Get E-Mail Updates

Glenn Beck Co-opting the Steps of the Lincoln Memorial

I am grieved and angry that Glenn Beck is going to be on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28 (the anniversary of the historic civil rights March on Washington on August 28, 1963) -- and I am not sure what to do about it. I'd like to invite you, as a reader of Sojourners, into a journey of deliberation because this affects you, too (whether you know it or not).

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Glenn Beck's co-opting the steps of the Lincoln Memorial troubles me on several fronts:

  • On his signage he has "Restoring Honor," and I must reflect: Whose honor? How is it "restored?" What makes him imagine that he is the one to do it?
  • His tag reads: "Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. On August 28, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future." No mention is made of Dr. King in any of Beck's literature. I also am unclear that, as we "celebrate ... our heritage" that we will remember that some of our heritage is tarnished -- and continues to be tarnished -- by our discrimination and continued lack of access to fair housing and decent medical care for our poor and many people of color.
  • They also proffer that "Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation." How far do we want to go back? To when people had to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar for the privilege to vote?
  • "There will be absolutely no politics involved" promises their promotional literature -- I would suggest, given his proclamations on his show, that this promise is already broken.

So why does this matter? Because, as impossible as it seems, a lot of good-hearted Christians have been taken in by his rhetoric -- people whom I perceived had the capacity for critical thought but who are taken in by his gentle conversations with Alveda King, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece (aired on July 16).

How are others responding? The NAACP, National Action Network, and others will gather at Dunbar High School and some will march to the site of the Martin Luther King Memorial, being built near the FDR Memorial. Black churches from around America are taking buses to D.C. that day, focused on "Reclaiming the Dream."

But what about the rest of us who won't be in D.C. that day? Do we just remain silent? More than a few of my friends have suggested that addressing this day and responding to Beck's plans empowers him more than ever. Perhaps -- I don't know. But what keeps ringing in my spirit are the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: "In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

Some of us are talking about gathering that day locally and remembering the words of Dr. King and the original speech that Congressman Lewis wanted to give that day, so many years ago on August 28, 1963. Most Americans refer to that speech of Dr. King as the "I Have a Dream" speech. But most older African Americans refer to that day as "The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom." It was a day birthed in hope -- and anger from the centuries of dreams deferred. On August 28, 1963, the government was afraid; they closed the liquor stores, and government officials were told they didn't need to go to work that day. But on that day God's demand for justice was proclaimed when Dr. King preached:

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

No one "owns" the Lincoln Memorial. By God's grace, I've obtained the permit to gather there twice -- with Naomi Tutu on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's martyrdom, and with the Rosa Parks Institute on August 28, 2008. But we yearned to honor the sacrifice of the tens of thousands who traveled to an inhospitable Washington, D.C. so many years ago.

To remain silent as Glenn Beck attempts to co-opt the legacy of that place on that day seems egregious. This is not a "Glenn Beck" vs. "social justice" or some persona that Beck keeps seeking to diminish (like Jim Wallis). This, to me, seems to be a very basic issue of right and wrong.

But with a month away, how do we respond as faithful Christians who seek to love God, neighbor, and the Jesus who said, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor ... release the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor?"

Rev. Ruth Hawley-Lowry is a pastor in Michigan.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: PhoobarID

07-28-2010 @ 7:07pm

That's Beck's problem: No real practical solutions. Beck's situation...along with anyone in the public eye...is not to come up with any solution. They're there to drive the ratings. Having been "in the business" off/on for about 20 years...it's all about ego and nothing else. As long as Beck has the attention he can get...he's got the only solution he needs. To quote Dirty Harry..."He's a legend in his own mind."

by: PhoobarID

07-28-2010 @ 7:07pm

That's Beck's problem: No real practical solutions. Beck's situation...along with anyone in the public eye...is not to come up with any solution. They're there to drive the ratings. Having been "in the business" off/on for about 20 years...it's all about ego and nothing else. As long as Beck has the attention he can get...he's got the only solution he needs. To quote Dirty Harry..."He's a legend in his own mind."

by: Patricia

07-28-2010 @ 6:59pm

I get snarky sometimes, too :).

But, it doesn't help your point (or mine, when I succomb) to resort to those kinds of attacks - just hands over on a silver platter a nice juicy reason not to be taken seriously.

by: Patricia

07-28-2010 @ 6:59pm

I get snarky sometimes, too :).

But, it doesn't help your point (or mine, when I succomb) to resort to those kinds of attacks - just hands over on a silver platter a nice juicy reason not to be taken seriously.

by: rustys1

07-29-2010 @ 7:53pm

"Name one conservative who was involved or even a supporter [of the Civil Rights Movement]."

Since your google seems to be down:

Here are a few conservatives/republicans/GOPers/right-wingers/whatever you'd like to call them, that voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, just to name a few:

- Everett Dirksen of Illinois (rallied for Taft (con) over Dewey (lib))
- Carl Curtis of Nebraska (anti FDR, Pro Civil Rights, ally to Nixon)
- Roman Hruska of Nebraska (known as a "vocal conservative")
- John Cooper of Kentucky (lib repub, opposed McCarthy, antiwar)
- Karl Mundt of South Dakota (vocal against KKK, anti communist)
...and over 80% of the party in 1964.

Why did I choose these? Because they fall all over the political spectrum of "republicans". Some were moderates, some "right-wingers".

Let me focus on Everett Dirksen. He was essential in the passage of the bill.

