless bully,” comments that did not get the boot from Huffington Post. So whether Kurtz likes it or not, he has entered a tough neighborhood called opinion journalism and he is probably not going to able to leave without taking a few punches.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

HuffPo Caves To Liberal Pressure, Removes Andrew Breitbart From Front Page

Frances Martel — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:36:56 +0000

Looks like the golden era of bipartisanship at the Huffington Post has ended, no more than two weeks after it started. The publication turned many heads after agreeing to publish a post by conservative rabble-rouser Andrew Breitbart on the recent NPR/James O’Keefe kerfuffle, initially standing by the editorial decision. In light of Breitbart’s recent comments on Van Jones, however, HuffPo spokesman Mario Ruiz announced today they would no longer promote him.

The pressure began to mount on the Huffington Post nearly immediately after their decision, although, as Breitbart himself noted, the comments from viewers appeared to be as civil as they were outraged. The Van Jones-founded Color of Change organization rapidly responded with a petition to have Breitbart removed from the site, to which HuffPo‘s Ruiz responded with a statement noting that Breitbart was not the first conservative on the site and that they would continue to promote him:

From the beginning, The Huffington Post has welcomed voices from all sides of the political spectrum, including conservatives such as Newt Gingrich, Frank Luntz, Tom Coburn, Laura Ingraham, Bob Barr, George Pataki, David Frum, Byron York, Mary Matalin, and Ken Blackwell. The idea being that dialogue — from a wide range of perspectives — is preferable to silence. The fact that Andrew Breitbart’s first post on our site drew over 1,635 comments, conducted in a civil manner, seems to validate the premise and the decision to publish his blog post.

While the Huffington Post continued to defend their new contributor, Breitbart put on the war paint and went after Color of Change in an interview with the Daily Caller, calling the organization a bunch of “freaks” and Jones himself a “commie punk.” This, apparently, was a turning point for the publication, which released a second statement today, partially retracting the first:

Andrew Breitbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched. As a result, we will no longer feature his posts on the front page. He is welcome to continue publishing his work on HuffPost provided it adheres to our editorial guidelines, as the two posts he published on HuffPost did — guidelines that include a strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks.

In response, Color of Change has mostly ended its campaign, releasing this public statement:

ColorOfChange.org applauds The Huffington Post’s decision to no longer give Andrew Breitbart a prominent platform for his so-called ‘journalism’. Breitbart, whose entire career is built upon ‘reporting’ lies and falsehoods disguised as news, should have never been given the opportunity to present himself as a legitimate journalist or opinion-maker. Their decision is an important reversal. Over the course of one day, over 43,000 of our members called on The Huffington Post to end to their promotion of Breitbart. The Huffington Post has done the right thing by refusing to elevate someone who fear mongers, race-baits and lies – none of which have a place in America’s public discourse.

Naturally, Breitbart is not happy– his Twitter feed a minefield of retweets about the scandal, with his own short and sweet take on it: “Check my Twitter feed: Toldja the organized left are totalitarian anti-free speech freaks. Van*glorious & van*quished Jones leading charge!” Meanwhile, on Big Journalism, Dana Loesch wasted no time in decrying “Marxist bullying” on Jones’ part. But it’s not just the Breitbart empire and the conservatives who love it that find the entire affair leaving them with a bitter taste in their mouths: Salon’s Alex Pareene argues that cronyism– and not ethics– is behind the 180º turn, while still managing to call Breitbart “a crusading propagandist who publishes a wide variety of untruths and smears” and “a shameless, race-baiting bully”:

Breitbart then apparently went too far when he said a bunch of stupid and offensive things about Van Jones in an interview with the Daily Caller. And Arianna is actually quite close to the former White House “green jobs czar.” [...]

A strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks! (“Against Arianna’s friends,” is the big of that sentence that spokesman Marco Ruiz left out.) (Also there is apparently no prohibition on constant, practically obsessive race-baiting, but whatever.) (And obviously there is no prohibition whatsoever on spreading toxic bullshit about autism and other assorted crimes against science.)

