A lot of controversy has cropped up surrounding Glenn Beck’s February interview of Texas Gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina. Accusations that Glenn set her up or that he intentionally made her look bad have flown thick and fast. Some have suggested that Glenn was simply trying to increase support for Governor Perry by tearing down Perry’s opponent. Personally, I do not believe any of those accusations. I am not some Glenn Beck fan-boy who refuses to believe his idol could do something wrong. I am a long-time listener, however, and I believe I can accurately judge Glenn’s motives in the Medina interview. Glenn Beck has worked long and hard to help build and maintain the unprecedented Conservative momentum that is currently sweeping our Nation. The Tea Party Movement, the 9-12 Project and many similar projects have gained prominence in no small part due to Glenn’s tireless efforts. One of the primary threats that face these movements is allowing radicals, anarchists and conspiracy theorists to become the public face of our movement. The same way that we disavow violence or threats of violence from those associated with our movement, we must also avoid any connection to those who would damage our reputation, weaken our message or derail our progress. Glenn asked Debra a simple question, “Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?” That would be an easy question for me to answer, and it should have been an easy question for her to answer, so why wasn’t it? Instead of quickly giving a clear and concise answer of ‘no, absolutely not,’ she said, “I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn. So I don’t I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I’ve not taken a position on that.” What are we supposed to take away from that? I certainly don’t come away thinking that Glenn ‘ambushed’ her with a trick question. I come away from that with the impression that Debra Medina is a radical who believes “very good questions” have been raised about our Government intentionally causing and covering up the tragic attacks which occurred on September 11, 2001. She said, “I have not taken a position on that.” That alone is a good enough reason to try to detach her from the 9-12 and Tea Party movements. If you have not taken a position than you are leaving the question open, and that is the same thing as asking the question yourself. Do we really want “truthers” in our ranks? If we open the door to these types, it will not be long before we will have ‘Tea Party Candidates’ talking about “chemtrails”; “Jesuit infiltration”; secret society rituals; and eventually UFOs and reptilian humanoids who live below the Earth’s surface. (Yes, some people actually believe that!) Protecting the image of the Tea Party Movement and the 9-12 Project is critical to our long-term success. It is in our best interest – and I believe Glenn Beck understands this – to distance ourselves and our movements from anyone who raises these types of unsubstantiated questions and accusations. Unless I see hard evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that Glenn Beck is working in the best interest of our Nation and is not, as some have recently suggested, a party hack.

Parrish Miller

P.S. Forums work best when they are active. Whether you agree or disagree with me, please take a moment to share your thoughts on the subject. Thanks!

I, too, have been a faithful Beck follower for some time and deeply appreciate all that he has done to enlighten the masses to the very real threat of the progressives (and their presence in the current administration).  It is because of my exposure to Beck, though, that I know full well how thoroughly Glenn and his staff do their research.  So in the Medina case, for me, it wasn’t so much in defense of Medina that I was set back by what transpired, as it was Glenn’s statement going into the whole thing.  He specifically said just beforehand that “he didn’t know anything about Medina”, so wanted to bring her on the radio program. 

Yet, from the beginning of that interview, he showed no interest in her constitutional leanings, or her beliefs in the founding principles, or her desire to return to those values.  Ordinarily he would have at least shown some acknowledgment of those ideals, as this is the respect, courtesy, and kudos he gives to others.  But instead, he simply blew past those issues with her… in favor of asking (more than once) about “who she was” rather than about her policy beliefs.  So, I do believe that he brought her onto the program for the specified purpose of exposing her on this issue.  I’d have respected him more for dealing straight from the start.  Instead, his behavior was more that of a pompous @#$.  I was very disappointed by his arrogance afterward.

As for the “truthers”... I can only say that they have a right to their questions as much as anyone else, and they deserve some honest answers rather than simply being ridiculed and dismissed.  In the end, of course, I certainly would have preferred hearing a similar response from Medina.