"After successfully defeating the eighty-three-day filibuster, Dirksen, when asked how he had become a crusader in this cause, replied, "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind." - http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht319648.html

On June 12, 1964, Roy Wilkins, Executive Secretary of the NAACP, wrote to Dirksen about his support for civil rights:

"it is significant that 27 of the 33 Republican senators voted for cloture...a better than 4-1 vote by republican senators. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sends its thanks to you for your vote...Your leadership of the Republican party in the senate at this turning point will become a significant part of the history of this century." - http://www.congresslink.org/civil/cr19.gif

See Deacon, in 1964 the NAACP wanted to be sure people like you didn't distort the record.

At the vote for cloture on the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, Dirksen had this to say:

"Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied." - http://www.congresslink.org/civil/cr16.gif

So, this is called a nuanced reading of history. "Some conservatives supported civil rights legislation and others did not". Your wild generalizations are hurtful and inherently inaccurate.

Please don't ignore everything stated above and just focus on what I am about to say...

I believe Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Michael Steele, Giuliani, MYSELF, and many other conservatives today are adamant supporters of civil rights! We just don't buy into the Sharpton/Jackson mockery of the civil rights movement.

Again, nuance matters. Thanks for asking.

by: spiltteeth

07-28-2010 @ 6:15pm

Glenn Beck says he's continuing Martin Luther King jr's legacy; lets bring his attention to these quotes by MLK ;

"something is wrong ... with capitalism ... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."
Martin Luther King

"...capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small-hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that, like Dives before Lazarus, they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity." -Martin Luther King

by: spiltteeth

07-28-2010 @ 6:15pm

Glenn Beck says he's continuing Martin Luther King jr's legacy; lets bring his attention to these quotes by MLK ;

"something is wrong ... with capitalism ... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."
Martin Luther King

"...capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small-hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that, like Dives before Lazarus, they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity." -Martin Luther King

by: BlueDeacon

07-30-2010 @ 12:26am

If you're still going to maintain that stance, then you truly do not understand the history of the modern conservative movement, which was in part inspired by the backlash against the civil-rights movement, which the piece I linked to a previous post clearly indicated. The likes of William F. Buckley Jr. opposed it (though he eventually repented), and (as I mentioned earlier) Ronald Reagan ignored it -- and indeed ran racist campaigns for both California governor and U.S. president.

by: BlueDeacon

07-30-2010 @ 12:26am

If you're still going to maintain that stance, then you truly do not understand the history of the modern conservative movement, which was in part inspired by the backlash against the civil-rights movement, which the piece I linked to a previous post clearly indicated. The likes of William F. Buckley Jr. opposed it (though he eventually repented), and (as I mentioned earlier) Ronald Reagan ignored it -- and indeed ran racist campaigns for both California governor and U.S. president.

by: BlueDeacon

07-30-2010 @ 12:55am

One other thing: "Conservatives" in that day were more than willing to work with those who didn't agree with them. Not today, however, and certainly not since Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House -- today's conservatives have lost the art of governing, preferring to maintain a state of perpetual war. (And no, you can't blame "liberals" for that state of affairs.)

by: BlueDeacon

07-30-2010 @ 12:55am

One other thing: "Conservatives" in that day were more than willing to work with those who didn't agree with them. Not today, however, and certainly not since Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House -- today's conservatives have lost the art of governing, preferring to maintain a state of perpetual war. (And no, you can't blame "liberals" for that state of affairs.)

by: nuclearferret

07-29-2010 @ 10:23pm

I will wager the author supports building a mosque near the site of the Islamo-fascist attacks in New York City...but Glenn Beck having a little rally on PUBLIC land in a properly permitted manner is a cause for anger and grief? MLK was a minister carrying out his ministry on Federal property...where's the hallowed separation of church and state?

by: nuclearferret

07-29-2010 @ 10:18pm

Wow, equating opponents to Bill Clinton to "terrorists."

by: BlueDeacon

07-29-2010 @ 10:42pm

Well, in one sense they were.

by: BlueDeacon

07-29-2010 @ 10:41pm

1) That's not a mosque going up two blocks from Ground Zero -- it's a community center sponsored by a specific Muslim community.

2) MLK Jr. didn't represent a certain church or Christian denomination and in fact had left the ministry at that point.

3) Beck is trying to portray himself as a true acolyte of Dr. King when in fact he opposes everything he stands for.

by: BlueDeacon

07-29-2010 @ 10:39pm

And every last one of those "conservative Republicans" would have been considered traitors and RINOs by today's standards. They might not even been welcome in the GOP.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-30-2010 @ 2:43am

The conservatives are under the illusion that they reflect average American "values". America has drastically changed since the time that Goldwater/Nixon cynicism worked. One thing that rusty is right about is the loss of homogeneity of voting blocks. The one thing that liberals can take heart from is that the poison of Nixon has corrupted his descendants like Rove such that they think that the old politics (values?) will still work. The reason that Faux/Limbaugh are useful idiots is that they continue to fuel that myth so that Obama and the other Dems that "get it" can spank them again come election time.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-30-2010 @ 2:43am

The conservatives are under the illusion that they reflect average American "values". America has drastically changed since the time that Goldwater/Nixon cynicism worked. One thing that rusty is right about is the loss of homogeneity of voting blocks. The one thing that liberals can take heart from is that the poison of Nixon has corrupted his descendants like Rove such that they think that the old politics (values?) will still work. The reason that Faux/Limbaugh are useful idiots is that they continue to fuel that myth so that Obama and the other Dems that "get it" can spank them again come election time.

by: rustys1

07-29-2010 @ 11:30pm

False.

Dirksen, Curtis, Hruska, and Mundt are clearly conservative by today's standards. Cooper might be "considered" a "RINO" but that proves my point!

You can't typecast vast groups of people as uniformly one way or the other. There is variation and nuance in the views of conservatives/ republicans/ right-wingers/ GOPers etc.