Pareene ends his assessment of the entire “stupid” ordeal suggesting that this is only good news for Breitbart, as it promotes a narrative of censorship on the left he persistently promotes. It does both silence Breitbart to an audience he has little exposure to and promote his profile to the people who regularly read him, so the score is as yet unsettled, and we’ll have to wait for more than a tweet or two to hear what Breitbart intends to do about it.

Bill O’Reilly And Glenn Beck Usher In The Return Of Van Jones In WI Union Protests

Frances Martel — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:14:03 +0000

Van Jones is back! The former White House Green Jobs Czar who will forever be remembered as Glenn Beck‘s first arch-nemesis has organized a massive, national pro-union rally in solidarity with the protesters in Wisconsin, and Beck, of course, has an elaborate, hammer-and-sickle-laden chalkboard for that. Bill O’Reilly last night to explain why Jones’ American Dream (and Woodrow Wilson‘s) is a menace to capitalism, and how this “impromptu” protest has been years in the making.

O’Reilly began the weekly discussion with a chat on “your pal Van Jones,” whose name prompted Beck to immediately brandish a book by Woodrow Wilson in which the phrase “American Dream” was coined. “In 2008, they started talking about this,” Beck explained, “this” being the “restoration of the American Dream.” “It’s not what you think it is,” he warned. O’Reilly, as is usual when Beck goes on Wilson-inspired tangents, was unimpressed. “I’m not worried about this,” he admitted, “I don’t think this sways public opinion.” “I’m not worried either,” Beck countered, “this is just the other side of the movement.”

On that note, O’Reilly commented that while “Van Jones doesn’t scare me,” Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi does (Qaradawi was spotlighted in a recent episode of Glenn Beck for anti-semetic comments). “It doesn’t seem that the White House has any urgency in this,” O’Reilly noted, highlight Qaradawi’s “sold-out” speech in Tahrir Square in Cairo after the dust began to settle on their revolution. Beck agrees on the White House, beginning to ask himself why the President did not mention Gaddafi in his Libya speech. O’Reilly cuts him off right before he answers his own question– maybe because he already knows the answer to that one is a bit of a stretch.

The segment via Fox News below:

WI Protests Have Glenn Beck Concerned About Dangerous Impending ‘Democracy’

Frances Martel — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:30:43 +0000

Glenn Beck has been having a field day lately, what with the protests in the Middle East, the full-blown revolution in Egypt, and the union revolts here at home in Wisconsin. Today was no different, as he called out the “dope-smoking hippies” taking over Madison. But among the most dangerous calls, he warned, were those for “democracy.” Fortunately for Beck, it’s more complicated than it sounds upon first listen.

For Beck, “democracy” is not, he explained, “one man, one vote”– though he agreed with that concept through and through. Instead, he perceived the use of the word “democracy” as it has come up lately as a synonym for “mob rule.” No wonder, he argued, that everyone from the Muslim Brotherhood to Hugo Chavez are calling for it. In fact, the list of people calling for “democracy” reads as a Greatest Hits of Beck’s favorite people to hate: Iran, China, communists, unions, students, Hollywood, and, of course, Van Jones, the original villain in the Glenn Beck canon.

That overwhelming list of people in favor of democracy puts the list of people in favor of a constitutional republic to shame, Beck continued. In fact, the only people that seem to want a republic nowadays are… him. Well, “you” are also on that list, in case you were wondering where you stood. “Do you see the problem?” Beck concluded.

Beck isn’t, of course, against a regime where the vote of the people substantively directs the behavior of the government– the concept of direct, Athenian democracy is what has him shaking. Constitutional republicanism where the people do not write or vote on laws per se but have a foolproof check on those who do is Beck’s favorite form of government, and he fears that those he listed on the chalkboard (the Muslim Brotherhood and Van Jones and all those folks) are deliberately confusing Americans into wanting the people of the Middle East to write their own laws, with no parliamentary process in between.

