Glenn Beck on The Huffington Post

Glenn Beck: I'm Thankful America Is About Individuals (VIDEO)

2009-11-25T18:21:44Z

Glenn Beck took time out Wednesday to deliver a Thanksgiving message to his viewers.

"As you're gathering with your friend and relatives, I would ask that you would talk to your family and just watch your family and ask yourself what really matters," Beck said. "We need to use this holiday season as time to renew ourselves."

Beck said that it's not material things that matter but "our loved ones, our children, and the freedoms that are still intact." And he said that he is thankful the American spirit is one of individualism, not collectivism.

"I want somebody to recognize in Washington what America really is," Beck said. "It's not stuff! It's an idea, an ideal. It's the individual, but it's more than that. It's each of us with our families, our family values. A set of guiding principles by which we have lived and which we live our lives. And when we disconnect from those principles, well then, the country becomes a reflection of us. We must reconnect with those principles that our fathers and their fathers lived their lives for for the past 233 years."

Beck asked viewers to imagine a terrorist attack on Washington, DC — one in which "we would be as lucky as we were with the World Trade Center, when everybody was gone, or most people were gone" — and to realize that the monuments and symbols in the capital are "meaningless" because America is about individuals.

"We are Americans, rich or poor," he said. "We have always believed in the rugged individualism and self-actualization. We are not the people that I think the people in Washington think we are. We are not fearful people, we are not people to give in or give up. We are not about to give into some new whiny mentality...that's not who we are. The only one that is too big to fail is you and the only one that will create your failure is you. The only way the United States government, or the United States of America, or we fail as a collective is if we fail as individuals, and the only way to guarantee that we as individuals will fail is to depend on the government to prop us up. That is just not who we are. And for me, I am thankful for that."

Watch:

Olbermann Names O'Reilly, Beck Worst Persons In The World (VIDEO)

2009-11-25T12:14:05Z

Keith Olbermann named both Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck among his "Worst Persons in the World" Tuesday night on "Countdown."

O'Reilly was runner-up, earning the "Worser Person" badge for claiming thathis producers' ambush interviews with Bill Moyers forced the PBS broadcaster to retire from his weekly program.

"In the ambush interview from O'Reilly's stalker producer [Jesse Waters], Moyers mopped the floor with the kid," Olbermann said. "He invited Waters to come on the show because O'Reilly didn't have the courage to do so, he said. A year later, O'Reilly sent his other flunkie, Porter Berry, to try to side swipe Moyers, and no one has seen Berry since. And these interviews from two and three years ago, that's what Bill-O thinks drove Moyers out of PBS. Bill also thinks he has his own police force and that he schedules the tides. Notice, O'Reilly never does these ambush interviews himself because, well--here kitty, kitty, kitty."

But Beck took top honors, winning "Worst Person" status for two reasons: his tireless promotion of gold and his branding of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) as a "prostitute."

"Once again, Beck's dirty little secret is that American society means as much to him as faith means to a televangelist," Olbermann said. "It's a scam. It's a cash cow. He's in it for the money. He keeps trying to sell people gold, largely because his a disproportionate number of his advertisers sell people gold."

Olbermann also asked why conservative feminists aren't responding in outrage to Beck's comments about Landrieu.

"Where are the conservative feminists?" he asked. "A women politician is called a prostitute and you're OK with that. It's OK if I call Sarah Palin that? The hell it is."

Watch:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Olbermann Rips Glenn Beck For Calling Dem Senator Mary Landrieu A 'Prostitute' (VIDEO)

2009-11-25T08:14:44Z

On MSNBC's "Countdown" last night, IOlbermann awarded Carly Firorina the bronze medal for stating at a breakfast recently that she was opposed to bank bailouts, conveniently leaving out that last year she supported the mother of all bank bailouts when the financial system was perched on the edge of a cliff.

Bill O'Reilly brought home the silver for implausibly insisting that he and his ambush producer Jesse Waters were responsible for Bill Moyers retiring from PBS.

The winner of the gold medal was another Fox News host: Glenn Beck. On his radio show Beck crudely called Senator Mary Landrieu a prostitute for her work obtaining money in the health care bill to help pay for coverage of poor citizens of Louisiana. He then doubled down later on his television show, saying "So we know you're hookin', but you're just not cheap."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Michael Shaw: Reading the Pictures: Commandant Beck Not Joking Anymore

2009-11-24T03:13:23Z

(Click for larger size)

March on Washington on MLK Day? Libertarian conventions? 100 year plans?

Using his "latest-book" tour as the field test for a new (yep, Palin-esque) identity, Glenn Beck proposes to transform himself from screaming (faux-) media pundit into full-fledged political activist.

In the process, though, Beck should realize that tongue-in-cheek symbolism -- once you switch hats -- can come back to maul people.

For example, check out this photo cleverly chosen by the NYT to illustrate Glenn's transformation. Whereas the cover of the Commandant's book is meant as pure satire directed at the government, and the title "Arguing with Idiots" is meant as pure mockery aimed at "the moonbats," impressions aren't the same in migrating from the book tour to the campaign caravan, the pretense of show business finally tossed under the bus.

In the make-over from infotainment guy throwing spit wads to "the change we've been waiting for," let's all welcome the temperature-uncontrolled, fascist poster boy to town!

For the latest spin on media and political pictures, visit BAGnewsNotes.com.

(photo: Gregg Matthews for The New York Times)

Glynnis MacNicol: Why Glenn Beck Could Be The Next Oprah Winfrey

2009-11-23T16:44:02Z

Let the games begin! Now that Oprah Winfrey has officially decided to end her talk show the race is on to find her daytime replacement. Brian Stelter pens a speculative piece in today's Times about the possible contenders for Oprah's crown:

Already, she has groomed another decade's worth of new talk show hosts. She ordained Mr. McGraw in 2002, and his talk show, "Dr. Phil," now ranks second behind her own hour. She followed up with "Rachael Ray" in 2006 and "The Dr. Oz Show" this fall. "Dr. Oz" is already a hit. And now she is developing a program for Nate Berkus, her favorite interior designer, for fall 2010...The shake-up may also make more room for lower-rated talk shows by Martha Stewart, Tyra Banks and Bonnie Hunt, among others. Looking farther afield, Ms. Couric, whose CBS News contract is up in 2011, has long been mentioned as a possible syndicated star.

