Patterico's Pontifications


Why Does Mark Levin Think He Can Get Away with Multiple Falsehoods Against a Blogger?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:38 pm

If you’re the sort of person who lets others lie without responding, this post is not for you. If you believe that people should be able to tell falsehoods without being corrected, you should skip to the next post. Right now. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Still here? Good. That means you believe in my right to stand up for the truth when someone says things that are false.

Now, I have in the past participated in blogger wars with the best of them. I have grown tired of them. I have recently taken positive steps to get out of the cycle of attack and counterattack. I sent Jeff Goldstein a note seeking to bury the hatchet. I have directed people to his fundraising drive, as he has directed people to mine. I unbanned him and every other person I have ever banned, hoping to undo the grudges that often come with banning.

I’m not a perfect man and will never claim to be, but I’m sincerely weary of Internet spats that are personal and nasty. I’m still willing to debate ideas with vigor and passion, but I am not interested in bashing people personally.

I didn’t go looking for a nasty personal interchange with Mark Levin. I wrote a post that corrected several factual inaccuracies he had made about Paul Mirengoff. I hoped he would correct the inaccuracies with class. Instead, he has now written three separate Facebook entries about me, each one containing new falsehoods, and each calling me names such as “jackass,” “moron,” and “idiot.”

You are welcome to read my responses to determine whether you think I have responded in kind, or whether I have instead concentrated on the facts.

Levin has another Facebook post about me today, titled Patrick Frey’s infirmities, and it contains more falsehoods. Part of me just wants to ignore it, because I’m bored by the whole thing. But ultimately, I don’t think he should be able to say things that aren’t true and get away with it. The fact that you’re reading this should mean that you agree.

So let me correct the new falsehoods. I’ll try to keep it as short as I can. As before, I will refrain from calling him names.

Levin says:

On another matter, Frey has posted that I said Castle voted to impeach Bush.

False. My actual quote:

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.”

I did not say Levin made the claim. I said that Dan Riehl had made the claim that the false accusation may have originated with Levin.

Indeed, if you listen to Levin’s original audio, you can see why Riehl believed that Levin had said Castle voted for impeachment. Levin’s presentation — in which he read the text of the resolution, noted Castle’s vote, and called it “stunning” — was designed, through half-truths, to suggest to his audience that Castle truly sought for Bush to be impeached. I will have more details in a separate page, for those who want to get into the weeds.

Levin continues:

I asked him to provide evidence for this stupid comment, since I never said it. He doesn’t [link] to any original source because he can’t.

False. In a September 15 update to this post, I linked to the audio. As with his attacks on Mirengoff, Levin is leveling charges that the facts don’t cash. Back to Levin:

The website that originally falsely stated my position has since retracted their statement and corrected it. Frey refuses to correct himself and blames it on Dan Riehl. Like I said, he’s a jackass.

False. I did “correct” Riehl’s mistake the very moment I learned that Levin denied it (even though the audio tends to undercut his denial). Here are my updates:

Riehl says it all may have started with Mark Levin: “I believe Mark Levin may have broken this on his show.”

Levin? Engaged in falsehoods? I refuse to believe it! (But then, I am a jackass and a moron, according to Mark Levin. So why listen to me?)

[UPDATE 9-15-10: Levin, in his trademark sneering style, implicitly denies Riehl’s charge. Hence, I am correcting Riehl’s mistake here. This is how it’s done, Mr. Levin: you correct the error in the original place where it was made.]

[UPDATE 9-16-10: Here is the audio where Levin talked about Castle voting to allow the impeachment resolution to go to the committee. Levin calls the vote “stunning.”]

As you can see, Levin accuses me of failing to make a correction. But he didn’t go back to check to see if I had — because I did, two days before he made the false accusation this morning.

You want to see a refusal to correct? We’ve had a long interchange, and each and every time I have pointed out that Levin said Lindsey Graham is Mirengoff’s “brand of Republican” when Mirengoff has said Graham is his least favorite Republican senator. Levin has not acknowledged this error, once, in any post he has written during this exchange.

You want to see a refusal to correct? Here is a screenshot I have taken of Levin’s original post about Mirengoff:

The circled parts are false. They are still there, uncorrected, ready for anyone to stumble across on Google.

You know, I have been correcting people on errors for years, and have made a virtual second career out of obtaining corrections at the Los Angeles Times, where I have obtained over 40 printed corrections on matters both large and small. I don’t think I have ever had the target of my posts respond in the way Levin has. Imagine if someone from the L.A. Times were to get caught with their pants down, in several successive pieces, on numerous different points . . . and responded to the criticism by doubling down on the falsehoods and labeling their critic a “jackass” and a “moron.”

That person would be the laughingstock of the blogosphere.

I wonder what makes Levin think he can get away with distorting the truth in such a serial fashion? Has he gotten too “big for his britches” (as they say in Texas)? What makes him think he can bully a relatively minor blogger, by mobilizing his army of 200,000+ Facebook fans to swarm said blogger? Why does he think that people won’t notice his numerous errors . . . or that they will give him a pass when he refuses to correct them, and instead attacks the messenger?