Hence my point; "some conservatives supported civil rights legislation and others did not". The righteousness of the civil rights movement does not belong to any one party or group of people.

This conservative will celebrate civil rights no matter what box you try to place me in. On August 28 or any other day.

by: BlueDeacon

07-30-2010 @ 12:26am

If you're still going to maintain that stance, then you truly do not understand the history of the modern conservative movement, which was in part inspired by the backlash against the civil-rights movement, which the piece I linked to a previous post clearly indicated. The likes of William F. Buckley Jr. opposed it (though he eventually repented), and (as I mentioned earlier) Ronald Reagan ignored it -- and indeed ran racist campaigns for both California governor and U.S. president.

by: BlueDeacon

07-30-2010 @ 12:55am

One other thing: "Conservatives" in that day were more than willing to work with those who didn't agree with them. Not today, however, and certainly not since Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House -- today's conservatives have lost the art of governing, preferring to maintain a state of perpetual war. (And no, you can't blame "liberals" for that state of affairs.)

by: BlueDeacon

07-28-2010 @ 11:10pm

Does that apply to Glenn Beck? Because he's made a career out of "creating controversy because [others] hold a different viewpoint and therefore [choosing] not to respect the viewpoint of others."

by: BlueDeacon

07-28-2010 @ 11:10pm

Does that apply to Glenn Beck? Because he's made a career out of "creating controversy because [others] hold a different viewpoint and therefore [choosing] not to respect the viewpoint of others."

by: judithod

07-28-2010 @ 11:01pm

All Americans have a right to celebrate civil rights and to obtain permits for events at the Lincoln Memorial. So tired of people creating controversy because they hold a different viewpoint and therefore choose not to respect the viewpoint of others.

What would Hawley-Lowry's reaction be if those Lincoln Memorial events for which she'd obtained permits been disrupted or disrespected?

by: judithod

07-28-2010 @ 11:01pm

All Americans have a right to celebrate civil rights and to obtain permits for events at the Lincoln Memorial. So tired of people creating controversy because they hold a different viewpoint and therefore choose not to respect the viewpoint of others.

What would Hawley-Lowry's reaction be if those Lincoln Memorial events for which she'd obtained permits been disrupted or disrespected?

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-30-2010 @ 2:43am

The conservatives are under the illusion that they reflect average American "values". America has drastically changed since the time that Goldwater/Nixon cynicism worked. One thing that rusty is right about is the loss of homogeneity of voting blocks. The one thing that liberals can take heart from is that the poison of Nixon has corrupted his descendants like Rove such that they think that the old politics (values?) will still work. The reason that Faux/Limbaugh are useful idiots is that they continue to fuel that myth so that Obama and the other Dems that "get it" can spank them again come election time.

by: judithod

07-29-2010 @ 12:40am

You have the right to make an "assumption" about Beck's intent, but you don't have the right to charge that he's "besmirching" or "mocking" the civil-rights movement unless you have facts to prove that charge.

by: judithod

07-29-2010 @ 12:40am

You have the right to make an "assumption" about Beck's intent, but you don't have the right to charge that he's "besmirching" or "mocking" the civil-rights movement unless you have facts to prove that charge.

by: BlueDeacon

07-29-2010 @ 12:23am

It's not Glenn Beck or any other man we fear -- it's just that so many right-wing personalities that Christians swear by are actually influenced by the devil.

by: BlueDeacon

07-29-2010 @ 12:23am

It's not Glenn Beck or any other man we fear -- it's just that so many right-wing personalities that Christians swear by are actually influenced by the devil.

by: Patricia

07-29-2010 @ 12:23am

Well, if THAT'S what you hear, I suggest a good long ear rinse to rid yourself of your hearing distortion, because that's not what anyone here is saying!

Perhaps what you are really hearing is your own voices?

by: Patricia

07-29-2010 @ 12:23am

Well, if THAT'S what you hear, I suggest a good long ear rinse to rid yourself of your hearing distortion, because that's not what anyone here is saying!

Perhaps what you are really hearing is your own voices?

by: BlueDeacon

07-29-2010 @ 12:22am

However, as Americans and students of history, we also have the right to say that he's besmirching (in essence, mocking) the civil-rights movement -- remember that he deliberately chose the date of Aug. 28, which is the anniversary for the March for Jobs and Freedom.

by: BlueDeacon

07-29-2010 @ 12:22am

However, as Americans and students of history, we also have the right to say that he's besmirching (in essence, mocking) the civil-rights movement -- remember that he deliberately chose the date of Aug. 28, which is the anniversary for the March for Jobs and Freedom.

by: judithod

07-29-2010 @ 12:11am

Glenn Beck is an American, and he has right to exercise free speech and to express his viewpoint. Likewise, we can choose to listen or not to Glenn Beck or any other "cable personality." Actually, whether these personalities are on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, they're all paid to present their viewpoints. My preference is for the print media since I can do without the shouting and smirks employed by the personalities.

by: judithod

07-29-2010 @ 12:11am

Glenn Beck is an American, and he has right to exercise free speech and to express his viewpoint. Likewise, we can choose to listen or not to Glenn Beck or any other "cable personality." Actually, whether these personalities are on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, they're all paid to present their viewpoints. My preference is for the print media since I can do without the shouting and smirks employed by the personalities.

by: tomerickson

07-28-2010 @ 11:54pm

Hey,Folks, I would be afraid of Glenn Beck, too, if I feared the truth. The agonizing about Beck is an indication of the values from Sojourners. It will always be that way as long as our world-views are different. I see it as a struggle between personal salvation and collective salvation. On this blog I continue to hear "Release Barrabas!"

