Patterico's Pontifications

5/26/2011

Beck Supporters Prove Beck’s Story False

Filed under: General — Stranahan @ 5:52 am



[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]

As I pointed out in my original piece, Glenn Beck made a series of self-aggrandizing lies about his participation in the Shirley Sherrod story. I thought my article made this point abundantly clear though Beck’s own words and a clear timeline but I didn’t count on the fierce resistance to facts that would be demonstrated by some of Beck’s diehard supporters.

Those supporters brought to my attention something I was not aware of – a ‘4th Hour’ of the show that’s apparently not broadcast except over the internet. One of them was kind enough to post it, in an attempt to clear this name.

Far from exonerating Beck, however, the ‘4th Hour’ drives the stake in even deeper and proves conclusively my original article’s contention that Beck has made intentional misstatements of fact about the Sherrod story to the general public and his fans.

On at least two separate occasions, Glenn Beck takes sole personal credit for having realized something was wrong with the story “in his office.” He tells Bill O’Reilly that he knew this immediately…

Beck: I sat in my office and said “Something’s not right with this.”

Bill : Oh, really? Right from the jump?

Beck : Right from the jump. Something’s not right with this.

He tells a crowd of 1000 in Kansas City that he said to his entire team…

I stood in my office with my entire team, and I said, “something’s wrong, don’t do this story.”That’s what saved me: the Sword of the Spirit.

Here’s what the 4th Hour audio proves.

Beck’s Sidekicks, Not Beck, Discovered ‘Something Wrong’ From CNN, not God

The 4th Hour makes it clear that Beck’s sidekicks are the ones who realized ‘something was wrong’ – not Beck himself. They are listening to CNN reports and make real time comments as the story unfolds publicly.

The reason they realized that ‘something was wrong’ wasn’t because Glenn Beck told them. It wasn’t because God told them. It was because they watched CNN.

They are discussing public knowledge. Everyone suspected there was ‘something wrong’ at that point.

This totally refutes Glenn Beck’s claim of standing in his office and telling ‘his entire team’ not to do the story right ‘from the jump.’ It means that his claims that he realized though paranoia, intuition or divine whispers in his ears that something was wrong with the Sherrod story are deliberate falsehoods.

Beck Later Repeats Claims By His Sidekicks

The sidekicks in the 4th Hour make a number of statements that wend their way into Beck’s later statements on TV. They say Sherrod seems nice and they also say explicitly that Beck should go on TV and say Sherrod should get her job back, which he did.

This demolishes Beck’s claim of standing in his office and telling ‘his entire team’ not to do the story. In fact, it’s pretty clear that Beck’s team actually told him what to say.

So when Glenn Beck repeatedly took sole personal credit for being the person who figured out the ‘truth’ about the Sherrod story first, it’s a proven falsehood.

– Lee Stranahan

48 Responses to “Beck Supporters Prove Beck’s Story False”

  1. Lee,

    Glenn Beck is on a mission from god, similar to that of Jake and Elwood Blues.

    You can’t stop him, he’s going to save that religious school in Chicago. You and the entire police force and military can’t stop him. He’ll drive through a mall in a over the top chase scene if he has too.

    Wait, i think I am now confusing the two.

    Ben (43c1ea)

  2. There’s something in some book somewhere about taking the lord’s name in vain, but I honestly never understood it.

    Can someone clear that one up for me?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  3. Someone’s picking nits again.

    Icy Texan (3f01f5)

  4. Icy, I agree it’s not a big deal. Beck is a … self promoter. I really resent him falling short when someone like Breitbart didn’t need the friendly fire, but we know it now.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  5. Actually they were still wrong, we didn’t know about Pigford then, that’s why the WH dropped her like a hot potato.

    ian cormac (72470d)

  6. here is dicentra’s take on this Mr. Stranahan she’s a Beck fan but she tends to have her ducks in a row cause of she has lots of smartness in her head plus she’s very fastidious about the ducks

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  7. If anyone thinks this needs tsome more context to be relevant — I agree.

    I’m going to write that piece soon — but I was throttled by Beck fans over at the Bigs and sorta had to get this posted first.

    But — I think it’s relevant because Glenn Beck is going to be getting his wish and soon Sherod will be in charge of some of your tax dollars again.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  8. That’s disingenuous Lee, Beck didn’t even want Van Jones fired, he just wanted some questions answered, and dicentra just threw a spanner into
    your theory,

    ian cormac (72470d)

  9. What spanner?

    Be specific — I point out two quotes from Beck. Are they true or false? Was Beck telling the truth?

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  10. I gotta agree with dicentra. Stranahan is straining at gnats.

