I don't know what the norm is for Glenn Beck but this shows he had 3 million viewers on 8/26. 3 million is less that 1% of the US population, I would assume many of his viewers are liberal (just like I watch Oberman occasionally just to see what he is talking about - ironically he spends a lot of time talking about people like Beck). I am also going to assume his viewers are going to decline because he is not very good.

Big Beck: Goes over 3 million viewers, beats O’Reilly in demo: Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com

Ditto for Rush listeners:

Daily Kos: Counting Limbaugh's listeners

read the entire article, the numbers are in dispute, based on counting methods.

I have not checked but Chris Rock may be reaching as many or more people than Beck. Chris Rock's political commentary is much more entertaining.

More stubborn refusal to see reality by Ace. shocker

it's amazing then the magnitude of the coincidences involved here, ace.
the talking head set which speaks to and for the populist right modulates their "issue" of the moment, and across america freethinking conservatives just happen to pick up the same issues in the same language at the same time. o wait, i know: this astonishing coincide proves the validity of these "issues" doesn't it?
and you base this on the fact that you don't watch glenn beck or listen to limbaugh or anyone else from conservative media.

so how might you explain this astonishing coincidence, which is all the more astonishing for the fact that it seems to happen over and over?

Obama was on vacation. The shock value of TH meetings has worn thin. The birther "movement" has no traction. Conservatives have conflicting views regarding Afghanistan. Ridge went on his apology tour without much public pressure. Football season has not started, and they need an issue of the day. These entertainers (right) feed from the same troth (the left all feed from their own troth). That is my explanation. I don't see a grand conspiracy.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

My reality is that I bet Glenn Close could do a better "Glenn Beck" than Glenn Beck. at least she would be nicer to look at. Wasn't Glenn Beck a Top 40 DJ before adopting his political shtick? A "top 40 DJ"??? Isn't that the worst kind of DJ you can be??? It is like you don't have the balls to do hard rock, punk, jazz, gansta rap, or house, but you are going to earn a living playing the Back Street Boys on the radio!!!! And you folks think he is a leader in conservative circles??? You talk about reality...o.k.!

I have no idea what you're talking about now

who would you define as the main players in the contemporary conservative movement?
just wondering.

Glenn Beck is an entertainer. Glenn Beck is an actor. Glenn Beck is a clown, in that he exaggerates his actions and words to entertain. I disagree with the notion that many, if any people take him serious. I guess other than those on the left who actually think he has clout.

then you really are as out of touch as I've suspected. This statement is asinine

It couldn't possibly be due to whatever action is going on in Congress? You know, like, um, heathcare? Maybe we are talking about healthcare at the same time they (Beck, Limbaugh) seem to be talking about healthcare because it coincides with the time that Congress is talking about healthcare?...and I'm not even a rocket scientist!

Chaney
McConnell
Graham
Boehner

In the media

Will
Kristol
Kudlow
Rove

To name a few. I do not think any of the above will run for President, I think it is wide open.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

So, you take Beck serious?

you forgot to add weekly rites of worship service. :rolleyes:

I wasn't trying to draw connections between the audience at Christians in general. Poor choice of word (sermonize)


I don't, but I don't believe in his ideology. I know many, many people who do though

I know many people who are conservative who absolutely worship Glenn Beck and spout off stuff he says as absolute truth. Ace, you may not watch him but that doesn't mean other don't as well. So many people use the exact same rhetoric that they hear from the Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's that it is ridiculous to say people don't take him seriously.

ace--i don't think the town hall meetings, and their slogans/tactics, came together around the columns of george will or bill kristol or whatever it is that karl rove does these days (the last one i don't know about for sure)...it's pretty obvious that the ways in which issues were framed came out of populist conservative media and that the primary, though not exclusive, drivers for this at the masscult level were people like limbaugh & beck and other zanies. there's little doubt that there's also bloggers who are important in here as well as other forms of collective mobilization brought to you by the usual conservative groups and their funders in the insurance industry (these days).

and it's entirely implausible, given the whacked out ways in which much of the public face of the town hall phenom has gone, that these folk just converged and happened to be saying the same things based on the state of affairs that obtained in congress at a particular moment.

there are of course people on the right with principled objections who are not part of the organized populist zaniness that we've been treated to as a public spectacle.
and not everyone on the right watches the talking heads.

but there's no way to go from there to any argument that therefore there's no influence.

it seems so obviously false, that kind of argument, that i really can't figure out why you'd head down this path and try to make the claim.

I will be more clear in connecting the dots, I apologize for occasionally mentally getting ahead of what I write.

A person like Beck (and Rush for that matter), a person who would be a Top 40 DJ, would do that not for the love of music, but they do it because it is their job. It is what they do to make money. A person (at least to me) who loves music makes a commitment to a type of music or different types of music because that is what is really in their heart regardless of popularity.

When a person like Beck (or Rush) makes the decision to be a political talk show host, they have to develop a concept for their act and they have to make sure it is marketable. They are entertainers, they are in show business.