To clarify his point, Beck turns to the source of all his wisdom, the Founders, quoting John Adams and his distaste for the concept of democracy: “there was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Beck goes on to explain that this is precisely why the unions and other reprehensible characters are calling for “mob rule” in America, and uses the example of Google executive Wael Ghonim‘s escape from Egypt to prove that being naive about this issue could be life-threatening. No one will debate Beck on the merits of mob rule, surely, but this latest play on semantics– an attempt to turn “democracy” into a dirty word for the American people– is a tight-rope act only a master orator could complete successfully.

The segment via Fox News below:

Glenn Beck Brings Google Feud To Bill O’Reilly: ‘They’re Like Halliburton…’

Frances Martel — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:22:16 +0000

As Glenn Beck‘s latest campaign against Google goes to show, he has little trust in large entities, whether they be government-run or private. After dedicating some time this week to asserting that Google’s involvement in the Egyptian revolts gives them a dangerous bias that seeps into the order of search results on their site, Beck took his campaign, as he always does, to an intrigued Bill O’Reilly last night.

Admitting that he usually has help when using computers (and getting only a deadpan “I’m actually a computer programmer” in return), O’Reilly asked Beck to explain how a search engine with no real editorial content could have a bias, and how he concluded that he should be concerned. Beck explained that it was primarily the fact that two vice presidents of the company were involved in the Egyptian revolts that tipped him off, though later noted ties between Google and, among others, former Beck arch-nemesis Van Jones. He also tied Google to the Obama administration, noting that he believed the State Department wanted the Egyptian revolts to happen and, “when you hear the President say ‘it was youth like you and it’s the new media; it is social networking that brought on the revolution,’ he’s talking about Google.” Beck did not explain– nor did O’Reilly ask– where that leaves actual social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, rather than search engines.

As for the editorial posture, Beck said it was all about the way they “order stories” in such a way that only those they prefer to be at the forefront of the population’s attention get the highest rankings. To him, Beck concluded, “I feel the same way [towards Google] I do about Halliburton or Blackwater”– two of the dirtiest names in the left-wing book. O’Reilly did not respond as skeptically to this theory as he has to many of Beck’s in the past, but as the story develops, the amount of evidence Beck will be able to compile will make the difference.

The segment via Fox News below:

Robert Gibbs Responds to Eric Cantor’s Refusal to Reject Birther ‘Crazy Talk’

Tommy Christopher — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:55:55 +0000

On Sunday, I reported that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor refused to reject Birther “crazy talk” on Meet the Press. At Monday’s White house briefing, I asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if he thought that Republican leaders had a duty to put the kibosh on Birther talk, and whether the President would do the same were the positions reversed. Gibbs responded that “rational people” don’t question the President’s citizenship, and pointed to Obama’s own record regarding his opponent’s status.

The previously-ebbed tide of Birther lunacy has risen, once again, on the strength of Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s (D-HI) now-open-ended quest to put the Birther issue to bed. With the 2012 campaign looming, Republicans now must decide whether they can afford to alienate elements of their base who cling to the Birther issue, or appear to be cow-towing to lunatics if they don’t.

Gibbs, for his part, didn’t seem nearly as anxious to have Republicans reject the Birthers as he was to point out their irrationality:

Transcript: (via email from The White house)

Tommy Christopher: …First of all, yesterday on “Meet the Press,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was asked if he would reject birther crazy talk, and he wouldn’t. But he did allow that he believes that the President is a United States citizen. And I’m wondering if you think that Republican leaders ought to reject that kind of birther talk and –

MR. GIBBS: I think rational people have come to the conclusion, many of them years ago, that the President is — was born in Hawaii and is a citizen of the United States of America.