All great ideas, and it would certainly be interesting to see Couric try and rekindle her daytime fan base. That said, it's hard to envision any of these people filling Oprah's shoes. While she certainly started out as merely a popular talk show host, Oprah became in the last decade or so, evolved into a sort of national mentor around whose ideas and beliefs people (the country, one might argue) shaped their outlook on life. Probably it's safe to say no one is taking life advice from Katie Couric, or Ellen, or Tyra Banks. Know who some people are taking life advice from these days? Glenn Beck.

Yes, granted it's a different sort of life advice -- I'm fairly certain that Oprah never went on a weeks-long diatribe comparing anyone to Chairman Mao -- but different times call for different media stars! And Glenn Beck is nothing if not a media star to fit our politicized, polarized times. Instead of the Oprah life philosophy, which taught us to take responsibility for our own actions, Beck wants us to take responsibility for our politics (I think...sometimes his theories are difficult to keep up with amidst all the chalkboard razzle-dazzle).

Beck has already drawn Oprah comparisons from the New York Times, no less, for his Winfrey-like effect on book sales. However, this weekend's much-covered announcement of his 100 year plan elevates him to the realm of (potential) movement leaders. I still don't think Beck has his eyes on the presidency (and in the words of James Poniewozik, "I don't believe that I have done anything to deserve being that lucky as a columnist") but read the following statement from Beck regarding his 'plan" and then swap in diet, or food, or 'best life now' (or the Secret) for freedom, or values, or founders...and voila! You have a somewhat scary successor to the 90's Oprah phenom.

I have begun meeting with some of the best minds in the country that believe in limited government, maximum freedom and the values of our Founders. I am developing a 100 year plan. I know that the bipartisan corruption in Washington that has brought us to this brink and it will not be defeated easily. It will require unconventional thinking and a radical plan to restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting, using only the battlefield of ideas.

- All of the above will culminate in The Plan, a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding.

The question (or one of them) obviously remains: Will Beck still have the media clout necessary to summon crowds of people at "the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of The Plan and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country" come August 28, 2010? Who knows. Oprah benefited from a media cycle that was mostly under her control. Also, she has years of success under her belt before launching into movement-like undertakings such as the Angel Network, or Living Your Best Life Now, etc. Glenn Beck has only actually been a national media phenom since roughly August; next August is a ways away in our current media and political cycle. Also, love her or not, Oprah was not perceived by much of the population as being unhinged. However, that said, judging by the current ratings a certain cable news channel enjoys (not to mention the pop stars du jour) the public apparently prefers their media figures as unhinged as possible.

Leon T. Hadar: Obama, the Teabaggers and Foreign Policy

2009-11-23T13:57:48Z

If you have been following what America's right-wing bloggers and radio talk-show hosts have been saying about President Barack Obama's just-concluded trip to the Asia-Pacific, you would be under the impression that Obama was not treated by officials in that region as the leader of the world's only remaining superpower and the largest and most advanced economy.

The neo and ultra-conservative pundits recalled the good-old-days when former American presidents were supposedly treated with so much respect in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing as they used American economic and military might to compel leaders there to bow to Washington's dictates. But as the right-wingers see it, Obama acted as though he was the leader of just another normal nation and not that of the great power that had won the Cold War not so long ago, projecting a certain level of timidity during his East Asian tour which might explain why he was cold shouldered by the East Asians. And that was such a humiliating experience for proud Americans like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Indeed, according to these and other nutty loud-mouths, Obama had disgraced his country by having taken a deep bow at the waist while meeting Japan's Emperor Akihito. Hey, remember how former US vice president Dick Cheney, greeted the emperor in 2007 with a firm handshake -- but no bow - just the way a real American Man would conduct himself.

American historians were quick to note that Obama was not the first U.S. President to take a bow, following the rules of diplomatic etiquette when meeting with foreign kings, queens, and other heads of state. In fact, former President Richard Nixon - you know, that lefty peacenik --- bowed to Akihito's father in Japan in 1971. And he was the same Japanese emperor who had led his country to war with the U.S. in 1941.

The notion that Obama didn't get any R-E-S-P-E-C-T in the Asia-Pacific during his visit and that his "wow bow" in Tokyo reflected a supposedly spineless diplomacy of kowtowing to China and capitulating to other rising powers in the region over security and trade issues is probably just another example of the kind of hysterical Obama bashing that has engulfed America's flagging political right since last November.

In the right-wing alternate universe Obama is seen as being responsible for the Great Recession, the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now also for the economic and military rise of China, the changing Japanese attitudes towards America and the other challenges facing American power in East Asia. According to the members of the non-reality-based community the suggestion that the China may be less willing to play ball with Obama has nothing to do with America's real weakened economic and military position in the aftermath of the financial meltdown in Wall Street and the War in Iraq. Nope. It all has to do with the perception of American weakness that has been produced by Obama's more conciliatory approach towards China (dubbed by officials in Washington dubbed as "strategic reassurance"), his willingness continue negotiations with the Japanese over the status of U.S. military bases Okinawa and his engagement with the military regime in Myanmar.

But in reality, this kind of more conciliatory approach that have been embraced by Obama in his dealing with China, Japan and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is part of an effort to adjust American position in the Asia-Pacific in response to the very real changing geo-strategic and geo-economic balance of power, and in particular to the shifting balance of power between America and China.

Indeed, the transformation of the post-Cold War unipolar U.S.-dominated international system into a looser multi-polar system was inevitable. From that perspective it is quite possible that historians in the future would contend that the most important event that had taken in place in 2001 was not the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington but what happened exactly two months later - the accession of China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) which marked the start of its full integration into the global economy.

That this process of diminishing unipolarism and increasing multipolarism has accelerated under Obama's predecessor has to do with the costly policies at home (irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies) and abroad (military unilateralism and the war in Iraq) that have weakened U.S. status around the world, including in East Asia, and provided the Chinese with even more opportunity to exert their economic and diplomatic influence while America continued sinking into the many military quagmires in the Greater Middle East.

Taking into consideration that what Obama has been trying to begin reversing the trend towards American retreat from Asia that took place under President George W. Bush, one could argue his East Asia tour was certainly a good start. America and China are not about to form a permanent "Group of 2" forum. But during the talks in Beijing that covered currency, climate change, tariffs, Iran and Afghanistan - the American and Chinese leaders took the first steps in a long road in which each side will have to provide strategic reassurances to other. It would a process involving reciprocity under which the Americans will not be anymore in a position to deliver sermons and dictate outcomes to the Chinese.

That could be certainly a humbling experience for the right-wing critics and the neoconservatives who seem to operate under the illusion that America is still Number One and that it can still continue cutting taxes, expanding the deficit, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while defeating terrorism, containing China and Russia, punishing "rogue regimes" and spreading democracy and human rights around the world.

