It's clear Al Sharlaton didn't watch Becks Rally before he mounted the stage at his little gathering of hacks.
If he had he might have tailored his remarks to not make himself look like such a whinning, race baiting, loser.

Your point on the numbers is still valid. However, 3,000 is only one percent of 300,000.

3000 at the Sharpton rally....you mean 1% of the crowd at the Restoring Honor rally, don't you?

Sharpton's racist throng were most likely paid and bussed in from local crack houses.

Does anyone else think Al looks like an oily penguin?

I heard Sharpton on O'Reilly last night and he said he knew how many people were at his rally because he knew how many they "bussed in". I think that says it all.

This may be the most racist post JT has ever done!!!!

(Lee Ward memorial comment)

"This is the unspoken narrative: conservative activists are ALWAYS partisan, all the time. Everything they do is "tainted" with their politics. But leftists who engage in the rankest political stunts are allowed to be "non-partisan" and "set aside politics," even when they're attacking their political foes."

I think that people from all sides can set politics aside and find ways to engage with opponents--and this includes liberals and conservatives.

I also think there are people on both sides who claim to be non-partisan, but who are basically full of sh*t. And I think both Sharpton and Beck qualify in this latter category.

Yes, Sharpton is all about drumming up attention, and he is all about creating a political splash. No surprise there.

The same goes for Beck. I think you guys are being incredibly disingenuous about Beck, a guy who is so damn polemic and over the top it's unbelievable. And now, all of a sudden, he's non-partisan? Seriously? People are supposed to look past his ridiculous TV show and his low-grade political books and see him as someone who's willing to set politics aside? If you really think this, Jay, I'm worried about your senses of irony and logic--they may be out of whack.

Beck is just another entertainer. And he tells his audience what they want to hear. A lot of what he pushes is pure drivel--a recent show about archaeology and history displayed his incredibly ridiculous "research" abilities. The guy is willing to run off his mouth about issues that he knows nothing about. His ignorance about North American archaeology on this show was so bad I was embarrassed for him. He is certainly no William F Buckley, that's for sure. His understandings of core conservative issues like economics are dismal and elementary at best. I am amazed that anyone buys into this crap.

But ya, sure, Jay Tea...we should all just set Beck's political rants and tirades aside and believe that he is the next great non-partisan communicator. You just keep selling that potion. Next, we can try to convince America that Michael Moore is a Libertarian fiscal conservative at heart...

"Beck is just another entertainer. And he tells his audience what they want to hear. A lot of what he pushes is pure drivel"

Apparently 100 times as many non bussed people believe Beck is genuine as compared to 1% who took Al's stimulus money for a fix..

What your pushing is pure drivel. Now have another swig of kool aid.

914,

"What your pushing is pure drivel. Now have another swig of kool aid."

I made the point that both Sharpton AND Beck are political charlatans. Do you disagree?

If you buy into Beck's nonsense, you're about as drunk on Kool Aid as any loyal Michael Moore acolyte.

Point: Beck isn't doing the conservatives any favors with his nonsense. Time to back away.

"And now, all of a sudden, he's non-partisan? Seriously?"

Now who's being disingenuous? He didn't say Beck was non-partisan. He said the gathering was not a political one and Beck tried very hard to keep it from becoming political.

"I think that people from all sides can set politics aside and find ways to engage with opponents--and this includes liberals and conservatives."

And that is partly what this was about. Not politics but about people getting together. Do you really think that all of those thousands upon thousands of people were all right wingers? Don't you think it's at all possible that people of differing political persuasions had found some common ground there?

Yeesh. You just kept going on and on about something Jay never said.

Nonsense? What nonsense? Calling for accountability from elected officials is not nonsense. It is very serious business.

Jay Tea,

But that doesn't matter. In the eyes of the media powers that be, there is nothing that the likes of Beck and Palin can do that is not "political."

