Mormon Beck Assails Obama's "Version Of Christianity"


During an interview on "Fox News Sunday," which was filmed after Saturday's rally, Beck claimed that Obama "is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor-and-victim." "People aren't recognizing his version of Christianity," Beck added.

Beck made the remarks in answer to a question about his previous accusation that Obama was a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people." He contended that that statement "was not accurate" and that he had "miscast" Obama's religious beliefs as racism.

Heretic! Burn the heretic! Pretty funny coming from a Mormon. I'm pretty sure Beck has not the first clue what liberation theology actually means. Hell, I doubt it has any political potency (who in the hell in America knows what liberation theology means? I do but that comes from my college days, which were not yesterday.) If he did, he'd know better than to associate Obama with it (for better or worse), but no matter. Ross Douthat fluffed Beck in today's NYTimes. Do we expect any comment on this from Beck from Douthat?

Speaking for me only

< Overnight Open Thread: Breaking Bad Music | Reliving The Clinton Years, Without The Peace And Prosperity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But what does Tom Cruise think of (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    Beck? That's what I want to know.

    Funny you bring that up (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    Excellent. Did you read the comments? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:44:09 AM EST

    I probably can't pick on people (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    who are spelling challenged :)  Glass house, stones, and all that :)  

    You're glib Militarytracy. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:52:28 AM EST
    Joshua has the movie this is from (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    on all the time when he thinks nobody is paying attention.  It is a bit over his age range but one of the primary actors is from the Nickelodeon Channel 'Drake and Josh', so I can't win.

    Its A DogWhistle (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    And the inference is that Obama is not only black....  but a scary angry black who believes in violent overthrow of the White Establishment.... aka a black muslim separatist.

    Ironic, as Beck is inflaming White terrorism....  and not out of principle, but in order to enrich himself.

    If the tele-evangelists and the Politicians can do it, so can Beck...

    What a guy.

    I hate the term dog whistle (none / 0) (#61)
    by hairspray on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    It reminds me of the Obamabots accusing Hillary and her campaign of it during the primaries.  Any thing she said that they could hang their hat on was a dog whistle with the intention of characterizing her and Bill as racists.  Give it a rest!!!!

    Huh? (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    Give it a rest?

    Should we put any discussion about racism on hold because Hillary and Bill were called racists?

    Sheesh, maybe therapy would help...  


    Gosh, I bet no one saw this coming... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    I mean, when thousands show up to hear you preach about God and religion, you could be deluded into thinking you're now more entitled than ever to sit in judgment of others' beliefs, and decide whether others' versions of their religion measure up.

    I cannot adequately express my aversion to this kind of proselytizing, and it is frustrating beyond belief to be portrayed as the worst kind of heathen because I don't believe religion should be driving government.  And I don't care about the political leanings of those who feel the need to keep bringing it up - it is just as offensive coming from a so-called progressive as it is coming from someone like Beck.

    Maybe there's something wrong with me - maybe I'm not the right kind of Christian that I prefer to let my faith be my business, and that I don't want to be preached at or forced to observe what others believe.

    Honestly, if these people spent more time examining their own lives they would think twice before embarking on a crusade to convert the heathens.

    You assume (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    that self examination is a functional feature of their religious orientation? I can but laugh. . . Their drive for power far outshadows that, and the primary function of self examination would likely be to query where they went wrong in not obtaining more domination. . . Authoritarian personalities are like that in my experience. . .

    I think self-examination is (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    studiously avoided - it's so much easier to tell other people how to fix their lives than it is to face the truth that lies within one's own.

    It always amazes me that for all the scary talk about how other religions want to take over the world, those doing that scaring never seem to notice how megalomaniacal their own message and agenda are.  I mean, gosh, why would anyone hate us for wanting Christianity - the "right kind" of that, of course - to be the controlling and driving force in everyone's life?

    Better to spend time trying to drive all the Muslims out, eh?  I see there was an arson fire at the proposed site of the Tennessee mosque - what a proud moment...


    missed the dr. laura thread with this (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 07:33:24 AM EST
     I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
    God's Laws and how to follow them.

