Why did "conservative" national talk show host Glenn Beck do Obama's job for him by assassinating Texas GOP gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina on his show? Why did he attack her with something she has never said and has never done, for the mere reason that she refused to 'distance' herself from a position he wanted her to take - but which she had never taken? by Alex Wallenwein
(conservative)
Saturday, February 13, 2010
QUESTION: Why did Glenn Beck do Obama's job for him?
But then, why is he he doing the very same thing (suppressing free speech) on his own radio show?
Today, February 11, 2010, he had Debra Medina on his show, the third GOP candidate running for Governor of Texas in the Republican Primary Election. Anyone would think that Glenn would adore her the way he did (pretended to do?) with Ron Paul in 2008 (when he raised the unappetizing prospect of wanting to "french kiss" Ron Paul on his show and then pretended to salivate over Paul's common-sense, conservative views).
But no. Glenn did not even once ask Debra Medina a single question about her stance on the US and Texas Constitutions, on state sovereignty, nullification, property rights, gun rights, and on truly limiting the reach of government in our lives. No. He did none of that.
Instead, Glenn went off on a complete tangent and he asked Ms. Medina about something that is (a) utterly irrelevant to her campaign for a state-level governor's position, and (b) a position he has never taken either publicly or privately, to this writer's knowledge.
He asked Debra Medina whether she thinks that the US government was involved in the 911 attacks, and whether she would fire any of her staffers if she discovered that he or she held such views.
Huhh??
He then attempted to literally trash her, trying to paint her as a "911 conspiracy nut" when she never even once said anything about the subject. He did this ("skillfully" as he probably thought) by insinuating that her refusal to agree with him (that such people are just flat out "bad") meant a refusal to "take a stance" on that issue, and he then proceeded to insinuate that this disqualifies her as a serious contender for the Texas governorship.
Is Glenn on mind-altering drugs, maybe?
First of all, aside from the fact that this issue is a total non-issue in her race, how dare Glenn Beck insinuate that anyone who dares to disagree with his personal view on that issue is for that reason somehow "unqualified" for public office?
Second, how dare Glenn Beck even imply that there is anything wrong at all with asking government tough questions about what it did and did not do in the lead-up to a major national catastrophe?
Did the US Air Force have a chance to scramble jets on 911 to intercept the hijacked airliners? Yes, it did.
Did it know the jets were a threat? Yes.
Did it scramble the jets? No.
Why not?
How are these questions "illegitimate" questions to ask?
What's more, even if they were illegitimate, we still have the right to speak our minds freely in these united States of America. We have an absolute and undeniable right to ask even stupid questions. (As we all know, those are sometimes the best).
So, not just in effect but in actual reality, Glenn Beck has taken it upon himself to try and shut a legitimate and well-regarded candidate for a major public state office out of an entire election, exclusively based - not on a position she ever took, but on a position he desperately wanted her to take, but which she refused to take!
In light of that, how does Glenn Beck presume himself qualified to appoint himself the unofficial "spokesperson of the US Constitution" on his TV show?
He has just exposed himself as the arch-enemy of the Constitution that he really is.
Our right to freedom of conscience is listed foremost in the very first article of amendment to the Constitution, also known as "the First Amendment". Our Founders knew what was most important in this world: the right to THINK and believe freely, without interference from anyone.
Next comes the right to say what you think.
Then comes the right to freely associate with those you like, or with those you want to convince that you have something worthwhile to say.
Glenn Beck has just denied Debra Medina all three of these most essential, most cherished of all rights for any free people, rights the Founders he pretends to so adore tried to guarantee us.
To be sure, Glenn Beck is not the US government, and the Constitution wasn't written to limit his behavior, only that of government officials. But to so trample on the very values he claims to espouse before his listeners and viewers speaks volumes about who and what Glenn Beck really is.
In his mind, a candidate for state governor is not allowed to have her own mind about the subject of 911. She is not allowed to speak freely about it (when she has never even said anything about it, and Glenn knows this!), and she is not even allowed to associate with people (her staffers) who might - just MIGHT - hold such views as those whom he describes as 911 "truthers".
Your word in God's ear, Glenn.
And for no other reason than Debra Medina's refusal to agree with him on that subject without the benefit of further deliberation or discussion, he singlehandedly brands her "unfit" for public office in his own, inimitable way. One must suppose he expects his viewers to just take his word for it and not question the mighty Glenn.
Great showing, Emperor Glenn! Your wardrobe indeed looks glorious, today.
Mr. Obama couldn't be happier.
Well, maybe he could be.
What fortifies the insinuation made in the headline to this article is the fact that Beck continues to display a disturbing tendency to want to "french kiss" male holders of high elected office. (Yuck! I thought he hated those guys.)
He said it about Congressman and then-GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul in the past. He just said it again on his radio show about Rick Perry as reported by this Houston Chronicle article - and Pat Gray agreed with him.