So, a person like Beck decides to be a talk show host - odds are he can be more successful as a conservative talk show host (I am not saying he does not have underlying conservative views, but he has shown a willingness to do what needs to be done in show business to make a buck).

If you are going to be a conservative talk show host realizing how crowed the market is, you have to bring something unique to the table. In Beck's case he positions himself to be the most boisterous, animated, unconventional talk show host in the market. To maintain that he has to be "over the top".

A person like Beck is "over the top" by taking existing core emotional issues and exploits them. He uses "show biz" gimmicks to do it. He creates illusions. but the illusions are based on some core concerns and fears held by conservatives.


The issue is not people following him, but more of him finding an issue and taking it "over the top". So, the question is what came first, "the chicken or the egg" so to speak?

Conservatives, including me, have an underlying concern of big government being too intrusive. So, Beck takes that underlying concern - matches it with the census (even-though there really is no difference between this up coming census and the ones in the past) - he creates his controversy - he gets attention - he gets viewers.

However, at the core he does not change anyone's views. He does not influence anyone's behavior. All he has done was meet his obligation for ratings so that he gets paid. then he moves on to the next issue of the day.

All of you who are saying I know people who take Beck serious, I would bet that you really don't. I mean serious in the way that they would actually act or do something Beck wants them to do. A person who scream, yea!, at the TV while Beck is on as he continues to eat Doritos and has no plans to do anything other than get another cold beer from the fridge is not a person who I would consider taking Beck serious. TH meetings, Tea parties, etc., have had nothing to do with a guy like Beck.

yes I know that Glenn Beck is just acting but a lot of people don't. He takes conservative concerns over the top and then the conservatives who watch him and take it seriously take the over the top statements he makes and regurgitate those statements. His lies (yes most of the shit he says are flat out lies) get ingrained in many peoples' heads as the truth and nothing will dissuade them from that "truth".

And yes I have a few friends who absolutely swear by Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. When I disagree with the bullshit that they spout (yes it is bullshit because they still believe Obama isn't a citizen) they say that it's people like me that are destroying America and yes they are very serious about it. It's scary.

There is, in my opinion, a correlation between the growing hostility with government and the ineffectiveness of government. Rush, was on every day during the Clinton administration doing the same thing he is doing now. The difference has more to do with unemployment and how people feel about the future than Rush going off on liberals. All these guys do is just tap into the sentiment and ride the wave. They do not create the sentiment. They do not have that kind of power.

I have shared my views on the TH meetings in other posts. I don't listen to Rush nor watch Beck regularly and my frustration level is as high as it has ever been. My frustration is related to several things, the most important is the lack of focus from the WH and their unwillingness to address simple questions.

I think you guys are "tilting at windmills". You create your false monsters for a reason I don't understand. Another example is Palin. she is one of your "monsters", yet she has no power, and no real influence to change behaviors or views. I like Palin because she sees many things the way that I do, she has never persuaded me. On the other hand, Reagan actually changed the way I saw things - I did not vote for him, but I became a Republican because of him.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

What were they before Beck and Hannity? If they were the same, I don't get your point. If they changed, I accept your point and agree that they do have some influence and perhaps have more than I realize. I would love to see an objective study on the issue at hand here.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2698635]




I think you guys are "tilting at windmills". You create your false monsters for a reason I don't understand. Another example is Palin. she is one of your "monsters", yet she has no power, and no real influence to change behaviors or views. I like Palin because she sees many things the way that I do, she has never persuaded me. On the other hand, Reagan actually changed the way I saw things - I did not vote for him, but I became a Republican because of him.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

Sarah Palin is directly responsible for the bullshit claim of "death panels" which has been proven to be a bold faced lie, yet the right wing media(beck, rush etc) continue to use this term as fact. They are not false monsters they are very real.

If you are referring to Beck and Hannity, neither of them believe Obama is NOT a U.S. citizen. For you to say here that they believe that is as irresponsible as the point you are trying to make about them. If you mean your friends, then yes your friends are scary. Obama is a U.S. citizen, anyone who says otherwise placed charges in tower seven.

If there is nothing more to be added to this discussion about the census, perhaps it is time for a moderator to shut it down!

Take the Beck debate somewhere else please.

I will just say this, I meant that they are taking what was said in the past (I am fairly certain Sean Hannity had a special about Obama's birth certificate saying it was lies back before the election even if he never believed it) and are still sticking to that shtick even if they disagree with the birthers now. I know Sean Hannity had a special about Obama being a secret Muslim and people still cling to that. The youtube video I have was taken down for 'copyright reasons' but I can find another if you want.

Sorry dc, /threadjack.

About the Census, I don't understand how people can contort the Census into something like this. It just comes off as scary that a certain few people can inspire so much fear in select groups that they can make a Census into something evil.

From the original post:

The credibility of Beck and Rush are central to the discussion as framed in the OP.

The people in this country (and this thread) who are going to balk at filling out the census are the people who have a fight to pick with every facet of government at all times. It must be exhausting

ace...by all means, add your perspective on Beck/Rush and the census.....it would a refreshing change to have you address an issue directly and not go off on an unrelated tangent.

