Brock was sent to sabotage this story which others had been reporting and knowing about for several years.

I have not claimed (nor has Media Matters) that Beck is “a vicious liar who would exploit personal tragedy,” so don’t put words in my mouth. Anything beyond the evidence that has been presented — that there is a discrepancy between the official record and what Beck has said — is speculative until such time that Beck chooses to explain the discrepancy, since he’s the only one who can. How can this be a “smear” when all of the information presented was taken from the public record?

Beck has made incorporated his personal history — a difficult childhood and later drug abuse and alcholism, then redemption through religion and conservative politics — into his public appeal. He has blurred the personal and the political. Why can’t that be looked into?

Tell me — what are we not allowed to report or investigate about Beck? Where is the line? Why is this particular story on the wrong side of that line, aside from the fact that it raises questions about Beck you would rather not see raised? What is the “ad hominem smear” in the information provided by Media Matters (which, as I previously noted, originated elsewhere)?

Are you accusing the Tacoma News-Tribune, or Salon, of engaging in “ad hominem smears” for committing the offense of originally reporting this discrepancy?

Or are you saying that what one might reasonably conclude from the presentation of this factual information, in the absence of further explanation from Beck, is the “smear”? If so, your problem is with Beck, not me.

That was the argument against Hillary’s account of the Tuzla “sniper-fire” (and rightly so).

It’s amazing that anyone with an IQ into double-digits treats Beck seriously considering his own words: “I’m a rodeo clown,” he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, “It takes great skill.”

see: http://gawker.com/5189897/glenn-beck-calls-himself-a-rodeo-clown

And look at what the supposed actual party leadership thinks of the de facto party leadership: The new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, apologized to Rush Limbaugh on Monday after describing him in a television interview over the weekend as an “entertainer” who made incendiary and sometimes ugly remarks, party officials said.

see: http://open.salon.com/blog/chris_b/2009/03/13/just_entertainment_from_rush_limbaugh_to_jon_stewart

The RepubliCons have seen clearly that they can only antagonize the crazy base at their own peril. This does not bode well for anyone.

You honestly see no difference between an ad hominem smear and a legitimate political disagreement?

At NewsReal we criticize people for the ideas that they hold and promote. That’s entirely legitimate. (Just as it’s legitimate for you to attack Beck’s policy ideas.)

It’s not an ad hominem smear to criticize someone for promoting wrongheaded policy (which is what we primarily do.) This is worlds apart from digging into someone’s painful personal history to try and demonstrate that they’re a vicious liar who would exploit personal tragedy.

This is practically the most damning comment yet, Terry. Confessing that you don’t know what a smear even is — that you don’t know what’s appropriate in intellectual discourse and what isn’t — basically proves my point.

And the truth shall set you free. You fear him, your verbage confirms it. Beck has no bully pulpit. His viewership does not come to him via an office. He has no power or authority. You seem to perceive that he does though? Is this the reason for the smears from your camp? Most definitely. Why do you fear him?

It is not at all incongruous to simultaneously resort to both mechanisms for defending oneself, Mr. Swindle. Jesus Christ Himself resorted to responses of a similar sort many times throughout His earthly ministry in defending His disciples from the Pharisees’ accusations of law-breaking.

“The issue here is this: is it appropriate to bring up the circumstances surrounding the death of Glenn Beck’s mother? What purpose can this serve in today’s political dialogue?”

I’ll take a crack at that second question…

If one has reason to believe that Beck’s own understanding of the situation is misguided, then others who are intently watch-dogging him can make the following claim: ‘Well since he was wrong about this little matter, he could be just as wrong (if not more so) about more pressing concerns.’ And in light of this observation, the answer to the first question may well be ‘yes.’ If it turns out that Beck is lying about the circumstances surrounding his mother’s death, that could cause people to question whether he is being truthful about other worldly matters.

Of course, determining WHETHER Beck is lying is an entirely different matter, one that neither I nor Mr. Krepel nor Mr. Swindle — or anyone else but Mr. Beck himself — can determine with certainty.