Well, since I’m not a producer on BOR, I can’t say why it wasn’t brought up. I can tell you Steve that if you want to know Glenns opine on the subject, you can listen to his radio or TV show. He talks extensively about it.

I will believe that this isn’t a partisan witchhunt as soon as Weiner starts investigating NBC and GE. There you have a whole network pushing global warming hysteria, while trying to get you to buy their green products.

I don’t know anything about Goldline outside of seeing a few commercials. Are they disreputable or is Weiner just using them to go after beck?

Paul, they have an A+ bb rating, which Weiner says was “bought”.

And Paul, Weiners new press sec came directly from media matters, which has been organizing boycotts of beck forever. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

My first reaction was that it’s probably much ado about nothing. I don’t like Beck but I find it hard to get worked up about him pitching Goldline. Plenty of people from both sides of the aisle get paid to pitch all sorts of stuff.

When Beck got in serious trouble over his comments about the President on “FOX & Friends” and most reputable companies which had advertised on his television show began leaving his show, Beck’s producers began assembling a host of highly disreputable companies, with no positive image to risk or ruin, to fill up the air time. Goldline was one such advertisers. I think it is safe to say that Goldline is a sham operation, and here are some testimonial links that support that:

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/scam-c58159.html

This takes you to an excellent analysis:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/glenn-beck-goldline-weiner

And this links you into the history of Beck and Goldline:

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m5d18-Representative-Antony-Weinder-DNY-calls-for-investigation-of-Goldline-and-their-Beck-connections

And, lastly, this brings you into Beck’s delusional reaction to the fraud claims:

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m5d18-Representative-Antony-Weinder-DNY-calls-for-investigation-of-Goldline-and-their-Beck-connections

And King, here are testimonials of happy customers:

http://www.goldline.com/goldline-testimonials

http://www.trustlink.org/BusinessProfile.aspx?ID=205959000

Using Mother Jones for analysis is a little misleading unless you add their they are HIGHLY partisan. Question, Monex has an F bb rating and yet Weiner isn’t concerned with them. Why do you think that is, King?

And King, back to my original post, do you have any kind of a problem with NBC and GE?

You can certainly draw your own conclusions. I am not sure I believe Beck is bright enough to be intricately involved in the scam itself. He is simply one of those amoral sorts willing to do anything for a quarter. I also don’t think that this is going to bring him down. Beck commands a Messianic band of followers for whom no conduct on his part will ever be deemed unacceptable. I’m sure he could form acts of sexual depravity before the camera, and his audience, small tough it may be, wouldn’t diminish by a single person. I do think, however, this process, as it goes forward, deprives Beck and his slavish devotees of what he and they so desire. Legitimacy.

(By the way, I apologize for the repeated link. Moving fast this morning ….)

Michelle I have seen you use BigGovernment and BigJournalism as sources. It doesn’t get any more partisan than that. We all see bias in sources. Mother Jones also points out that left-wingers like Ed Schultz get paid to pitch gold.

Why do you think that is, King?

—

Of course, Michelle, it’s a left wing media conspiracy. Your tin foil hat is askew.

As to NBC and GE, I have so many problems with the relationship, you’d have to be a bit more specific.

BUY GOLD!

How about the fact that NBC has a weeklong tribute to global warming hysteria, then wants you to buy their green products. I think that’s fairly specific. Do you have a problem with that?

I go back to a comment someone, I think it was Mary Katherine Hamm, made after Bill interviewed Weiner. She said to believe Weiner, we’d have to believe that he is suddently concerned for the well being of “tea-baggers”. That is afterall the only people who buy gold, right?

Corporate synergy.

I think O’Reilly brought up a good point in an earlier show. Why go after a gold seller with an A rating, when many others have an F rating? Could it be because Weiner doesn’t like Glenn Beck personally and disagrees with him politically? Nah. When does the left ever do anything like that?