by: tomerickson

07-28-2010 @ 11:54pm

Hey,Folks, I would be afraid of Glenn Beck, too, if I feared the truth. The agonizing about Beck is an indication of the values from Sojourners. It will always be that way as long as our world-views are different. I see it as a struggle between personal salvation and collective salvation. On this blog I continue to hear "Release Barrabas!"

by: skoopsl8

07-27-2010 @ 6:32pm

I am one of the least likely to believe anything Glenn Beck says. I have seen him mislead as well as ignore context hundreds of times. I believe Mr. Beck is hoodwinking much of the American populace.
However, if Mr. Beck says "There will be absolutely no politics involved," he is setting us -- those who reject his rhetoric and his prejudicial politics -- up for failure. The best way for those of us who firmly believe in the honorable goal of social justice is to attend and be willing to participate and call out Mr. Beck if (when) he delves into his divisive rhetoric. Let us give him a chance to reconcile himself -- if we do not, it only adds ammunition to his arsenal.
Those of us who cannot be in D.C. that day must still be vigilant and pray that Mr. Beck has a truly transformative experience. If that happens, we can rejoice. If it does not, we must continue to publicly call him out for the hateful, selfish and greedy politics he continues to proclaim.

by: drdon

07-30-2010 @ 11:41am

Lincoln never said that. You can check it out on Snopes.com. Anyway I don't know what this hoary chestnut is doing in what seems to me so far to be a thoughtful discussion about how Christians should react to Beck co-opting the Lincoln Memorial for purposes of his own. If it's meant to somehow link Beck's messages to Lincoln's, well--read what is says on Snopes.com

by: drdon

07-30-2010 @ 11:41am

Lincoln never said that. You can check it out on Snopes.com. Anyway I don't know what this hoary chestnut is doing in what seems to me so far to be a thoughtful discussion about how Christians should react to Beck co-opting the Lincoln Memorial for purposes of his own. If it's meant to somehow link Beck's messages to Lincoln's, well--read what is says on Snopes.com

by: grazorblade

07-27-2010 @ 7:13pm

what do we need to do? What would Jesus do? Hyperpartisanship is even worse than the policies and theology that beck stands for. We need to think of the kindest things people can do at the august 28th to the people at the memorial, bring flowers, bring presents and pray for them. Maybe no one will change their theology or views, but who knows, maybe some deep rifts might get healed

by: Ngchen

07-27-2010 @ 7:20pm

Here's another possibility. The thing about extremists is that they ultimately seek high after high, getting more and more extreme. Eventually, they flame out! Their supporters get more and more fervent, while their numbers go down as more and more people reach a point where they wake up and realize that they've been wrong.

I have a feeling that the current GOP is in serious danger of flaming-out. I do wish it were otherwise; having a quality opposition party is good for society. So maybe the smartest thing to do is to ignore the extremists for the most part, and wait for the flame out.

by: hillbilly66

07-29-2010 @ 1:15am

Thanks. I knew that. But I left out a comma, and as a result it appears that the racist campaign in Tenn (still don't remember names except the African American candidate that was defeated was Ford.

these are just two examples of the modern Republican Party playing the race card.

by: hillbilly66

07-29-2010 @ 1:15am

Thanks. I knew that. But I left out a comma, and as a result it appears that the racist campaign in Tenn (still don't remember names except the African American candidate that was defeated was Ford.

these are just two examples of the modern Republican Party playing the race card.

by: drdon

07-30-2010 @ 11:41am

Lincoln never said that. You can check it out on Snopes.com. Anyway I don't know what this hoary chestnut is doing in what seems to me so far to be a thoughtful discussion about how Christians should react to Beck co-opting the Lincoln Memorial for purposes of his own. If it's meant to somehow link Beck's messages to Lincoln's, well--read what is says on Snopes.com

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 9:18pm

"a lot of good-hearted Christians have been taken in by his rhetoric - people whom I perceived had the capacity for critical thought but who are taken in by his gentle conversations with Alveda King, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece (aired on July 16)."

...this is just more partisan arrogance from the left. Forget arguing the finer points based on merit, just claim the other side is stupid and being duped.

By the way, that July 16 interview was one of the most uplifting and positive conversations I've seen on TV in a long while. But then again, maybe I'm just dim-witted and lack critical thinking skills.

by: pcnot4me

07-27-2010 @ 9:02pm

More Beck bashing. I am so shocked

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 8:50pm

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who came by my job a couple of years ago, then noted that "Terrorists always overplay their hand." That's why Bill Clinton was able to outwit the folks who were gunning for him even before he was elected.

But more to the point, you simply can't sustain a movement based upon defeating "the other" -- at some point you have to come up with a responsible plan of your own. That's been the problem with the Republican Party over the last three decades; it knew how to win elections but proved completely inept in actually governing. That's Beck's problem: No real practical solutions.

by: skoopsl8

07-27-2010 @ 6:32pm

I am one of the least likely to believe anything Glenn Beck says. I have seen him mislead as well as ignore context hundreds of times. I believe Mr. Beck is hoodwinking much of the American populace.
However, if Mr. Beck says "There will be absolutely no politics involved," he is setting us -- those who reject his rhetoric and his prejudicial politics -- up for failure. The best way for those of us who firmly believe in the honorable goal of social justice is to attend and be willing to participate and call out Mr. Beck if (when) he delves into his divisive rhetoric. Let us give him a chance to reconcile himself -- if we do not, it only adds ammunition to his arsenal.
Those of us who cannot be in D.C. that day must still be vigilant and pray that Mr. Beck has a truly transformative experience. If that happens, we can rejoice. If it does not, we must continue to publicly call him out for the hateful, selfish and greedy politics he continues to proclaim.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: skoopsl8