But one of the main reasons why America has less leverage in its dealing with China is fact that the Chinese are playing now the role of America's banker as they continue financing the growing U.S. deficits. And in order to reduce these deficits, Americans will have to cut spending, which should include reductions the same U.S. military commitments abroad that right-wing critics would actually like to see increased.

Indeed, the same teabaggers who in the name of conservative values of limited government and fiscal restraint have been clobbering Obama and the Democrats for expanding the power of the federal government to promote a domestic liberal agenda, including $787 billion economic stimulus and his health-care reform proposals, seemed to have become born-again government interventionists, progressive internationalists and social engineers when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan and to millions of foreigners and other distant societies whose values are alien to most Americans. Many of our irate anti-statist conservatives want to see the same U.S. government whose power they decry when tries to manage the school system in, say, Lebanon, Ohio, managing lots of stuff in, say, Lebanon. Help build the health care system in Afghanistan -- but not in America.

In fact, according to most public opinion polls the majority of American conservatives support increasing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. The same teabaggers who are bashing Obama Administration as "socialistic" and "fascistic" seem to be quite enthusiastic about an Obama doing more national building in Afghanistan, which is bound to help raise the U.S. deficit into the stratosphere and expand the power of the federal government.

As Obama and the Democrats contemplate a new strategy for Afghanistan they should consider integrating the conservative values of fiscal discipline and limited government into their decision-making on this central foreign policy issue. After all, reducing and not expanding U.S. military in Afghanistan (and Iraq, and Korea, and Japan, and...) would help control the spending by the federal government and reduce the ballooning deficit. And that, after all, is exactly what our teabaggers are demanding.

Dawn Teo: Tea Parties Organizing, Training For 2010 Under The Radar

2009-11-22T22:34:21Z

By Dawn Teo and Alex Brant-Zawadzki

The current consensus
among pundits and politicos is that the Tea Party movement will fail in
2010 unless a national leader or organizational structure emerges. These predictions are based on fierce infighting and turf wars that have broken out recently among Tea Party leaders who are grappling for control within the fledgling movement. However, while fights between Tea Party leaders have been highly visible, their efforts to organize and prepare for 2010 have gone largely unnoticed.

So far, the Tea Party movement has been organized in opposition to issues: the stimulus package, cap and trade, and health care reform. However, electoral campaigns and issue-advocacy
campaigns are two different animals. In issue-advocacy campaigns, like-minded
groups work alongside each other, often at odds, advocating for variations on
the same policy. In electoral campaigns, disparate groups (many of whom may be
at odds on legislative and policy agendas) come together for a finite period of
time for the singular purpose of electing the best available (not the
ideal) candidate.

For some, including important figures in the conservative power
structure, Tea Parties are a reaction against a floundering Republican
Party. For others, Tea Parties are a Republican Renaissance. For the
many libertarians in the Tea Party movement, they are a means to bucking
the two-party system. Regardless, Tea Partiers of all stripes want the
same thing in 2010: electoral victory.

In 2006 when Democrats swept elections and gained a majority in Congress, they did not have a clear leader or singular progressive agenda. Even during the primaries of 2008, politicos fretted and wrung their hands over divisions between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. Similarly, although some Tea Partiers and their supporting groups are skirmishing over turf, they aren't necessarily working at cross purposes. Disparate Tea Party groups share libertarian ideals, and their work continues in parallel with one another.

Many local Tea Party groups are taking the initiative to prepare for 2010 elections on their own. In at least 21 states, local homegrown Tea Party groups are already recruiting precinct leaders and providing them with formal training. Many are also hosting candidate recruitment and training seminars. Some are hosting multi-day "boot camps" for activists and candidates. In Texas, Tennessee, Illinois, Nevada, Utah, Michigan, Arizona, and New Mexico, local Tea Party groups have set goals of gaining control of enough local offices to control city and county budgets.

Fox News commentators and conservative talk radio hosts are already actively promoting Tea Party preparations for 2010. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Malkin, and others have already begun encouraging their audiences to begin working toward a 2010 Republican victory. They are promoting the Tea Parties and encouraging the "not conservative enough" meme against Republican incumbents engendered by the Tea Party movement.

On Saturday, Glenn Beck announced an ambitious plan to turn his media megaphone into a community organizing pulpit. He already had a list of "912 candidates" and an "In or Out in 2010" challenge. Now Beck promises to step up efforts to elect like-minded politicians in 2010 by sponsoring voter registration drives and several day-long educational seminars culminating with the release of his upcoming book The Plan, which he will launch on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech in August 2010 on the National Mall. The Plan will detail Beck's 100-year plan for America. Beck's educational "conventions" will include policy-specific education, community organizer training, and Beck's personal take on history and economics (god help us).

From day one, well-funded libertarian groups have been commandeering the Tea Party movement for electoral gain. American Majority, along with their sponsoring organization, Sam Adams Alliance, and several other like-minded groups, are sponsoring a National Tea Party Convention. Local Tea Party leaders attending the convention will participate in workshops, seminars, and organizing training. Sarah Palin will be the keynote speaker.

American Majority is also co-sponsoring PrecinctProject.com, along with RedState.com, to provide online training to Tea Partiers to "take back the Republican Party."

The American Future Fund, one of the well-funded organizations that organized Tea Parties over the August recess, is already hard at work trying to get robocall restrictions lifted to make it easier and cheaper to conduct robocalling operations during the 2010 elections.

Eric Odom, who is most often characterized as the Tea Party founder, is organizing week-long 2010 Tax Day Tea Parties across the country through his new organization American Liberty Alliance (and his former employer Sam Adams Alliance). In each city, the week will kick off with a full day of activist training on Saturday, April 10. Tax Day Tea Party protests will be held on Thursday, April 15, and the week will culminate with door-to-door voter canvassing on Saturday, April 17.

Odom announced recently that he is re-joining the GOP, but he qualified his support for the GOP by saying his new Liberty PAC (1) will not support any incumbent Republican, (2) will help libertarian candidates defeat Republican incumbents that are not conservative enough, and (3) will educate the electorate on why it makes sense for Republican candidates to be Scozzafava'd. Odom explained his plan, "Love or hate the Republican Party, it's our only vessel in the short term."

The same Tea Party leaders (like Odom) who made NY-23 a lively battle will likely make 2010 Republican primaries just as contentious. But after the primaries end, Tea Partiers will likely fall in line. After all, far-right activists who refuse to vote for moderate Republicans in primary elections are even less likely to vote for a Democrat in the general election.