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.  A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.  Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.  In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.  The problem is how do I tell?  I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.  The problem is my neighbors.  They claim the odor is not pleasing to them.  Should I smite them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.  Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.  Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.  I don't agree.  Can you settle this?  Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.  I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.  Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm.  He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).  He also tends to curse
    and blaspheme a lot.  Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.  Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people
    who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

    Good One! (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 09:22:25 AM EST

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    when you start saying "burn the heretic."

    It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone's religion without wishing physical violence on them.

    You vastly overstate.

    I was being figurative (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 09:56:50 AM EST
    Then I will reserve the right (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:02:19 AM EST
    to use one of my own at some future point.



    I'll tell you what I think (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    when you do.

    I would expect nothing less. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    christians of the Beckian stripe (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:36:12 AM EST
    don't do well with non-literalistic thinking or modes of expression. It confuses them.

    You should know that by now, BT.


    Beck isn't a Christian, he's a Mormon. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Radix on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    There is a difference.

    I'll still go with (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:49:22 AM EST
    "by their fruits shall you know them"

    Of course, the Becks of the world probably think that saying refers to diversified portfolios and liberals who side with the undermining of traditional marriage.


    That's a fair statement. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Radix on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:53:29 AM EST
    That is a trap that is not worth getting into... imo.

    Beck would argue that he changed to become a mainstream christian, whatever that is, and that Obama should practice the same religion as all red blooded americans, whatever that is..


    No, Beck still attends Mormon Temple. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Radix on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    Mormons (none / 0) (#54)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:04:03 PM EST
    are now mainstream-- Just ask Beck.

    OK (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:18:48 PM EST
    Still a trap...  Obama does not have to explain anything about his religion.

    Forcing Beck to explain his religion would mean that Obama should also have to explain his religion..

    Who the f' cares? The whole thing is about promoting bigotry by claiming that religion defines who is really an American and who is a foreign infiltrator.


    i believe (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:00:36 AM EST
    I was being figurative

    that's illegal in va. i could be wrong.

    i think a mormon questioning anyone else's version of christianity may well qualify as true irony. quick, someone call what's her name!


    So Obama is old school (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    Christianity where sinning is what causes poverty and we should care about the poor, and Beck is dog whistling Evangelicals....those name it and claim it prayer of Jabez true believers?

    I'm trying to understand, maybe I never will though.  Maybe this is some sort of Beck theological lesson and is an extra credit assignment for those of us flunking his history class.

    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    Obama is of the old school - politicians using Christianity and church membership to boost their careers.

    Beck is more or less of the same school, he's just in the "media figure" wing.


    Beck has provided positive proof (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim. A declaration by their guru Beck is all that anyone should need.  

    "old school" (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    would be everyone's a sinner..

    Old-school-American-Calvinist-Protestant-school is the one in which poverty is the result of sin. If Im not mistaken..


    I thought that was part of the (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:50:46 AM EST
    premise of liberation theology?  I took a basic theology course a bazillion years ago.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:02:09 AM EST
    the Calvinist fundamentalist position would be that poverty is primarily the result of the sins of the poverty stricken, whereas "liberation theology" gives equal weight to responsibility of those in a position of power who exploit, and thereby perpetuate poverty.  

    Okay....that being the brand (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    of liberation theology we speak of, that was the Christianity of the day when I was kid going to Bible School.  I realize that the Evangelicals have changed all that up now, but when did "my type" of Christianity be what the rest of this country doesn't recognize?  I'm forty something, not a 150 years old.

    Ask Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:20:12 AM EST
    Up to that time (especially through the 70's) "mainstream churches" (i.e., moderate to liberal) got all the press. St.Ronnie encouraged the active participation of Rightist Religianity through the republican party. Prior to that time, the religious right was more quietist, emphasizing separation from the world, establishing a culture apart from active involvement. But post Ronnie, I remember very well the change. the emphasis became to actively "Christianize" the culture, actively participate in politics, and seek to dominate. Certainly not by all conservative denominations, but most...

    Actually yes (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:09:25 AM EST
    but the error ("sin") is not on the part of the oppressed, but on the part of the rich class that oppresses them. Much of Liberation Theology views societal issues through a Marxist lens-- thus emphasis on class warfare, and "God" is on the side of the oppressed.

