Greg Hollingsworth

Glenn Beck is a strange person, in my estimation at least (for what that's worth). By strange I do not mean weird or freaky, but instead I mean that he is unique amongst his peers. There are dozens of talking heads who willingly dish out their personal brand of political philosophy on a nightly basis, yet few of them do it with the fervor of Beck.

I did not attend or watch even one minute of Mr. Beck's Restoring Honor rally over the weekend, but having read coverage of the event from nearly every angle and having discussed it at length with someone who was in attendance, I feel that I have a fairly good take on what the rally means in the grander scheme of our national political discourse.

First, as a good friend of mine was quick point out, this was not a Tea Party event. This may seem unimportant, as many of the people in attendance may self-identify as Tea Party participants, I think that it is important to note that Glenn Beck, while he may support the Tea Party, does not have authority to speak for it as a whole. In fact, no one has the authority to speak for the Tea Party as a whole (that is a separate issue for an entirely separate post).

Glenn Beck is a firebrand and a demagogue. Some people may object to my branding him as such and that is fine, we are all entitled to our opinions. However, what sets Beck apart from most demagogues is that, at least in my opinion, he is genuine. Sometimes I'm not even sure that he realizes that the emotion that he puts into his arguments is leading his audience away from logic and reason and leading them to decisions/opinions that are based not on fact but on fear.

The Restoring Honor rally was a gathering of individuals that believe that America has lost the connection to its roots. While there may be many among you that disagree with this, I am a part-time member of that club, there is no one among us who can deny the fact that we have in some ways strayed from the vision of this country laid out in our founding documents. Certainly the areas in which we each individually see this diversion is varied, but nonetheless, I don't think that anyone can argue that we have, in some way or another, managed to drift from the intent laid forth in the developmental years of our republic.

Many who attended the rally feel that we have drifted from the "judeo-christian values" that our country was founded upon. Others feel that the federal government has grown dramatically beyond the bounds originally imposed by the Constitution and some feel that the current administration is sending the country down the slippery slope towards socialism and communism. While I would disagree with some of these points and in part with others, none of these (or to be honest most of the issues discussed by those captured on dozens, if not hundreds, of biased videos of the event), it is hardly my place to emphatically deny someone the right to their opinion.

The real issue that exists in relation to this rally is the simple inability of either side (attendees or non-attending critics) to listen to each other and make inroads toward common ground. Instead we are led to believe that this gathering is an insult to the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech or an expression of racial fear and propaganda or some other negative thing.

Now, the right, and Beck in particular, has opened itself up to this criticism by allowing it's fringe elements to control it's message with no active attempt to moderate the debate. The GOP's silent consent (and even the vocal consent of some if its members) of hyperbolic rhetoric directed not only at the Obama administration, but at the left in general, has set the stage for a reversal of that fortune. 

Unfortunately for the state of our political discourse, the left has decided to employ the same tactics in it's response, lowering the discourse to an historically sad level. Historically speaking, this is a return to the example of our Founding Fathers (if you don't believe me, do some reading on the election of 1800), and unfortunately a return to the least amiable trait of he founding generation of leaders in our country. We have reached a point where voters are not given information, but instead provided a steady diet of propaganda from their preferred "news" source.

This rally is not what many are making it out to be, nor is it what Glen Beck will undoubtedly try to mold it's legacy into.  In reality, it is exactly what it was, a gathering of people who are, at least in some measure, aligned ideologically. It was a rally, that's all. If this rally had been put on by someone other than Glenn Beck it would have received a smattering of coverage (certainly more if they had still managed to get Sarah Palin to attend), but certainly not the volume that it managed to achieve. 

So you can watch the videos on YouTube filled with the most obvious signs of naivete and ignorance, but they will not give you a clear image of what this rally was. Because at the end of the day, it was a gathering of the religious, who feel that their beliefs are being marginalized and that they are losing touch with the country that they believe was founded according to their beliefs. 

That is not to say that all those who attended hold these feelings, there are many who could care less about socio/religious debate and would gladly leave it behind to focus in on the real issues at hand, namely the economic plight of the US and the complete and utter inability of our government to affect worthwhile change through the system laid out in our constitution.

So while you try to wade through all of the disinformation, misdirection and obfuscation that will make up the coverage and commentary on this event, remember this, none of it will fix our economy. No debate, no matter how impassioned, about how many people attended this rally will have any effect on the government spending deficit, tax policy or governmental gridlock. This rally was many things to many people, but it was not (well, at least not in the opinion of someone who doubts anyone will read this) worth even 1/10th of the coverage it was given.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil: by Philip Absolon. Copyright © Philip Absolon, stuckism.com. Released under GFDL.Yesterday, Democrats in the Senate were unable to get the 60 votes they needed to break the Republican filibuster of the "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections" or DISCLOSE Act. While it may have a ridiculous name, it's failure once again shows us that, in Washington, nothing speaks louder than money.