Tommy Christopher: Do you think the Republican leaders ought to reject that sort of thing, and do you think they have a duty to do that? Would you do that if the situation were reversed and it was Sarah Palin, for example, whose eligibility were being questioned? Would you do that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, remember, there were concerns about the eligibility of the Republican presidential nominee’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone, and President Obama joined efforts to ensure that efforts were taken to, again, ensure that if there were any questions about what that meant for your citizenship — Tommy, again, I think rational people have long ago, many when they first heard and saw the President, come to the conclusion of his citizenship.

Gibbs is referring to then-Senator Obama’s co-sponsorship of a Senate resolution that laid to rest questions about Sen. John McCain‘s (R-AZ) eligibility to run for president, based on the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone:

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Perhaps the next time one of them is asked, Senator McCain’s colleagues will return the favor, and stand up to this fringe element.

It Begins: Rep. Eric Cantor Refuses to Reject Birther ‘Crazy Talk’ on Meet the Press

Tommy Christopher — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:02:57 +0000

With Gov. Neil Abercrombie‘s (D-HI) now-open-ended resurrection of the Birther issue, expect to see more of the embarrassing scene that played out on Sunday morning’s Meet the Press: Republican leaders trying to distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists, without alienating them. Rep. Eric Cantor danced around host David Gregory‘s challenge to reject Birthers like an amateur snake-charmer with a bladder full of Mountain Dew. Deliberately or not, Abercrombie just might be some kind of political genius.

As I reported yesterday, Governor Abercrombie has called off his quest to end speculation about the President’s national origins, a quest that only succeeded in throwing gasoline and tin foil on the fringe meme. While such speculation might have been helpful in 2008, when the Republican ticket (and, to be fair, his Democratic opponent) loudly blew the dog whistle that then-Senator Barack Obama just ain’t like the rest of us, that same crowd now serves only to embarrass the GOP.

On Sunday’s Meet the Press, David Gregory flat-out challenged GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to reject Birtherism as “crazy talk.” While Cantor refused, he did generously allow that he, personally, “believes” that the President is a US citizen. Such exchanges will do little to change minds about the President’s eligibility to be President, but will continue to highlight the degree to which Republican leaders are afraid to alienate a mockery-inviting fringe. Imagine, if you will, a prominent Democrat who refused to call 9/11 “trutherism” crazy talk (hell, Van Jones said as much and still had to resign), and you’ll begin to see how this will play out to the President’s advantage: (from MSNBC)

Glenn Beck Target Frances Fox Piven Reports Death Threats From Viewers

Frances Martel — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:41:39 +0000

CUNY sociology professor Frances Fox Piven has found herself in the midst of a political crossfire for a work she published 45 years ago. Piven, along with husband Richard Cloward published a work in the 1960s that now forms the crux of the attacks on the Obama administration from The Glenn Beck Program, and now Piven is speaking out against Glenn Beck and Fox News for death threats she has received via email since becoming a major character in Beck’s narrative.

“Of course he’s not accurate,” Piven argues in a video interview released to counter claims made on Beck’s program in 2010. Piven became in late 2010 and early 2011 what Van Jones was to the program in 2009: the ultimate bogeyman, with an academic, methodological plan to destroy America. Beck doesn’t exactly attack her, however, as much as the people in the Obama administration who he argues adhere to her 45-year-old plan to flood the social programs such as to drown the nation in debt. The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter elaborates:

The article, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” proposed that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, fiscal and political stress on the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income. By drawing attention to the topic, the proposal “had a big impact” even though it was not enacted, Ms. Piven said. “A lot of people got the money that they desperately needed to survive,” she said.

Piven now argues that “that article was as much as reflection of what was already happening in society as a plan,” and she does not see how the Obama administration is culling from her work. Nevertheless, she tells the Times she is receiving death threats, and that Beck’s site, The Blaze, allegedly sports anonymous comments like “Somebody tell Frances I have 5000 roundas [sic] ready and I’ll give My life to take Our freedom back” (they are typically taken down within a short period of time). While Piven has said she has received email death threats, she has not produced them. Piven says she has taken security measures, but nothing that would interfere too much with her daily life.

