I’ve been looking for the audio of that - can you link? Thanks!
I can’t find it. I thought I saw it posted somewhere once, but now I can’t remeber where.
Maybe Glenn Beck sued to have it taken down, just like he’s suing to try and stop the talking about whether or not he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. What is he trying to hide? I’m not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he did rape and murder a young girl in 1990, but I am concerned.
A girl??? I heard it was a frog.
Well, that’s a relief, anyway.
From afar, it’s a bit weird to observe liberals on this board obsess about a fringe radio shock-jock. His politcs potentially appeals to, what, 10% of the electorate, a 10% that’s only going to vote for one party anyway?
Maybe there’s a reason for giving him all this attention but I don’t get it at the moment . . .
It’s a 10% that shouts and SHOUTS and SHOUTS so damn loud that they are effectively derailing normal political discourse. They shout so loud that the rest of the media reports on them because they’re a “story”. Plus they say nutty things, so they’re “newsworthy”. So we’re forced to listen to them far out of proportion to their numbers or importance.
Because he and Hannity and Rush and Wiener would be valuable even beyond the low-value demographic that they deliver- they are not on the air strictly to sell gold futures and male enhancement herbal remedies and mortgage refinancing. They are on the air to inoculate the “MSM” with arguments, theories, and discussions that conservative political leaders cannot be seen to directly support. Once they say/do something, then the cowards in the corporate media can “teach the controversy”, discussing things that have no business in a legitimate exchange of ideas, such as the birth certificate fantasy.
The best part about this is that when a particular bit of filth is too unacceptable even to be passed on in the adult media, they get to engage in the kind hairshirt victim complex that coincidentally reduces their need for male enhancement. Everybody wins.
I think most liberal rage at these guys is a reaction to the reluctance of other media figures and conservatives in our personal lives to admit that Beck is doing a clown show. So we can’t help but pick at the scab, pulling it back to the surface every time Beck or Coulter or Malkin does something particularly risible or depressing.
To translate it into conservative terms, “why do all the moderate Muslims say nothing- they must approve of fanaticism!”
We’re not obsessed. We believe that he’s innocent. We just wish he’d answer these questions that are dogging him.
Seriously, in all honesty, I’m pretty sure he didn’t killanyone. He does need to address this rape accusation, though. He’s got a daughter, and I’m just not sure he should be alone with either of his kids until all of this is investigated. With a history of mental illness in his family, and the possibility he’s already raped once, who knows what he’s capable of doing to his daughter?
What about that poor frog?
I’m pretty sure the frog didn’t kill anyone either.
But until Glen Beck’s frog takes a lie detector test, we really won’t know for sure
The “frog” story is his explanation of what he was doing with a naked underage girl.
David Brooks of all people argues cogently that the noisemakers really don’t have much influence anyway. I hope he’s right.
Frog? I heard it was a mudshark.
Thanks for this - interesting article.
This quote near the end of the piece made me think:
I think he’s right, and the 2008 election was a good example of it. I think some outrage fatigue is setting in, too, when it comes to numbers on things like health care. Most people can only sustain that level of vitriol for a limited time before it burns itself out, so the town hellers and the like are calming down.
I don’t think the Limbaughs are powerless, but their power is overrated.
But if that active, vocal minority is the controlling influence (note, not a conspiracy-like controlling influence) over the actions of Republican politicians, how does it follow that the noisemakers don’t have much influence?
Maybe it’s better stated that they wouldn’t have the direct influence except that the pols freak out and assume votes will follow voices.
They may not be. Brooks gave the most notable counterexamples.