Maybe he would secretly like to do the same thing to presidentObama??
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 79
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Alex Wallenwein only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Alex Wallenwein is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Seems half way thru you start speaking for Glenn. Debra was not denied anything by Beck. He asked a question, got his answer, and let her know he did not like it. I happen to agree with Beck, if a candidate seeking office bs's around and seems to support both sides of my question, I will not support them. Debra should take a stance, but she is afraid taking a stance could cost some truther votes. Truthies are almost insane, wanting them to vote for you might be too.
I think cutting the audio to Medina while he made immature frat boy jokes was way over the line for someone that was supposed to be a professional. I have to ask, why did he choose this question to open the interview and why did he exhibit that bizarre behavior after he hung up the phone?
Posted By: New Braunfels
Date: 2010-02-13 08:07:25
I don't give a flip one way or the other! I'm Voting Medina.
Look at it from my point of view people. Hutchison has not done an honest days work in years neither has Perry. Hell someone hated his guts so much they threw a firebomb at our govenors mansion. Not the smartest way to express your dissatisfaction but some felt so fed up with him that they crossed that red line.
Perry, Hutchison , White, these are all people that have made a career out of politics rather than using their politics to serve the people. While they build their social networks and make their white house plans folks like Medina have to get up a 6 am to go work a REAL job.
Posted By: David Rairigh
Date: 2010-02-13 08:20:43
Kona,
Why is it so important that she have a "stance" on the issue. She plainly stated that she feels that there are questions worthy of being answered that have not been answered. Without having those questions answered she's undecided about the US government's role in 9/11. She's not saying that she believes that the government carried out 9/11 but that it might have some blame for the ineptness that it displayed on that day.
I agree with Sandra. To manipulate the technical aspects of the interview so that it made Debra appear to be ignoring Beck's theatrical interjections was extremely unethical.
David: You are so right. Recall the "underbomber" incident around Christmas. After changing their story 3 times, (under intense questioning and contradicting eye-witness accounts) the feds finally came clean and admitted in their 4th version that yes, the "well dressed man" was a govt. agent that helped - made sure - that the underwear bomber got on the plane despite his lack of documentation/visa. They admitted that they were aware of his terrorist ties and wanted him to come to the US so that they could track him and hopefully identify domestic terrorist cells. So basically, the US government aided and abetted this terrorist boarding of the plane not knowing that his true intentions were to try and blow the plane up. Were the feds involved? yes. Were they complicit? No. Was the admission embarrasing and possibly damaging to the govt.? Yes, but not as much as it would have been had the underbomber been successful.
911 could very well be a similar situation - a MAJOR embarrassment for our government, and due to the major loss of life, also VERY DAMAGING.
Kona: this DOES NOT diminish the importance of learning the answers to many unanswered questions regarding 911, and the more that our government hides and evades serious, reasonable questions, the more guilty it appears. Even the 911 commission has publicly stated that they were not given all the information with which to conduct their investigation. So the ONLY REASONABLE response to Glenn Beck's question is "I do not have a position".
But none of that is even an issue in the race for governor of TEXAS. The issues are:
-private property and the negation of that right by unconstitutional property taxes
-state sovereignty and the use of nullification/interposition to enforce the 10th amendment and secure that sovereignty
The 911 Truth movement has no bearing on these issues, and Debra Medina is the ONLY candidate even talking about them and she is gaining support in the polls! Of course, this makes her a threat to the establishment and therefore she must be taken down by any means necessary - enter the 911 ambush.
Finishing up my second cup of coffee now and getting ready to head out and do some block walking for Debra Medina! Winning minds and hearts with the message of liberty! Huzzah!
I was listening to that broadcast interview and could not believe the way Glenn behaved. In fact, I turned off the radio. I've been listening to Glenn for a few years now and he's not always right, but his behavior in that interview with Debra Medina was out of line. I also wondered why that was the only thing he inquired about; his behavior was odd.
Has Glenn sold his soul to the devil like all the other politicians he talks about? Maybe so. He's not a politician, but I got the feeling the other day that something about Glenn had changed. Maybe Fox News is pulling his strings lately or maybe he just doesn't realize how evil the US government really is and can be….who knows.
He needs to open his eyes a little wider and research things before he goes spouting off on a topic that he's too afraid to look at, and one that he has not even researched. Denial is a good way to protect oneself, even if it keeps you in the dark or keeps you sick.
Posted By: Alex Wallenwein
Date: 2010-02-14 02:26:31
Angus:
Glenn has always been like that. He only puts on a constitutionalist face because that's his way to get people who truly want freedom back into the same old republican fold. He is a lightning rod. His job is to divert the energy that's in the freedom movement by sounding like us, and talking like us - but when the cihps come down, he has no choice but to show whose side he is on. He is a corporate whore like all the politicians he gets paid to bitch about. Glenn and Sarah are made of the same block of spongy, rotten , mold-infested swamp wood.
