Beck goes nuclear – blasts Chris Matthews over balloon-head comment on Michele Bachmann

Posted by The Right Scoop on Jan 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM in Politics | 62 Comments

By The Right Scoop

I have been waiting for this all week long. It’s so gut wrenching to hear Chris Matthews go on and on about Michele Bachmann, using his platform to deride her in such a condescending way. Well now Glenn Beck has stepped up to the plate to deliver a very impassioned defense (and that’s putting it mildly) of Michele Bachmann, blasting Chris Matthews for being a victim of his own incompetence.

An instant classic!

—

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

Conservative Hippie

“Ballonhead could get popped by a Pinhead” was genius!
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MVKB24PATKM3BXCRTLD62FUKK4 Richard

Anytime we talk about Chris Matthews,you improve his rating.I know ignoring is very hard to do but it is the best solution
- Linkmeister2
  
  Ignoring “Tingles” is hard yes, but being sent to the principals office like Glenn did to him here – and the exposure of his ignorance helps to de-tingle Chrissie and a lot of people who may otherwise take what he says as the gospel truth.
http://twitter.com/SumErgoMonstro The Monster

I’d love to ask Crissie these questions:

1) What power did the Congress have under the Articles of Confederation to restrict or abolish slavery? [A: NONE]

2) What power did the Congress have under the Constitution to restrict or abolish slavery? [A: it had full authority to ban importation of slaves effective 1808, and could tax them at $10/head from Day One. The 3/5 compromise diluted the votes of slave states in Congress.]

3) You claim that we had to fight the Civil War to end slavery. If the Constitution didn’t give Congress the power to end slavery, then why did the Southern states secede?

4) By seceding from the Union, the Confederate states were declaring they were no longer bound by it. Instead, they drafted their own constitution, most of which was a copy/paste of the US Constitution at the time. There were, however, some differences in those documents. If the US Constitution weren’t in any way anti-slavery, why would the CSA have bothered to change anything but the name United => Confederate and be done with it?
- Anonymous
  
  Many think that the 3/5 clause was just horrible, racist, inhumane blah, blah without realizing that it was a huge part of abolishing slavery. It gave the South less representation. Frederick Douglass thought it a beautiful thing and the Republican party as the only party he could ever be a part of. I like Frederick D.’s hair. Check it out.
  
  Here’s the “question” I’d like to ask Chris Tingle (sounds festive):
  You’re a pandering fool’s fool(!)…right?
Anonymous

What Glenn says at the end is serious and should be taken seriously by more conservatives. Some language really is meant to provoke and whether Matthews realizes it or not, his language about Michele Bachmann is dangerous.

Chris Matthews has made a concerted effort to dehumanize Michele Bachmann. He has called her a Zombie and now a “ballon head”. Beck is not far off in saying those types of insults towards Bachmann could make her a target of some nut job. How do you kill a Zombie? Well, everyone knows you have to shoot it in the head. How do you pop a balloon?

If Michele Bachmann gets shot in the head will Chris Matthews apologize?

And no, there is no equivalent on the conservative side. Mainstream conservatives never say things like that about anybody.
- Anonymous
  
  Right on all counts. One of the few things I take exception to with Glenn and many other conservative voices, is they are always trying to tone down their response by saying the” hateful rhetoric and attacks from both sides” there is no equivalent on the right to the hateful, violence inducing, bile of the leftists, absolutely none, so quit saying it, defending yourself against dishonest, slanderous attacks is not hateful rhetoric. It plays into the hands of the left who innocently enough just want to state their dishonest, ignorant and slanderous attacks, while demanding conservatives remain respectfully quiet, how could we be so terribly rude? Their media monopoly is over, they know it and they are showing that they are even worse losers than winners.
  - Anonymous
    
    You’re absolutely right. One person the Left uses as an example of conservative hate is Michael Savage. Yeah? Go to YouTube and search “Michael Savage” and spend the next couple of hours listening to the clips that come up.
    
    Who does Michael Savage spew his hate towards? Rush Limbaugh. He HATES Rush Limbaugh so much that he hangs up on his own callers who have the nerve to say they’re glad they got through to talk to him. That’s right. He hates Rush’s callers who do that so he hangs up on his own callers who do.
    
    Mark Levin. Oh, yeah, Savage hates Mark Levin. The feeling is mutual.
    
