Wingnut on Wingnut Crime: Keyes vs Beck


We’ve seen a lot of battles between wingnuts in the last couple years, but this one is a battle of true heavyweights. Alan Keyes and Glenn Beck have spouted enough crazy during their lifetimes to make the Joker from Batman seem reasonable. And now Keyes is turning on Beck because he’s just not quite crazy enough:

I admit, however, that I could never take his media reputation at face value, even before he joined the elitist faction’s media jackals on the hunt against people like me who insist that questions about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the U.S. presidency have to be taken seriously. When he did, I publicly consigned Beck to the racks of “the commentators and politicians of our era” who “remind me of the barbarians who first made and then squatted upon the ruins of ancient Rome. In like fashion they contrive to ruin the American institutions of freedom.”

I am therefore inclined to see Beck’s posturing about surrender as “wolf sheds sheepdog’s clothing.” It goes hand in hand with his denial of the damage the push for homosexual marriage aims to do to the foundations of constitutional self-government in the United States. The doctrine of unalienable rights is the basis for America’s constitutional republic. But the assertion of unalienable rights in the American Declaration of Independence makes no sense unless we acknowledge God’s authority as our Creator. Beck “says that he believes that we must return to God.” Yet (as I pointed out some time ago in “A Meditation on Glenn Beck’s Divine Mission”), “he casually blows off the issues that involve imposing on our nation laws and practices that deny the natural law derived from God’s authority. …”

Yeah, that’s the real problem with Beck — he just isn’t enough of a theocratic birther.

Comments

  1. blf says

    [Beck’s] denial of the damage the push for homosexual marriage aims to do to the foundations of constitutional self-government in the United States.

    Um, what? My wingnut-to-English translator needs an upgrade or something, it’s failing to find any connection between discriminating against Teh Guy and USAlienstan’s system or principles of government.

  2. matty1 says

    issues that involve imposing on our nation laws and practices

    Cause letting other people do something is exactly the same as having that action imposed on you, right? Clearly Keyes will be forced to have a gay abortion while praying to Mecca any day now.

  3. freemage says

    Ah, Alan Keyes, the man who made Obama President.

    No, no, wait–hear me out.

    When Jack Ryan’s Senate campaign against Obama imploded due to the sex-club allegations from his divorce, the Illinois GOP brought Keyes in from NY to replace Ryan. Now, if it had been a local GOPper, even if they were destined to lose, they would’ve fought the Illinois way–rip, tear, bash and smear. Instead, Obama just had to face down Keyes, which was a walk in the park–a single debate pretty much made it clear that only the straight-ticket GOP votes were going to go to Keyes. As a result, Obama was freed up from having to campaign for office with several months left to go in the election.

    What do you do when you are guaranteed victory? Why, you go to other states to help other members of your party campaign, of course. And so, when the Democratic primary rolled around, Obama had several favor markers owed to him, and those helped him stay viable in the election long enough for Edwards to back out (had the election ever come down to Edwards vs. Hillary or Obama alone, the Democrats would’ve patted themselves on the back for being so progressive as to let it get that far, and then voted for the straight, white rich dude).

  4. mikeym says

    “wolf sheds sheepdog’s clothing.”

    Wouldn’t a wolf disguised as a dog be just as menacing as an undisguised wolf?

  5. slc1 says

    I have a question for freemage. What the fuck were the Rethuglicans in Illinois thinking, bringing in a carpetbagger nut case who had already made an ass of himself in several Rethuglican primaries in Maryland, to run against Obama?

  6. slc1 says

    Glenn Beck has committed two absolutely forbidden crimes for the likes of Keyes. First he has brushed of the birther campaign as nothing more then a distraction from the real issues. Second, he is on record as stating that, in his considered opinion, same sex marriage is no big deal. How would one expect someone like Alan Keyes to react to such calumny?

  7. raven says

    Follow the money!!!

    Keyes is most likely just angry because Beck is making huge amounts of money and he isn’t.