Fox News, on their part, has responded supportively, falling squarely in the Beck camp. Senior Vice President Joel Cheatwood told the Times that “probably above and beyond any [show] on television,” Beck’s “has denounced violence repeatedly,” and that the network had no plans to tell Beck to stop mentioning the professor.

Much like previous Beck battles (again, the aforementioned struggle with Van Jones and with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn), this one is unlikely to be put to rest soon, especially if Piven is ready to launch a counterattack of her own.

Below, Piven’s response to and evaluation of Beck from 2010 and, below that, a clips from The Glenn Beck Program (via Fox News) where he details the Cloward & Piven strategy:

[h/t Gawker]

Keith Olbermann Calls For Fox To Dump Judge Andrew Napolitano Over 9/11 Comments

Frances Martel — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 02:57:52 +0000

Judge Andrew Napolitano has taken his firebrand libertarian show, Freedom Watch, to the big leagues, anchoring the most expensive real estate on the Fox Business Network– and it took less than a month of free market values and government distrust for Keith Olbermann to be calling for his dismissal. The issue? Napolitano really doesn’t trust the government, whether it comes to taxes, social programs, or, uh, who was really behind 9/11.

Napolitano visited controversial radio host Alex Jones‘ program recently and– not for the first time– suggested that the September 11th attacks “couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.” Olbermann doesn’t take any particular issue with the comment, noting with some apathy, “I don’t have to agree with him, you don’t have to disagree with him.” In fact, Olbermann doesn’t even give Napolitano a coveted “Worsts” medal– that honor goes to his boss, Roger Ailes, for not firing Napolitano.

So why does Olbermann want someone whose comments he doesn’t mind to lose his job, which happens to be hosting a show in the same genre and in the same time slot as Olbermann? For the sake of consistency. “Put your outrage where you money is,” he told Ailes, noting that other Fox News personalities like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity had called for Van Jones to be fired and Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf to lose his license to open an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan for similar comments. Imam Rauf wasn’t even the source of his own offensive comments– it was an underling. Since others on Fox News criticized these individuals for 9/11 “truth”-related comments, Olbermann concludes, Napolitano merits the same treatment.

The difference, of course, between individuals like Jones and Rauf and television personalities like Judge Napolitano is that the latter has no direct influence on government or policy. The job conservatives were so upset to see Jones hold gave him the power to advice the nation’s chief executive. Imam Rauf– knee-deep in controversy for issues having nothing to do with trutherism– is in charge of a major downtown Manhattan project. Judge Napolitano, on the other hand, is paid for his opinions. He is not paid to generate policy or execute projects based on those opinions– his only responsibility is to be interesting and, for the picky cable news viewer, consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about someone whose philosophical foundation is distrust in the government to express unease with certain statements the government has made. To Olbermann’s credit, he takes no issue with Napolitano himself. But to dump Napolitano in the same boat as Van Jones is to thoroughly misunderstand the arguments that Beck, O’Reilly, et al made during the “Czar” saga. So long as Napolitano doesn’t find himself in the President’s cabinet, there is little reason for his colleagues to demand a pink slip.

The segment from tonight’s “Worsts” via MSNBC below:

Latest Color Of Change Slam Against FNC: Free ‘Turn Off FOX’ Stickers

Eric Cunningham — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:25:52 +0000

Topping the internet’s most popular news aggregators today is the no-strings-attached offer by grassroots, web-based organization ColorOfChange.org to provide anyone who wants one a “Turn Off FOX” sticker, free of charge (yes, even shipping). And who isn’t a fan of free things? Or simple bumper sticker activism for that matter. And while, most casual liberals may see this as a random grassroots giveaway, but it’s actually a part of Color of Change‘s long struggle against FOX News.