    Who else does Savage destroy on his show? Oh, how about calling Ann Coulter a transgendered hate monger because she had the nerve to talk about Christianity to a Jew?
    
    No, this “both sides do it” crap is just that. Crap.
    - Paul moore
      
      I know one thing he really tell it like it is and I like him.
Marie

Poor Glenn.
Why is it that everytime I see him reaching the “Blood shooting out of my eyes!” point, I just laugh?

Anyway,
You tell ’em Glenn!
John

Beck should have Bachmann on his TV show too, to discuss the issue.
Anonymous

Well Beck could have said why there was a 3/5ths compromise.

The slaveholding states actually wanted the census to count the slaves as full citizens. The slaves still wouldn’t be able to vote, it would have just given the slaveholding states more representation. If the slaves would have been counted as people, the slaveholding states would have had enough power to keep slavery going in perpetuity.

I thought most people knew this. Obviously Chris doesn’t. No wonder liberals hate this country, they don’t know anything about it.
- Anonymous
  
  Actually, Glenn did say that. Weren’t you listening?
  - Anonymous
    
    I didn’t hear him go over that. It sounded like he was going to a few times, but then he stopped short. He talked about doing your own research, then went on to call him a balloon head and then talked about Frederick Douglas. I didn’t hear a discussion of why the founders put in the 3/5th’s compromise.
    - Anonymous
      
      Sorry. Turns out the Internet clip didn’t include it. He did explain it on his TV show.
- http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop
  
  He did explain it later in the show, as he has about a million times now. But I thought his point with Fredrick Douglas was good enough to show the three-fifths clause wasn’t racist.
- Anonymous
  
  “If the slaves would have been counted as people, the slaveholding states would have had enough power to keep slavery going in perpetuity.”
  
  I think it’s less about the fact that they would have been able to keep slavery going in perpetuity and more about the fact that they would have had disproportionate representation (for any issues) if they were counted as full “people” and the southern states wouldn’t have gotten on board with the Constitution at all if they hadn’t allowed for counting of the slave population in any capacity.
  
  It’s more or less the same thing; except your statement ascribes an anti-slavery motive to the issue that is not necessarily documented.
  
  More importantly, I think that Bachmann, Beck, and Matthews all kind of seem to be missing the point on the issue. It’s true that a number of the founding fathers were very much for the abolition of slavery, but a pretty significant number of them were in support of the institution (it did, after all, make the proverbial cut), and abolition was in no way shape or form a majority – or even fashionable – stance to take at the time of the drafting of the document. And it’s true that the constitution is not, in fact, a document that condones slavery (it, in fact, makes no mention of it, although it should be noted that it makes no mention of God too, and yet lots of people read an endorsement of religion into it), it remains a stubborn truth that the institution persisted long after its drafting and ratification; although it doesn’t endorse the institution and, if we take it as a “living breathing document” we can say quite surely that it is incompatible with it, you can’t argue that it wasn’t initially drafted to be wholly compatible with the institution simply because for nearly a century the two existed side by side. The same could be said for treating women as citizens with equal rights. Frederick Douglass read the document and proclaimed that it wasn’t a document of slavery – this is true, but it wasn’t a document not of slavery either. When the Confederate States adopted their constitution, they felt that they were being equally faithful to the founding vision of the country – and they simply inserted slavery explicitly into the document without requiring any serious alterations.
  
  But at any rate, the fact that Bachmann cited John Quincy Adams as an example of her point is kind of ludicrous inasmuch as J.Q.A. was born in 1767 and was not party in the creation or ratification of the Constitution. His father, of course, was John Adams who certain does fit into the “founding father” category and who was not bashful in voicing his opposition to the institution of slavery, but they are not the same person, and Adams Sr. did not take the kinds of dramatic, public stances on the issue that his son would.
  
  All of this underscores 2 other, more important, facts though.
  
