nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Beck Rally

cheesehead

Food for thought:

"The Beck rally was the public "resurrection" of the linkage between religion and the conservative movement. In this regard many believe that Beck and Palin did a disservice to the conservative cause. It makes it look like the GOP is again driven by the religious right and the politicians who choose to take advantage of religion for personal and political gain.

It distracts from the focus of what many believe should be the message of the GOP, and that would be a purely economic and personal freedom versus big government focus."

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Child Item

Comments

CokaColumbo

The Beck rally was attended by a very large number of independent voters. Although clearly a right leaning event, it was a deliberately non-political party event so I think you are wrong to assume that such a link exists between the gathering and the GOP specifically. A huge number of tea-partiers, for example, have become alienated with republicans as well as democrats in recent years.

I found the following video to give a good insight into the true nature of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CY5aFvRe2E&feature=player_embedded

jank

The restoring honour rally. Whatever that meant!
TBH this went kinda quietly. This was built up for the last few months as a gathering storm of the conservative movement to march forward and reclaim america (from who I dont know). But it all went off kinda quietly. I suppose it is August and most people are on holidays until after Labour day.

kev9100

From watching some of the video, Beck doesn't really sound political. He sounds like a religouis/cult leader. Why would anyone listen to him?

Nodin

Given the nature of some his statements re Obama, I doubt the date was chosen accidentally. The mans a rabble rousing clown.

Palmach

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The Beck rally was attended by a very large number of independent voters. Although clearly a right leaning event, it was a deliberately non-political party event so I think you are wrong to assume that such a link exists between the gathering and the GOP specifically. A huge number of tea-partiers, for example, have become alienated with republicans as well as democrats in recent years.

I found the following video to give a good insight into the true nature of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CY5aFvRe2E&feature=player_embedded

Usually the disillusioned ones are that way because the GOP isn't right wing and/or libertarian enough for them. The Tea Party has backed Republicans in many primaries who tick the right boxes. I don't recall them backing any Democrats so it is fair to say the Tea party is overwhelmingly Republican.

Memnoch

kev9100 wrote: »

From watching some of the video, Beck doesn't really sound political. He sounds like a religouis/cult leader. Why would anyone listen to him?

Why do people listen to any religious charlatan pretending to carry messages from "God?"

Because they are idiots.

Overheal

kev9100 wrote: »

From watching some of the video, Beck doesn't really sound political. He sounds like a religouis/cult leader. Why would anyone listen to him?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

There are enough people in America that love this crap.

Ren2k7

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The Beck rally was attended by a very large number of independent voters. Although clearly a right leaning event, it was a deliberately non-political party event so I think you are wrong to assume that such a link exists between the gathering and the GOP specifically. A huge number of tea-partiers, for example, have become alienated with republicans as well as democrats in recent years.

I found the following video to give a good insight into the true nature of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CY5aFvRe2E&feature=player_embedded

Sorry mate but your totally wrong on this. The whole tea party movement has been astroturfed by the Republican Party machine and it's backers, primarily former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and his "Freedomworks" group.

The reason for its outward message of non-partisan politics is to distract people from the god-awful mess they, the Republicans, made of America (and by proxy the World) especially the 8 years of Bush the Second and to show they are a new political movement untainted by their previous f**k-ups.

Tea partiers are the biggest bunch of wingnuts on the planet who should never be allowed the time of day to expouse their extremist rantings.

Overheal

A few "Teabaggers" - members of the Tea Party Movement, post here.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055895161

While I disagree with them I don't think it's necessary or civil to brush them as wingnut retarded extremists.

[Deleted User]

Palmach wrote: »

I don't recall them backing any Democrats so it is fair to say the Tea party is overwhelmingly Republican.

Indeed!

CokaColumbo wrote: »

A huge number of tea-partiers, for example, have become alienated with republicans as well as democrats in recent years.

If this was true, then why did the Tea Party leadership predominately target Democrat and not Republican office holders for the November 2010 elections? Was there only one token Democrat that the Tea Party supported? This makes the Tea Party look like Republicans in Tea Party clothing, and just a spin to win the support of Independents and uninformed voters.

Denerick

Beck is a cult figure. I really wish he was operating in Britain or Ireland. Imagine the kind of abuse and mockery he would get from all sections of society. I think Americans have no sense of the ridiculous whatsoever if they managed to let this bufoon of a man have any influence whatsoever.

He literally creeps me out.

Ren2k7

Overheal wrote: »

A few "Teabaggers" - members of the Tea Party Movement, post here.

