HuffPo Is Partly Correct On Beck

Well, the headline, that Murdoch will fire Beck, is ridiculous. They've no way of knowing that. And while JWF may be right as regards Beck's 5 PM ratings, the larger picture is unknown. But what's at issue isn't 5 PM. It ain't Prime Time, baby. Believe it or not, I've heard that Scarborough beat Beck in NYC radio ratings recently. At the very least, that suggests a very loyal smaller following without the kind of reach that's needed to actually arrive.

I'm not talking ideology here, folks - so get over it. I'm talking business. I don't agree with all of this from HuffPo - Beck may do just fine at 5 PM for a long time. But his ego is going to want more than that. Whether he gets it, or not, is going to depend on advertising. He may moderate some in terms of rhetoric - no more Obama hates white people for instance. And that might allow him to climb. But he's going to have to drive advertising before he gets beyond 5 PM opposite Blitzer and local news. And in the grand scheme of cable TV, that just ain't all that. Them's the facts. 

Murdoch most likely understands this, and is probably crunching numbers to see how viable Beck is to Fox News in the long run. In financial terms, Beck could most aptly be compared to a derivative; indecipherable and immensely profitable in the short term, but ultimately a ticking time bomb and fast track to disaster.

I don't watch his advertising. So, I've no way of knowing. But if he isn't attracting the big guys specifically for his show, he can't break out of the non-Prime Time slot. That's just the way of TV. It's always dollars in the end before anything else.

Comments

[Pete]

I have noticed that Beck, despite his quirky behavior does his research. Watch Beck and you get details and an argument with supporting facts. With O' Reily you get a left, then a right wing opinion. With Hannity you get the same ole same ole, every single time. Only Beck is worth watching over the long haul.

[Brenda]

Scarborough is most likely attracting the Nutroots as listeners.... http://www.breitbart.tv/msnbcs-scarborough-takes-on-the-right-over-reaction-to-failed-olympics-bid/

[Snooper]

WOW! I ALMOST laughed at this one.

[JWF]

I didn't even know Beck was on the radio in NYC. Scarborough is on WABC as the lead-in to Rush, so he has a built in-audience between Rush and Imus, although I'm not sure how big the ratings are for Imus.

[Proud Liberal]

Pete incredibly utters this nugget of intellectual thought: "I have noticed that Beck, despite his quirky behavior does his research. Watch Beck and you get details and an argument with supporting facts."

yes.... I remember all those details and facts supporting his accusation that Obama is a racist and has a deep seated hatred of white people.

What a piece of treasonous crap. Why do wingnuts hate America? Why are they so unremittingly unpatriotic? Why do they cheer when America loses the Olympics? Why do they seem to hope and pray that the economy doesn't improve? What kind of slime puts their partisan politics over the good of the country?

[RogerCfromSD]

Proud Liberal is projecting. The treasonous pieces of crap are those who cheered for America to lose in Iraq. It is unseemly that Obama interjected himself in the Olympics selection process to begin with. He is absolutely the worst president this nation has ever seen. Hell, her continues to trash our country everywhere he goes. Isn't THAT treasonous?

[angstly yours]

On a visceral level, I agree with PL. Obama will fail on his own without many folks pointing to issues that don't exist or don't have much factual support.

[RogerCfromSD]

I'm noticing a trend on Riehl: Trash Beck. All the time.

I never watch the guy's show, though I read a lot of posts by his Twitter fans. Riehl, you act as if Beck is a threat to civilization.

[Ad rem]

Proud Liberal,

Get yourself a mirror.

[the bishop]

Beck cares more about the message, than something like advertising. And the message is to take back our country from the progressive
elements whose top of the iceberg is Obama, It's not about ego, or shock value

[Meadow]

Murdock would do well to make note that Beck, BY HIMSELF, inspired the 9-12 TEA parties. The DC TEA-party was tremendous, despite the downplay by the fringe networks.

As A Mom website was started because of a program of Beck's (the 9-12 Moms) In less than a week, http://asamom.ning.com/ A Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots has grown to a membership of 37,519. These ladies didn't join because they read Huffpo, or even Riehl World.

They joined because they watched Glenn Beck.

This is a lot of po'd ladies, who see our country being trashed and our children being indoctrinated. They want to join together to make a difference. Every one of these ladies can be considered to be a consumer as well as a voter.

Pay attention Murdock and all politicians.

Don't ever underestimate the power of a woman!