07-27-2010 @ 6:32pm

I am one of the least likely to believe anything Glenn Beck says. I have seen him mislead as well as ignore context hundreds of times. I believe Mr. Beck is hoodwinking much of the American populace.
However, if Mr. Beck says "There will be absolutely no politics involved," he is setting us -- those who reject his rhetoric and his prejudicial politics -- up for failure. The best way for those of us who firmly believe in the honorable goal of social justice is to attend and be willing to participate and call out Mr. Beck if (when) he delves into his divisive rhetoric. Let us give him a chance to reconcile himself -- if we do not, it only adds ammunition to his arsenal.
Those of us who cannot be in D.C. that day must still be vigilant and pray that Mr. Beck has a truly transformative experience. If that happens, we can rejoice. If it does not, we must continue to publicly call him out for the hateful, selfish and greedy politics he continues to proclaim.

by: skoopsl8

07-27-2010 @ 6:32pm

I am one of the least likely to believe anything Glenn Beck says. I have seen him mislead as well as ignore context hundreds of times. I believe Mr. Beck is hoodwinking much of the American populace.
However, if Mr. Beck says "There will be absolutely no politics involved," he is setting us -- those who reject his rhetoric and his prejudicial politics -- up for failure. The best way for those of us who firmly believe in the honorable goal of social justice is to attend and be willing to participate and call out Mr. Beck if (when) he delves into his divisive rhetoric. Let us give him a chance to reconcile himself -- if we do not, it only adds ammunition to his arsenal.
Those of us who cannot be in D.C. that day must still be vigilant and pray that Mr. Beck has a truly transformative experience. If that happens, we can rejoice. If it does not, we must continue to publicly call him out for the hateful, selfish and greedy politics he continues to proclaim.

by: skoopsl8

07-27-2010 @ 6:32pm

I am one of the least likely to believe anything Glenn Beck says. I have seen him mislead as well as ignore context hundreds of times. I believe Mr. Beck is hoodwinking much of the American populace.
However, if Mr. Beck says "There will be absolutely no politics involved," he is setting us -- those who reject his rhetoric and his prejudicial politics -- up for failure. The best way for those of us who firmly believe in the honorable goal of social justice is to attend and be willing to participate and call out Mr. Beck if (when) he delves into his divisive rhetoric. Let us give him a chance to reconcile himself -- if we do not, it only adds ammunition to his arsenal.
Those of us who cannot be in D.C. that day must still be vigilant and pray that Mr. Beck has a truly transformative experience. If that happens, we can rejoice. If it does not, we must continue to publicly call him out for the hateful, selfish and greedy politics he continues to proclaim.

by: grazorblade

07-27-2010 @ 7:13pm

what do we need to do? What would Jesus do? Hyperpartisanship is even worse than the policies and theology that beck stands for. We need to think of the kindest things people can do at the august 28th to the people at the memorial, bring flowers, bring presents and pray for them. Maybe no one will change their theology or views, but who knows, maybe some deep rifts might get healed

by: grazorblade

07-27-2010 @ 7:13pm

what do we need to do? What would Jesus do? Hyperpartisanship is even worse than the policies and theology that beck stands for. We need to think of the kindest things people can do at the august 28th to the people at the memorial, bring flowers, bring presents and pray for them. Maybe no one will change their theology or views, but who knows, maybe some deep rifts might get healed

by: grazorblade

07-27-2010 @ 7:13pm

what do we need to do? What would Jesus do? Hyperpartisanship is even worse than the policies and theology that beck stands for. We need to think of the kindest things people can do at the august 28th to the people at the memorial, bring flowers, bring presents and pray for them. Maybe no one will change their theology or views, but who knows, maybe some deep rifts might get healed

by: Ngchen

07-27-2010 @ 7:20pm

Here's another possibility. The thing about extremists is that they ultimately seek high after high, getting more and more extreme. Eventually, they flame out! Their supporters get more and more fervent, while their numbers go down as more and more people reach a point where they wake up and realize that they've been wrong.

I have a feeling that the current GOP is in serious danger of flaming-out. I do wish it were otherwise; having a quality opposition party is good for society. So maybe the smartest thing to do is to ignore the extremists for the most part, and wait for the flame out.

by: Ngchen

07-27-2010 @ 7:20pm

Here's another possibility. The thing about extremists is that they ultimately seek high after high, getting more and more extreme. Eventually, they flame out! Their supporters get more and more fervent, while their numbers go down as more and more people reach a point where they wake up and realize that they've been wrong.

I have a feeling that the current GOP is in serious danger of flaming-out. I do wish it were otherwise; having a quality opposition party is good for society. So maybe the smartest thing to do is to ignore the extremists for the most part, and wait for the flame out.

by: Ngchen

07-27-2010 @ 7:20pm

Here's another possibility. The thing about extremists is that they ultimately seek high after high, getting more and more extreme. Eventually, they flame out! Their supporters get more and more fervent, while their numbers go down as more and more people reach a point where they wake up and realize that they've been wrong.

I have a feeling that the current GOP is in serious danger of flaming-out. I do wish it were otherwise; having a quality opposition party is good for society. So maybe the smartest thing to do is to ignore the extremists for the most part, and wait for the flame out.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 8:50pm

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who came by my job a couple of years ago, then noted that "Terrorists always overplay their hand." That's why Bill Clinton was able to outwit the folks who were gunning for him even before he was elected.

