Saturday, November 21, 2009

More Glenn Beck!



Glenn Beck, the controversial Fox News television host, is planning on becoming more active in the populist conservative movement he spawned, according to sources familiar with his thinking.

What must it be like to be someone "familiar" with Glenn Beck's "thinking"? It must be a nightmare.

At a rally Saturday at a massive retirement community in Central Florida, Beck is planning to unveil what he has billed as a "big plan" for 2010, which is expected to involve the 9.12 Project, the group he started earlier this year and named for the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when he says the nation was unified.

"Coming this January, my whole approach changes on this program," he hinted cryptically on his Wednesday show. "This next year is going to be critical, and I think it's going to change and I think we are going to set it right, at least set our course right. And if that means the Democrats or the Republicans are destroyed along the way, well, good. Good."

Let me be clear about something: Glenn Beck is dangerous. And not in a good way. What he represents, what he leads, is a movement of darkness, of hatred and paranoia, of fear and resentment and bitterness.

And yet, in a way, should we -- those of us on the other side, those of us who hope for, and are working towards, a brighter future -- not want him to maintain, if not expand, his domineering profile as a leading figure of the right? Should we not want him to continue to be a leading face of American conservatism, right up there with Dear Leader Rush? I mean, as frightening as it is that he is so popular, and has so many followers, there's no way the American people will ever flock to him in significant enough numbers to make much of a difference -- politically speaking. (Am I wrong about that?) For all his popularity, that is, he is actually extremely bad for conservatism, and for the Republican Party. All the more reason to urge him on.

Now, what's with this big announcement? Is he forming his own party? Well, that would be fine, would it not? Would that not severely weaken the Republican Party? His supporters aren't exactly Democrats, after all.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit thinks that Beck may be launching his very own political action committee:

And if he does, given his nonchalance about the destruction of the GOP, then what? Let's say his PAC endorses Rubio, who goes on to lose narrowly to Crist in the Florida primary. Will the PAC be indifferent in the general election? Or will it actually call on conservatives to stay home and not vote to protest the lack of a true small-government choice among the two candidates? This is what I mean when I say that, theoretically at least, he's on a collision course with Limbaugh. As much as Rush hates RINOs, he's made it perfectly clear that he’s prepared to elect them and accept half a loaf instead of none at all. Beck, it increasingly seems, is not. Which way, true believers?

Good question. As one who is anything but a true believer of the right, I can't answer it. But I'm sure looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

It was bad enough -- for the GOP -- in NY-23. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

8 Comments:

  • What may seem complex is quite simple when you see through the right prism.

    Today there are two types of people in the U.S.. The first group does not care about receiving things from the government, even if only promises. This group also does not believe in people's own ability to manage their resources and believes that state control is welcome sometimes. The other group, which is most widespread silent, believes in the self-ability of themselves and neighbors to know what's best for his life and does not want the government meddling.

    The second group is willing to do anything to stop the government, even violence if necessary, and it frightens the first group, thats liking the "change".

    ps. I am not American.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:21 PM  

  • Whether or not you're an American, you're still making gross generalities and simplistic assumptions about people you don't know.

    So basically you said nothing worth hearing.

    By Blogger Mustang Bobby, at 10:13 PM  

  • Well, it's a comment section not a science work. And, as i said, it's just a prism, so i had to put some emphasis in the political spectrum, talking about the extremes so anyone can understand.

    If i represented your side to cowardly, i'm sorry.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:46 AM  

  • Anon: "ps. I am not American."

    But you speak and write English: Guilt by association.

    By Blogger (O)CT(O)PUS, at 12:13 PM  

  • Well, it's a comment section not a science work. And, as i said, it's just a prism, so i had to put some emphasis in the political spectrum, talking about the extremes so anyone can understand.

    Thank you for proving my point.

    By Blogger Mustang Bobby, at 5:09 PM  

  • Their "ability to manage their own resources" and "the self-ability of themselves and neighbors to know what's best for his life and does not want the government meddling" both mean the same thing: I've got mine. I want no responsibility, no obligation and no taxes because what's mine is mine because it's mine and I want the government to protect my right to keep every last god damn dime from being used for anything but to benefit me. If you can't swim, then die and decrease the surplus population.

    That's all it is and nothing more and I'm tired of having it dressed up as some kind of philosophy.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 11:30 AM  

  • [i]Thank you for proving my point.[/i]

    Ignoratio elenchi? I fondly thought you had understood that it makes no difference as I have described, what I was intended to demonstrate was a prism and not that all Americans were in these two groups.

    [i]I've got mine[/i]

    It's not that easy, and if you have ever gotten something by yourself then you will realize that. In addition, you are confusing the defense of what is produced by effort, risk and hard work, with(by?) extreme greed in chaotic situations.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:04 PM  

  • Proved what point? You haven't made one and please go look up prism. A prism distorts what you see through it.

    Sorry, your "two types" of people paradigm is an attempt at distortion by simplistic analogy dicto simpliciter since you seem to like latin.

    You assume falsely and without evidence that those who have, have by dint of "effort, risk and hard work." That's a self congratulatory excuse for avoiding social and patriotic obligation. Sorry, the free lunch counter is closed.

    Beyond that, I have no idea what you're getting at.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 10:15 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home