[SteveP]

How is calling Obama a racist treasonous? Obama isn't America. He's a corrupt politician who plainly hates America. (if you pay attention it's obvious that he IS a racist) It's our love of America and our patriotism that make us cheer when Obama makes a fool of himself.
We're not cheering that America lost the Olympics. We're cheering that a cabal of openly corrupt slumlords lost a gravy train-and that the Jugeared Nitwit fell flat on his face. The more he loses, the more America wins. Personally, I'm glad the IOC chose Rio. The Olympics is a proven money loser and we can't afford it.
We're not hoping the economy doesn't improve. We know that Obama's economically illiterate policies and anti business rhetoric are destroying any incentive for those who drive the economy to make the investments necessary for prosperity. We're just being realistic- and waiting for the communists to self destruct so we can put things right again.
As for the slime that puts partisan politics over the good of the country, they're called Democrats. (see every time a Republican occupies the White House)

[Bruce, NV]

Glen Beck['s ratings are twice those of the competition.
He ain't getting fired.
And Liberal Fool is as dilusional on Beck as Dan is.

(BTW, I am not a fan of Beck, just a hater of everyone who thinks he's wrong. Usually, it's the same people who think Sarah Palin is bad for conservatives)

[Jana]

I listen to Beck in the morning for about 15 minutes in the shower, otherwise my exposure to him is pretty nil. I spend more time on this blog than I do with Beck.

I've noticed that Dan's got a new hobby horse, just like what Conor attacked Levin, further back when Jonah Goldberg somehow stepped on his toes...

[southdakotaboy]

Proud Liberal we don't hate America we just hate you guys on the left. We put up with your crap for 8 years and grew tired of it. Now we are playing the game by your rules. Don't expect us to come running to help you either when you stumble and fall, after the way you treated us for the last 8 years you'll be lucky if we don't just kick you in the head when your on the ground.

You guys made your bed now you have to lay in it. We on the right will never trust you or help you again. Many of us don't even consider you fellow Americans any more.

[Pete]

What is funny, is a liberal talking about being patriotic and loving America. I have been laughing for an hour.

[Dan Riehl]

If anyone has a problem here, it seems to be Beck's most loyal fans. I didn't say anything to trash Beck in this post. All I did was point out the business realities of cable TV and say I had no idea how he was doing with advertisers.

Really, folks, some of you are starting to look like serious kool-aide kids. It's like if you even mention his name without heaping huge praise on him it's an insult somehow.

For those thinking that way, or see this as being critical of Beck - get a freaking life. It's business in that world, all business and nothing else. Limbaugh had a Fox show early on and it went nowhere.

I'm not saying that will be Beck's fate. All I'm pointing out is that if you don't drive advertisers, Ailes doesn't keep you around. If you do, he does.

Geesh people, deal with it. That isn't a criticism of Beck. It's a comment on the industry. Some of you need to just build a church to the guy at this point and go pray for a life, or something.

[Pete]

Who thought you were being critical of Beck?

[Dennis D]

Dan
I think Limbaugh is better on radio. Some people just look bad on TV. Nixon learned this in the debates. Rush appears angry and his face reddens and sometimes shows sweat drops.

[Mr. Sauce]

Here's pics and a report from a recent Connecticut book signing:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/10/glenn-beck-ct-book-signings-long-lines-lots-of-vets-3-protesters/

Love that bus, the guy is one helluva promoter.

[Ad rem]

Mr. Sauce,

Thanks for the pics, they're worth a thousand words.

[Dan Riehl]

Who thought you were being critical of Beck?

Posted by: Pete

WOW! I ALMOST laughed at this one.

Posted by: Snooper

I'm noticing a trend on Riehl: Trash Beck. All the time.

I never watch the guy's show, though I read a lot of posts by his Twitter fans. Riehl, you act as if Beck is a threat to civilization.

Posted by: RogerCfromSD

[in_awe]

My impression of those who criticize conservative broadcasters do so based almost entirely on hearsay or 10 second YouTube clips. They reflexively denigrate Limbaugh, O'Reily, and Beck but have never actually watched or listened to a single show let alone a week or month of them.

Yet, they refuse to demand an investigation of ACORN even in the light of video evidence, or admit that Van Jones is a Marxist radical who plays the race card to incite hatred (watch those YouTube clips of his speeches), etc. It is still a smear when conservatives PROVE THE FACTS USING VIDEO, AUDIO OR PRINTED evidence.