It’s a rhetorical question, but bat it around anyway. When you come up with the answer, you might just see some irony in Mr. Levin’s pose as a common man who rejects the Ruling Class.

P.S. Thanks to Foo Bar for the link to the audio and the Mirengoff quote showing his contempt for Graham.

UPDATE: Levin has written a fourth Facebook entry attacking me, mostly consisting of what psychologists call “projection.” I think someone has taken him aside and told him how this is all making him look. Details here.

250 Responses to “Why Does Mark Levin Think He Can Get Away with Multiple Falsehoods Against a Blogger?”

  1. I was contacted by a Media Matters guy today (Joe Strupp) who was looking for a quote about Levin. I told him, essentially, that it was sad to see Levin stoop to the level I’m used to seeing from Eric Boehlert.

    His reply: “Thanks anyway.”

    Heh. That’s what I thought you’d say, pal.

    They think because one conservative is unfairly smearing me that I’m going to be their dancing monkey?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. I like you. But, being as I have never written a book, that probably doesn’t count for much.

    I would rather have a beer with you or the Powerline guys than with Levin unless it was a really crowded and noisy bar and we needed someone with a very loud voice to get the waitresses attention.

    Huey (b95da8)

  3. I could get the waitress’s attention — if I did my impression of Mark Levin.


    Patterico (c218bd)

  4. I don’t think Levin is going to whip anybody’s a*s in court by making sh*t up or deleting comments on his facebook page that call him on it.

    I hear he almost ran the Reagan Justice Department as a snot nosed lawyer fresh out of Temple law school. He’ll tell you himself.

    The older he gets, the better he was.

    What a putz.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  5. Mark Levin’s not wasting his time drinking beer in some bar when there’s work to be done spoiling Happy Gilmore’s golf game. But also making sure those member’s only walls around the Tea Party are locked good and tight.

    I obviously don’t know which commenter is from this facebook page (where my perfectly respectful comment was deleted, btw… shoulda grabbed a screenshot), but I’ve been amused at this flow of people saying it’s a shame Patterico’s tone is so harsh (relative to Levin’s?!?), and how Patterico only bashes the wrong people (true conservatives). These people are unprepared to win hearts and minds by appealing, nicely, to some of the people who elected Obama and other progressives. They are just as annoying to moderates as those Maxine Waters supporters are to me.

    I made this point to Dan Riehl: when Dan endorses someone without reservation, I don’t know that person is ethical or non-weaselly. Don’t set yourself up so that your approval means nothing and influences no one.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  6. Leave another comment on his Facebook page and grab a screenshot. If you’re banned, get a screenshot of that.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  7. If he is suppressing polite but critical commentary, I think people should know.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  8. Patterico:

    I just wanted to compliment you on your research. The “least favorite Republican senator” Mirengoff quote and the audio of Levin calling Castle’s vote “stunning” are 2 great finds. Well done!

    Foo Bar (c1726e)

  9. I only listened to him once. He’s a screamer. Rush is talented and even humorous, but Levin…not for me.

    Patricia (9c62d9)

  10. Good point, Foo Bar.

    Hang on.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  11. Done. And thank you again.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  12. Dustin – Dan is just playing stepnfetchit for Levin while making ridiculous excuses for his own conduct.

    Heh. Paraphrasing Dan – “I said it may have originated on Levin’s show. I thought everybody knew that meant it was a totally unsubstantiated rumor posted in the comments section of my blog that I elevated to the main page and left up and unchecked all day, even though looking at the underlying House vote I knew the post title was blatantly wrong and misleading because it was not a vote to impeach Bush, only to refer wacky Kucinich’s resolution to committee. I have no idea how anybody could have been mislead by what I posted and left uncorrected.”

    daleyrocks (940075)

  13. If you really are a jackass, moron, and idiot like Levin claims you are, why then does he feel compelled to waste his time writing about such an irrelevant person?

    Secret man crush?

    No, just his guilty conscience acting out.

    He’s wrong: he knows it, we know it, and he knows we know it. But he just can’t get the big ego under control and let that tiny sliver of humility in the farthest reaches of his being have its way. The price would be too great: It would be revealed he is indeed fallible and merely human – and while we all know that, he doesn’t, at least not on the deeper level where soul meets bone, and he can’t afford to let himself really *know* it.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  14. By the way, while we’re pushing back against Levin and defending Power Line, here’s something else for some balance. In this post back in August, Power Line’s Scott Johnson talked about Jim Leach living in a “parallel universe” and inventing straw men because he expressed concern in a speech about Americans burning the Koran. However, Leach was obviously referring to Terry Jones’ planned Koran burning. So Johnson made it look like Leach was inventing stuff out of thin air when he was clearly referring to a news story which had already gotten attention (and ended up getting much more attention). Apparently, Johnson was not even aware of the Jones story at the time. I tried multiple times to get Power Line to fix the error, but they never did.