This article is the third in our multi-part series, Reading Tea Leaves. Read Part 1: Tempest in a Teabag: Tea Party Founder (Re)Joins GOP and Part 2: Making Tea for 2010: Tea Partiers Fight for Their Right to Robocall.

Alex Brant-Zawadzki is a writer who has studied in both the
United States and abroad. He is a former contributing Writer at OC
Weekly. He edited his university newspaper, The Saint, and received the
honor of Best Student Newspaper in Scotland. Alex has been passionate
about journalism from a young age, and is extremely proud of a
reporting credit he managed to get in Time Magazine. Alex currently
resides in the heart of San Francisco.

Get HuffPost Eyes&Ears on Facebook and Twitter!

Glenn Beck Has A 'Plan' To Sell Books With March On Washington On The Anniversary Of MLK Speech

2009-11-22T13:20:11Z

Yesterday, while promoting his latest book at "a festive campaign-style rally" in The Villages in Florida, Fox News host Glenn Beck announced that he was crafting "a 100 year plan" that will be "radical" and will "restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting."

Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup

2009-11-22T03:55:28Z

Misrepresenting what I said during an appearance on Countdown this week, NewsBusters claims that I'm trying to deny Glenn Beck his "constitutionally protected free speech." Wrong. What I said is that words have tremendous power -- they can inspire and they can incite. There's a reason you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. But even though Glenn Beck is shouting "fire" in a crowded, anxious country, I specifically said that the right response to his steady stream of lies, hate, and race-baiting -- all served up with a not-very-subtle undercurrent of violence -- is to put unrelenting pressure on his advertisers and his bosses. Pressure works. CNN dropped Lou Dobbs. I'm actually of two minds when it comes to Beck. Part of me resents spending even a second of my life thinking about him. But part of me recognizes that he's too dangerous to ignore.

Glenn Beck As Political Organizer: Fox News Host Sponsoring 7 Conventions

2009-11-21T22:32:11Z

Glenn Beck, the popular and outspoken Fox News host, says he wants to go beyond broadcasting his opinions and start rallying his political base -- formerly known as his audience -- to take action.

David Vines: If It Were Me, I'd Be Embarrassed

2009-11-21T13:50:00Z

It's nice to see that even after the election, conservatives are still playing the "liberal gotcha media" card every time they expose themselves as being shamefully ignorant regarding the issues they care about most.

Last Wednesday, a media firestorm erupted after a seventeen-year-old girl named Jackie was interviewed by MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell while standing in line during Sarah Palin's Michigan book signing. Jackie, wearing a shirt that read, "The US government handed out $700 billion in Wall Street bailouts and all I got was this lousy t-shirt," was caught off-guard when O'Donnell informed her that Sarah Palin was on record as supporting the bailout.

You can see the exchange below:

It didn't take long for Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to feature this clip on their respective shows and praise Jackie while condemning O'Donnell for her pesky questions backed up by fact-based research. Then, Jackie was given a platform to tell her side of the story by the blog, Red White & Conservative.

To summarize:

This all started as me, a young 17 year old American going to see a woman I admire and turned into this crazy event hah I'll start at the very beginning.

She had me read my shirt and then proceeded to ask me "Did you know Sarah Palin supported the bailout" to be 100% honest I was like, are you kidding me? She is trying to use my shirt against me. I was so shocked by the craftiness she had that I was truly stumped. I asked her where she got her fact and she read her little note. Then she asked me what I liked about Sarah, and I talked about the Constitution.

In one day I met a role model, and met the liberal media and their crafty schemes. I fell prey to liberal bias, but I'd like to think I did an okay job.

As a fellow high school senior, I feel a strong urge to respond.

This notion that a reporter is being "crafty" and "biased" when they correct factually inaccurate statements is ridiculous. Sure, Jackie might have a point if O'Donnell ran up to her at random and stuck a microphone in her face as she was walking down the street, but that was not the case. This girl was at the book signing of a prominent politician, wore a t-shirt indicating that she had strong political views, agreed to be interviewed, and failed to answer a very simple and straightforward question.

The job of a good reporter is not to ask softball questions or cast everybody they speak to in a positive light. A reporter's job is to collect facts and seek the truth. So, while some may object to O'Donnell's speaking to a seventeen-year-old girl, nobody can accuse her of reporting anything but the facts.

Which brings me to my final point: Jackie is seventeen-years-old, she's not seven.

In her piece for Red White & Conservative, she feels the need to drive home the fact that she's only seventeen four separate times, as if that were some sort of defense.

Now, I understand that much of the electorate is made up of low information voters who don't closely follow politics. That's fine -- it's not ideal, but it's perfectly understandable.

But according to her school profile, Jackie is very politically involved. She is an intern with the Michigan Republican Party and is clearly excited and passionate about what her political "role model," Former-Governor Palin, represents. And yet, when she cannot correctly identify one of Palin's most basic political positions, she plays the victim and blames everybody but herself.

Then, conservative members of the media take the bait and praise her as some sort of Republican hero. They are more than happy to glorify this culture of ignorance and hide behind the veil of "elitism" and "media bias" when anyone approaches them with facts.

All I can say is that if Glenn Beck had heard me express my political views and then assumed that I was a thirteen-year-old, I would not lift the paper bag off my head for quite some time.

*Correction: It has been brought to my attention that Red White & Conservative is Jackie's own blog. It is not, as I had previously written, the blog of someone else who had given her a platform to speak.*

Right-Wing Talkers Obsessed With Rape

2009-11-20T10:13:31Z

One of the things that's obviously under-appreciated about right-wing radio and television is the way hosts wield this awesome variety of artful metaphors about the state of the nation.

In this new mashup video from Media Matters, however, you really see the full measure of their rhetorical brilliance, as various figures from the fringe calmly and with clear heads describe the RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE of various things: the nation, the poor, the Statue of Liberty. Michael Savage drops a strange little "rape missing children missing children rape" hip hop verse, and Glenn Beck channels Roman Polanski (Glenn's very topical!). Meanwhile, the human cost of actual rapes continue to outpace the cost of fictional rapes that happen in people's minds.

So, Xanax for everybody, maybe?

WATCH:

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

News Corp. Begins Keeping Tabs of All Its CO2 Emissions

2009-11-20T08:25:41Z

News Corp. - owner of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and numerous other media properties - is adding software to help manage its environmental impact and energy use.