Are you really serious? Where is the satire tag for this post? So, if Steven Colbert and Dennis Kucinich put on some huge rally and claimed to be "non-partisan," and "apolitical," how do you think people on the right would react? With open arms? Really?

This has to be one of the most naive posts I have ever seen you write.

If you think its satire ryan why does it need a tag?

"So, if Steven Colbert and Dennis Kucinich put on some huge rally and claimed to be "non-partisan," and "apolitical," how do you think people on the right would react? With open arms? Really? "

There you go again.

"Now who's being disingenuous? He didn't say Beck was non-partisan. He said the gathering was not a political one and Beck tried very hard to keep it from becoming political."

Oyster, you're a pretty sharp thinker. And I think you make a lot of good points around here. But I find it amazing that you think someone like Glenn Beck can all of a sudden set politics aside. The guy is an entertainer who makes his living through politics. He is incredibly political and incredibly partisan. And yet you think it's credible for him to stage a large rally and claim that he's magically apolitical for a day?

The United States Department of Education, whose secretary sent out an e-mail "requesting" department employees attend the event

Now political appointees are requesting their employees to attend these types of events? This is the outrage. Did Obama put the word out to "encourage" Federal employees to attend a political rally?

What I loved best was Bill Press's non-sequitor: That religion had no place at the Lincoln Memorial because it is sacred ground.

Try and unpack that one.

914,

"Nonsense? What nonsense? Calling for accountability from elected officials is not nonsense. It is very serious business."

Ya, making generalized proclamations that appeal to a political base--that really gets something done.

I find it amazing that some of you think Beck is so amazing. Sure, he garners attention, but I definitely don't think he's the most eloquent (or informed) voice of conservative thinking. But hey, he has a TV show, so there's that.

"And yet you think it's credible for him to stage a large rally and claim that he's magically apolitical for a day?"

I think it's possible. Yes. I also think that Sharpton can do it too. The question is: Did you attend either rally? Have you spoken to anyone who did? Have you read what was said in anyone's speeches? Do you know what Beck's event was about and what the donations went to?

Do you not think that even in a politically charged atmosphere anyone can set their politics aside and contribute, along with others, to a worthy cause?

I do.

C'mon Ryan. You just got your pants wadded up because it was Beck.

Oyster,

So let me get this straight. You're trying to tell me that if Colbert and Kucinich put on a similar rally, and claimed it was a politics-free event, you wouldn't be the slightest bit suspicious?

Beck putting on a politics-free event is like the Pope organizing and promoting an agnostic picnic.

This is great stuff.

"Do you not think that even in a politically charged atmosphere anyone can set their politics aside and contribute, along with others, to a worthy cause?"

Sure, I suppose it's possible. But folks like Sharpton and Beck aren't my top candidates for people who can pull something like that off with genuine motives. Sorry. But that's the game they play day in and day out.

I think you're being uncharacteristically optimistic about this one. Beck's stock and trade is the whole polemic, divisive schtick, so this comes across as forced. Just a little.

"C'mon Ryan. You just got your pants wadded up because it was Beck."

I've made the same exact argument about a lot of the crap that Micheal Moore pulls. Sorry. You're off base. Beck is a cut from the same cloth as Moore, he just emphasizes different pet issues.

An "overwhelmingly black" rally on the Uncle Al side? Well that, of course, is perfectly acceptable and bears NO resemblance whatever to raaaaacism in any context. For haven't we been told ad nauseum that blacks cannot be racists, that professional race hustlers like Al and Jesse have only the purest of intentions and are working NOT for personal enrichment or fame, but rather as the humble prophets of love!!

"You're trying to tell me that if Colbert and Kucinich put on a similar rally, and claimed it was a politics-free event, you wouldn't be the slightest bit suspicious?"

Yes, I would be suspicious, just as you are. I would be suspicious up to the point that I was proven wrong. But you didn't answer any of the questions I asked. Have you bothered to even attempt to allay your suspicions by investigating the affair? Was the cause political? Did the event become political? Were the people that attended the event there largely for a political reason?