Color of Change first seriously battled the network last summer, when they lead the charge of getting advertisers to drop Glenn Beck after he said President Obama held a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.“ Then in September, Glenn Beck got his revenge when a petition saying the Bush administration “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen” was found with the signature of Color of Change founder Van Jones on it. Though Jones vehemently denied this was a stance he held, the damage was done and he was forced to resign as Obama’s Green Jobs Czar.

Now today, the organization is striking again by giving out these “Turn Off FOX” stickers to anyone in America willing to sign a petition saying FOX is “spreading hate, lies and division.”

FOX and ColorOfChange.org have had a long and conflict-filled history. So perhaps as the people who chose to do so are putting these stickers on their cars, they get reminded that it’s also time we all learn to Coexist.

Bill Ayers, Andrew Breitbart, and Van Jones Helping to Fund Glenn Beck Rally

Tommy Christopher — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:06:37 +0000

While following up on the various charity auctions being run to fund Glenn Beck‘s August 28 “Restoring Honor” rally (and then the Special Operations Warrior Foundation), I came across some items that are the very definition of “strange bedfellows.”

Beck fans have the opportunity to bid for a dinner with Andrew Breitbart, or copies of Beck tome Arguing with Idiots, signed by Beck and 2008 campaign relic William Ayers, or Beck and his fellow Mediaite fan Van Jones. Of particular interest is the very clever top bidder for the Breitbart dinner: Nevada congressional candidate Steven Nohrden.

Nohrden’s $2500 bid is tops so far to dine with Breitbart, but he’s also leading with a $5,000 bid on the Bill Ayers book. Winning dinner with Breitbart would be a great photo op for the Tea-Party-leaning candidate, and probably a bargain at twice the price.

Norhdren is also top bidder on an auction to rub elbows with Newt Gingrich, but has so far passed on coffee with Mr. and Mrs. Bobby Jindal, and a picnic on the steps of the Capitol with Michele Bachman.

Bidders can also win a chance to lunch with Rusty Wallace, and drive 60 laps in a “real NASCAR.” I don’t guess they’ll be tooling around the track in the entire National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, but I guess “NASCAR car” sounds too awkward. There’s also a random auction for a pair of stereo speakers.

As we have reported here before, each auction carries the disclaimer that all funds raised will first go to pay the cost of Beck’s rally, before any money goes to Special Operations Warrior Foundation. The charity told Mediaite that the rally’s estimated expenses were met several weeks ago, but that wasn’t enough to keep ABC from withdrawing an auction that featured an introduction to George Stephanopoulos. The GMA host has made a separate, personal donation to Special Operations Warrior Foundation.

Twitter Report: Keith Olbermann Knocks Beck, But Favorites Brent Bozell

Tommy Christopher — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:35:23 +0000

On last night’s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann featured the Glenn Beck Twitter favorite on which we reported yesterday, a tweet from a white power message board. Olbermann presented the tweet, and said “Since the StopBeck website discovered it, Beck has since erased it. He should erase his career.”

What Olbermann failed to mention is that the top tweet on his Twitter favorites is a column by right-wing media watchdog Media Research Center President Brent Bozell! Is Keith Olbermann in the tank for Newsbusters?

Here’s Olbermann’s Twitter Report from last night:

For the uninitiated, WPWW stands for “White Power World Wide,” but it isn’t an alternative energy initiative. It’s the credo on Malevolent Freedom’s logo.

Here’s the Bozell tweet:

themick1962 Brent Bozell’s Open Letter to WaPo Ed. Re: JournoList http://bit.ly/cnWvL0 Mandatory reading for ALL media types @KeithOlbermann #p2 #tcot

I bring up Olbermann’s Brent Bozell tweet to illustrate the fact that, despite the name “favorite,” appearance on a Twitter faves list does not denote an endorsement. As I pointed out yesterday, even for a Glenn Beck detractor, fairness dictates pointing this out.