---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

For the record, in a 2001 Court decision, the Court ruled that both the short form and the long form (American Community Survey) are constitutional.
But I suspect that makes them "activist judges" in the mind of some....

...despite the fact that in 1790, at the time of the first census, Madison (the "father of the Constitution" before he became president) spoke for many of his colleagues in promoting the census to "embrace some other objects besides the bare enumeration of the inhabitants; it would enable them to adapt the public measures to the particular circumstances of the community."

I stated that in my view 99.9% of the American population will not change their behavior regarding the census because of people like Beck or Rush. After that I responded to questions and responses to my posts. It is becoming more and more clear that some people are simply creating their own little "boogy men", this issue illustrates that. Conservatives are going to participate in the census, period. It is not an issue, so what is the deal with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other "boogy men" you folks create? The same was done with the "birthers". How much more direct do you want my response to be?

if you think we're creating boogey men, then I don't really care what else you have to say on the issue, as you're already wrong. It's a dismissive attitude towards a real problem.

What is the real problem from your point of view?

Are conservatives going to participate in the census?
Are conservatives going to hurt their cause, representation, funding by not participating in the census?
Do you think Beck and a Representative from Minnesota (Michele Bachmann) have the power to have a measurable influence on the issue?

My answers are: Yes, No, and No.

How do we differ? Or, is it that I am one of your boogy men? Booo!

http://www.ghoststudy.com/galleria/j...scaryz1057.jpg

1) The issue needs to reach SCOTUS and be decided once and for all. I would abide by the decision of SCOTUS and then encourage my legislators to change the law.
2) Madison may have wanted it to expand past enumeration as an efficient way to provide demographics to local governments. It that was the purpose of the current census, I would enthusiastically fill it out.
3) The census is no longer used for the collection of data for distribution to local governments. It is used for distributing federal funds through entitlement programs. Those of us who believe those programs are outside of the duties of the federal government choose not to participate in the means necessary to perpetuate them.
4) The census is not evil. Neither is a gun. It is simply a tool which can become dangerous (to life, liberty, and property) when misused.
5) I understand that you disagee. I am restating my position concisely.

Beck is directing people not to fill out the census, people listen to him and agree not to fill it out. By not filling out the census correctly conservatives are hurting funding based on census results and representation. These are clear and irrefutable facts.

additionally, the people who listen to Beck then tell their like-minded friends what he said, and they do the same. Why ace insists that Beck/whoever's influence is confined to the viewership #'s is beyond me

You doth protest too much. I suspect you have a bit of a crush on Beck.:thumbsup:

These aren't just idle claims. The rhetoric and lies that beck and his kind spue are adopted and repeated by almost every single conservative. The amount of people who take every word they say as sacred is frightening.

The problem with the 1% or 5% in Rush's case that listen (or support that position) to him go to these to town halls, write their congressmen, and fund a lot of political campaigns. This causes a few more percentage to think things aren't good an nothing should be done. Even though they would be better off if it was changed.

honestly, I've never watched his show or listened to his radio show. My knowledge of him is strictly 2nd hand

Have you ever watched Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe on MSNBC. I don't know if he commented on the census non-controversy but he did comment on the Obama speech to schools non-controversy (non-controversy to me is defined as an issue blown way out of porportion by 24 hr. news shows), and pretty much thinks it is stupid.

Scarborough is conservative and doesn't share Beck' views on many issues. I am a conservative and I don't share Beck's views on many issues. Should we conclude that your statement is a lie that you and your kind spew are adopted and repeated by almost every single liberal?

i was going to make a long post refuting your view, ace, but then i decided that it was perhaps more fun and effective to simply post this gil scott-heron song.
if you play it, listen all the way through. the last couple minutes is a summary of what i take your viewpoint to be based on. but getting to those last two minutes is kinda fun. enjoy.

First of all I'm not a liberal, second of all, conservative arguments against healthcare and against the census are the same as beck's so do the math. I know many people who are otherwise intellegent except when they try to argue against these issues. When presented with the facts they try to deflect to some totally irrelevant point, typically the way that you do.

Was your statement a lie or not?

Not in any way.

Brings back memories. Scott came out with that when I was in college, and I was grooven right along with him - at the time. Times change. There is a difference between a guy like Beck and a guy like Reagan. I think the difference is Reagan actually believed his lines. Reagan was actually able to persuade people to act in ways different from their normal predisposition. Reagan focused on the positive. Reagan was a leader.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------

..."almost every conservative...", o.k.

Every conservative argument on this forum and in the news is exactly the same as becks. Is that a coincidence?

I am not a "birther"
I am going to fill out my census form
My son is not going to miss Obama's speech next week.
I am conservative.
I don't even regularly watch Beck's show, The few times I have seen it, I did not like it.

I knew that. You didn't have to tell me.

Well, at least a bit good news from all of this... the Census just issued a statement that have severed all ties with ACORN beginning immediately!

Stay tuned!