I think you need to ask yourself a lot of questions and get them answered before you a) condemn Jay for something he didn't say and b) keep carrying on about something you have yet to prove occurred.

You can expect the blow-back from the left to get even more shrill as November approaches. The proles aren't buying the liberal shtick as evidenced by recent poll numbers.

It's panic time. They'll be throwing as much bullshit as they can, hoping something will stick. What they fail to realize is that doing so merely reinforces the negative public opinion of them.

Karma can be a real bitch.

Oyster,

"Have you bothered to even attempt to allay your suspicions by investigating the affair? Was the cause political? Did the event become political? Were the people that attended the event there largely for a political reason?"

This is where I think you are being naive and taking Beck at face value way too easily. In fact, considering your usual wit, I am a little surprised that you are taking this position.

Read the definition of "political." Does this event "pertain to politics"? Absolutely. Does this event have something to do with "exercising or seeking power" and influence? Definitely, despite all of the cheesy rhetoric.

So yes, the event is absolutely political in my view. It's a not so clever attempt at claiming otherwise, but the point of this event is to garner political attention. This is a case of looking beyond the rhetoric, Oyster, which is something that helps when dealing with ANY political pundit or politician (from any side of the aisle).

I am still having a hard time that you're really taking the position you are on this. If the tables were turned, there is NO WAY you would make this claim (and I would agree with you).

"I find it amazing that some of you think Beck is so amazing. Sure, he garners attention, but I definitely don't think he's the most eloquent (or informed) voice of conservative thinking. But hey, he has a TV show, so there's that."

I dont have FOX News channel. I have CNN which I hardly ever can stand to view as it is all anti-America tripe.

Its obvious you dont like Beck because he outdraws the liberal standard of media libs.

ryan a, I see you distorting in an attempt to manufacture an argument, most likely because you can't construct a valid argument to meet your views.

While your sentences are coherent, your premises miss the sniff test.

JT's statements were about the relative overtness of the politics of the racist rally and the relatively apolitical surface of the Beck rally. The MSM and the DNC tried to label it as a Tea Party rally, but it was not. I suspect the definition of politics is the problem - at any rate you might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Address the message and not the linguistics. Answer oyster's questions. Or bug off.

914,

"Its obvious you dont like Beck because he outdraws the liberal standard of media libs."

I find most of Beck's arguments superficial, flawed, poorly reasoned, and often historically shallow. The recent show where he talked about archaeology and history in the US is just one example of how misinformed and reactionary Beck can be.

This has nothing to do with comparing him with "media libs". I definitely don't base my political opinions on the views of political pundits on TV, that's for sure.

"I suspect the definition of politics is the problem - at any rate you might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Address the message and not the linguistics. Answer oyster's questions. Or bug off."

Beck's claim to be putting on a politics-free rally is, in my opinion, quite hilarious. The fact that you and others are taking him at face value is actually pretty shocking.

OF COURSE this is a political move on Beck's part. The fact that Beck is proclaiming otherwise is a mere linguistic slight of hand (and one that's not very clever).

Beck is using this to garner attention and gain influence--that's political. Why are you guys falling for this really simplistic tactic?

I'm not being naive here Ryan. I did read what was said in the speeches. I do know what charity got an enormous donation that everyone gave to. I have communicated with people that attended the event - people of differing politics who found the atmosphere to be quite non-political.

Basically, your entire argument boils down to knowing what is in Beck's heart and attributing it all to self-aggrandizement. That's fine. You obviously won't be convinced otherwise that he could possibly have gone about this with noble intentions. Hell, I can't stand some people and find them to be quite repulsive, but I will occasionally offer that their intentions are good from time to time. If that's naive, then I'm happy with it.

By the way, it wasn't until after I posted my last comment that I saw yours:

"The fact that you and others are taking him at face value is actually pretty shocking."