  1) Bachmann cited JQA because he was the earliest President to take an uncompromised public stance in opposition to the institution of slavery. What this should underscore, however, is the fact that there were 5 presidents preceding him who didn’t actively petition for the dismantling of the institution from atop their perch of power.
  2) We all like to focus on the people that fought for the dismantling of the institution because it makes us all feel better, but we can’t ignore the fact that perhaps an equal, if not larger, share of our forefathers* were in support of slavery and then Jim Crow. It’s not as if the country all got together and realized what terrible terrible things we were doing to our fellow man and sought to right the wrong – these were hard-fought battles, fought against other Americans, many of whom we are related to, who adamantly believed in slavery, in Jim Crow, against woman suffrage etc. etc. etc. It seems like we all want to look at the sunny parts of the equation, but you can’t have MLK without George Wallace and Strom Thurmond, and you can’t have Lincoln without Davis. Our nation has tended towards the good, but has certainly embraced its share of evils along the way, and any serious discussion of our history needs a healthy acknowledgment of both sides of this reality.
  
  * If you’ve been here that long; my people were busy being persecuted in Ireland and Germany at the time, but I certainly feel more kinship with the Founding Fathers than either of the European powers that my forebears fled.
  - Anonymous
    
    That’s a well thought out response, thanks.
    
    The point was that the founders didn’t count slaves as 3/5ths of a person because they thought they weren’t really people or something, like Matthews tried to assert.
    
    The founders did leave an opening to outlaw the importation of new slaves in 1808, which they did. A lot of them were obviously against it morally, like Washington and Jefferson. But pragmatically it wasn’t possible to get a Constitution ratified without giving the slave holding states a bone. I don’t think it’s correct to say the founders were flawed in that area. From my reading of their stances (at least Washington and Jefferson), they believed slavery would eventually be abolished as the country progressed.
  - Jung5
    
    I beleive JQA became a Congressman after his time as President and his main focus was abolition.
  - JasonC
    
    Matthews obviously had and has no idea who John Quincy Adams was.
    JQA was the foremost abolitionist in the US in the 1820s.
    He defended the revolting captive passengers in the Amistead case, earning them freedom within the US, against attempts to deport them to Cuba for having fought for their freedom when they took over the ship.
    He opposed all of the compromises that extended slavery in the first half of the 19th century.
    He predicted both the civil war, and that during it the president would invoke his war powers to abolish slavery, as actually happened. Thirty years before it did.
    
    He was in short exactly the visionary proponent of freedom for all that Bachmann correctly cited him as, and the commentariat on the left is so ignorant of US history they did not recognize the reference, and then blamed her learned comment for their own stupendous ignorance.
- steve
  
  Yes but the founding fathers did not have to give any representation to people who could not vote. It was a compromise with the devil tard.
  
  Additionally they did not have to structure the govt. to give less populated states a greater deal of the electoral college thus ensuring that the pres would have “souther sympathies” their is a reason most of the early presidents were from V.A.
  
  They then went on to allow the pres to appoint the judiciary so the slave sympathetic pres nominated slave sympathetic justices aka Taney and were confirmed by the non-popular vote senate which also gave the less populated south more power then its proportion.
  
  Douglas was specifically arguing how the constitution should be interpreted not how it was. If Beck knew anything of Douglas’ writings or the crowd he was speaking to he would stfu. Really the black abolitionist thought the constiution was a great document.
  
  Here is Frederik Douglas responding to what people thought of his aforementioned speech in which he clearly says what he thought of the constitution. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1106 So I guess if you disagree with the thought that the constitution was made to perpetuate slavery you think Douglas was stupid.
Anonymous

Thank you Glenn. Prissy Chrissy needed that!
Keith900629

Cute gloves Glenn!
- Anonymous
  
  He explained why he was wearing gloves.
- Anonymous
  
  He explained why he was wearing gloves.
las

Scoop you definitely hit big time at HotAir.

The best comment I’ve seen on this story is a comment from one of HotAir’s readers:

“”(Reaching for cigarette lighting it)
Ahhhhhhhh…..

bobeast on January 28, 2011 at 12:43 PM””

Classic… just classic.
- Anonymous
  
  Not just at Hot Air. Megyn Kelly just did a whole segment about The Right Scoop. Unfortunately, it was with the degenerate lying liberal Alan Colmes. But that’s Fox News for you. Gotta include a lying liberal or it’s not “fair and balanced”.
  - Anonymous
    
    Fox needs to drop the fair and balanced BS and just state the obvious, we’ll give you the facts and truth in a thoughtful way on one side and then give you some lies, distortions, made up crap and nonsensical jibberish that no one has believed for years,—YOU DECIDE!
    - Anonymous
      
      As long as you acknowledge that it’s not fair and balanced (unless you’re implying that the right can only be thoughtful and the left can only be full of lies and distortions; if that’s the case, I’ve got a stack of books for you to read)
http://twitter.com/Rushlimbang Brian Skinner