So who is being blindly partisan? Why do liberals SUPPORT AND DEFEND a corrupt organization like ACORN or SEIU? Does the left actually not remember the vitriol of the last 8 years, or are they knowingly lying about it? Why do they not recognize the hate speech of Reid, Pelosi, Emanuel, et al and demanfd that it stop? Why do they claim the Republicans have offered no alternatives to Democrat legislation when they know that is a lie?

Watch Beck document the corruption in the Obama administration and the multitudes of links between Obama and people with highly unsavory backgrounds. Then tell me why you aren't upset about what is going on in Washington.

[A. Stephens]

You know, I appreciate the hard work required to keep up this blog. There's a lot to like here for the most part. I find it overall pretty substantive. I had a reaction to the Sparkman post, you know the one, but I accepted it as just part of the reality that none of us are going to agree and see things the same always. It's called independent thought, and in my opinion it's valuable.

As for the Beck threads, hey knock yourself out. But your post above is dismissive and condescending. Truthfully, it reminds me of a certain president, and House and Senate leaders in its attitude to their constituencies, in this case your readers.

Just my .02

[Dan Riehl]

Okay, AS. But I didn't build the blog by telling people what they wanted to hear, as opposed to what I honestly thought. And I have no intention of maintaining it that way simply out of concern for traffic. And yes that goes on out here.

You might be surprised what some might say on this or other issues privately over the years but wouldn't publish for that very reason. And that's never been my way and isn't going to start being it now.

[BoR]

It's ok. I blog fantasies for the hell of it, too. Just none about Beck getting fired. What ever floats your boat I guess.

[A. Stephens]

I'm good with it. Personally I value sometimes brutal honesty over pathetic pandering empathetical hypocrisy. That's just me. My point in responding to your post was to hopefully get you to take a look back at what you wrote. It just seemed sharp stick in they eye provocative to me. Thanks for the reply, I'll move on now.

[Huey]

Another way to say "moderate" one's speech is "lie."

I'd rather listen to a commentator who speaks his mind rather than what he thinks we want to hear, what his boss forces him to say, or what will get him through another paycheck.

[Aye Chihuahua]

One of the greatest things about this country is that everyone has the right to have and share whatever opinion they wish on whatever subject may be of interest to them.

Those who choose to put forth what they claim are facts, however, should be ready to defend their claims if, or when, they are challenged because their credibility is directly connected to their ability to support their arguments.

No one is entitled to their own set of facts or their own version of the truth. Nor is anyone entitled to just make stuff up.

For example, there are those who made claims about Sarah Palin's marriage. They were rightly called out on the vapidity of their claims.

There is a person who has made all sorts of wild, unsupported accusations about racism and white supremacy and who knows what other kinds of craziness. That person has been called out and now, all over the Interwebz, people point and laugh at the mere mention of his name or his blog.

Then we have those who have made claims that "Beck said" such and such. Sadly, when challenged to produce the evidence to support their claim they fell conspicuously silent. Why is that?

Could it be that they were mislead by their source? Were they just making stuff up hoping no one would notice? Perhaps they were typing whatever spilled forth from their fingertips? Were they writing down what they wished were true instead of what was really true?

How is the person who said this stuff about Beck, sans proof or evidence, any different than Jesse Griffin or Chuckles over at LGF? I contend that they are not. Especially when they continue to allow the false claim to remain uncorrected.

This latest prediction of Beck's imminent demise carries no more value or credence than their claim that he was "fired" or "suspended" when he went on vacation a few weeks back.

It amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking.

That's what PuffHo has done yet again.

Beck isn't going anywhere. He is a huge audience draw and a top dollar maker for Fox. He has a larger audience by himself than the combined total of all of his competition. The attempted boycott by Color of Change was a bust. That's the reality.

The difference is that we expect this sort of thing from those on the left. Those on the right should voluntarily hold themselves to a higher standard or expect to be challenged.

Credibility is a delicate thing. Easily damaged or destroyed. Not so easily recovered.

[Dan Riehl]

BoR: "Just none about Beck getting fired"

I think I made my position on that pretty clear:

"Well, the headline, that Murdoch will fire Beck, is ridiculous."

If he gets ads, he'll move up, if not, he won't. It's really as simple as that. As for the chihuahua nipping at my heals, never have trusted those dogs. When someone has something to say they should say it and provide the links for follow up.

Otherwise, they're likely to be dismissed as the pups they claim to be.

[LifeTrek]

"Limbaugh had a Fox show early on and it went nowhere."