The bottom line is Glenn isn’t going anywhere. I had to laugh when Obama said yesterday that Presidents don’t do boycotts, since several people directly linked to him are in fact in charge of boycotts against Glenn Beck. Obama is scared of Beck, but his chicago thug tactics aren’t going to work this time. I would think that even you libs would be a little uncomfortable with how this admin tries to shut down opposition.

I told you guys Glenn couldn’t handle him. I know the face to face O’reiley mentioned is going to be swept under the carpet. When faced with facts and a pro efficient debater, I don’t think Mr. Beck can win.

MotherJones?

LOL

That’s a new low!

And it is not the Anthony Weiner show- Weiner is irrelevant.

Oh and Paul, you are right about breitbart being partisan, but I love him. You should check out his ongoing investigation of the SEIU raid on a private citizens house. The guy is a DEM who works for Bank of American. It’s quite interesting. You may not have heard about it since there seems to be a media blackout on it. Why is that Steve? Just curious.

Anyway, if you are interested, here you go:

SEIU thugs protest a private citizens home (a Dem, btw), with only his terrified 14 year old son home. There has been some suggestion that the DC cops escorted the protesters there, but there is a debate about that. Nina Easton, who happens to live in the neighborhood writes about it:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/index.htm

And Media Matters attacks.

Hit job: What Media Matters and the SEIU got wrong about Fortune’s Nina Easton

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/26/hit-job-what-media-matters-and-the-seiu-got-wrong-about-fortunes-nina-easton/#ixzz0p3mYuNPC

http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/05/28/dc-bank-protest-showdown-in-america-motives-3-and-4/

Maybe Beck and O’Reilly were ‘silent’ about it because they’ve already said what they had to say. Unlike Olbermann or Maddow, who spend two or three months beating the same topic to death.

If you ridicule and condemn left-wing sources and those who use them, why should someone feel differently about right-wing sources?

I seriously doubt the President of the United States is scared of Glenn Beck.

Then we disagree Paul, because I think he’s terrified of Beck.

Oh btw, as soon as Weiner announced he was investigating beck, next stop, the oval office. HM.

paulmdoro says:
May 28, 2010 at 10:16 am

BHO, as well as some of his high ranking officials, has personally criticized Beck/Rush/FOX on several occasions.

This is very unusual behavior for an admin and surely is based on something other than a passing fancy. I agree that “scared” is an overwrought way to describe the motivation. However, what motivates them? What do you ascribe this unusual behavior by a highly organized and disciplined political operation such as BHO’s?

Because you requested it, Michelle:

http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/6a00e553a9e7ec8834011168a2382f970c-800wi.jpg

As for me, I leave the world of conspiracy theories for a long lovely weekend of family, friends in the Texas sun. Close to home this year. Kids and grandkids on the way in. Some floats in the bill. Some good food. Some better libations. When Tuesday morning comes around, I’ll be brown enough to be arrested in Arizona.

I do so hope that all of you have some good time with family, and that we all remember the day for its purpose.

That’s why Obama and our dear posters on the left keep attacking Fox News (that outlet that gets only a tiny, tiny sliver of the population.) Can’t have those ‘other opinions’ getting out, no matter how small the audience.

I think Obama genuinely believes that Beck/Limbaugh, etc. bring nothing constructive to debates and poison disagreements with overheated rhetoric. I think that is why he has called them out. I do not believe that the leader of the free world is actually fearful of them.

Terrified of a TV/radio host? Was Bush terrified of his critics? I doubt it.

Amazing similarity between the King and Fredo in The Godfather. “I’m smart! I can do things!” LOL

I do so hope that all of you have some good time with family, and that we all remember the day for its purpose.

Unfortunately, Obama will be skipping the ceremony to honor the vets, but don’t worry, he’s making it back in time for the paul mccartney concert at the WH. Priorities!

I think Obama genuinely believes that Beck/Limbaugh, etc. bring nothing constructive to debates and poison disagreements with overheated rhetoric

Sometimes the truth does hurt and can be a scary thing.

Truth is subjective.

Spoken like a true liberal. Although I must admit I like debating you, Paul, far more that other lefties on this site. You are at least respectful.