Will Bunch: The 26 Percent Solution

2009-11-19T22:07:49Z

Today's magic number must be 26 -- as in 26 percent.

Because as if you ever needed proof that 26 percent of America -- that would be one out of every four people you see walking down the street, plus someone else's right ankle -- is totally bat-guano out-of-their-freakin'-minds crazy, check out this new poll just out:

The poll asked this question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?" The overall top-line is legitimately won, 62%, ACORN stole it, 26%.

Interestingly, it pairs nicely with this:

Respondents were asked: "When the president of the United States is traveling overseas, do you think it is appropriate for him to bow to a foreign leader if that is the country's custom or is it never appropriate for the president to bow to another leader?"

The numbers: Appropriate, 67%, Never appropriate, 26%. Even a majority of Republican respondents were okay with the bow, by a 53%-40% margin. Democrats weigh in at 84%-9%, and independents 62%-30%.

Now, how much do you wanna bet that those 26 percent in those two polls are exactly the same people! These are people who might as well walk the earth in a bubble made of plastic and little speakers blaring Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh 24 hours a day. People who will buy into any two-bit conspiracy theory that gets repeated enough -- remember that a) Obama won the 2008 election by 9.8 million popular votes and b) the known number of actual known fraudulent votes cast because of the voter registration crimes by ACORN workers who got paid for name like Mickey Mouse is zero and c) it's a long way from 0 to 9.8 million. And people who are easily distracted by the shiny object -- like the alleged symbolism of a presidential bow -- that will always lead the Drudge Report over the real issues of the day.

Now, 26 percent of America is indeed a lot of people. There's a bit more than 200 million voting-age Americans right now, so we're talking about more than 52 million red-blooded adults, enough folks to fill 1,000 Citizen Bank Parks with roughly 6 or 7 million more people to spare. Enough to put on a fairly impressive rally on the Mall in Washington if just a tiny percentage of them turned out. But there's another way to express 26 percent, and that would be as "Not 74 Percent," the too-silent majority group in this country that's a bit more inclined towards real commonsense solutions, to use a term that's been misappropriated by a former Alaska governor.

But what if that 26 percent has influence beyond the trivial world of ACORN and presidential bowing? Check out where else these 26 percenters turn up:

When asked what kind of health care bill Congress should pass, 51 percent of Americans said a bill that contains a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option." Sixteen percent said a bill without a public option, while only 26 percent said they want no bill at all. Seven percent did not know or had no answer.

Now that's actually important. By the way, look who else is at 26 percent:

Just 11 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents believe Palin could be an effective president. Overall, 26 percent of Americans say she could be effective in the job.

Of course, you could argue that the 26 Percenters have been around for a few years, going back to the Bush administration:

Six in 10 Americans say the United States should join the Kyoto treaty on global warming, rejecting President Bush's economic arguments against the accord....However, in an ABCNEWS.com poll conducted a week ahead of Earth Day, 61 percent said the United States should join the treaty, while just 26 percent opposed it.

Which may explain this:

President George W. Bush's approval rating dropped to a record low, making him the least popular president since Richard Nixon, according to a new Newsweek poll... Twenty-six percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, while a record 65 percent disapprove, including almost a third of Republicans, Newsweek said.

Now, I happen to think that 52 million Americans are people who ought to be heard, who have a right to make their views known and to stage protests if they need to. But too often -- aided by a media that tends to give a lot of extra weight to the 26 Percenters, especially when they make for a good story -- we're allowing the tail to wag the dog in these United States of America. This week, for example, we may learn that a handful of senators thwarts the electorate's expressed desire for a health care bill, because of fear of this 26 percent.

It's true -- as more and more conservatives started pointing out around, oh, around 2006 or so, that this nation is a republic and not a straight democracy. Legislators are elected to weigh what's most popular along with what is legal and also with what they think is morally right.

But when all is said and done, we need leaders who will fight like hell for the dreams of the 74 percent of America, not ones who kowtow to the sometimes paranoid fears of the 26 percent. That would be what I would call our 26 Percent Solution.

Huff TV: Arianna On Olbermann: Glenn Beck Is "Morally Liable" For His Words "If Violence Ensues From What He Says" (VIDEO)

2009-11-19T21:20:31Z

Arianna Huffington went on MSNBC's Countdown to discuss a new report from the Anti-Defamation League on anti-government rage, that calls Glenn Beck the "Fearmonger-in-Chief."

The report calls Beck "the most important mainstream media figure who has repeatedly helped stoke the fires of anti-government anger."

Arianna argued that although Beck may not be legally liable, he is "morally liable" for the violence and anger his show may provoke.

Watch the video below.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Nathan Daschle: The GOP "Comeback" is Really a Throwback

2009-11-19T13:43:09Z

If the sound of loud cackling wakes you up in the middle of the night, that's the Republicans crowing about their recent wins in the 2009 gubernatorial races while they meet this week in Austin.

The GOP is downright giddy that, after three straight years of electoral losses at the federal and state level, it won the governors races in Virginia and New Jersey. The fact is, Virginia and New Jersey were about two things: Virginia and New Jersey. These states have voted against the party in the White House for decades, and they did it again this November. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. The question of the day, however, is not about 2009. It's about 2010 and whether America will continue down a new path of promise and prosperity, or whether it will cut a screeching U turn and return to the policies that caused the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Republicans insist that these recent elections signal that the American public is yearning for a "GOP Comeback." To the contrary, Americans - and independent voters in particular - want results, not politics. The Republican party is the last place to find them. Unlike the intellectually robust Republican party of 1993, this group of Republicans has narrowed their ambitions to a single word: "no." No to finally lowering our skyrocketing health care costs. No to pulling our nation from the economic crisis they created. No to anything that may further solidify our President's standing when it could come at the cost of their own - even when it's good for the country.

As an alternative, they tout an obtuse agenda they call the "GOP Comeback." While short on specifics, it's clear from their rhetoric that their central organizing idea is a return to the same failed, job-killing ideas Americans overwhelmingly rejected in 2008: tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, little to no government oversight, and slashing efforts to help grow the middle class. But the so-called "GOP Comeback" is not just a return to the failed ideas of the past, it's a return to the failed leaders of the past. The roster of candidates starring in the Comeback include lackluster has-beens such as Bill McCollum, Scott McInnis, Sam Brownback, Rick Lazio, and of course John Kasich. This IS your father's GOP.