Dan, did you mean Fox News because I can't find a reference to that on IMDB.

I do recall, and did find, his 1992 TV show but that was pre Fox News and was syndicated, appearing in this area on NBC if I recall.
David

[Dan Riehl]

Yeah, I think you're correct LT. It was a Multimedia show - Ailes was behind it back before he went to Fox. All I really remembered was it being on at an un-Godly hour.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-11480469/multimedia-entertainment-announces-new.html

[Aye Chihuahua]

"As for the chihuahua nipping at my heals, never have trusted those dogs. When someone has something to say they should say it and provide the links for follow up."

OK Dan. If you really want me to, I can call you out right in front of everyone. Again.

Here you wrote:

"He said that one day - and that we should pull out of Afghanistan -"

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/glenn-becks-reichstag-moment.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a605bf04970c#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a605bf04970c

Here I challenged your assertion:

"Fact check on Aisle 3 please.

Fact check. Aisle 3.

Beck has repeatedly said that we should "fight to win" in Afghanistan and Iraq and that if the politicians don't have the spine to do that then we should not allow our military professionals to be cannon fodder.

Feel free to find and post the audio, video, or transcript of Beck saying "pull out of Afghanistan" where he didn't preface or follow up that statement with "fight to win" or a phrase of that equivalent."

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/glenn-becks-reichstag-moment.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5af8c2d970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5af8c2d970b

To which you responded:

"Yeah, funny how you always have to consult another transcript or video to "understand" what Beck "really" meant - which varies according to his audience. He plays to whatever audience he's in front of and his only consistent theme is Democrats bad, Republicans bad - which is a total loser and gives Obama just what he wants - no effective opposition."

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/glenn-becks-reichstag-moment.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5afa694970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5afa694970b

(The casual observer will note that my argument is not addressed by this response. In fact, one could argue that the response is a classic straw man. The casual observer will also note that the audio tape link that I provided supports my argument regarding Beck's position regarding Afghanistan.)

Once again Dan, I asked you to present the facts to support your assertion:

"Again, Dan, post the complete audio, video, or transcript which proves your point, not just a carefully selected snippet.

You've posited your position. The onus is on you to prove it.

I'll wait."

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/glenn-becks-reichstag-moment.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a60680c2970c#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a60680c2970c

That was Sept 30th. We're now at the end of Oct 5th. You've yet to present anything whatsoever to support your claim.

Why is that Dan?

Did you just make it up? Did you allow your keyboard to get ahead of you?

I'm not challenging your "opinion". I'm challenging you on your facts.

Where is the video, the audio, or the transcript in which "Beck said" pull out of Afghanistan?

His position has been consistent. Give the war efforts everything we have to throw at them and fight to win. He has said from the beginning that our politicians should not allow our personnel in uniform to become pawns in a political game and that if the politicians won't allow our troops to fight to win then we should bring them home.

Come on Dan. You didn't stand by quietly while Jesse Griffin and Chuckles Johnson did their thing.

Why should your standard of behavior be any lower?

If "Beck said" it, then clearing it up should be a trivial matter for you.

[Joe]

Maybe Red Eye should move up to prime time. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGM2YTM2ZjgxM2ZiMWE4ZDJhNTlkMmFjYjkyY2ZkMzM=#

[Robohobo]

[Snorg!]

LMAO! If Beck is getting the Nutters On The Left frothing at the mouth and Riehl, then he is doing the right things.

[Dan Riehl]

"OK Dan. If you really want me to..."

Who sez you can't teach old dogs new tricks. How many times can I get him to do that before he wants a biscuit? Hmm...

[Dan Riehl]

AC - Now listen up, so I only have to do this once, though I doubt much of it will sink in given your Beck fetish. In the Couric clip when he said it, he didn't just say Afghanistan. He said America was imerialistic and we couldn't keep troops in Europe, Korea and Afghanistan. Besides, we couldn't afford it.

So, was he saying we should win everywhere else, too - or just talking out of his butt? He wasn't talking about a war, he was talking tropt deployments. He masks it pretty well and always explains it like I said, but all he is really doing is ripping off Ron Paul. And underneath Paul is a troofer. Frankly, he's so easily influenced, or just changes on a whim, nothing would surprise me. But it's the same old BS he used in music radio for 20 years. Now, chiahooie - how about addressing this below, which you never seemed to get around to in that last thread? Beck reveals himself to be a truly disgusting man.