But more to the point, you simply can't sustain a movement based upon defeating "the other" -- at some point you have to come up with a responsible plan of your own. That's been the problem with the Republican Party over the last three decades; it knew how to win elections but proved completely inept in actually governing. That's Beck's problem: No real practical solutions.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 8:50pm

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who came by my job a couple of years ago, then noted that "Terrorists always overplay their hand." That's why Bill Clinton was able to outwit the folks who were gunning for him even before he was elected.

But more to the point, you simply can't sustain a movement based upon defeating "the other" -- at some point you have to come up with a responsible plan of your own. That's been the problem with the Republican Party over the last three decades; it knew how to win elections but proved completely inept in actually governing. That's Beck's problem: No real practical solutions.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 8:50pm

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who came by my job a couple of years ago, then noted that "Terrorists always overplay their hand." That's why Bill Clinton was able to outwit the folks who were gunning for him even before he was elected.

But more to the point, you simply can't sustain a movement based upon defeating "the other" -- at some point you have to come up with a responsible plan of your own. That's been the problem with the Republican Party over the last three decades; it knew how to win elections but proved completely inept in actually governing. That's Beck's problem: No real practical solutions.

by: pcnot4me

07-27-2010 @ 9:02pm

More Beck bashing. I am so shocked

by: pcnot4me

07-27-2010 @ 9:02pm

More Beck bashing. I am so shocked

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 9:18pm

"a lot of good-hearted Christians have been taken in by his rhetoric - people whom I perceived had the capacity for critical thought but who are taken in by his gentle conversations with Alveda King, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece (aired on July 16)."

...this is just more partisan arrogance from the left. Forget arguing the finer points based on merit, just claim the other side is stupid and being duped.

By the way, that July 16 interview was one of the most uplifting and positive conversations I've seen on TV in a long while. But then again, maybe I'm just dim-witted and lack critical thinking skills.

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 9:18pm

"a lot of good-hearted Christians have been taken in by his rhetoric - people whom I perceived had the capacity for critical thought but who are taken in by his gentle conversations with Alveda King, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece (aired on July 16)."

...this is just more partisan arrogance from the left. Forget arguing the finer points based on merit, just claim the other side is stupid and being duped.

By the way, that July 16 interview was one of the most uplifting and positive conversations I've seen on TV in a long while. But then again, maybe I'm just dim-witted and lack critical thinking skills.

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 9:18pm

"a lot of good-hearted Christians have been taken in by his rhetoric - people whom I perceived had the capacity for critical thought but who are taken in by his gentle conversations with Alveda King, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece (aired on July 16)."

...this is just more partisan arrogance from the left. Forget arguing the finer points based on merit, just claim the other side is stupid and being duped.

By the way, that July 16 interview was one of the most uplifting and positive conversations I've seen on TV in a long while. But then again, maybe I'm just dim-witted and lack critical thinking skills.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 9:32pm

Arveda King's politics, I understand, are pretty hard right, while her uncle's were hard left. Here's the context: Numerous conservatives have tried to rewrite history to suggest that they were the true soldiers in the civil-rights movement when in fact the only thing most of them had to do with it was to oppose it.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 9:32pm

Arveda King's politics, I understand, are pretty hard right, while her uncle's were hard left. Here's the context: Numerous conservatives have tried to rewrite history to suggest that they were the true soldiers in the civil-rights movement when in fact the only thing most of them had to do with it was to oppose it.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 9:32pm

Arveda King's politics, I understand, are pretty hard right, while her uncle's were hard left. Here's the context: Numerous conservatives have tried to rewrite history to suggest that they were the true soldiers in the civil-rights movement when in fact the only thing most of them had to do with it was to oppose it.

by: letjusticerolldown

07-27-2010 @ 10:01pm

I think Glenn Beck is at his peak. I think he demonstrates the possibility to change and grow. I think he also pushes the boundry of sanity. He could turn the corner and walk his audience into something productive. He could walk off a cliff. He could start a long slow demise.

Arveda King demonstrates the kind of open door that gracious and forgiving black Christians have long opened for white folk. Will he step through, listen and change? Will he simply look for his own redemption? Will he step through and try to manipulate it to some sick end??

Which path do we really want him to take? Are we willing to pray and love him to that end?

Personally--I will pray. But I also shut him off long ago. I think his internal dialogue and reality is sick. Not all voices with something good to say should be entrusted with our public dialogue. Beck is one who should shut down himself

by: letjusticerolldown

07-27-2010 @ 10:01pm

I think Glenn Beck is at his peak. I think he demonstrates the possibility to change and grow. I think he also pushes the boundry of sanity. He could turn the corner and walk his audience into something productive. He could walk off a cliff. He could start a long slow demise.

Arveda King demonstrates the kind of open door that gracious and forgiving black Christians have long opened for white folk. Will he step through, listen and change? Will he simply look for his own redemption? Will he step through and try to manipulate it to some sick end??

Which path do we really want him to take? Are we willing to pray and love him to that end?

Personally--I will pray. But I also shut him off long ago. I think his internal dialogue and reality is sick. Not all voices with something good to say should be entrusted with our public dialogue. Beck is one who should shut down himself

by: letjusticerolldown

07-27-2010 @ 10:01pm

I think Glenn Beck is at his peak. I think he demonstrates the possibility to change and grow. I think he also pushes the boundry of sanity. He could turn the corner and walk his audience into something productive. He could walk off a cliff. He could start a long slow demise.

Arveda King demonstrates the kind of open door that gracious and forgiving black Christians have long opened for white folk. Will he step through, listen and change? Will he simply look for his own redemption? Will he step through and try to manipulate it to some sick end??

Which path do we really want him to take? Are we willing to pray and love him to that end?