On the other hand, as I also pointed out yesterday, Glenn Beck has built his career on not extending that fairness to his targets, building Mao-ist conspiracies with associations thinner than the cloud of chalk dust around his blackboard. I also don’t remember Beck giving Van Jones the benefit of the doubt about that Truther petition. As such, while fairness dictates one thing, it could be argued that fair play dictates quite another.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out that there’s a big difference between Brent Bozell and a white power forum. While it’s easy to extrapolate why Keith Olbermann would be bookmarking a Newsbusters column, Beck’s history of racially divisive rhetoric and his own references to the White Culture make Beck’s (since erased) Twitter favorites problematic for him, fair or not.

Yesterday, I surmised that Beck’s favoritation of that tweet might have been an accident, or it might have indicated that Beck was curious as to why such a group would be reaching out to him. We received a statement from Malevolent Freedom’s founder, D.J. Anderson, explaining why they sent that tweet to Beck:

The tweet “fave’d” by Mr. Beck was made not to direct the message at him as a person, but rather him as the “brand”. The twitter medium is highly effective as a marketing tool, and the use of the #Beck and @GlennBeck hash tag was an attempt to market my website to his audience. I don’t view Mr. Beck, his audience, or any entity associated with him, Fox News, or its parent corporations as followers of the White Nationalist ideology. Directing my tweet at him was simply an attempt at providing access to my material so that anybody viewing his twitter feed could read it and make an educated and informed opinion about the White Nationalist philosophy from actual Whit (sic) Nationalists, and not the commonly referenced research materials that often do not represent an accurate description of its theory or practice.

D.J. also noted on his Twitter feed that Beck has never visited the site.

It is unquestionably true that Beck has no control over what his fans do, and I don’t think he has “White Supremacy Sympathies.” I like to think the best about people, and it’s reasonable to assume that Beck was appalled at the notion that this board found common cause with his audience.

If that is the case, Beck should do some soul-searching, and try to figure out why Malevolent Freedom is only trying to recruit his viewers. A look back at the past month of the forum’s Twitter feed reveals that, aside from Sarah Palin and a one-off to Sean Hannity, Beck is the only TV personality they’ve hashtagged. There appears to be a gulf between what Glenn Beck is trying to say, and what these guys are hearing.

‘Prince Of Peace’ Glenn Beck Tells Bill O’Reilly He Doesn’t Think He’s A ‘Scary Guy’

Frances Martel — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:45:47 +0000

For once throughout the brief history of the Fox News manifestation of The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn Beck has found himself involved in an Obama administration firing through little fault of his own. On The O’Reilly Factor last night, Bill O’Reilly questioned Beck on how it felt to have Shirley Sherrod claim fear of his program got her fired, and the difference between Sherrod and Beck program arch-villain Van Jones.

Beck opened the segment by describing himself as “a prince of peace– not the Prince of Peace, but a prince of peace” and asking O’Reilly if he looked “like a scary guy.” O’Reilly deadpanned, “I would never get in a car with you alone.” As for the Sherrod tape and the comparisons with Van Jones, Beck assured O’Reilly that his staff was “very, very, very careful” with showing only video they had the full context for, and ominously asked “you know how much stuff I have on Van Jones that I’ve never played?” And as for his role in that exit, Beck channeled Andrew Breitbart a bit and told O’Reilly, “I never asked for Van Jones to be fired.”

Beck and O’Reilly also joked about Sherrod’s continual appearances on CNN (“CNN has her tied up in a dungeon… I hear Shirley is going to replace Larry King,” O’Reilly quipped) and talked about their field trip with fellow Fox News host Geraldo Rivera to Yankee Stadium.