I'm not taking it "at face value". I actually researched. You apparently didn't.

According to ryan a's definition of political. Church services throughout this country on Sunday's and some Wednesday's are political. Any gathering of likeminded people are political. Glenn Beck did not every say in promoting this event that he himself is not political. He asked that anyone who attends not display political banners, slogons, put down's, etc. I agree with Oyster. Ryan a, you usually show somewhat of a clearer intelligience when commenting. You just are purposely being obtuse or you just cannot comprehend the post.

I loved Sharpton's explaination of why he said the vile things he said at his very little get together. He was trying to pre-empt his crowd from doing anything violent to Beck's crowd. Even if you believe it, it is still telling about how he thinks his crowd thinks.

Beck played this very well. The liberals look foolish (as some stated) by trying to label this as a hate rally. I think ryan a is in this category and he was proven wrong so he is shooting blanks today. I say let's show him some pity and just agree with him.

American's, not just conservative, liberals, dem's or pubs are waking up. The entire nation is waking up to the fact that "We the people" run this country. No politicians or organizations. ww

I notice ryan a never did answer:

"Have you bothered to even attempt to allay your suspicions by investigating the affair? Was the cause political? Did the event become political? Were the people that attended the event there largely for a political reason?"

Oyster,

"I did read what was said in the speeches. I do know what charity got an enormous donation that everyone gave to. I have communicated with people that attended the event - people of differing politics who found the atmosphere to be quite non-political."

Yes, I know about the charity, and I have read the speeches. I have read plenty of coverage about this event from various sides, and I am well aware of the fact that many people are trying to push the fact that this was NOT about politics.

But I still argue that those who claim this is somehow apolitical are being naive. It's an interesting way of framing things on Beck's part, but I would definitely argue that it IS about gaining influence and support. Definitely. Beck is gaining political points from this as we speak--and if you think that wasn't part of the point, well, then maybe you're a true optimistic (at least when it comes to Beck and Palin).

"Basically, your entire argument boils down to knowing what is in Beck's heart and attributing it all to self-aggrandizement."

No...I wouldn't necessarily call it self-aggrandizement. I do think it's an attempt to bolster support and attention. And I think it's a very calculated move on Beck's part, trying to frame this as some big non-political event.

"You obviously won't be convinced otherwise that he could possibly have gone about this with noble intentions."

Considering his other uses of media and politics, yes, I am quite skeptical. But maybe a miracle occurred and suddenly Glenn Beck is magically uninterested in the political effects of his actions. And Barack Obama will soon join the Ludwig Von Mises institute.

You win Ryan. You've convinced us you're right.

Now go away.

Hank,

"Have you bothered to even attempt to allay your suspicions by investigating the affair? Was the cause political? Did the event become political? Were the people that attended the event there largely for a political reason?"

Yes, I have been reading all about this event, and the reactions from various sides.

Is the "cause" political? If you're talking about the donations to the SOFW, well, that's a subject that has been politicized by all sides. So it's an easy issue to turn political. And I think that most folks like Beck use these types of events with a certain amount of political calculation. I mean, this guy is all about this sort of thing.

Did the event become political? Yes, it did. And it IS right now in many ways. And I don't think that's some accident that an event like this has become political. It surprises me that you guys think otherwise.

Did people go there for political reasons? It sounds like many did (as supporters of Beck and Palin and others), and many did not. Still, I'd argue that this event is decidedly political and meant to gather media attention, support, and political points. Absolutely.

Willie:

"Beck played this very well. The liberals look foolish (as some stated) by trying to label this as a hate rally. I think ryan a is in this category and he was proven wrong so he is shooting blanks today."

I think Beck made an interesting decision with this one, that's for sure. And I never said it was some kind of "hate rally," as you insinuate (and as many on the left claim). I do think it was a calculated, very political move that Beck attempted to define outside of politics by focusing on US history and his idea about "resorting honor."