Glenn Beck Levinitized Chris Matthews.
Mediaaccess

Reading all his books! I love this guy! The 3/5th law was because the north didn’t want the south to count every head – giving the pro-slave owners more representation. For every 30,000 heads, you get to send a representative to congress. It was to limit the power of pro-slave owners.
Mediaaccess

Reading all his books! I love this guy! The 3/5th law was because the north didn’t want the south to count every head – giving the pro-slave owners more representation. For every 30,000 heads, you get to send a representative to congress. It was to limit the power of pro-slave owners.
Mediaaccess

It took the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments by the Republicans and completely voted against by Democrats, to give the blacks freedom because the Democrats (who started the KKK) fought it tooth and nail.
Harvey

a) not sure why beck implies in the beginning that bachmann is being criticized for being a woman and should be defended accordingly. as passive agressive sexism goes, that’s pretty clumsy.

b) it’s entertaining to hear beck complain about someone else’s sanctimoniousness. it’s like the pot calling the kettle a set of kitchenware.

c) the founders *could* have designed the constitution to explicitly and immediately outlaw slavery in perpetuity which would have given each formerly enslaved person the vote in 1787 rather than nearly 100 years later in 1870. therefore, the over representation issue of pro slavery states wouldn’t have existed since the newly freed folks with the franchise would surely have voted in their own interest and sent people to congress who were interested in protecting their rights rather than reducing them. accordingly, the 3/5ths compromise wouldn’t have been necessary.

but, the founders didn’t do that. they made a deal. about slavery. this is the point.

the founders felt comfortable with the 3/5ths compromise because slavery, to them, was something negotiable. especially when juxtaposed against the overriding american principle of state’s/individual rights. even when it applied to the ownership of human beings. we can’t make a deal on individual liberty, but the commodification of black folks is something we can give and take on.

that’s why acting as though the founders were the moral heroes of this narrative is silly, cheap and damned insulting.

d) this is a small point, but an important one. heroes are not infallible. frederick douglass is one of the most important minds to ever offer perspective on the macro moral issues, but he wasn’t right about everything. ghandi was obsessed with the color codified caste system, mandela was originally imprisoned for being a domestic terrorist explicitly seeking to kill his political opponents, etc.

ghandi was also the principal designer of non-violet protest which has saved the world from itself a dozen times over since it’s invention. mandela’s one of the real anchor points for practical empathy and it’s value. the one doesn’t cancel out the other. so, frederick douglass is a genius, but he was wrong about the constitution.

if you read the speech beck’s referring to – i think FD delivered it in the UK in 1860(?) – his perspective is really nowhere near as open and shut as you’d think. it’s a reasonable argument, one can easily understand how FD reached the conclusion he did. but, it’s still open to pretty immediate and obvious interpretation. particularly when he’s suggesting the clause that requires people escaping servitude be returned to those to which they were beholden can’t apply to slaves since, obviously, slaves weren’t people. this isn’t an anti-slavery idea since, in principle, it acknowledges the constitution designates slaves as less than human. in practice, the clause was more often used to justify the capture and return of enslaved folks than any other purpose.

also, if i remember correctly, FD finishes his address on this subject saying that folks who declared “no union with slaveholders!” were being irrational and immature. that a perspective so absolute was impractical. that is, you have to negotiate with evil doers, meet them halfway for the sake of the greater good.

beck has complained often about BHO’s commitment to sit down with the leaders of enemy states, saying that you mustn’t negotiate with terrorists. they’re too evil, too wrong about everything to have a meaningful discussion with. however, the FD speech he’s referring to as being evidence of the constitution’s anti-slavery status uses BHO’s argument to explain the value of the 3/5th’s compromise.

so, i’d imagine the next time the president has a sit down with the chinese head of state, glenn will take the time learn the guy’s name. since, like frederick douglas said, designing incremental compromises with the powerful agents who oppose you is only way real progress can be achieved.
- http://twitter.com/Rushlimbang Brian Skinner
  
  There were free black people in the south who counted as a “full” person. Some of them owned slaves. Lots of Indians owned slaves. When Booker T Washington attended a school along with some indians the implication was that indians were higher up in social status than blacks because they had not become slaves to the white man. What I am saying is there was not just white racism against blacks. LIke you said South Africa the Indians including Ghandi felt justified in setting themselves above the black natives of their country. Brazil imported 20 times more black african slaves than America did. The reason for this is the slaves kept on dying.
  