    One brand of liberation theology (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    We had to have that updated (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    and have the Marxism taken out for American consumption.

    Or watered down (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    The Catholic Church Put the kaibosh on the violence or revolutionary proponents (esp in South America) and promoted "reform" rather than revolution. gee I wonder why? In the US it wasn't limited to racial oppression (as is sometimes accused of Black Liberation), but the Right makes hay out of it. . .

    With greater power (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    comes greater responsibility..

    Of course, if the main point is "personal salvation" via "Jay-sus, mah personal savior", then the rest is all window dressing..

    You can forget about all that Sermon on the Mount junk cuz the Rapture's gonna start any day now..


    I'll tread carefully, but.... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:51:59 PM EST
    An important segment, as explicated in the Catholic Church, involves a guiding tenet of social justice. Some years back--when a number of South American Catholic clergy drew closer to particular revolutionaries in view of the oppressed state of the general populace--there was a directive that strongly disavowed the use of arms & violence in the pursuit of said social change. IOW, the Church affirmed social change (in those situations), but repudiated the Liberation Theology practice of condoning armed insurrection. The controversy still floats around in discussion groups, with persuasive arguments on both sides.
    For Beck to ascribe that alignment to President Obama is obviously without factual support.

    Guatemala's version (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    of Liberation Theology....was hard to gainsay.

    The reasoning was this:  

    God created the Earth, so no one man owns it;  We have been here growing our crops on this land for hundreds of years; the Europeans have come in and taken our land and killed our people; Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple; we need to follow that lead and throw out those who kill our people and take our land.

    The peaceful, social justice Catholics were massacred in Guatemala.  At one time, the Guatemalan military (supported by Reagan) was at war with the Catholic Church in Guatemala, killing priests, bishops and nuns (some of them American) with impunity.  It was hard to tell the Mayan Indians to just be peaceful in the face of torture, murder and genocide.


    the Right has to red bait.. (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 01:58:07 PM EST
    that m.o hasn't changed for decades..

    The fact that our mainstream media lets them do it to moderate-to-center-right Democrats without calling them on it, probably reflects, more than anything else, their irresponsible, inflammatory-language-is-good-for-ratings mentality.

    If it bleeds, (belches and sh*ts) it leads..

    Hence the popularity of the Becks and O'Reillys.


    Defining The Center (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:45:12 AM EST
    WTF does it matter if Americans do not understand the specifics of Obama's Christianity?

    It is amazing how the Right takes arcania and turns it into something incendiary and of vital importance.

    Were you not the one (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    advocating the other day that everyone talk openly about their faith so as not to allow certain faiths to dominate our culture?  I could have sworn that was you jumping all over me for longing for the days when faith was personal and it was not cool to ask anyone probing questions about their faith?

    Want to Fight? (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    I am game, although I believe it would divert this thread big time.

    But if you want to link to the specific comments, I will be happy to debate as to why there is no contradiction with my response to you in the older thread and my comment regarding Beck's and the Right's ability to claim the center.


    Let's not do that (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    shall we?

    Yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    Seems like a waste of bandwidth...

    But if MT is bent to prove that I am a hypocrite, I would be glad to debate the point in an open thread...


    LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    Stop it (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    Let's let this go away.

    Synchronicity. This weekend (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    The Rev. Jeremiah Wright (who does preach liberation theology) states it is wrong to say Obama is a Muslim.

    Anyone want to disgree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:49:33 AM EST
    with Wright's penetrating insight?

    Not that many others haven't been saying the exact same thing for like, two years..


    Unfornuately Beck has a lot of followers (none / 0) (#15)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    that is the danger.

    BTD channeling Savanarola. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:48:13 AM EST

    Not sure I understand-- (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    Savonarola, priest and ruler of Florence: "The first thing done at his instance was to relieve the starving populace within and without the walls; shops were opened to give work to the unemployed; all taxes, especially those weighing on the lower classes, were reduced; the strictest administration of justice was enforced, and all men were exhorted to place their trust in the Lord."

    Doesn't sound like anyone today.