The DISCLOSE Act is summarized by OpenCongress thusly:

This is the Democrats' response to the Supreme Courts' recent Citizens United v. FEC ruling. It seeks to increase transparency of corporate and special-interest money in national political campaigns. It would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.

Thusly, in failing to break the latest GOP filibuster, there will be no requirements on corporate and/or PAC groups for the upcoming mid-term elections. So, for at least one more election, the moneyed interests in the US will have free reign to spend as much as they want to distort, obfuscate and otherwise attempt to steer the elections in their favor.

The GOP is claiming this as a victory for free speech, much in the way that they hailed the aformentioned Citizens United vs. FEC, casting a partisan pallor on a bill that would have done little more than prevent Corporate backers from making claims without putting their name on them. While I have a problem with exempting anyone from this law (non-profit organizations must remain politically neutral to retain their 501(c)3 status anyways), claiming this as a victory for the people is just, well, a lie.

How exactly is protecting the ability for corporate interests to anonymously distort the truth and support candidates that have the best interests of their donors (as opposed to their constituents) at heart a victory for anyone other than corporations? Mitch McConnell said "this bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of the November election," funny how he makes no mention of the Republican incumbents that will benefit from it's protection as well, why do you think that is? 

I guess this all gets back to one question, should corporations have all the same rights bestowed upon an individual citizen if that same corporation cannot be held directly responsible for it's actions? This isn't about protecting free speech, it's about shielding corporate donors from libel and slander suits when their PAC's and 629's create false, misleading and slanderous/libelous campaign materials.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I am not now, nor will I ever be, in favor of protecting the "rights" of corporations over the rights of individuals and it is appalling to me that anyone honestly believes that the rights of business can be preserved without direct detriment to individual liberty.

What I think the failure of this bill proves is that our "representatives" in Washington really stand for the almighty dollar, and while this may not come as a surprise to most of us, I think the brazenness of this act to put the interests of their corporate benefactors above the interests of those they claim to represent lays any debate over their loyalty to rest. 

Yesterday I was pulled to the Fox News website by another article, at this point I don't recall what it was about, but it was not political in nature. When I had finished reading the article, I came across this little nugget over on the right. I could hardly resist clicking.

Essentially this is an article about the effort by a group called Minnesota Majority to have a federal investigation of the 2008 election that saw Democrat Al Franken defeat Republican Norm Coleman by a razor thin margin of 312 votes.  Minnesota majority commissioned their own study and discovered that there was potentially enough voter fraud perpetrated that the final result of the election could have been influenced.

Now, I do want to state, for the record, that nowhere in the article does it once say that Minnesota Majority had any proof of any kind that Franken benefited from this voter fraud. Nor does the Minnesota Majority in any way assert in it's report on voting felons that Franken benefited from the fraudulent voting, simply that there is the appearance of impropriety and that it should be investigated.

That being said, Fox News does everything they can to make the reader assume the Franken benefited and won the election due to this voter fraud. You can read Fox's spin on this story for yourself, but I'll sum it up as well.

First up, we have this picture:

It all starts with an image and a caption. "341 convicted felons voted illegally in the election that made former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken a U.S. senator in 2008." Now, if this were "fair and balanced" wouldn't it read "A study shows that 341 convicted felons voted illegally in the 2008 Senate campaign between Al Franken (D) and Norm Coleman (R)." Doesn't that seem significantly less prone to suggesting that Franken was the one who won the election due to these votes? Since there's no proof that he did, don't you think it makes more sense to be neutral on their impact?

But it doesn't stop there, let's move on to the article. 

The group that uncovered evidence of large-scale illegal voting (emphasis mine) by felons in Minnesota's contested 2008 Senate race says the whole mess might have been prevented if the federal government had just done it's job

Hmm, 341 felons out of 3 million voters, so 1/1000th of a percent now equals "large scale illegal voting"? 

The federal government is required...to make sure that states purge their voter rolls of ineligible voters -- the dead, those who have moved, felons, undocumented immigrants, etc. -- an to ensure that elections are administered and conducted fairly, said Dan McGrath, executive director of Minnesota Majority

Well, to begin with, they quote Mr. McGrath without using quotations, and they call themselves journalists? Second, this is simply passing the buck higher up the chain. Sure, the Fed is required to do all that, but it is the responsibility of the State to actually do it, so it sounds like it's a general system failure here.