  Media matters and Huffingtonpost say 3/5 was put in at the insistence of the southern states and this is wrong. It was the northern states that were against counting all slaves as a “full” person.
  From James Madison’s notes at const convention.
  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0711.html
- Anonymous
  
  a) Right because sticking up for woman is sexism as oppose to the insane obsession with maliciously attacking them over and over again. Palin, Angle, Bachmann, O’Donnel. Is there anyone else in politics it’s tough to tell listening to Matthews.
  
  b) I accept then that you think Chris Matthews is sanctimonious by that answer. At least you can be honest about it. Which in essence means you agree with Beck, just not his approach.
  
  c) I don’t know what a word in Astrix’s means I guess it’s extra emphasis on that word. I could be wrong like I said I don’t know. Either way no they couldn’t. The south was never going to join in signing anything with out slavery. It was known as the ‘the snake left under the table.’ The south was not going to join the US of A with out it period. To explain it any other way is to deny history.
  
  c1) You kind of blend the idea that people aren’t perfect through out c and d, ummm duh. I would have thought that goes with out saying. There are more moral people and less moral people. The founders are praised as hero’s for what they came up with. The true genius of the founders is their insight into what corrupts man and by extension corrupts government. Perfect men (which don’t exist) could never come up with this system because they wouldn’t understand the nature of man enough to accomplish it. It requires and understanding of what makes men corrupt and how to combat it in government. Don’t take that as me thinking they are highly immoral. Highly immoral people would have developed something that limited freedom and left them in control. That is the genius of our founders and the rock bed for the United State of America. Would slavery not being a part of our constitution been great yes, was it an option no.
  
  c2) One could make the argument that the unborn child is a slave to a women until birth. She can force it to drink, she can physically assault it, she can force drugs on it, she can do all manner of harm to it with out recourse while it’s in the womb. She can even go as far as to kill it. To stand back and look at this abhorrent practice is to have to question humanity itself. How did we get to this point? See how I dovetailed something it that has nothing to do with the topic. That’ pretty much all that d is about
  
  d) read c2
  - Anonymous
    
    a) (actually, I’m just going to comment on A for the time being) – There is a latent sexism in making the assumption that attacks on Palin and Bachmann (and since you brought them up – O’Donnell and Angle) are made on them because they are women, as opposed to on the basis of some significant political or personal issue. It essentially implies that they can’t possibly be engaged as serious political figures because they’re women, and any criticism of them is rooted in that fact – and, of course, it is the duty of men to stand up for them in the public sphere.
    
    It’s actually not unlike conservatives complaining that liberals accuse any criticism they mount against Obama is being racially motivated or inspired, when it’s not intended as such. And, on the same token, the voices on the left that you will often hear making that accusation are generally white, which ties in neatly to the above.
    
    Having said that, I will say that the notion of Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, or Sharron Angle holding any meaningful position of political power in the US is pretty terrifying to me – and much much moreso than the notion of someone like Christie Whitman or Kay Bailey Hutchinson holding power is. I could list my reasons, but that would just start a flame war, and I’m pretty sure you can guess what they are (let’s just say that they’re the same reasons that I wouldn’t want someone like Dan Quayle to hold power).
    - Anonymous
      
      We have so many incompetents in Congress that it’s tough to listen to anyone try and pretend to be terrified of Angle or O’Donnell. Since when has congress been thrown out of balance by one member? It’s been shown that these two got more negative coverage from the National Media than anybody else.
      
      Sexism like racism can be applied in the most tangential ways as to be silly most of the time.
      
      If a male broadcaster agrees with Beck and defends him it’s not sexism.
      If a female broadcaster agrees with Beck and defends him it’s not sexism.
      If a female broadcaster agrees with Bachmann and defends her it’s not sexism.
      If a male broadcaster agrees with Bachmann and defends her it’s sexism?
      That just doesn’t pass the logic test.
      
      I couldn’t possibly be that and individual agrees that Bachmann has been ridiculously slandered multiple times and has a right to speak out about that.
      
