Skip to main content

The conundrum at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave: to respond to Glenn Beck or not?

From a political perspective, the proper response to Glenn Beck in the past few weeks would have been to stand by Van Jones and Yosi Sergant.

[I realize both had become political liabilities, but not even one-tenth the extent a political liability that being seen to cave into a talk show host creates.]

Now that Beck is going after Valerie Jarrett, the proper political response would be (a) for the White House to ignore him and support Jarrett, while (b) sending out some heavy-hitting political surrogates to take him on.

Having White House officials directly challenging Beck on an official White House website does not debunk Beck, it elevates him.

Hell, at this point he appears to be getting more of Barack Obama's attention than General McChrystal in Afghanistan.

At the same time it diminishes the power of the Presidency.

Why? Because it says, in effect, This man has developed such a following that his lies now require the official attention of the government in lieu of real things we should be doing.

Since trust in government, from both ends of the political spectrum, is running pretty damn low, that gives Beck's followers the idea that he is striking a nerve, and--ironically--tells President Obama's supporters exactly the same thing.

The problem for the Obama administration is that what would have been the right move for a campaign--responding quickly--is the wrong move for a sitting president.

Glenn Beck is a sick-freak-fad that can only become a phenomenon with staying power if his enemies treat him like one.

Comments

Delaware Watch said…
I read somewhere that Beck is a registered Libertarian. Do you know anything about it?
Anonymous said…
"This man has developed such a following that his lies now require the official attention of the government in lieu of real things we should be doing."

So, have you debunked any of these "lies"? If they're not lies, your impotent mini diatribe is a waste of time. Wait! You're a Libertarian (just like Beck?), so you're no stranger to political impotence.
Hube said…
I don't watch Beck nor listen to him; however, from what I've read, I can see nothing about him lying at least in regards to Van Jones. All he did was play clips of Jones' own words.

How is that lying -- or even the slightest bit disingenuous?
Mike W. said…
Having White House officials directly challenging Beck on an official White House website does not debunk Beck, it elevates him.

And that of course is exactly what Beck wants.
Anonymous said…
"And that of course is exactly what Beck wants."

Is anyone other than me surprised that Prof. Newton hasn't figured this out all by himself? He is certainly not that obtuse. I think he's gaming as a part of some perverted, masturbatory fantasy.
George Phillies said…
The people who appear on his program lend some of their credibility to Beck's claims of legitimacy.

A list could be generated.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?