    Beck cuts out the context that Mrs. Sherrod’s remarks were placed in – namely, to show the NAACP audience’s reaction to Sherrod’s initial admission to not helping the white farmer.

    I’ll take your word for it that this (the NAALCP’s reaction) was Andrew’s target. He missed. That is not the way the story played, regardless of his intentions … and further I suspect (admittedly without proof)he knew it would be a muddied story going in. This wasn’t his first trip down the river.

    I sometimes listen to Glenn Beck and I caught the radio show when this broke. Beck was reacting to how the story was actually being played & received not to Andrew’s original stated intent.

    And now you point with joy to Beck’s side kicks as the real source for Beck suspicion and shout “See, Beck is lying!” Petty. Really petty. Drop it Lee. You are loosing credibility.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  11. quasi, so you know Beck is actually lying, in an incredibly grandiose manner, and you think Breitbart making an honest error ‘missing’ with enough experience to know he should have been more careful is worse?

    Ridiculous.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  12. And look to the motivations. I guess that’s more a gut thing.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  13. Dustin I have no idea what you are saying. I know Beck is lying? I said no such thing. He might be positioning his role in office discussion, but it is trivial beyond words. You are concerned about who on Beck’s staff first raised suspicions? Petty.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  14. So, quasi — you tacitly admit that Beck was lying and then dismiss my pointing it out as ‘petty’….and I am the one with an honesty issue?

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  15. #2, Dustin, here’s my personal take. Many people misunderstand the Third Commandment, which comes down to us from a time immediately following the Exodus and coincides with Moses’ encounter with the “burning bush” on Mount Sinai.

    Which, of course, is an event well prior to the time of Jesus Christ, and therefore prior to Christianity or to Judaism for that matter. In fact, the law Moses brings down from the mountain is the foundation document for the emerging Jewish religion.

    That said, the Third Commandment itself isn’t only about rejecting the profane use of the Lord’s name, nor is it only about living up to one’s social or religious responsibilities, or keeping oaths and promises made in the Lord’s name.

    Those are parts of the Commandment, but the most fundamental element is to warn against putting words into God’s mouth. We all know of preachers, teachers, priests, and rabbis who will loudly proclaim, with all the authority they can adorn themselves with, and as though it was God himself who was speaking, exactly what the Lord wanted us to do.

    The Third Commandment is actually a clear warning to all those who presume to speak in the name of the Lord, to be damn sure they get it right. If I understand correctly, God is warning that he has no patience for, nor will he tolerant, those who use his holy name to misrepresent his teachings or his instructions.

    ropelight (eea158)

  16. I admit no such thing. I think you are jumping with joy because you think you caught Beck in a lie so trivial it defies comprehension. We got bigger fish to fry.

    Several times I have heard several people describe the same event and have it sound completely different. But since I witnessed the event myself I know that each was only telling the story as they remembered it, as they perceived it and by focusing on what was important to them. Nobody lied, they all told the truth but it all sounded different. You were not in Beck’s office meeting. You have no clue what happened. And even if you are 100% right (and no, that is not tacit admission of anything) it’s trivial. If you are interested in pointing out lies go after some that matter. Beck is trivial.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  17. my #16 was in response to #14

    quasimodo (4af144)

  18. Racists.

    JD (b98cae)

  19. JD, that is at the heart of it all. Whether real or perceived.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  20. Goodness me, will you give him water for his pants afire? R#11C I don’t know that I would say you have jumped the shark, but this is The Daily Caller material.

    FeFe (c2547f)

  21. Seriously? This is an issue? Glen’s hired some people away from Andrew and so now some minor matter has to be blown up? People get lured away from business 1 to business 2 all the time. In sports it’s called free agency.

    And Sherrod did say “it’s about race, it’s also about class” (IIRC). So yes, I do think she still is a racist. She views people in terms of their race.

    rbj (9ae8d9)

  22. Beck is a typical showbiz megalomaniac, so he thinks his staff is “him” and anything that comes out of his staff came from his magnificent brain (that is, God!). Sort of like using the royal We. It’s obnoxious but typical. Oprah, O’Reilly, all the same really.

    jeanne (5a5d33)

  23. Beck, unfortunately, is like any other person. We all do shameful things. Taking stealing credit for a thing some one else did is all to common.

    I bet that Glen doesn’t like to think of himself this way. But I bet he does.

    Jack (f9fe53)

  24. dicentra makes a passel of assumptions in her post and then claims those are the facts. That is par for the course for her.

    How about sticking to actual facts.

    Was Breitbart’s target the NAACP or the Administration?