      See you’re presupposing that Beck doesn’t think that Bachmann is capable of defending herself, that’s not actually the case. Beck just wants to lend his voice to the argument.
      - Anonymous
        
        “I would like to know where anyone is on defending uh, you know, women, on the way that Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are being thrown under the bus right now”
        “Wasn’t the national organization of… you know (etc. etc.)” (obviously referring to NOW, which is actually The National Organization *for* Women)
        
        I’m not saying that Beck is necessarily practicing the kind of benevolent sexism that I’ve discussed, I’m just saying that you could very easily read that into it. Certainly there’s an implication that the criticisms being hurled towards Bachmann are sexist, otherwise why would he bring up NOW? NOW takes on sexism, not any criticism of women who happen to be in the public square.
        
        But perhaps I didn’t make myself clear here – the notion that Beck’s defense of her is actually inherently sexist because it implies an assumption that the attacks on Bachmann are gender-based rather than policy-based (even though there’s nothing to indicate that this is the case) is one that could be made in a gender studies course, but it’s immaterial to the issue at hand. I’m sure he thinks that she’s capable of defending herself – but it is interesting that defenders of Bachmann and Palin etc. immediately jump to the sexism line.
        
        What I’m saying, and perhaps you agree with me although it’s difficult to tell, is simply that people who criticize Bachmann and Palin (and Angle and O’Donnell) most of the time aren’t doing so because they’re sexist… honestly, I think the most rank sexism I saw in the 2010 election season was hurled against Nikki Haley – from the right, no less. Going forth and making spurious claims about having had sex with some female candidate as an attempt to undermine her candidacy (because who wants to vote for a slut, right?) is sexist through-and-through. I don’t live in SC – if I did I wouldn’t vote for her, and my two friends that are from there didn’t vote for her, but a stunt like that is extremely sexist and ought have no place in our public discourse. Fortunately (for her, and I suppose some larger sense of morality), it didn’t work.
        
        Back to the issue at hand – Angle and O’Donnell received more general coverage because the former pulled a squeaker primary victory in an extremely high-profile race and the latter came out of nowhere to win what was thought to be a decided primary for a surefire GOP senate victory and immediately injected herself into the national media. Once the two were in the national spotlight, both of them essentially launched a nationwide campaign while simultaneously insulating themselves from the national press and both espousing views that are actually pretty controversial outside of the tea party circle. You could argue that Ken Buck had the same sort of views (and he did), and the fact that he didn’t get as much coverage is perhaps indicative of some sort of bias against women, but Ken Buck was running against Michael Bennett, who wasn’t Harry Reid, and Ken Buck kept a fairly low profile. Rand Paul, meanwhile, kept a much higher profile, and got a lot of coverage from the general press. Bachmann, meanwhile, has sought out the national spotlight whenever possible and injected herself into a lot of issues – like the SOTU, where she could have just sat back and said “look, the GOP asked Paul Ryan to give the rebuttal, and I’m going to stick with the party.” Her reasons for not toeing the party line may have legitimate ideological motivations – and if so, I applaud her for being willing to put herself out there for a cause that she thinks is right – but if she’s going to put herself out there, she’s going to have to be willing to deal with positive and negative press.
- paul moore
  
  dam was you right a book here
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_53YAPDXSTIGEDINDXF46CAB7ZY voted against carter

Chris Matthews is and ALWAYS has been a leftwing-nut, libratard, loony progressive dumb-O-crat.
Anonymous

I would have preferred that somebody as distinguished as Beck simply IGNORE that misogynist, foaming-at-the-mouth, tingle up his leg, lunatic-left nut-job. The idiocy of Mr. Tingle speaks for itself.
http://twitter.com/Rushlimbang Brian Skinner

Maybe Glenn Beck got that info at my awesome blog. http://stopbeckisaliar.blogspot.com/2009/12/stopbeck-slanders-founding-fathers-in.html

Probably not though.
Guest1

Both sides need to pull their heads out of their asses. For Beck to call ANYONE a liar is an absolute joke. You can’t go pointing fingers when the party YOU support do just as much lying. Beck is just as much a balloonhead as the rest of them.
- Anonymous
  
  Which party does Beck support? This is where most people go off the rails with Beck. It’s also usually the best indicator of how little you actually know about Beck or his opinions. You just accept the meme that he’s a Republican shill. You should call up his radio program and tell him that. Those are some of my favorite callers to hear his response to.
Anonymous

Josh calls to argue 3/5 clause, fails spectacularly

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/01/28/josh-calls-to-argue-35-clause-fails-spectacularly/
http://twitter.com/akaLeppod Leppod

passion! gotta love it.
- Anonymous
  
  passion! gotta have it.
  
