Patterico's Pontifications

9/15/2010

Mark Levin: No, Really. Patterico Is a Jackass. I Would Have Kicked His Ass in Court.

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:25 pm

Mark Levin shows us UNITY!!! again on Facebook:

This idiot is a prosecutor?

God save the good citizens of California who pays [sic] his salary.

Well, Mr. Prosecutor, you say you’re concerned about facts. Show us where I said Castle voted for impeachment – not where someone said I did but where I said I said it. See, this is why you’re a moron. And a dissembler to boot.

As for Mirengoff and Harriet Miers, I know we’re moving fast but try and keep up. Mirengoff argued for her nomination up until the day before she withdrew. And Hinderaker trashed George Will for daring to criticize her. You’re concerned about facts? You’re a jackass, but I repeat myself.

And no need to feel inferior for not having written a book. I don’t know why you brought that up, but that’s for you and your shrink. I just hope you can read them.

Boy I would have loved to kick your ass in court.

http://patterico.com/2010/09/13/september-surprise-castle-voted-to-impeach-bush-uh-not-really/

Let’s address these “points” one by one:

Well, Mr. Prosecutor, you say you’re concerned about facts. Show us where I said Castle voted for impeachment – not where someone said I did but where I said I said it. See, this is why you’re a moron. And a dissembler to boot.

Show you where you said it?

How about you show me where I said you did?

Because I didn’t. What I said was that your pal Dan Riehl claimed it may have started with you. Here is what I said:

Dan Riehl was pushing this crap for much of the day. He now has updates to his posts, that pretty much negate the entire substance of his posts. . . . Riehl says it all may have started with Mark Levin: “I believe Mark Levin may have broken this on his show.”

You falsely imply I was the one who made the claim. I was not. It was your pal Dan Riehl.

Now that you appear to deny it, I am happy to correct it — even though it wasn’t my claim. Pay attention, Mr. Levin. This is how it’s done. I went back to the original post and made the correction — something you never bothered to do with your numerous mistakes regarding Mirengoff.

Levin continues:

As for Mirengoff and Harriet Miers, I know we’re moving fast but try and keep up. Mirengoff argued for her nomination up until the day before she withdrew. And Hinderaker trashed George Will for daring to criticize her. You’re concerned about facts? You’re a jackass, but I repeat myself.

As before, I will refrain from descending to your childish level of name-calling and address the facts. I noted at least three separate factual errors in my original post criticizing you.

We’ve covered the Harriet Miers issue already; you initially failed to acknowledge Mirengoff’s ultimate position against her; you have now done so, making your original uncorrected charge a half-truth. If you’re proud of a half-truth, that’s your business. You should still correct the error in your original post. You have not done so.

You admitted you were wrong about Toomey. You should correct the error in your original post. You have not done so.

Facebook allows you to update posts; hell, you included one of your false charges in an update.

What’s more, you still haven’t addressed the fact that you said Lindsey Graham is Mirengoff’s “brand of Republican” when Mirengoff has said Graham is his least favorite Republican senator.

In short, you spouted off about Mirengoff without knowing a damned thing about him. Then you derided my posts noting your factual misstatements — because you’ve written a book and I haven’t. Which leads us to the end of your latest screed:

And no need to feel inferior for not having written a book. I don’t know why you brought that up, but that’s for you and your shrink. I just hope you can read them.

Boy I would have loved to kick your ass in court.

Oh, I’m the one who brought up not having written a book?? This new false charge of yours makes it clear who the true dissembler is: you. You are the one who brought up having written a book, in your original diatribe about me:

I look forward to reading his book one day, where he lays out with some coherence his philosophy on governance and politics. In the meantime, he appears to be just another loser with a keyboard . . .

All I did was note the distinct whiff of the “Ruling Class” in your haughty statement.

I don’t feel inferior to you at all, Mr. Levin. In fact, as you pile on the childish invective and continue publishing falsehoods, it’s becoming quite clear why I say that.

Kick my ass in court? Really?

If you conducted yourself in court the way you have conducted yourself the past several days, I would be shocked if you ever actually tried a case to a successful conclusion. I say that in all sincerity. No trial lawyer convinces 12 people with transparent lies and juvenile name-calling.

Always nice to hear from you.

Server Migration Tonight

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:33 pm

If things are wonky for the next 24 hours you’ll know why.

It’s a last-ditch effort to fix all these problems we’ve had for the last two years.

If this doesn’t work, it’s Blogspot for me.

Harry’s Pet Coons

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:58 pm

Yeah, he said it. What about it?

“I’m going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate,” Reid said.

“Let me tell you about him: A graduate of Yale Divinity School. Yale Law School. A two-time national debate champion. He represents two-thirds of the state now, in an elected capacity. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen him or heard him speak, but he is a dynamic speaker. I don’t mean loud or long; he’s a communicator. So that’s how I feel about Delaware. I’ve always thought Chris Coons is going to win. I told him that and I tried to get him to run. I’m glad he’s running. I just think the world of him. He’s my pet.

It was so important to say, he said it twice.

Just so you’d know it wasn’t an accident.

You have your straight line. Your punch line below.

UNITY!!!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:27 pm

Wear it proudly on your forehead:

Thanks to Dustin.