"The animosity between Beck and Kelly continued to deepen. When Beck and Hattrick produced a local version of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" for Halloween -- a recurring motif in Beck's life and career -- Kelly told a local reporter that the bit was a stupid rip-off of a syndicated gag. The slight outraged Beck, who got his revenge with what may rank as one of the cruelest bits in the history of morning radio. "A couple days after Kelly's wife, Terry, had a miscarriage, Beck called her live on the air and says, 'We hear you had a miscarriage,' " remembers Brad Miller, a former Y95 DJ and Clear Channel programmer. "When Terry said, 'Yes,' Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce [Kelly] apparently can't do anything right -- about he can't even have a baby."

[Ad rem]

Viva Chihuahua! Tienes juevos grandes amigo.

[Dan Riehl]

I don't think that's the word you wanted, AR. ; )I bet they're gay, too! heh!

The Guatemalans have a great name for the young guys who go around harassing people with their bible bashing. They call them Huevos, which is the Spanish word for eggs and a slang name for testicles. They call them this for three reasons. They are always male, they hang around in pairs and they are always different heights.

[Aye Chihuahua]

And once again Danny boy builds the straw man.

Your claim was that "Beck said" we should pull out of Afghanistan. Where's the proof that he said that?

All you have to do is post the link so that everyone can see or read what you based your claim on.

You spew out a lot of little childish insults but no proof. In that regard you really are no different than Griffin and Johnson now are you?

[Aye Chihuahua]

The Couric interview with Beck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRohgYwzRMU

(The part that the casual observer would be interested in begins at 1:45)

Bringing the truth to the readers of Riehl World View: It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Too bad it's not the guy who has his name on the place.

[PA]

"I remember all those details and facts supporting his accusation that Obama is a racist and has a deep seated hatred of white people. "

White people will do you like that.

[Bruce, NV]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-in-defense-of-glenn-beck-.html

The best response to Dan. Not a listener to Beck, but don't see how he hurts the right.

[Dan Riehl]

Gee, chiahooie, your tone sure has changed since emailing me to notice your blog 2 months ago. Did you not get what you wanted? In any event, the video does nothing to cause me to support Beck. Now, why not address my points.

At 3-4 mins or so in he claims life starts at conception. So, why the cackling above at the death of a child and rubbing it in the Mother's face? You've yet to step up to address the inner character of Beck that reveals. I was young once, and drunk and or high, I'd never do anything like that. I take it you would? That's pretty pathetic to overlook just because someone is saying stuff you like now.

He's talking BS throughout. Where to start? Republicans disenfranchised their base by spending too much and not sealing the border - so the R base is the Far Right? Yet, he says Obama is disenfranchising the D base by catering to the Far Left. Gee, I guess that means the bulk of the country are moderate Dems and the R base is out of touch. Figure it out, it only takes a little thought. Is that what you really believe? He has no real idea what he's talking about.

Worse, he constantly says R = D. Gee, I'm glad he gives voice to your frustrations, but where is the solution there? Everything he says leads to a third way - aka Ron Paul, or someone else. Gee, there's a sure way to peel off just enough R votes to give Obama term number 2 and the liberals even more control. So, his political reasoning is impractical and unsound. It's a recipe for disaster. And I care about America a little more than that.

At 11:30 in he bashes Conservatives as one of the two fringes that's "pulling us apart". Listen to it. Try to make sense of it if you're actually conservative. Because if you are, he's no friend of yours based upon his own words. At least until he contradicts himself again because he's talking out of his azz.

And "fringe" talk from an idiot indulging in conspiracy theories over detention camps debunk-able in an hour, which I did, yet, he pushed it for a month and his excuse now is, I was only trying to get to the bottom of it. What BS that is. Glad you buy it, I don't. But then, I'm not dumb. And calling Obama a racist especially in light of his early quasi-white supremacist influence which he still supports? One show he is the fringe, with Couric he tries to play this great center. So which the hell is it? Fact is, you can't say - or couldn't, if you stopped fondling his books and longing for his blue eyes and deep embrace, I guess.

At 13:45 in he's pro Gay marriage. That after talking about being a social conservative at six minutes in. Huh? Then at 33:00 in he's back to almost crying talking about the family being "sacred" in biblical tones. Again, huh? The truth is, he talks out of both sides of his mouth because he wants to please as many people as he can. That's how you grow audience share in his mind, I guess.

At 38:30 on Cheney - "like him better out of office than in office". Try and justify that with his fight a war to win it talk, you can't. So, you agree with him about Cheney, chiahooie? Let's hear it, bub. Then he immediately says he would have preferred Hillary over McCain. Again, huh? Seriously, WTF is he talking about?