A rally does not have to have a bunch of signs and screaming matches to be HIGHLY political, and I think this is a point where some of you guys see things differently than I do. I see something as political when it is either about politics (which this event is) and/or about gaining some sort of power and influence (again, which this event is definitely about).

Likewise, Martin Luther King's speech as the SAME was also VERY political.

Correction. Last sentence in comment #37 should read:

Likewise, Martin Luther King's speech at the SAME place was also VERY political.

So, ryan a, please explain how Beck's event was "political." In that context, please elaborate on how Beck could have avoided it being "political." Because it sure looks like you're proving my point -- that many people are unwilling to grant that Beck might do something utterly apolitical.

And then explain how that principle is NEVER applied to people like Sharpton, or Obama, or any other liberals.

That was my point -- that the liberal mindset insists that only the right is 100% partisan, 100% of the time, but gives a pass to their own.

And you're proving it to the hilt.

J.

I think I get it now. We should not focus on the fact that this event raised 5.5 million dollars for a worthy cause, that hundreds of thousands of people of all colors and politics could get behind one cause without arguing politics, that what was repeatedly urged was to refrain from bringing political signs and paraphernalia and that it was a smashing sucess on all counts.

What we should focus on is one man and speculate on his "ulterior motives".

Nice try Jay Tea. But next time read through my whole argument before pretending that you know what I am saying.

I think that Beck's actions are decidedly political, and yes, I have a hard time imagining that he will all of a sudden do something that is free from political calculation (considering what he does for a living, how he engages with politics, and how he uses media). Sorry, but color me a skeptic. You guys can fawn all over Beck all you want.

"And then explain how that principle is NEVER applied to people like Sharpton, or Obama, or any other liberals."

Because people on the left are often full of sh*t as well. This principle should ABSOLUTELY be applied across the board, since people like Sharpton and Obama do things for very political reasons (while claiming otherwise) all the time.

Shocker! Obama is in the business of politics, so it's not really a big surprise to see him politicize something like, say, a cute little speech at a high school.

And Beck is doing much the same, just using some different tactics. Claiming that his rally isn't political may work for some of you guys, but it doesn't for me. It's all about gaining attention, notoriety, and political support (one way or another).

Oyster,

"What we should focus on is one man and speculate on his "ulterior motives".

Not necessarily. Just don't be naive and assume that Beck has no personal or political stake in something like this. OF COURSE he does. An event can be politically calculated and motivated without being malicious. And I think you keep reading "political" as automatically malicious (there are various definitions of the term, after all).

As I wrote above, King's march on Washington was absolutely political--and I doubt that he would have claimed otherwise. Beck's intentions here are also political in my opinion, meaning that they are intended to garner attention, power, and influence for certain views and ideas. Politics is all about influence and power at various levels. Why is this so shocking?

So Beck's little claim about being non-political comes across as naive and silly, that's all. But apparently it works for some of you...but I have no idea why. If this rally was led by Al Franken you would all agree with me (and yes, Franken does this kind of thing all the time).

What do you mean "Not necessarily"? That's all you've done throughout the entire thread; focused on Beck and what you think his motives were.

You're also mischaracterizing what I've said. I've not "fawned" over Beck. I've not "assumed" he has no other motive. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I've suggested that Beck's motives may be honorable. Given the entire set of circumstances, that appears to be the case. You've contended "definitely" that they're not. You've dealt in a lot of absolutes here. You contend I have the ability to make good points and then state that if the tables were turned there is NO WAY I'd be consistent in my message here.

I'm not a "Beck fan". I've seen him a few times. I've heard him on the radio. I don't hang on his every word. I'm not overly impressed. I don't like or dislike him. There's not much more I can say in that regard to get that point across.

But I AM able, at some point, to disassociate myself from politics from time to time. And I don't view everyone's possible motives for everything they do through a political prism. There are some things that simply rise above that.