    When I looked him up (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    he did start burning "bad art" though.  You just can't get a perfect saint these days :)

    Savaranola called for the "Bonfire (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    of the Vanities" and got a great response.  Then the Pope (a Borgia) managed to defrock Savanarola and have him hanged and burned.  I mistakenly remembered Savanarola as the instigator for the hanging and burning of heretics.  I may be wrong on that, at least per Wiki and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

    Me Too! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:09:46 PM EST
    Not till I checked did I catch on that I had mentally classified S. as burner, not burn-ee.  (Last Catholic school I attended was grade 3, my so-called knowledge was picked from the fiction of the 40's--"Captain from Castille' and such.)

    Who is that? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    Break the google day?

    Interesting (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    Will he an addressed character in the upcoming mini series?

    Liberation Theology? (none / 0) (#24)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:56:33 AM EST
     If only it were true. . .we'd have had a HAMP designed to lead poor oppressed house owners languishing in the financiers' Egypt under the heavy weight of bankers' contractual thumbs across the red sea of bankruptcy into the promised land of financial freedom of sustained housing equity and viable income.
     If only it were so. . . we'd have the mana of a government bailout renewed as needed to the faithful main street smaller bankers who played by the rules, to feed jobs to the oppressed small businesses, and thus by lending sustain us from the ravages of a dry prickly, sparse desert of an economy and into the promised land of a green, growing economy. . .

    If I'm reading you correctly (none / 0) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    re: Liberation Theology

    If he did, he'd know better than to associate Obama with it (for better or worse), but no matter

    and if this WaPo post's interpretation is correct:

    Context is everything. You know the world differently, and thus you do theology differently....the absolutely critical move in liberation theology is to recognize that this information does influence you, and you need to become aware of that and become self-critical, and gain more insight into how others see the world as well

    God says it's ok to be against Obama and his policies?  I ain't no liberation theologist, I don't need to understand your perspective, I only need know what God has told me and that's not how God would have me do it?  Is this what they believe is the chink in Obama's armor?  

    in classic calvinism, (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    acquisition of great material wealth, is a sign that one is "pre-destined" to go to heaven. impoverishment is the opposite.

    thus, the poor are already destined for the fiery pits of hell, and there really isn't anything they can do about it. unless god's just playing a cruel joke on them.

    the issue i have with the beckian philosophy is that it's so convoluted (aside from "you should invest in overpriced collector gold coins"), i honestly have no clue what he's talking about most of the time. i suspect that puts me in with his followers.

    I've never heard anyone accuse the (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:34:52 AM EST
    Calvinists of preaching liberation theology.  Different beast.

    neither did anyone here.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    This is a ridiculous distraction (none / 0) (#65)
    by mexboy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    This discussion is about religion and its different branches and interpretations when it should be about religion having no place in government.

    The white house should be driving a stake through that loathsome argument instead of timidly repeating, the president is a Christan.

    Shouldn't they say something to the effect that human beings are imperfect and incapable of understanding God, that we all strive to do our best with the limited knowledge we have (compared to God's infinite wisdom) and that the proof is in the fact that we have many denominations.

    They should use scripture to combat this theocratic mob-mentality : "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..." Although those particular verses were  not in the original writings and added about 400 years after that...how ironic is that?

    Why does Beck hate our Constitution? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    ... which says, in Article VI, paragraph 3, that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States"?  

    He's an opportunist (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by mexboy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    who knows how to make money.

    Your argument is exactly the kind of "weapons" that need to be used to expose and disarm people like, Beck. Pelosi should be leading the charge.


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 05:28:25 PM EST
    It is a trap. There is zero reason for Obama to indulge Beck and his cohorts...  

    Let the Beck GOP machine spin out anti-american themes as much as they want. In fact I hope more GOPers join Beck's chorus. It will be their death knell. Toxic stuff, even Bush never went there.


    Free Speech (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    Obama told NBC's Brian Williams on Sunday that he hadn't watched the Lincoln Memorial event but that he supported the right of Beck and his supporters to rally.

    Obama said that given the country's economic and national security woes, "it's not surprising that somebody like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the country."

    This response seems about right to me.