    In th last few years, Beck has made ca. $100 million. Keyes is much less well known, doesn’t have Beck’s media access, and probably made a fraction of that.

    He is making a heartfelt attempt at…attracting attention to himself by attacking Beck and Obama. Attention=money in our society.

    Christofascists are easy to scam, which is why there is a lot of competition to skim off their money.

  8. dingojack says

    kantalope – Further to your ruminations: why would wolves put the clothes of a sheepdog into sheds?

    So Keynes thinks that Bek “… remind[s] me of the barbarians who first made and then squatted upon the ruins of ancient Rome… “.”

    So Bek reminds you of the ‘teabaggers’ of ancient Rome? What are you complaining about Alan*? Aren’t they your allies?
    Dingo
    ——-
    * ironically, some of those ‘barbarians’ might well have been Alans ;)

  9. raven says

    So Keynes thinks that Bek “… remind[s] me of the barbarians who first made and then squatted upon the ruins of ancient Rome… “.”

    Oddly enough, those Germanic barbarians were…xians.

  10. rabbitscribe says

    Freemage #3: I’m from Chicago. That seems accurate and totally plausible- well done!

    I remember a newspaper column. The writer quoted someone to the effect of, “In a matchup few predicted during the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama will face Alan Keyes…” and went on to say, “Few? FEW? As in, three or four? I want to meet the guy who said last spring, ‘ I bet the election comes down to Barack Obama and… hmmm… probably Alan Keyes.’ ”

    Good times.

  11. djk1 says

    slc1 —
    The Illinois Republican party is divided into two factions: those from Downstate, who are basically hard-core socially conservative Tea Party types, and those from the greater Chicago area, who are somewhat more sane (relatively speaking). The two factions have been struggling for control of the state party for the past decade or more. In 2008, it was the Downstaters who brought in Keyes after Jack Ryan (a creature of the Chicago-area Rs) imploded and nobody else in the state wanted to run against Obama. In 2010, the Downstate faction got Bill Brady, a hard-core social conservative, nominated for governor over the more pragmatic Kirk Dillard, and Brady narrowly lost the general election to Pat Quinn despite Quinn being widely seen as ineffective. More recently, the Downstate faction tried to oust Pat Brady (no relation to Bill Brady) as state GOP chairman after he came out in favor of same-sex marriage, but the effort failed when they couldn’t get enough votes.

  12. Michael Heath says

    Alan Keyes writes:

    The doctrine of unalienable rights is the basis for America’s constitutional republic. But the assertion of unalienable rights in the American Declaration of Independence makes no sense unless we acknowledge God’s authority as our Creator.

    Not true; inalienable rights still makes sense even if we reference Spinoza’s god as creator, or Einstein’s for that matter. Either way the DofI assertion remains an assertion without any evidence.

    In addition there is no possible way for Mr. Keyes to assign a set of attributes to his god which is consistent with the DofI’s signers. No way at all, even if all the signers defined God within a consistent set of biblical terms – which they didn’t. That’s because the Bible contradicts itself on the nature of its referenced gods.

    The only incoherency here is coming from the guy that we expect to be a source of incoherency.

  13. imrryr says

    remind me of the barbarians who first made and then squatted upon the ruins of ancient Rome

    Hey, don’t talk about the Catholic Church like that!

  14. cptdoom says

    Not true; inalienable rights still makes sense even if we reference Spinoza’s god as creator, or Einstein’s for that matter. Either way the DofI assertion remains an assertion without any evidence.

    In fact, such rights would still make sense even if we referenced Beck’s god, who is clearly not the same god as worshipped by Keyes. It surprises me, in fact, to see a Roman Catholic like Keyes even agreeing with Beck about getting “back to God” as the Church regards Mormons as, at best, heretical blasphemers and, at worst, Satan-worshippers. Perhaps Keyes should learn that making religious/political alliances with people whose religious beliefs your church condemns isn’t likely a winning strategy.

Leave a Reply