  And the only reason any of us are here…
  
  …mothers loving their children so much and with such passion that they are willing to die and suffer in pain and agony to bring them into this world…
  
  May we ALL live PASSIONATELY!
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QSIMIELSN7JAIWGVNKHCJ7L5OU Ryan G

I had to re watch this. I loved it, and you will never hear a rebuttal because he is not able to rebutal
destroyer of moonbats

who’s chris matthews??
destroyer of moonbats

who’s chris matthews??
destroyer of moonbats

who’s chris matthews??
Josie

Brilliant! Just Brilliant! Listening to this is like therapy.

Felt so good listening to Glenn vent out on that idiot Mathews and his ridiculous slant and distortions. There is no more decency in the media though they expect it from those on the right – right is wrong and wrong is right.

Thank you so much RS for posting this.
Majicmahon

Her and Pallin are two shades of brunette dark from being totally believable as BALLOON-HEADS. If they were Megyn Kelly blonde, u would have the 3 mooooosekaters
majicmahon

To criticize CM for why he is calling her that is essentially supporting her ignorance to history in such a blatant manner. He’s saying, do some fact finding Michelle, there may be kids watching and they’ll grow up to be just as ignorant with “your teachings”. This is one time the right should tell her this. No, support her and she’ll do it again. Like a spolied kid.
majicmahon

Glen…these woman could win? I’m Canadian and I so miss the humoiur of the 8 Bush years. Granted, it’s been a tremendous relief world wide having Obama in, from a “diplomatic-it just makes more sense perspective” but we miss the daily humour. Screw it….even if it means the end of the world, have any of these two porkos elected and I’m subscribing to every comedy channel there is and retiring. I will laugh myself to death from the comedy that will be created.
Johnschaffran

A revolution is already upon Americans so Mr. Matthews you can continue to spew your BS. The American people are awake and they do not and will not be fooled by your senseless rhetoric. This country is bigger than you, O’Donnell, Maddow, Schultz, etc. See you at the polls in 2012 when you liberals are done! Good riddance. God Bless you Glenn, Sean, Rush, Mark, etc. You are exposing these people for who they are. All they do is blame the previous adm. and they expect that all Americans will accept it. No longer!
Anthony DeSantis

You know, I think it’s Glenn that needs to read his history, Chris Matthews is right in his interview. Also, he didn’t receive a degree from an Ivy League school he went to the University of North Carolina. Do your homework Glenn.
Anonymous

The scary part about this is that Glen said that Sarah Palin could run for president and win. One person that would be happy is Dubya as then he would not be the worst president ever.
Starrhillfarm

Are you kidding me. The staw poll nominees are the biggest bunch of losers I ever seen. Hopfully someone else will show up soon.
Nutt66

Fredrick Douglass?
He just quoted a Progressive … who lived before Progressive was defined

BTW “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted” tells you everything you need to know
Chuck

I can’t believe even Chris Matthews would stoop so low as to slander balloonheads on the anniversary of the United Mineworkers. On this day of all days. Is nothing sacred? Glennn is right: Of course Matthews knew what day it was. It was his none-too-subtle, unfunny jab at Freddy Douglass and the mineworkers. A pathetic, desparate effort to smear the mineworkers, oppress the black man and gain more Twitter followers.

Dammit! Matthews and his pipe-smoking, tweed-jacket Ivy League revisionist historians make me so angry. I absolutely *hate* those guys. I shake my fist at them.

I stand with Lincoln; I stand with Freddy Douglas; I stand with Glennn Bek.

Down with the liberal, progressive agenda! Down with government death panels! Down with al Qaeda Communists! Down with racist white pinheads! Down with the opportunist white man who talks crazy on TV! Free Mumia and Leonard Peltier! Throw off the yoke of the tyranny of the Left. Go shopping to stimulate the economy, buy gold and recreate.

Beck goes nuclear – blasts Chris Matthews over balloon-head comment on Michele Bachmann

Follow Us

Places of Interest

Beck goes nuclear – blasts Chris Matthews over balloon-head comment on Michele Bachmann

Follow Us

Places of Interest

Follow "The Right Scoop"