He used his name and notoriety and brought an awful lot of people together for something good and all you can think to do is criticize him and display wonder at all our ignorance and naivete here.

I absolutely love colbert and appreciate that stewart can point out the stupidity of both sides even though he leans way left. In fact I find it hilarious that lefties prize colbert so much, it's like they can't see that he is making fun of them to their faces just as often as he does righties. As for kusinich; I would give the benefit of the doubt, but honestly most of his blips on my radar are saturday ight live skits about him.

I don't see the pioint...?

"What do you mean "Not necessarily"? That's all you've done throughout the entire thread; focused on Beck and what you think his motives were."

Well, I've focused on Beck's motives to make the point that I think this is definitely a political move on his part. In your comment above, you said that all you should do is focus on Beck's motives and ulterior motives--and I replied not necessarily. Hell, maybe something good came out of it. Maybe people had a great time. Fantastic. Go ahead and focus on those aspects of the event. That doesn't mean that Beck had no political motives. My point here is that I don't think Beck has all of a sudden turned into someone who has no interest in the political effects of his actions. I mean, he formed his own conservative news site a few days ago. He's certainly quite interested in politics. I have a hard time just separating this ONE EVENT from the rest of his work.

"You're also mischaracterizing what I've said. I've not "fawned" over Beck. I've not "assumed" he has no other motive. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt."

Good for you for not fawning all over Glenn Beck. And good for your for not making assumptions about his motives. It looks like today you're the optimist and I'm the pessimist when it comes to politics. I find this ironic, since your views are often quite pointed around here. I suppose it depends on where you're looking.

"I've suggested that Beck's motives may be honorable. Given the entire set of circumstances, that appears to be the case. You've contended "definitely" that they're not."

What circumstance are you taking into account? Everything that this guy does on a day to day basis? The PR for this specific event? Are you arguing that people should not take this guy's main occupation and political rhetoric into account? Really?

"You contend I have the ability to make good points and then state that if the tables were turned there is NO WAY I'd be consistent in my message here."

You do make good points around here. But I have a hard time thinking that you would not be really skeptical of someone like Al Franken trying to do this very same thing. But ok, if you say so, I'll take your word for it that you would approach the issue with an open mind.

I think it's ironic that Glenn Beck--of all people--is trying to sell himself as non-political for a day. I just don't buy it.

"I'm not a "Beck fan". I've seen him a few times. I've heard him on the radio. I don't hang on his every word. I'm not overly impressed. I don't like or dislike him. There's not much more I can say in that regard to get that point across."

Count me in with not being overly impressed. So we agree on that point.

"But I AM able, at some point, to disassociate myself from politics from time to time. And I don't view everyone's possible motives for everything they do through a political prism. There are some things that simply rise above that."

Well, I can respect your view even if I see things differently. You are definitely the optimist here, and there's no wrong with that. I disagree. No big deal. I just think that Beck is a strange person to be so optimistic about, especially in this case. I mean, we're talking about someone whose whole gig is about politics. Clearly though, we see things differently.

"He used his name and notoriety and brought an awful lot of people together for something good and all you can think to do is criticize him and display wonder at all our ignorance and naivete here."

I'm arguing that Beck has political motives here--that's different than saying that he is being malicious. I already made that point. Maybe some good did come out of this--GREAT. What I am saying is that I think Beck was certainly concerned about the political effects of this event, whether or not his intentions were altruistic or whatever. In my view, this rally is absolutely about gaining influence, political favor, and attention for Beck's views and ideas.

Ryan a, there is politics involved in everything we do in life. In office settings, in restaurants, etc. You are trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper here because you don't like Beck. Just say that. We can understand that and respect that. You are only making yourself look childish and you are approaching "it depends on what is is" which is silly. ww

Willie,

Gnat shit out of pepper! I'm going to have to steal that one. You got me, Willie. I am certainly not a big fan of Mr Beck.

For now, I'll just agree to disagree with some of you about Beck's motives.