And you still haven't addressed the portion where he equates Afghanistan with Europe and Korea, talking about bringing home the troops - which is in line with his take on Cheney. If I really wanted to spend the time going through all his BS, I could continue to tear him apart.

So, now you want to dis the guy "behind the blog"? Tell you what, chiahooie - he's who he is because he can listen to someone beyond a sound byte and try to make sense of it. And when he can't, he says so. Obviously, that ain't you, pal. And that's why you're there and I'm here.

The fact that you don't like it is just tough chit. Deal.

[Huey]

Proud liberal:

How could anyone rationally think that Obama was a racist? After all, as evidence of that mind-set, we only have:

1) His playing of the "race card" repeatedly over the campaign, alleging that his opponents' opposition was based on his race. "And, did I mention...he's black?"

2) His twenty year membership in a church which taught "Black Liberation Theology," a Jew hating, White hating, America hating racist theology.

3) His close friendship (and "mentor" and "father figure") with a white hating, racist spewing "pastor," Reverend Wright.

4) Who wrote such things as:

From "Dreams";
"The emotion between the races could never be pure,” “Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."

"There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. "A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white"

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere..."

"there were no cigar chomping crackers like Beau Connor out there."

"That’s just how white folks will do you. It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn. White folks."

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

5) His own grandmother, according to him, is a racist, and is..."a typical white woman."

6) He assumed the worst of a white police officer in the confrontation with Professor Gates in "Gates Gate."

7) His childhood mentor was a marxist racist, Frank Marshall Davis.

8) Other notable quotes:

"Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us." (Grant application by Chicago Annenberg Challenge which Obama co-chaired.)

"The Minority assimilated into the dominant culture, not the other way around. Only white culture could be neutral and objective. Only white culture could be non-racial, willing to adopt the occasional exotic into its ranks. Only white culture had individuals."

9) He allowed his AG (Holder) to dismiss a case which the Department of Justice had WON against the Black Panthers who had intimidated voters.

Now, how could ANYONE believe that a person who would COMMIT TO WRITING such thoughts, speak them aloud, sit in such a church for 20 years, be mentored by Wright and Davis, and more...be a racist.

Shame on him.

[Aye Chihuahua]

Gee Danny boy....you still haven't produced the "Beck said" portion of the factual backing you need to make yourself an honest broker.

Your claim. Your onus.

I've told you repeatedly that I'm not challenging you based on your opinions. Nor am I attempting to get you to change your mind about Beck or anything else. Insignificant people and their insignificant opinions are irrelevant to me.

The truth, however, is worth standing up for. Someone who is truly a conservative wouldn't allow the perpetuation of a falsehood on his or her site after an inconsistency has been pointed out. We have grown expect that sort of behavior out of Griffin or Johnson or some of the loony left sites, not our own.

You have been challenged regarding your claim repeatedly. Yet you still refuse to either prove what you said is the truth...or retract it.

Why is that Dan? Have you no honor? Have you no dignity? Have you not the huevos, the stones, the testicles to admit that you were wrong?

Instead of just addressing the issue head on and either providing the proof, or retracting the claim, you choose to build not just one straw man at a time but, most recently, a whole army of straw men, with additional falsehoods thrown in to season the mix.

It's a good thing your readers are sharp enough not to fall for it.

[rannan3]

For those who claim Beck has no ads/no sponsors, better try counting. I saw 12 separate ads/sponsors on his show yesterday. He's here to stay.

[Dan Riehl]

So, you can't account for any of his inconsistencies, chiahooie? That means you have no idea where he is on anything, but you just love him?

Hokay. Never did have much of a brain, that small breed.

As for his ads, R - I didn't mention any number and said I had no idea. So I assume you're addressing someone else.

[Aye Chihuahua]

Danny boy...Beck's opinions are not the issue here. Those are the straw men that you have raised to distract away from your dishonesty and the fact that you're being called out on it.

You still haven't posted any sort of link to a video or audio recording nor a transcript to support your claim. You tried to claim that it was in the Couric clip but that didn't work out so well for you because, surprise surprise....it's not there.

It would be very simple for you to support your contention if it were true.

Where's your proof Dan?

Did it fall down the drain along with your credibility?

[Dan Riehl]

It's in the same Couric video you linked, dumbass. Watch it all. Geesh! You can't defend your boy. Fess up.