Video below:

Gibbs Asked How Much Influence Beck, O’Reilly, And Breitbart Have On White House

Frances Martel — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:17:35 +0000

The big news in today’s White House press briefing was Gibbs’ official apology to former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, coming off the heels of the release of a complete speech of which an excerpt was used to brand her a racist and subsequently cost her her job. But in probing for the reason why this story unfolded this way, one reporter wrankled Robert Gibbs into asking why the media covers departures in the Obama administration at all.

The reporter, Jonathan Weisman, asked Gibbs how he would explain or evaluate the influence that right wing commentators like Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, and Bill O’Reilly have on the way the administration functions, given the firing of Sherrod and previous scandals that left top Obama officials like Van Jones without a job. “None of them are, at this moment, members of this administration,” he quipped, so how does he explain the influence?

“Why do you do stories on all three of them?” Gibbs replied, referring to the three departures from the White House Weisman brought up. “I was asked a larger question about this,” he continued, “and my answer doesn’t change.”

When asked again, Gibbs once again repeated his question asking why the media covers the White House departures at all, to which Weisman replied, “I’m not sure what that question is.”

Video below:

White House Unaware of Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally

Tommy Christopher — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:42:30 +0000

Glenn Beck‘s “Restoring Honor” rally, scheduled on the date and location of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, has drawn varying degrees of criticism as an affront to King’s legacy. At today’s White House briefing, I asked Robert Gibbs if President Obama had any reaction to this, or if they were aware of Beck’s pending permit application with the National Park Service. I was shocked to learn that the White House didn’t seem to know anything about it. Or do they?

Yeah, we don’t know nothin’ about it, and if the National Park denies that permit, it has nothing to do with us, that’s the ticket! This is just what they want you to think, america! You’re playing right into their hands, or R.I.T.H., as in arithritis. Get it, people?

Seriously, though, I would be very surprised if the President hadn’t discussed it with Gibbs, which tells me that the White House plans to stay out of this fight, perhaps reasoning that they don’t need the distraction of a feud with Beck.

I’ll tell you who is aware of Beck’s rally: New Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz. In our exclusive upcoming interview, he promises that his group will meet Beck at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28.

Restoring Honor: Defending Bill Press’ Critique Of Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Memorial Rally

Tommy Christopher — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:45:45 +0000

On last night’s Countdown, syndicated radio host and Toxic Talk author Bill Press took aim at Glenn Beck‘s August 28 “Restoring Honor” rally, which he has previously likened to an Al-Qaeda rally at Ground Zero. Among the topics discussed were Beck’s fundraising tactics, the “desecration” of Dr. Martin Luther King‘s memory, and, most importantly, Beck’s lack of a permit for the event. Bill takes special care to note that the National Park Service is still mulling the request over. He also refuses to take Keith Olbermann‘s bait that “Restoring Honor” is to be a racist event, putting it in the proper perspective.

That’s not to say that race plays no part in this. As Bill recounts in Toxic Talk (you can purchase an autographed copy here), Beck famously accused the first black president of being a “racist” who has “exposed himself as a guy, over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture.”

It was a ridiculous charge, one that prompted an advertiser boycott led by the organization Color of Change, whose founder, Van Jones, would become the target of a campaign by Beck that ended in Jones’ resignation. He also famously asked Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) to prove he wasn’t working with terrorists.

But as Press notes, Beck’s toxicity is much more scattershot than the occasional race-baiting. Whether he’s calling Hillary Clinton a “stereotypical bitch,” fantasizing about killing Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore, or hating the families of 9/11 victims, I think Press’ point is that, while it would take balls the size of Jupiter to usurp the memory of King’s “I have a dream…” speech, Beck is particularly ill-suited.

As Frances Martel noted earlier, Press was criticized by Mediaite for comparing Beck’s rally to an Al-Qaeda rally at Ground Zero, and I agree. I would compare it more to a Keystone Kops reenactment of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, the pretense of bumblers to greatness.

As for Press’ observation that the National Park Service is still reviewing Beck’s permit request, I wonder if Bill isn’t up to a little mischief here, hoping that Countdown viewers will weigh in with the agency.