    Did Breitbart post the exculpatory context of Sherrod’s video along with his original post?

    Did Beck acknowledge Breitbart’s posting of that exculpatory video?

    Did Beck’s actions enable the left’s attacks on Breitbart?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. “Glen’s hired some people away from Andrew and so now some minor matter has to be blown up?”

    rbj – There were a few other matters mentioned, were there not?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  26. My God, Lee, how is Beck important in the whole scheme of the Pigford scandal? Did Beck hire the greedy lawyers that helped facilitate dishonest blacks making claims of “intent to farm” in order to collect their $50K? Did Beck lie to a Congress who was responsibile for funding Pigford?

    This is petty. The real scandal is bad enough. Concentrate on the scandal itself, and the theft of billions of taxpayer dollars on a fraudulent system that makes Billy Sol Estes look like a Boy Scout.

    You have made this personal with Beck, and that is going to fog Pigford and what needs to be done about it.

    retire05 (2d538e)

  27. Mr. Beck has a nice smile and a deep love for America in his heart. He was hounded off the air by a loathsome Soros-funded campaign designed to silence opposition to Obama’s dirty socialist rape of America.

    I never watched him.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  28. I think it’s relevant because Glenn Beck is going to be getting his wish and soon Sherod[sic] will be in charge of some of your tax dollars again.

    — Talk about a sentence rife with disingenuousness! First, Beck’s concern is that Sherrod was not dismissed under false pretenses, NOT that he ‘wishes’ for her to be in charge of some of our tax dollars again. Second, for YOU, Lee, to imply (if not state outright!) that Beck’s “false story” was a major factor in either her firing OR the reversal thereof is ludicrous.

    I thought that one of the reasons Patterico brought you aboard was your ability to fight against the liberal disease of avoiding personal responsibility. Well guess what? Sherrod really DID admit to discriminating on the basis of race; many of the NAACP people in that video DID laugh inappropriately; Breitbart’s “editied” video DID NOT spin the story away from the truth; Vilsack and his WH masters DID react based on their perception of public opinion rather than an exhaustive investigation of all the ‘relevent’ facts; and Beck’s statements, no matter how false, misleading, self-serving or disingenuous they were DID NOT have any significant, traceable effect on what has happened to Shirley Sherrod. Call him wrong all that you want, but give it a rest on claiming that he has caused harm in the form of influencing the decisions of others, huh?

    Icy Texan (3f01f5)

  29. NOT that he ‘wishes’ for her to be in charge of some of our tax dollars again.

    No one said otherwise.

    give it a rest on claiming that he has caused harm in the form of influencing the decisions of others, huh?

    But there’s the dispute, I think. Beck is going around lying that God is intervening on Sherrod’s behalf on this. Is he influential? Impossible to prove how much. Obama’s admin thinks a lot, from some reports. We all recall his show being a cited reason behind her termination.

    I think the reason the NYT is praising Beck is that his turnaround on this issue helped the democrat narrative greatly.

    I agree with the rest of your comment.

    And really, who didn’t get the impression Beck was a bit like this, from the onset? That’s the real point to make… Lee points out that Beck isn’t really sincere, and even verges into dishonesty to boost himself sometimes. The correct response to that is ‘duh’. I have to say, I liked Beck’s show quite often. It was fact packed, and he has a nicer tone than some of his competitors (I’m a Rush fan, personally). So don’t really want to ding the guy, but the facts are the facts. If Lee wants to point out that Beck lied, he’s got proof.

    We can argue about how big a deal that is, but if it’s no big deal, I guess it’s no big deal to point out, either.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  30. Dustin, the problem is the Stranahan is INSISTING that indeed it IS a big deal. I think he’s dead wrong on that point.

    Icy Texan (3f01f5)

  31. but if it’s not a big deal then it follows that it’s not a big deal if Mr. S thinks it’s of import Mr. Texan

    here’s another one of those kooky German bands what think they’re American

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  32. Hey, I just think it’s one thing to disagree with someone, and another to think they shouldn’t talk about something. If it’s the latter point, I’m in the ‘who gives a [censored]?’ column.

    Is Beck the real problem in the media? Of course not. But I think he’s earned the flack he’s taking, anyway. When the argument is ‘don’t say that’, it just gets that reaction from me.

    [Dustin, don’t curse or it gets filtered. I removed the offending word. –Aaron]

    Dustin (c16eca)

  33. Now, the fact that Sherrod has been, once again, offered a job in the federal government has not one DAMN thing to do with Beck. He hasn’t mentioned her in a long time. Instead, he has moved on.