The group's recently published report found that hundreds of felons voted in the election in which Al Franken, a Democrat, beat then-incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman by just 312 votes out of more than 3 million cast -- a margin that was determined after six months of legal challenges and recounts

Again, there's nothing false about that statement. 341 is "hundreds of felons" and yes, Al Franken is a Democrat and he did defeat Norm Coleman (mysteriously missing his party affiliation) by just 312 votes. But I remind you that nowhere in the Minnesota Majority's report does it state that those votes were cast for Franken. 

“If the feds had done their job and ensured that the voting records were up to date, things would have turned out very differently,” McGrath said. 

This is the fulcrum point of the article, McGrath claiming outright that "things would have turned out very differently". Now, this quote, in the context of the article, can only mean one thing. If the Federal government had done their job, those 341 felons wouldn't have voted and, most importantly, Al Franken would not have won the election. How could it be interpreted any other way? However, there is much left to be found in the article's denouement.

McGrath said Minnesota Majority's study hadn’t been able to pinpoint where the problem lay in failing to keep the voting records up to date. He said that there are three groups responsible for the effort. “Courts must notify the secretary of state when someone is convicted of a felony, who then must notify the counties of the conviction, and the county auditors must then update the books. We are not sure where the fault lies,” he said.

Really? "We are not sure where the fault lies," would indicate that, they have no idea who to blame. But earlier in the article we were sure that "If the feds had done their job...things would have turned out differently". Pretty clear to me that the federal government is to blame, right?

Minnesota isn’t the only state with deep electoral problems, said Robert Pastor of American University’s Center for Democracy and Election Management. He said the management of elections in the U.S. has become increasingly partisan, especially since the disputed 2000 presidential election.

“We are worse than many Third World countries,” Pastor said. “Having partisan election officials oversee election decisions makes those decisions suspect.”

Minnesota Majority says it does not want the 2008 election overturned, but it wants to make sure the next election is less prone to fraud.

Notice that last sentence there? Yep, that's right, not even the "group that uncovered large-scale illegal voting" is calling for the 2008 Senate election to be overturned. Why you might ask? Well, because they don't have any proof, nor can they even begin to prove that Franken benefited from this voting. Why can't they prove that you might ask? Well, because it's an anonymous vote. It is quite possible that all 341 of those convicted felons voted for Norm Coleman.

Now, you could read all this and say, well, you're taking this out of context and putting your own spin on it, and you could be right (except that I'm not). But I can prove that this article was written specifically to convince the Fox News audience that the article implies that Franken, the Democrat party and by extension President Obama (who was not in office at the time) are to blame for this. 

Here are a few of the hundreds of comments on the article:

Rod - This was deliberate. Crats kept counting until the numbers favored them. They would not know legal if it bit them in the a**.

captaindes - I'd be willing to bet ACORN signed all those folks up and voted for them.

orfulknorful - We all must grieve with the parents of this phony of a Congressman, as this is all that his parents had offer for a "live" birth.

jako88 - This has obama administration all over it.If the proof is there i feel the election should be overturned.Franken is nothing but a clown anyhow.

keonigohan - BLAME barracki huINSANE obonzo for commanding the SEIU to get the dem vote so they could control the congress. The SEIU then had their prison gurads make sweetheart deals with the inmates for their vote and in return they got free cigarettes and Playboy magazines.

 This is just a sample of the nearly 700 comments thus far. To be fair, there are several comments that assert a similar point to my own, that there is no proof  nor assertion that these votes were cast for Franken, but they are few and far between. Now let us remember, this was the election that put Barack Obama in the White House, how exactly can his administration be blamed for this potential voter fraud? At the time, the Bush Administration would have borne the responsibility for administering a fair election. 

Now just to be clear, I am not in any way asserting that allowing felons to vote in violation of the law is appropriate, it most certainly is not, but it is irresponsible of Fox (and would be of any news organization) to publish an article that so blatantly infers a benefit where none can be proved. Should this be investigated? Absolutely. And the fact that the federal government has shown no overt interest in taking a serious look into voter irregularities since 2000 (and probably before) is the reason that we are here.

At the end of it all, I will say that I have to agree with Robert Pastor, "Having partisan officials oversee election decisions makes those decisions suspect" and this most certainly does fall at the feet of the MN Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (who is responsible for elections within that state) who is a Democrat. However, simply placing blame on one party or another, or the federal instead of the state government for that matter, does nothing to solve the problem, it simply increases the partisan nature of the debate and make resolution and even more arduous task.