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055895161

While I disagree with them I don't think it's necessary or civil to brush them as wingnut retarded extremists.

Apologies, I've only just after reading that sticky you linked to now and have now corrected my post.

I happen to think the term teabagger to be correct considering it was they who began to use the term for themselves but never mind.

kev9100

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

There are enough people in America that love this crap.

Sigh, it still depresses me that he was re-elected.

Carcharodon

I wonder how many people Fox news reported to be at the rally ? Sure there was at least a billion at every Teaparty rally :rolleyes:

Overheal

Im not even interested in that figure

wherever you get it from it will be disputed.

The US Park Polices used to make official estimates but not since the Million Man March Controversy - except once, when they estimated the number at Obama's Innaguration, but I dont care about that number either, frankly.

Sufficive to say, there were surely a significant group of people that attended the rally.

cheesehead

CokaColumbo - it's difficult for me to assume a link doesn't exist between the "Restoring Honor" gathering and the GOP when one of the keynote speeches was given by Sarah Palin. Perhaps that's just me over-reading the situation. I understand the linked video (produced by reason.tv - of the libertarian Reason Foundation) has its own agenda and in my eyes doesn't offer good objective insight into the true nature of the event.

I guess that was besides my point. I offered the observation between the linkage between religion and the conservative movement as a way to see what others thought of the development.

Until a leader comes forward who galvanizes the GOP around an unambiguous set of principles, one who puts an alternative platform out there, the void will be filled with people like Beck and Palin. They are not the people who will lead the Party in 2012 and beyond.

There are lots of people in the Party who have good ideas, e.g., Ryan, Jindal, Christie.... but I'm not sure the war can be won by wonks. I guess the GOP is still looking for the next Great Communicator.

billy the squid

Denerick wrote: »

Beck is a cult figure. I really wish he was operating in Britain or Ireland. Imagine the kind of abuse and mockery he would get from all sections of society. I think Americans have no sense of the ridiculous whatsoever if they managed to let this bufoon of a man have any influence whatsoever.

He literally creeps me out.

A Beck like character would fall foul of the libel laws here fairly quickly were they to discuss our politics in the same fashion as he does over in the states.

BlitzKrieg

heehee this made me laugh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD5NvD56vRs

dont know how much of a representation it is though. Honestly dont care.

the other clip someone put up had glenn beck announcing there was just over a 1000 people there. Thats surprisingly small.

20Cent

What I want to know is where were all these people during the Bush years when he decimated democracy and freedom.

Killer Wench

This really isn't about Democrts versus Republicans or Liberals versus Conservatives. This is about them versus us; people are afraid because there is one of them sitting in the White House and they want to "save" the country before that one does more to help them.

Nodin

billy the squid wrote: »

A Beck like character would fall foul of the libel laws here fairly quickly were they to discuss our politics in the same fashion as he does over in the states.

.....the whole of FOX news would be illegal in most of Western Europe, given the bias towards one party. It makes rather a mockery of Murdoch jrs request for 'journalists to be trusted' and such legislation removed.

Sticky_Fingers

20Cent wrote: »

What I want to know is where were all these people during the Bush years when he decimated democracy and freedom.

You can only have those things if you are willing to spout whatever they themselves believe or are willing to vote for their candidate. Its all duckspeak for defending themselves from their critics while attacking their enemies who had the temerity to win the popular vote.

As a movement they could be dangerous since they seem to attract the extreme elements of society while also appealing to moderates who in some way feel disenfranchised but luckily they are headed by a court jester and a woman who doesn't have the intellect to gain entry into clown college so they will likely stagger around a bit and then quietly implode.

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

.....the whole of FOX news would be illegal in most of Western Europe,

:eek::eek: Call yourself a liberal?

[Deleted User]

cheesehead wrote: »

Until a leader comes forward who galvanizes the GOP around an unambiguous set of principles

Since the defeat of McCain-Palin in 2008, along with losing control of the US Congress, no clear leader has emerged to bring the Republicans together, consequently you have all these splinter groups attempting to fill the GOP leadership vacuum like the Tea Party, what's left of McCain's followers, and extreme fringe personages like Beck. Just saying "No" to legislation by Democrats is not a Republican political platform that builds trust with the voters during the greatest recession since the Great Depression.

Republican politicians vying for GOP leadership are grasping at straws rather then proposing substantive solutions to the recession and wars, fanning the flames over side issues like the Ground Zero Mosque, which in a few months will be forgotten, while vast numbers of Americans are unemployed or underemployed and hurting.