“Truth is subjective.” It often is, paul. Like listening to a pastor for twenty years, then claiming you had no idea how he viewed things.

Thank you Michelle. Likewise. My parents and Catholic school teachers tried to instill values like respect in me. I do my best.

paulmdoro says:
May 28, 2010 at 10:36 am

Truth is subjective.”

Not so. Written history may be , but not the truth.

I think Beck himself said its all an act. So why would anyone be scared of him. Its only a pity that people beleive in him. But those are people who hold that view, or want to believe in it. He’s just an excuse or a source of reference for them.

paulmdoro says:
May 28, 2010 at 10:34 am

You are a trusting soul!

So, you sincerely believe that the most powerful man in the world and his surrogates are spending some of their precious time only to move the debate along?

You have no concerns that his method smacks of trying to stifle debate and competing ideas. As I said, you are a trusting soul.

There is a long history in this country of presidents calling out and complaining about critics.

paulmdoro says:
May 28, 2010 at 10:59 am

There is a long history in this country of presidents calling out and complaining about critics.”

Where did they their Dir. of Communications out to say a network was not a news network? Where did they call out critics by name?

paulmdoro says:
May 28, 2010 at 10:59 am

Yes there is such history. However, in my lifetime the only other admins that I remember doing so was Truman (re Margaret) and Clinton against Rush and that was sporadic.

Critics yes, only certain media figures no. That is what concerns me. It is an orchestrated campaign to discredit opposition voices that have large audiences. Let me quote Tim Robbins here: “There is a chillllll winddddd blowing thru the country”.

I cut my comment off without mentioning that I have no objections and are not concerned about politicains criticizing other pols or calling out an individual critic. What BHO has done is to try to marginalize media critics and yes that concerns me greatly.

Truman often complained about his critics in the media. The Bush WH complained about MSNBC and the NY Times. I’m pretty sure Nixon didn’t hide his feelings about the media. Like I said, presidents complaining about critics and the media is nothing new.

LBJ didn’t single out ‘Uncle Walter’ for criticizing Vietnam. He just didn’t run for a second term. (Hint, hint)

paulmdoro says:
May 28, 2010 at 11:13 am

Both the incidents you mention were speciically motivated by specific actions. The NYT intelligence story and the NBC interview that was edited to give GWB a position he neither held nor said. As for that incident I think NBC’s defense was that the whole 20 minute interview was online and that absolved them from wrongdoing.

What we have seen from him and his surrogates is a whole ‘nother animal.

The Real Royal King says:
May 28, 2010 at 10:29 am
Because you requested it, Michelle:
As for me, I leave the world of conspiracy theories for a long lovely weekend of family, friends in the Texas sun. Close to home this year. Kids and grandkids on the way in. Some floats in the bill. Some good food. Some better libations. When Tuesday morning comes around, I’ll be brown enough to be arrested in Arizona.

And next weekend the TRRK family on COPS

The point Grammie is that presidents complaining about media coverage or calling out critics is nothing new. Maybe it only bothers you when the other side does it.

paulmdoro says:
May 28, 2010 at 11:39 am
The point Grammie is that presidents complaining about media coverage or calling out critics is nothing new. Maybe it only bothers you when the other side does it.

Calling out critics is one thing Paul, but he is directly linked to 3 groups leading boycotts of Beck, Van Jones, SEIU, and Media Matters. You will recall that the head of SEIU is the most frequest guest at the WH. Do you really not think that is significant? Please point where Bush did anything even remotely similar to that?

In 2004 two NY Times reporters were banned from Air Force One.

Because?

Well that depends on who you ask Michelle. Why do you think?

Well, I can’t comment until I know the details. Can you post a link? I vaguely remember this. Was it something to do with the fact that they blab things to our enemies that maybe they shouldn’t?

I can see you have an open mind about it Michelle. No preconceived ideas whatsoever.