    But Lee continues to beat on Beck as if Beck was responsible for Sherrod’s stupid law suit against Breitbart, or responsible for the Congress funding Pigford, the sleazy lawyers who falsified documents to earn millions while their clients got $50K for “attempting to farm”, etc.

    This has turned into a vendetta with Lee, and if you want to be a party to it, fine. But it has no bearing on the Pigford scandal itself, never has and never will.

    retire05 (2d538e)

  34. Well, first — clearly Beck can’t help being part of the narrative, because – through no fault of his own — he was mentioned as the reason Sherrod had to resign.

    So — all eyes were on Beck on the 20th. What he said was going to be reported on. He was well aware of this…

    And he went with the liberal narrative, which was 1) critical of the Obama Administration and 2) supportive of Sherrod. I haven’t written about this yet, but I will — but he helped cement this premises. You can see that from the reporting I linked to in earlier pieces; the liberal media including the NYT and Talking Points Memo pointed out how even Glenn Beck agreed Sherrod shouldn’t have been fired.

    And let’s also mention that what Beck COULD have done on the 20th was, for instance, have Breitbart on the show. Again, all eyes on Beck that night. He NEVER had Breitbart on. He NEVER brought up the context that Breitbart presented Sherrod’s speech excerpt in. He’s NEVER mentioned Pigford — can’t, really…because he made a choice on the 20th.

    And my guess is that he won’t address these allegations either.

    Beck DID defend Sherrod, eventually. There’s no question about that. And there’s nothing good about that, either.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  35. Beck not defending sherrod=Bad

    Beck defending Sherrod=bad

    I swear there is no pleasing your ilk Lee.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  36. Never ONCE did I say or imply that Beck not defending Sherrod was bad.

    I said — clearly, I think — that lying about what actually transpired was bad.

    He could have said “When I first heard the story, like a lot of people I thought there was something do it and talked about it a little on my radio show. Then as more came out, I changed my opinion.”

    See — that’s the truth would have looked like coming out of this mouth. Compare that to what he actually said.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  37. Beck was hyperbolic about his position. A media person tried to reframe an issue to make himself look better. ZOMFGBBQ. Water is wet.

    JD (318f81)

  38. And — I have no ilk, so go eff yourself. I’m so sick of that BS. No patience for it. My ‘ilk’ is the unbiased ilk. Seriously, die.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  39. Ilks suck.

    JD (318f81)

  40. ilks are a sign you’re not living right

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  41. “My God, Lee, how is Beck important in the whole scheme of the Pigford scandal?”

    retire05 – Missing the point again. Lee has not tied Beck or Sherrod to the vast, vast majority of his Pigford post so far. You raise a complete red herring.

    Beck, read the link, is now comparing what Breitbart did to Sherrod with what O’Keefe did to ACORN, etc., in a negative way.

    Is that fair? No.

    Does it help the left continue demonizing Breitbart? Yes.

    That is why it is important.

    End of story.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  42. Sorry — I lost it there for a minute. I’m pretty frayed playing defense against some people who are saying, for example, that I’m a secret Soros double agent — mostly on Breitbart’s site irony. And seriously, that’s what they are saying, because of my articles about Beck.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  43. Don’t apologize. A good spleen vent is always helpful 😉

    JD (29e1cd)

  44. Demonizing breitbart is what the left does best.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  45. he was mentioned as the reason Sherrod had to resign

    — He was mentioned by whom? by Sherrod? by Vilsack? Shullbit!

    And I, for one, do NOT think that you are a “secret Soros double agent”. I do, however, think that you are blowing up Beck’s words and his “involvement” in this affair to epic, HYSTERICAL-level proportions. Bottom Line: Glenn Beck is nowhere near as important or influential as you give him credit for being.

    Icy Texan (3f01f5)

  46. Exactly Glenn Beck didn’t cause Shirley the black supremacist pig to get fired.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  47. The problem here probably has to be put to me in 5 or 6 succinct sentences. Else I am not seeing it.

    Beck talks a lot. He talks all day long. He evolves all day long. His real opinions he holds all the time. Things he is not sure on he will waffle back and forth on until he reaches a synthesis. Maybe he talks about his waffles sooner and more often than most. But is this really different than OBama speak? Or Oreilly speak? can it really be called a lie to blog about if he just forgot what he previously said? One would probably have to ask him and see if he gives a mea culpa.

    I like Becks innovative ideas and research, not crazy about his style.

    jd2 (fc8318)

  48. Lee, I’m not following you on this Beck post. I just don’t get to where you do based on what was actually said, and what actually happened.

    But you are doing good work on the Sherrod story and I applaud you.

    SPQR (26be8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3845 secs.