Personally--I will pray. But I also shut him off long ago. I think his internal dialogue and reality is sick. Not all voices with something good to say should be entrusted with our public dialogue. Beck is one who should shut down himself

by: umc

07-27-2010 @ 10:32pm

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Abraham Lincoln

by: umc

07-27-2010 @ 10:32pm

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Abraham Lincoln

by: umc

07-27-2010 @ 10:32pm

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Abraham Lincoln

by: RyanKeen

07-27-2010 @ 10:51pm

I'd suggest using the day to do acts of social justice. Some sort of counter demonstration might make the news and be in the minds of people who saw it or the newscast for a few days. But helping someone you know or donating your day to a cause that promotes Christ's values will probably have a much greater impact on people's lives.

by: RyanKeen

07-27-2010 @ 10:51pm

I'd suggest using the day to do acts of social justice. Some sort of counter demonstration might make the news and be in the minds of people who saw it or the newscast for a few days. But helping someone you know or donating your day to a cause that promotes Christ's values will probably have a much greater impact on people's lives.

by: RyanKeen

07-27-2010 @ 10:51pm

I'd suggest using the day to do acts of social justice. Some sort of counter demonstration might make the news and be in the minds of people who saw it or the newscast for a few days. But helping someone you know or donating your day to a cause that promotes Christ's values will probably have a much greater impact on people's lives.

by: Patricia

07-27-2010 @ 10:56pm

Well, since no one here (except in the fevered minds of the FOX-o-sphere and the "right") is advocating any of these things, I guess we're all safe then!

Next!

by: Patricia

07-27-2010 @ 10:56pm

Well, since no one here (except in the fevered minds of the FOX-o-sphere and the "right") is advocating any of these things, I guess we're all safe then!

Next!

by: Patricia

07-27-2010 @ 10:56pm

Well, since no one here (except in the fevered minds of the FOX-o-sphere and the "right") is advocating any of these things, I guess we're all safe then!

Next!

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:10pm

It's interesting that, in the eyes of some, he violated some of those rules by trying to destroy slavery. So take that for what you will.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:10pm

It's interesting that, in the eyes of some, he violated some of those rules by trying to destroy slavery. So take that for what you will.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:10pm

It's interesting that, in the eyes of some, he violated some of those rules by trying to destroy slavery. So take that for what you will.

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 11:11pm

Her name is Alveda.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

House Democrats in favor - 61%
House Republicans in favor - 80%

Senate Democrats in favor - 69%
Senate Republicans in favor - 82%

But I'm sure you'll discredit these conservatives claiming they were just pandering for votes and "power" (I know how you like to claim that those who disagree with you are just power-hungry).

I'm not going to make wild generalizations like some here like to do, I'll just respond with the facts that clearly point out that some conservatives were true soldiers and some were not.

I'm sure you'll follow this post with some kind of personal knowledge statement and how you're personal experiences should be our standard for understanding the world...or you'll fall back on your "I am the media" credential, and should therefore be listened to as the arbiter of truth (our opinions are important, but they are just that, opinions).

I for one, cherish the legacy of Dr. King, and take every opportunity to celebrate the honor and human dignity for which he stood.

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 11:11pm

Her name is Alveda.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

House Democrats in favor - 61%
House Republicans in favor - 80%

Senate Democrats in favor - 69%
Senate Republicans in favor - 82%

But I'm sure you'll discredit these conservatives claiming they were just pandering for votes and "power" (I know how you like to claim that those who disagree with you are just power-hungry).

I'm not going to make wild generalizations like some here like to do, I'll just respond with the facts that clearly point out that some conservatives were true soldiers and some were not.

I'm sure you'll follow this post with some kind of personal knowledge statement and how you're personal experiences should be our standard for understanding the world...or you'll fall back on your "I am the media" credential, and should therefore be listened to as the arbiter of truth (our opinions are important, but they are just that, opinions).

I for one, cherish the legacy of Dr. King, and take every opportunity to celebrate the honor and human dignity for which he stood.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:26pm

It's a popular pastime among conservatives to note Democratic opposition to such bills, but they ignore one thing: Virtually all of the Democrats who voted against them were in the South, and in 1966 the Republican Party, where the modern conservative movement was gaining steam, actually had begun to recruit Southern racists who didn't take kindly to the national Democratic Party's commitment to civil rights; it's for this reason that LBJ, upon signing it, famously remarked, "I have just lost the South for a generation." By the early 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president (and he dissed MLK Jr. upon his assassination), the changeover was complete.

In other words, quit distorting history.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:26pm

It's a popular pastime among conservatives to note Democratic opposition to such bills, but they ignore one thing: Virtually all of the Democrats who voted against them were in the South, and in 1966 the Republican Party, where the modern conservative movement was gaining steam, actually had begun to recruit Southern racists who didn't take kindly to the national Democratic Party's commitment to civil rights; it's for this reason that LBJ, upon signing it, famously remarked, "I have just lost the South for a generation." By the early 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president (and he dissed MLK Jr. upon his assassination), the changeover was complete.

In other words, quit distorting history.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:26pm

It's a popular pastime among conservatives to note Democratic opposition to such bills, but they ignore one thing: Virtually all of the Democrats who voted against them were in the South, and in 1966 the Republican Party, where the modern conservative movement was gaining steam, actually had begun to recruit Southern racists who didn't take kindly to the national Democratic Party's commitment to civil rights; it's for this reason that LBJ, upon signing it, famously remarked, "I have just lost the South for a generation." By the early 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president (and he dissed MLK Jr. upon his assassination), the changeover was complete.

In other words, quit distorting history.

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 11:35pm

I like the quote but it wasn't Lincoln, it was Rev. William Boetcker a Presbyterian minister and public speaker in 1916.

