Paris: Should liberals be afraid to say what they believe about the best way forward for the U.S.?Here are examples of what Beck considers “vigorous debate” (telling Dem U.S. House Rep Keith Ellison of Minnesota to “prove to me that you’re not working with our enemies,” calling Hillary Clinton a “stereotypical bitch,” discussing the prospect of “nuking the Middle East,” calling those who were unable to leave New Orleans after Katrina hit (or chose to stay) “scumbags,” saying he “hates” the families of 9/11 victims, calling Cindy Sheehan a “tragedy pimp” and “a pretty big prostitute”…need I go on?).
Glenn Beck: No. During the Iraq War, for anyone who cares to know the truth, I was on the air chastising people that were saying that Hollywood should shut up or that if you have a different opinion you should shut up. I was of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with vigorous debate, what George Washington called the "battlefield of opinion."
And oh yeah, on the matter of discussing opposing viewpoints on the war, Beck told us the following last year (from here, under the title “Iraq Victory Possible, If We Want It”)…
It seems that for so many in the media and elsewhere, there is an incredible desire to find the negative. It's an unquenchable thirst. How else could an essentially fired former press secretary's questionable claims about the war be more important to cover than improvement in the actual war?But then again, to be fair, Beck could not have known this when he concocted his propaganda.
Widely reported or not, we have made great progress.
Terrorism worldwide has decreased by 40 percent since 2001, according to a Canadian study. The Iraqis have gained control of Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi oil outputs have hit a post-war high.
Anonymous: What do you think about the current crop of likely Republican presidential contenders for 2012 (e.g. Palin, Gingrich, Romney, Pawlenty, and Sanford)? Which one(s) have common sense?Beck was working at WLFA in Florida in 2000, and I really wasn’t able to find out much of what he did until his show was picked up by WPHT here in Philadelphia (typical). However, as Media Matters notes here, just because he “wasn’t for George W. Bush” in 2000 doesn’t mean he didn’t serve as a Dubya propagandist in 2004.
Glenn Beck: I don't know yet. I haven't seen anybody yet that I totally believe. I don't know if I will. I think America has been burned too many times.
In 2000 I wasn't for George W. Bush, and then I got wrapped up in the whole political party thing, especially after 9/11, and like a lot of people I fought about it with my friend and at parties because I thought the people in Washington really believed what they were saying.
Bluffton, SC: What specific alternatives to Obama's policies do you propose?Yeah, maybe, but guess what? “Straight Talk” McCain proposed the same thing during the election last year, as noted here. If you disagree with it, fine, but just note that that’s a bipartisan position.
Glenn Beck: I've already given my thoughts on the bailouts. America is built on failure -- we build our success on failure. I don't understand why so many on the left who believe in Darwinism don't let it apply to a business standpoint. Let the banks' lose their tails, they need to. It's harsh and painful, but I don't think any animal lover would be walking around trying to staple tails back on monkeys as they became humans.
As for health care, the idea that my company is going to be taxed higher because I provide coverage for my employees is an insult and should tell you what direction this country is going.
Meanwhile, I’ll breathlessly await what I hope will be an eventual online Q&A with some other published authors hosted by the Post, namely Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and David Sirota (and I’m sure I’ll KEEP waiting).
I now return you to your regularly scheduled propaganda.
Update: More from this idiot here...