It is doubtful that Gingrich, Palin, Paul, or Romney have what it takes to convince the GOP rank-and-file to "galvanize" into a voting block that will defeat Obama in 2012. What I see are Republicans once again failing to obtain the presidency, but gaining seats in both Houses of Congress in 2010 and 2012, not because they offer valid solutions to the nation's problems, but only because many voters are desperate enough to suspend their disbelief that Tea Party candidates are not Republicans (in Tea Party clothing), or that incredible fringe personages like Beck have THE answer to the Brave New World.

Obama will win in 2012, but he will be a lame duck not having control of both Houses of Congress for his second term.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

:eek::eek: Call yourself a liberal?

There are - generally speaking - strict laws in most of Western Europe concerning political coverage on TV/Radio. Equal time has to be given to all parties (with certain caveats) in political discussions. Therefore FOX news would be illegal were its format to be transferred to Europe. Thats nothing to do with my political stance.

kev9100

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Obama will win in 2012, but he will be a lame duck not having control of both Houses of Congress for his second term.

He may lose the House, but I can't see him losing the Senate because A) the Dems have a huge magority there when you think about it and

the GOP has put up too many extremist candidates in swing states, i.e Nevada.

[Deleted User]

kev9100 wrote: »

He may lose the House, but I can't see him losing the Senate because A) the Dems have a huge magority there when you think about it and the GOP has put up too many extremist candidates in swing states, i.e Nevada.

The Republicans had a majority in both Houses for a decade (1996-2006), and lost it after a couple elections.

When one party controls both houses does the nation ultimately suffer, regardless if they be Democrats or Republicans who are in control?

For example, the Republicans retained control of both Houses from 1996 to 2006 (Newt Gingrich led Contract with America). During that decade two expensive wars were launched that continue to this day, the largest federal deficit had occurred in US history, and the foundation for the current great recession was well established (and certainly not mitigated, no matter what the Republican apologists contend).

The current Democrat controlled Houses of Congress have forced through revisions to health care policy in America, which primarily benefits private sector for-profit health care insurance corporations, rather than the citizens for which it was intended to serve; i.e., you must obtain private sector health care insurance or suffer penalties, which ironically looks similar to the (Republican) governor Mitt Romney Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, enacted in 2006, that threatens almost all state residents with tax penalty consequences if not enrolled in a private sector for-profit health insurance plan. Do profits rather than citizen health prevail, while the Republicans Democrats were in control?

Further, the historic federal deficit that was almost doubled during Republican reign, continues to grow to new historic highs under the Democrats.

Raoul and the Kings of Spain

kev9100 wrote: »

From watching some of the video, Beck doesn't really sound political. He sounds like a religouis/cult leader. Why would anyone listen to him?

Pretty close, he's a Mormon.

To me he's more like McCarthy and Clarabell's love child, but that's just me.

Raoul and the Kings of Spain

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Obama will win in 2012, but he will be a lame duck not having control of both Houses of Congress for his second term.

I agree. The GOP simply does not have anybody who can beat Obama, nor will they by 2012. They also always seem to forget his strengths/their weaknesses. In particular letting the man speak to a crowd, or have a debate with him. The Republicans are fantastic at getting their loony based worked up, but facing Obama is something else entirely.

fontanalis

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The Republicans had a majority in both Houses for a decade (1996-2006), and lost it after a couple elections.

When one party controls both houses does the nation ultimately suffer, regardless if they be Democrats or Republicans who are in control?

For example, the Republicans retained control of both Houses from 1996 to 2006 (Newt Gingrich led Contract with America). During that decade two expensive wars were launched that continue to this day, the largest federal deficit had occurred in US history, and the foundation for the current great recession was well established (and certainly not mitigated, no matter what the Republican apologists contend).

The current Democrat controlled Houses of Congress have forced through revisions to health care policy in America, which primarily benefits private sector for-profit health care insurance corporations, rather than the citizens for which it was intended to serve; i.e., you must obtain private sector health care insurance or suffer penalties, which ironically looks similar to the (Republican) governor Mitt Romney Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, enacted in 2006, that threatens almost all state residents with tax penalty consequences if not enrolled in a private sector for-profit health insurance plan. Do profits rather than citizen health prevail, while the Republicans Democrats were in control?

Further, the historic federal deficit that was almost doubled during Republican reign, continues to grow to new historic highs under the Democrats.

These should be the main tlaking points for democrats!

Child Item