Cornyn: NRSC Will Back O’Donnell Financially

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:55 pm

A good move. Cornyn has finally recognized that people are very motivated by this race — and maybe that she has an outside chance of winning. I was upset at the NRSC last night for announcing that they weren’t going to give her a cent, and I wasn’t alone. Glad to see he is pursuing . . .

Unity.

Speaking of which:

I heard elitist Mark “You haven’t written a book and I have” Levin screaming on the radio today about how anyone who didn’t support Christine O’Donnell isn’t looking at the big picture. She cares about the Constitution and Castle didn’t, etc.

I’d ignore the windbag, except that I see variations of this argument echoed throughout the Internet today. So let’s bat down this bad argument now.

HEAR THIS, O’DONNELL SUPPORTERS:

WE WANT THE SAME THING YOU DO.

Conservatives have many different motivations for conservatism, of course. We share many views, but everyone has their primary motivating force. For someone like Allahpundit, it appears to be rooted in a desire to beat back the terrorists who attacked his city on 9/11. For me, it’s about the Constitution — which means getting a Supreme Court that will issue rulings that are consistent with Constitutional principles. That’s why I went ballistic when I heard Harriet Miers announced as a Supreme Court candidate — and ran myself ragged fighting that nomination. Others have their own motivations for conservatism.

But don’t tell me I don’t have my eye on the big picture, Mr. Ruling Class Levin. Don’t you get it? The big picture is what this is all about.

I want as many votes as possible in the U.S. Senate so that if, God help us, Antonin Scalia retires, we can beat back a nominee who will issue Stephen Reinhardt style rulings. I want to have every vote possible to defeat bills like ObamaCare, which represents a huge creeping intrusion of the federal government into our private lives — undermining the balance set by the Constitution.

I thought the best way to achieve these goals was to vote for Castle. You guys thought different. I have said all along that I can respect your point of view. Respect ours, and respect our motivations.

P.S. Another factor in my opposition to O’Donnell is my belief that she is slippery and dishonest. I listened to that radio interview where she tried to make it sound like she tied in two counties — after having initially claimed she won two counties — when in fact she won ZERO counties. I thought to myself: this woman is a weasel.

I am not going to pretend otherwise, and I don’t care if it’s “helpful” or not. My first duties are to the truth and to the Constitution. I didn’t criticize Mark Levin for supporting Christine O’Donnell. I criticized him for lying about Paul Mirengoff. My distaste for Christine O’Donnell lies in my sense that she has no greater commitment to the truth than Mark Levin.

Saying that may not be “helpful” — but if you think I’m going to say only things that are “helpful” instead of what I believe, then you don’t know me. And if that bothers you, this may not be the site for you.

That said, I am still supporting Christine O’Donnell. She’s a weasel, but she’s our weasel. And we need every vote we can get.

Dems, Tea Partiers Celebrate While Sarah Palin Calls for an Elusive “Unity”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:40 am

The people cheering Christine O’Donnell’s  victory in the Delaware Senate primary include Tea Partiers and Democrats.  Tea Partiers, because they sent a message to the GOP establishment.  Democrats, because a seat that was a likely loss is suddenly a likely win.

And make no mistake: voters probably handed a Senate seat to Democrats last night.  Castle voters were polled and said they prefer the Democrat 2-1 over O’Donnell.  It’s not impossible for her to win if the stars align just right.  But wishing upon the stars works in the movies; in real life, not so much.

After O’Donnell’s victory, Sarah Palin issued a call for “unity” among Republicans.  I fully support this and support candidate O’Donnell.  She has deep flaws, but I’d rather see my flawed candidate in the Senate than the other side’s flawed candidate.

However, I can tell you that Palin’s “unity” directive is going to be hard to implement.

Part of the problem is the Republican establishment, which let slip the fact that they do not intend to give O’Donnell a cent to pursue her quixotic ambitions.  The decision not to fund her mostly hopeless candidacy is defensible. The decision to announce that decision on election night is unforgivable.

If O’Donnell loses — I’m thinking “when” but saying “if” for the sake of our “unity” — Tea Partiers will not look for blame in the mirror.  Establishment Republicans have given them a ready-made scapegoat, and they will flog it all the way to 2012.

Another part of the problem lies in the insufferable gloating of O’Donnell supporters over what was a fairly predictable primary victory.  It does not foster “unity” to declare that O’Donnell beat “Mike Castle, Allahpundit, Charles Krauthammer, and Jim Geraghty.”  It does not foster “unity” to label Paul Mirengoff a “loser” who needs to wear a dress for noting the obvious obstacles O’Donnell faces.  If Twitter is any reflection of the mood among conservatives, I saw civil war last night.  The Levin acolytes going around mimicking his name-calling behavior are hardly seeking “unity.”

With all their toldya so’s, you’d think these people had won the general election instead of handing it to the opposition.

If Sarah Palin truly seeks “unity,” at some point she is going to need to rein these people in.

No matter what happens, there is one silver lining, and it was expressed well here last night by DRJ in our chat:

Short version: O’Donnell has to strike fear in every moderate GOP politician’s soul. Good.

That may be all we get out of this. Is it worth it? Maybe it is.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1671 secs.