Not just are the Republicans trying to pawn yesterday's wares, but they remain a house divided. There is a vicious civil war taking place in the Republican party. We saw this struggle engulf the 2009 House and Governors' races, and now it's spreading to states like Colorado, where the moderates pushed out conservative newcomer Josh Penry. This move raised the ire of right-wing stalwart Tom Tancredo, who is now threatening to take Penry's place and carry the torch of the conservatives against the mushy-moderate Scott McInnis. In Iowa, former four-term Governor Terry Branstad is getting pummeled daily by his GOP brethren for promising to raise taxes. A recent poll showed that more than 50 percent of Republicans would rather vote for an ideologically pure candidate than someone who can win. The Republicans will continue to struggle so long as hot-headed purists weigh them down.

What's more, this party has no clear leader. Like Cerberus, the Republican party has many heads, all of them angry. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Steele, Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin, Joe Wilson...all of these politicians have a claim to being the leader of the GOP. And all of them alienate most Americans.

While the GOP fights its civil war and searches for its soul, Democrats will continue with what we have set out to do: bring about much needed change and usher in a new era of hope and prosperity. With the President not even a year into his Administration, Democratic Governors are working with him every day to create jobs and make life better for all Americans. At the same time, Democratic Governors are demonstrating that our brand of management works at the state level as well as it does on the federal level. The nonpartisan Governing Magazine just named Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley the best Governor in the country. Five of the seven states with AAA bond ratings have Democratic Governors. To the chagrin of the pessimists, our Governors are proving that it is possible to cut budgets while preserving investments in education and health care that are the foundation of prosperity for the next generation.

There is a lot of work to be done, and American voters will reward the party that retains its optimism and puts forth a concrete plan to return prosperity. Republicans' anxiety and pessimism about our future will not fare well with the voters. More importantly, while the jury on the new Administration is still out, the case against the Republicans has long been closed. Their failed ideas, and certainly their failed leaders, are unlikely to see a return. Perhaps that rooster crow will be a wake up call to a party whose ideas have long been dormant: stand up and offer real solutions or reconcile yourselves to a lifetime in the minority.

Steve Marmel: Palin/Beck In 2012? Hell, Yes!

2009-11-19T10:14:35Z

I've been struggling with the idea of
"balance" in news. There is fact, and there is spin.
There is truth, and there is fiction. But when the mainstream media covers something - showing both sides, paints the picture that
everything is 50/50 when there are certain things that are not - like, oh, let's say, climate change.

However, doing a piece where you
counter a scientist representing fact with narrowmind James Inhofe
(R-OK) -- that's less balance and more news organization covering their asses for fear
of being called biased.

Clearly, I'm biased.

Everything is polarized and everything is hyper-partisan.
Evolution, reproductive rights, Guantanamo... everything that happens
today gets tossed into the grinder so the left and right can eat each
other's faces off, for the entertainment of the news viewing public - and there's no end in sight.

Except for this little light at the end of the tunnel, courtesy of Newsmax:

It's no secret that former GOP vice-presidential
candidate Sarah Palin and Fox News host Glenn Beck share great respect and
admiration — so their fans can be forgiven for wondering: Is a "dream
ticket" of Palin-Beck ticket completely out of the question?

Perhaps not.

Palin initially chuckled when Newsmax broached the idea.
But then she had some serious words of praise for the popular Fox personality.

"I can envision a couple of different combinations,
if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running
for anything in the future, and I'm not there yet," Palin tells Newsmax.
"But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He's a hoot. He gets his message
across in such a clever way. And he's so bold — I have to respect that. He
calls it like he sees it, and he's very, very, very effective."

Oh, sweet Jesus, yes.

Sure, it might be a little early to be thinking about / fearing
/ fantasizing about who the GOP will be serving up to attempt to knock Obama
out of the White House after one term.

If I were to put my money on a specific ticket, it would
be "Seemingly moderate conservative youngish white male" /
"Pander to the Evangelical Christian Right older white male" in 2012.
Considering how lockstep the Republicans have been against everything
Obama is pushing, it would be hard to tell the difference between Boehner,
Cantor, Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Grassley unless you judge by the tint of
their skin, the sheen of their hair, or the pattern of the age spots.

But Palin/Beck would shake that up. And, quite frankly, be the greatest male/female comedy team since
"Stiller and Meara."

Democrats should be drooling at this idea - After all,
there are two types of people who know who Glenn Beck is. People who
watch Beck on Fox News, and the people who see Beck eviscerated on programs
like "The Daily Show" or "South Park."

The idea that Sarah Palin's ego shoehorns her
into another national election, and she elevates Glenn Beck to a level where
everyone gets a nice, solid look at his everyday insanity... that's
Christmas, Birthday and Fourth of July all rolled up into one. That's the
Republiverse saying, "Here ya go, every comedian in the world. Don't
worry about finding topics for 2011-2012... we've got you covered."
Two loons walk into a bar.

So yes. Count me in as someone who would
wholeheartedly support this idea. I don't
think this ticket has a chance in hell, but it would solve the
"balance" and "majority" issue once and for all. Which gets me back to my original point.

There's a loud group of people out there who think
screaming equals majority, obstruction equals fighting for something, and blind
hatred equals patriotism. Whether those people represent one, ten or
ninety percent of the population, I can't say. Because if you look at the
news coverage, it's always one for, and one against. "Health Care
Now!" is always countered with "The Black Helicopters are
coming!" on a "one for" and "one against" basis.

So the hell with it. I say, give them their ticket.
Put it out there, get it on the ballot, and let's see who that message resonates with and how the numbers play out.

That message won't be candy-coated with a ghost-writer or
chalkboard scrawls and graphics - it'll be out there, naked as a Prejean, for
all to see. And if that message wins, I'll be the first to admit the
screeching I hear is from an outraged majority rather than the media
giving disproportionate attention to a small and vocal minority.

And then, the jokes will begin.

Mark Kirk Gets Skittish About Possible Glenn Beck Endorsement (WATCH)

2009-11-17T16:29:30Z

U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk may or may not accept an endorsement from conservative talk show host Glenn Beck -- he won't say either way.

After word broke that the self-described moderate Congressman was seeking kind words from Sarah Palin on behalf of his Senate bid, Think Progress caught up with Kirk and asked whether he would be open to an endorsement from the Fox News host, similar to the one Beck gave Doug Hoffman in the recent New York Congressional election.

"How about Glenn Beck," the interviewer asked Kirk, "If he offered his endorsement, would you accept that?"

Kirk smiled and said, "Uh, he's a very interesting guy. I don't think he's endorsing any candidates though."