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 11:35pm

I like the quote but it wasn't Lincoln, it was Rev. William Boetcker a Presbyterian minister and public speaker in 1916.

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 11:35pm

I like the quote but it wasn't Lincoln, it was Rev. William Boetcker a Presbyterian minister and public speaker in 1916.

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 11:42pm

Ah, the vast right-wing conspiracy rears it's head again.

Thanks, arbiter-o-truth, where would I be without your version of history?

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 11:42pm

Ah, the vast right-wing conspiracy rears it's head again.

Thanks, arbiter-o-truth, where would I be without your version of history?

by: rustys1

07-27-2010 @ 11:42pm

Ah, the vast right-wing conspiracy rears it's head again.

Thanks, arbiter-o-truth, where would I be without your version of history?

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:57pm

Thanks, arbiter-o-truth, where would I be without your version of history?

A lot further than you are now, truth be told. From "The Fall of Conservatism" by George Packer -- this appeared in 2008 in the New Yorker:

"From Day One, Nixon and I talked about creating a new majority," [Pat] Buchanan told me recently, sitting in the library of his Greek-revival house in McLean, Virginia, on a secluded lane bordering the fenced grounds of the Central Intelligence Agency. "What we talked about, basically, was shearing off huge segments of F.D.R.'s New Deal coalition, which L.B.J. had held together: Northern Catholic ethnics and Southern Protestant conservatives-what we called the Daley-Rizzo Democrats in the North and, frankly, the Wallace Democrats in the South." Buchanan grew up in Washington, D.C., among the first group-men like his father, an accountant and a father of nine, who had supported Roosevelt but also revered Joseph McCarthy. The Southerners were the kind of men whom Nixon whipped into a frenzy one night in the fall of 1966, at the Wade Hampton Hotel, in Columbia, South Carolina. Nixon, who was then a partner in a New York law firm, had travelled there with Buchanan on behalf of Republican congressional candidates. Buchanan recalls that the room was full of sweat, cigar smoke, and rage; the rhetoric, which was about patriotism and law and order, "burned the paint off the walls." As they left the hotel, Nixon said, "This is the future of this Party, right here in the South."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/0...

Now, this is straight from the horse's mouth. Your belief and statement that the civil-rights movement was supported by conservatives is thus utterly bogus.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:57pm

Thanks, arbiter-o-truth, where would I be without your version of history?

A lot further than you are now, truth be told. From "The Fall of Conservatism" by George Packer -- this appeared in 2008 in the New Yorker:

"From Day One, Nixon and I talked about creating a new majority," [Pat] Buchanan told me recently, sitting in the library of his Greek-revival house in McLean, Virginia, on a secluded lane bordering the fenced grounds of the Central Intelligence Agency. "What we talked about, basically, was shearing off huge segments of F.D.R.'s New Deal coalition, which L.B.J. had held together: Northern Catholic ethnics and Southern Protestant conservatives-what we called the Daley-Rizzo Democrats in the North and, frankly, the Wallace Democrats in the South." Buchanan grew up in Washington, D.C., among the first group-men like his father, an accountant and a father of nine, who had supported Roosevelt but also revered Joseph McCarthy. The Southerners were the kind of men whom Nixon whipped into a frenzy one night in the fall of 1966, at the Wade Hampton Hotel, in Columbia, South Carolina. Nixon, who was then a partner in a New York law firm, had travelled there with Buchanan on behalf of Republican congressional candidates. Buchanan recalls that the room was full of sweat, cigar smoke, and rage; the rhetoric, which was about patriotism and law and order, "burned the paint off the walls." As they left the hotel, Nixon said, "This is the future of this Party, right here in the South."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/0...

Now, this is straight from the horse's mouth. Your belief and statement that the civil-rights movement was supported by conservatives is thus utterly bogus.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2010 @ 11:57pm

Thanks, arbiter-o-truth, where would I be without your version of history?

A lot further than you are now, truth be told. From "The Fall of Conservatism" by George Packer -- this appeared in 2008 in the New Yorker:

"From Day One, Nixon and I talked about creating a new majority," [Pat] Buchanan told me recently, sitting in the library of his Greek-revival house in McLean, Virginia, on a secluded lane bordering the fenced grounds of the Central Intelligence Agency. "What we talked about, basically, was shearing off huge segments of F.D.R.'s New Deal coalition, which L.B.J. had held together: Northern Catholic ethnics and Southern Protestant conservatives-what we called the Daley-Rizzo Democrats in the North and, frankly, the Wallace Democrats in the South." Buchanan grew up in Washington, D.C., among the first group-men like his father, an accountant and a father of nine, who had supported Roosevelt but also revered Joseph McCarthy. The Southerners were the kind of men whom Nixon whipped into a frenzy one night in the fall of 1966, at the Wade Hampton Hotel, in Columbia, South Carolina. Nixon, who was then a partner in a New York law firm, had travelled there with Buchanan on behalf of Republican congressional candidates. Buchanan recalls that the room was full of sweat, cigar smoke, and rage; the rhetoric, which was about patriotism and law and order, "burned the paint off the walls." As they left the hotel, Nixon said, "This is the future of this Party, right here in the South."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/0...

Now, this is straight from the horse's mouth. Your belief and statement that the civil-rights movement was supported by conservatives is thus utterly bogus.

by: rustys1

07-28-2010 @ 12:03am

"Your belief and statement that the civil-rights movement was supported by conservatives is thus utterly bogus."

No, my statement was: "some conservatives were true soldiers and some were not."

...it's called nuance Deacon. We've been through this before.

Only 80% of the house and senate republicans supported the civil rights act.