The good thing is that as peole learn more, they are able to detect characters like him and recongize them for what they are. He cannto stop us. Palin cannot stop us. The two-party establishment cannot stop us. We are their worst nightmare. That's why Glenn needs to trash real fighters like Debra. He has his marching orders, and he never disobeys - just like Obama.
Their 'orders' come from the same crowd. They just have different roles to play.
I was stunned, listening to the Medina interview that day. I had not really trusted Beck, but certainly trusted him more than most of the other radio talk show hosts. In the space of three minutes I learned that my guts had been right about him.
He's very, very good- his disguise as an honest freedom loving constitutionalist is nearly complete. I knew his opinion on Sept. 11 before the Medina interview, but the way he attacked her and then trashed her afterward put it in a new light: suddenly I realized, he's just another puppet.
I believe Sept. 11 is a legitemate Litmus test for any talking head or political candidate- because the last thing the puppet masters will allow is an honest, reasonable consideration of the facts of that event, on any of their major corporate media outlets. Anyone in the public eye who is unwilling to take a public, rational look at the facts, is probably a puppet.
medina could have said a simple yes or a simple no to Beck's questions and then opined on the revelance to the State of Texas and the upcoming election. Instead she chose poorly and came across as an individual wanting to hide something.
In politics perception is everything. She came across as evasive and unsure. She compounded the issue by saying that both the Perry and Hutchinson campaigns were out to "smear" her based on her appearance on the Beck program.
Last time time I looked, you can only smear yourself through your own words and actions. Medina herself lost any election traction she had with her own mouth.
Your reporting of this event was disturbing. More disturbing in some ways of what you accuse Glenn Beck of doing.
First of all it seems you did not listen to the entire commentary after the interview given how you claim that he violates someones first amendment rights.
His basic opinion was that he would not vote for her given her statments. Thats all, he stated in the commentary after the interview that if you wanted to vote for Debra Medina you could do so, and that it was not his call to determine, or influence, who Texans voted for or not. just that to him she equivicated and avoided what should have been a simple question to answer. To him she did not answer it to his satisfaction.
Secondly, how can you claim to know what Glenn knows? If you listen to the interview it was indicated...and in research I have done in days past... that she could have been a 9/11 'truther'. This may not be a big issue for Texans, who can vote for her to suite themselves, but it is for him given the experiences with Van Jones and the rest of the Obama administration.
Third, He was joking about 'french kissing' Rick Perry, which was his amazement at how poorly he thought the interview went in order to say that maybe he should give Rick Perry another look. Which was a joke in and of itself.
Fourth, he was not violating her freedom of speech but was in fact encouraging it. He simply wanted her to answer the question honestly. And openly, so that the voters of Texas could make the descision. To him she balked on that issue, but to others not so much.
The only thing that was bothersome..and contradictory...was on later reports of how he might have 'ended' her campaign. Given his opinion about Texas voters, and the Constituition at all, and I have read that she clarified herself in a statement after the interview. I am satisfied with that, but also curious as to why she could not have said that answer during the actual interview.
I have been a long time viewer of your programs since you were on CNN and thought you had a good handle on politics and our constitution. You had a person that embodies everything that our constitution stands for, everything you talk about on your programs but you slammed her on your radio program last Thursday.
The same question was asked of Sarah Palin when she ran for VP on the 911 issue and she answered the same question the same way in that there should be more investigation into the 911 Commission Reports. Even the Commission Report noted there should be a larger investigation.
Regardless of the above the Texas Governors race has nothing to do with this 911 question that you threw on the table and then ridiculed Debra Medina.
You must understand that we Texans are sick and tired of the sorry paid off politicians such as Perry, Hutchinson and others that are there for thier own pocketbook and not serving the people or the interest of our constitution republic. Which brings me to my final point, the only reason that a person like your self would attack a true conservative, constitutional republic honoring candidate for office...is your paid off as well. How is that big fat contract of 50M serving you? YOU ARE A FRAUD and many TEXANS here realize this NOW since your absurde attack on DEBRA MEDINA.
Glenn just uses us all. I used to watch him all the time and realized that he used the libertarian (in my heart I am with the libertarians) idea just to pull people in so he could try to change their mind. Just look at Fox News. They give a little to the Judge and some other libertarian ideas, but well out of the time period average listeners can hear. Although John Stossell is on at 10, 9 central. Glenn is a neocon, warmonger. He believes in it so much he should join the National Guard, But I am sure he thinks his message is much more important. After the Medina interview they mocked her on the air. I never give any weight to people who call names or mock people. It is almost like he puts himself above people. Glenn not even you who get paid to stop this movement will succeed.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