"He endorsed Hoffman, though," the interviewer pressed. "You don't want him to endorse you?"

Kirk did he best to dodge, mumbling "nice to see you" and trying to walk off.

Kirk's Palin courting didn't go quite as planned, either. The campaign's hope was to have her say something positive about Kirk while she was in Chicago for the "The Oprah Winfrey Show." Palin, however, came and went without any public praise for Kirk.

Watch:

Cenk Uygur: Imagine if the Today's Right-Wing Were Around for Nuremberg

2009-11-17T16:16:59Z

I was talking to Frank Mankiewicz recently (he was the press secretary for Bobby Kennedy and campaign manager for George McGovern) and I asked him what's the difference between the right-wing in this country back in the 60s and 70s and right now. Certainly there were crazed conservatives back then, and in many ways they were even more dangerous and vicious back then. But Frank was more concerned about the right-wing of today. Why?

He said it's because back then they were considered the radical fringe and now they're taken seriously as part of the national conversation. Back then there were pockets of these guys in different parts of the country, but now they're national. So, every single issue is nationalized and made more partisan. The fringe is united behind their demagogues (mainly radio and television talk show hosts) and drive every issue into a senseless and fevered ideological battle.

It's as if we're taking the opinions of doctors and the lunatics at the asylum just as seriously. They are not equal and legitimate sources of information.

So, every week there's something else crazy that's discussed as if it's a legitimate issue. This week there are already two such topics, and it's just Tuesday. First, the right-wing is incensed that President Obama showed courtesy to a foreign leader by bowing to the Japanese Emperor. Are you kidding me? Bush practically made out with the Saudi leader at Crawford, but we didn't make that a real issue. You know why? Because it's not a real issue!

It was funny to see Bush walking hand in hand with King Abdullah, but we get why he did it. He was respecting their culture. Now, when Obama does something much less controversial, it's a nationwide debate (including a slight bow to the same Saudi Arabian leader). You can chuckle over Bush or Obama in local outfits or practicing what appears to be strange customs to us, but you can't treat it as if it's something that tells you about their leadership or as if it's a real national security issue.

Let alone what Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times, had to say about Obama bowing "controversy":

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

Look at these statements -- "natural instinct or blood impulse"; "sired by a Kenyan father"; "born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World." Again, are you kidding me? We're supposed to take these guys seriously?

Then there is the issue of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. Bill O'Reilly had this thoughtful commentary on the KSM trial, "The guy's admitted it, so he shouldn't be going on trial anyway, he should just be shot." We're listening to these guys?

So, under that logic, if the authorities claim someone "admitted" a crime to them, we should just skip the trial and shoot them in the head. How very American!

Imagine if we these right-wing lunatics were around -- and were being taken seriously -- after World War II. We would have never had Nuremberg. They would have gone ballistic; screaming for blood and seething at the idea of bringing Nazis to justice. They would have exacted a terrible political price for trying to bring these guys to trial. So, instead of setting a history making precedent on how victors in war can be just and fair, we would have lynched those detainees, punished the rest of Germany and made the same mistake as almost every other country in history by brutally oppressing the defeated.

You think these guys would have gone for the Marshall Plan? Rebuilding your enemies? Giving tremendous amount of money and US resources to rebuild your two biggest adversaries who just killed millions of people in a terrible war they started? Inconceivable. They would have called the Marshall Plan an act of cowardice and appeasement that showed weakness to your enemies. They would have destroyed the greatest American diplomatic accomplishment. They would have tried to scuttle the very policies that made this country great -- that made it exceptional.

But the current right-wing radicals (which includes nearly every major conservative talk show host in the country; they were unanimous in their agreement that KSM should not be tried in the American justice system) aren't just crazy, they're un-American. They missed the whole point of the country. What makes America great is our justice system. We don't take people out and shoot them in the head without trials. That's what despots and dictators do. We are a country of laws, not men. We are supposed to be exceptional in our justice, fairness and jurisprudence. These people don't believe in any of that. They just want blood. But we might be crazier than they are for taking them seriously.

Watch TYT Here

Paul Krugman: Germany's Jobs, Unemployment Miracle Can Teach US

2009-11-17T01:32:01Z

Germany's jobs miracle hasn't received much attention in this country -- but it's real, it's striking, and it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. government is doing the right things to fight unemployment.

Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck Team Up For "Bold Fresh Tour"

2009-11-16T12:59:00Z

Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are going on tour (h/t TVNewser)!

The "Bold & Fresh Tour 2010" will pair the top two hosts in cable news in "an event that makes professional wrestling seem like a night at the opera," the tour description says.

"You'll hear from Bill, you'll hear from Glenn, and then...they'll take the stage together," it goes on. "What happens then? Heaven only knows, but one thing is for sure-you'll want to see it with your very own eyes."

The tour kicks off on O'Reilly's home turf, Long Island, before heading to Tampa, FL, N. Charleston, SC, and Norfolk, VA.

"It's time for the truth - straight up, whether you like it or not," the website says. "Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are teaming up and going on tour. Your town may never be the same."

Beck's Guest List Included White Supremacists, Other Extremists

2009-11-16T11:16:59Z

Conservative radio and television talk show host Glenn Beck has made his reputation and fortune in part by taking innocent if not strictly professional relations and turning them into major political scandals. His crusades against Obama administration advisers Patrick Gaspard and Van Jones, who has since resigned, stand out as crowning achievements of the guilt-by-association game.

What happens, however, when one looks closely at the people Beck has chosen to invite onto his show, and to whom he has lent his megaphone?

The Huffington Post took a look some of the bombastic host's past guests and found names steeped in controversy. Beck has hosted, and even occasionally praised, a renowned white supremacist, a devout southern secessionist, a defender of slavery, and a 9/11 skeptic.

On October 4, 2007, for instance, Beck had on his CNN/Headline News show Michael Hill, the founder and president of the League of the South, and Thomas Naylor, a secessionist who is head of the Second Vermont Republic. The conversation, which centered on dissolving the government, was at times, contentious. But Beck - for all the pushback he offered - did acknowledge that he was kind of intrigued. "Don`t get me wrong," he said. "There`s part of me that says, mm-hmm."

Hill's League of the South (LOS) group is a decidedly white supremacist organization, arguing that the "Anglo-Celtic" culture of the South must be protected and insisting that "white men" must "shed the guilt heaped upon them by their opponents and defend their interests." The group has questioned "what sort of ammunition is being given to black 'racists' by the media's skewed coverage of interracial crimes." Hill himself has been quoted as saying, "Let us not flinch when our enemies call us, 'Racists;' rather, just reply with, 'So, what's your point?'''