I’m sure the President rarely gives a second thought to Glenn Beck. He may be shocked and amused when he hears a clip and I’m somewhat concerned that there are people who take him too seriously, but he’s just a guy on television dramatically pandering to a niche audience.

paulmdoro says :

Reading his article RICK LYMAN says :

” A crew of about 10 reporters flies with him, representing all the networks, the wire services and two or three newspapers.”
“Frankly, there are some colleagues who suspect that antipathy toward the newspaper may be behind it. Anne Womack, the vice president’s chief spokeswoman, says such suspicions are baseless. There simply are not enough seats for all of the press, and other publications got their names on the list before us. If someone drops out, they’ll let me know.”
So there are a limitied number of seats and he wasn’t invited . Cherry picked crowd , yes, Rick Lynman banned not so much .
It was all suposition to set up his story as the agrieved party . Imagine the surprise .

Here’s the link MichelleF

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/weekinreview/19lyma.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&oref=slogin

As with many other things, I think what we have here with president’s and media criticism is selective outrage. It’s all partisan. It depends on whether or not we like the president. When the GOP called for boycotts of CNN in 2001 or investigations of the NY Times in 2006, your opinion was determined by your political beliefs. So if you don’t like Obama, you’re outraged that he calls out his critics. If a president you liked did it, you’d be all for it.

PS) Before anyone hits me…

They’re all just guys on television. That’s their job. They get up in the mornings, put on their shoes and go to work just like the rest of us: Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Brian Williams, Dave Letterman, Mike & the Mechanics, etc.

I think that President’s criticizing the press goes back to President Washington. I believe he was our greatest President, followed by President Lincoln, because the Presidency would be vastly different where he not our founding President. And weren’t the Alien and Sedition Acts prompted by the press being hard on the President, the first President Adams is this case.

I think you’re right Rich regarding the history of a president criticizing the press.

@paulmdoro: I believe that I’ve mentioned it before in another context, but I made a pretty penny, back when Jesse Helms was trying to motivate his followers into a proxy battle for CBS. As this quickly-googled thing from Newsbuster recalls, the tagline was “Become Dan Rather’s Boss”.

Paul, GOP in 2001 IS NOT POTUS and his admin. Calling for an investigation of what and why?

I am asking for one thing only from you and I’ll accept your position. Give me examples of GWB and any high ranking officials making blanket sans specific story indictments of any media outlets or very influential highly critical pundits.

For ex, Fox news is not a legitimate news organization but is an arm of the GOP by Anita Dunn as detailed here.

High-ranking officials including Cheney bashed the NY Times. Ed Gillespie bashed NBC.

paulmdoro says:

High-ranking officials including Cheney bashed the NY Times. Ed Gillespie bashed NBC.

In the letter, Gillespie wrote, “This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.”

This is not the same paulmdoro. Ed Gillespe sent his objections to NBC in a letter . NBC chose to make them public. Again imagine the surprise.

Of course it’s not the same. Nothing is going to convince you, so I won’t even bother trying anymore. I will say that I do not like an administration calling out media figures or media outlets by name. I would prefer they let people make up their own minds.

Yikes! I revisited this thread to follow my Newsbuster’s reference through to the Senator’s obit and discovered that I must’ve miscoded because the link didn’t work. Sorry.

BTW: Though not a direct attack on anyone in particular, Agnew’s “nattering nabobs of negativism” probably deserve an honorable mention.

Weiner accepted the challenge and this is how Beck handles it, he ignores it. I bet he was pissed at O’Reilly for setting him up like that. O’Reilly knows Beck well enough that he would have been destroyed and made to look like the fool he is.

Well played Bill. You are still king of the hill.

paulmdoro says:

“I will say that I do not like an administration calling out media figures or media outlets by name.”

Exactly it makes both /either/ any side look small and petty . That is not to say that there won’t be differences of opinion . It is I believe a matter of comportment. Sending private correspondence is one thing ,publicly denegrating a specific organization or person in front of the assemble press corp is another.

“Next week, the TRRK family on Cops.” LOL BowenIsland.