Hill wasn't the only Beck guest with LOS ties. Beck has also given airtime to Tom Woods, a historian and economic theorist who was present at the group's founding. Woods was just 21 years old at the time and insists that he is no longer a member. But even those who have accepted those explanations say he harbors radical, pro-Confederate views.

In his book, "Politically Incorrect Guide to the American History," Woods wrote that "strictly speaking, there was never an American Civil War...Other, more ideologically charged (but nevertheless much more accurate) names for the conflict include the War for Southern Independence and even the War for Northern Aggression."

"Woods clearly wants to tender a neo-Confederate interpretation, in which slavery is shunted into the background as a motive for southern secession," wrote Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, a San Diego University Professor who reviewed the book for the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

Nevertheless, Woods has appeared twice on Beck's radio program and three times on his Fox News show. When Beck was out with appendicitis last week, Woods was on with fill-in host, Judge Andrew Napolitano, to discuss his new book, "Meltdown." He's regarded so highly by the program that Beck has asked him to write for his newsletter "because I think you've got it down," Beck said.

Another Beck guest with a controversial past is Larry Pratt, the president of Gun Owners of America. Pratt appeared on the Fox News program on February 16, 2009.

A Second-Amendment rights enthusiast, Pratt may be best known for being forced to resign as co-chair of Pat Buchanan's 1996 presidential campaign because of ties to white supremacist and extremist groups. The same year, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Pratt was contributing to an anti-Semitic periodical titled "United Sovereigns of America." Gun Owners of America, meanwhile, was discovered donating money to a white supremacist attorney's group.

Nevertheless, he was warmly greeted on the show by Beck, who promptly complimented him for his "dream marriage" because neither he nor his wife exchanged Valentine's Day cards.

Roy Beck, the founder and president of NumbersUSA -- and no relation -- has appeared with Beck three times, including one appearance just over two weeks ago. According to SPLC, Roy Beck "is the Washington editor of The Social Contract, a quarterly journal that has published articles by 'white nationalists' like Samuel Francis, who was fired from the conservative Washington Times after writing a racially inflammatory column, and James Lubinskas, a contributing editor for the racist American Renaissance magazine."

Finally, there is Charles Goyette, a self-described Independent and popular Phoenix-based radio host, who appeared as a guest on Beck's October 12, 2009, Fox News program. Goyette would be non-controversial except for the fact that months earlier, on his own program, he said that the official story behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks is "worse than Swiss cheese." Beck, of course, memorably pilloried Van Jones for putting his name on a petition that questioned whether 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

If Beck were a self-avowed journalist -- which he's not -- these guests could be chalked up as an effort to foster intriguing debate, whether about immigration policy, constitutional principles or the strength of the dollar. But, taken as a whole, the roster reflects the host's partiality to an ideology that is far-right if not outright extremist.

Beck himself has argued that one must "step back and look at the big picture" if one wants to understand philosophical motives.

After repeated requests for response by the Huffington Post, Beck's production company declined comment for this article.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Doug Molitor: 12 Ways the World Could End in 2012 (Doug's Dozen #18)

2009-11-16T07:56:02Z

A big disaster movie is inspired by a centuries-old Mayan prediction. Should we worry? Well, the ancient Maya were pretty wise, if you overlook their not having gunpowder, or the wheel, or the sense to spear Cortez as he waded ashore. But there are a lot of ways planet Earth could end it all...

I couldn't be more excited about my Huffington Post debut! It almost overwhelmed my sense of shameless self-promotion, but at the last second, I remembered: If you enjoy political satire blended with low comedy and general bad attitude, please check out more videos at...
www.dougsdozen.com

such as:

12 Halloween Costumes for Important People
12 Things That Are Like Cheney Criticizing Obama on Afghanistan
12 New Town Hall Issues
12 Titles For a Reality Show Starring the Balloon Family
12 Objections to Obama Getting the Nobel Peace Prize
12 New Sponsors for the Glenn Beck Show
The 12 Commandments of C Street

John Lundberg: Newsweek Ed's Poem Skewers Lou Dobbs

2009-11-15T07:12:35Z

Lou Dobbs resigned from CNN on Wednesday night, and rumor has it that the immigration-obsessed nightly news anchor will be following the Glenn Beck plan: if your shtick appeals to the fringe, why not head for a network with no qualms about stoking some far right-wing rage and cashing in on it? Don't be surprised if we soon see Dobbs broadcasting live from the border with a flag in one hand and a rifle in the other.

On Thursday, Newsweek's longtime senior editor Jerry Adler published a poem in honor of the occasion entitled "Goodbye, Mr. Dobbs."

So wily Lou has picked the locks
That kept him in his padded box
And tiptoed off, in just his socks.
Or should we say, weighed anchor?

So now we wonder where he docks
To whom he'll lead his rabid flocks:
The Pop that loves his famous Vox
And adores his rancor.

A network just for frat-boy jocks?
Where aliens are put in stocks
And viewers pelt them with big rocks
Before each half-time show?

Could it be UPN, or Cox?
They'd have to open up Fort Knox
We know Lou's crazy, like a Fox.
I'd really love to know.

As far as light verse goes, the poem is quite good--if only for the image of the stately anchor tiptoeing off "in just his socks." The form is suitable and the rhythm is on point. And it's no mistake that "Fox" is capitalized in the penultimate line. Adler is hinting at Dobbs' likely future employer--which would make Lou the second Fox News anchor to be effectively skewered in verse.

The hyperbolic portrait of a "frat-boy" network that Adler conjures up in the third stanza drew the ire of Scott Whitlock at the right-wing watchdog site News Busters. Whitlock fired back by dredging up an old Adler quote on the murdering Menendez brothers (remember them?) and asking the rather bizarre question "So, Adler is tougher on Dobbs than he is on two murderers?" Ok then. It's safe to say that we can count on Mr. Whitlock to follow Dobbs to wherever he drops that expensive anchor of his.

In the meantime, Adler's poem is crying out for more verses. Feel free to add yours in the comments.

The Stupid Virus (VIDEO)

2009-11-14T08:36:38Z

"SuperNews!"--aka the guys that brought you the Twouble with Twitters, Larry King interviewing the Large Hadron Collider and Emoticon Wars--have returned this week to bring you the answer to this question: Why are people so stupid? Turns out it's a virus spread by an Obama-hating monkey. He's responsible for birthers, the people who equate health care reform to the Holocaust, and Rush Limbaugh.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!