    Foo Bar (c1726e)

  15. Nicely played with MM, Patterico.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  16. F-ck mark levin.

    Seriously who listens to these shows anyway. Like let me tell you a secret. You know how many times i have listened to rush limbaugh. Once. once, on the way to the airport because the driver had it on.

    And its not even personal agaisnt rush. i suspect he is very entertaining. But okay when do i listen to the radio? in my car. Only. i haven’t sat in a stationary chair listening to the radio in over ten years. if i listen to music at home, its going to be my music players. And as for talk, i listen to TV talkers. i literaly have a set up where i can pipe my tivo through my amp so i can watch something else on TV while listening to, say, the O’Reilly Factor. usually while playing a video game. Like grand theft auto.

    And when i am in my car, in traffic, the last thing i want to hear is talk. I want to hear music. music that lifts my mood, maybe even some primal scream stuff. Like i really, really love listening to some good old Alice In Chains (their new stuff is sh-t–the band died with Lane Staley), or Linkin Park, but the wife usually can’t stand that. Or really laid back stuff like Eagles. I don’t want to hear some guy talking. I don’t care if he is funny, there is no rhythm, no escape from the hell that is interstate 66.

    And i literally don’t know anyone who listens to these guys. none of them. no the liberals, not the consevatives, none of them.

    So f— him. Really, seriously, i think his whole audience are liberals paid to tell everyone what an awful thing he has said, like in media matters.

    That being said, let me suggest that you take a different tone with him. i have learned a long time ago, the best reaction is ridicule. Whether you mean to or not, you sound angry. and i am not saying you don’t have a right to be angry, but its not healthy. so mockery. it will do your soul good.

    Btw, if you do ever want to listen to talking when you drive, let me make a helpful suggestion. Get the autobiography of Martin Luther King, on audio. Now, of course the late reverend was not able to record most of it. So most of it is read by Levarr Burton (sp?) famous for being on reading rainbow and star trek: the next generation (he was the blind engineer). Its actually a really appropriate choice, because the man has an intellectual tone to his voice and it stresses the great intellect that Dr. King was. And it is interspersed with real recordings, either from sermons he has given or the speeches. It is a stunningly beautiful listening experience. It is also a road hazard, because your eyes will probably well up with tears at least once.

    And you will learn that there is a Martin Luther King you were not taught about in high school. There was a man who thought as deeply about the spirit as about segregation, about natural law, about eternal morality. it is really a profound work.

    So there is a free recommendation. i have given that recording as a gift to like 10 different people and every single one of them have loved it. it is beautiful. And don’t take my word for it. it won a grammy that year.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  17. I’ve lost respect for Levin as a result of this situation. Once lost, respect is very difficult to regain.
    Patrick, I commend you for standing up to a man who’s acting like a liberal bully.

    either orr (58d2a4)

  18. Nicely played with MM, Patterico.


    Patterico (c218bd)

  19. Media Matters I suspect.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. Ah. I get it.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  21. Seriously, Patterico, stop crying in your beer, and focus on the real enemy, which is Coons, ‘the bearded Marxist’ remember, who makes Biden seem like a Bircher, that was what really ticked many of us, about Rove’s pathetic performance these last two nights.

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  22. ian, why? Why does Patterico have the obligation to ignore Mark Levin’s conduct?

    Because you want him to?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  23. This whole battle comes down to a simple problem. Purity of thought triumphs over consideration of consequences.

    I understand the debate. I really want conservatism to win, but you are seeing a similar war on the left.

    They, the left, want all their hopes and dreams to come true and they finally have it within their grasp.

    But, America is saying, wait a second, is this what we really want?

    I’m sorry, Levin, but a purity test at this point is not the answer. And, after reading your books, I can’t believe you would take such a Stalinist position.

    I’m also sorry, Patterico, but people don’t want a milquetoast conservative to make things better no matter how pragmatic it may be.

    Look at what it has gotten us so far.

    The only hope for the opposition is to make a united stand against absolute statism.

    Ag80 (5c7ef4)

  24. Patterico,

    You are right, but you also should probably move on. Levin will ignore you or keep calling you names, nobody who likes him will care about the facts you present.

    I speak from experience, having once been “banned” by a somewhat up-and-coming blogger because I kept proving he was wrong about things. But he also deleted some rather long comments I made, which bugged me because I had put a lot of effort into them.

    Then he kept letting his other posters attack me, and then allowed them to start noting that I had no answers to their taunts, so I was chicken. He never told them I was banned — further, he tried to block me from READING his blog

    So I started posting my own blog entries explaining in detail how he was being unethical, and trying to get other bloggers to put pressure on him.

    He simply ignored me, nobody else really cared, and in the end I just wasted my time. Blogging and Radio Talk Shows are not really for the truth, or for ethics, they are all about building an audience and making money and fame and power.

    And for most, like Levin, you don’t get and keep power by being civil and admitting you got wrapped up in something and were taken by others spreading lies. He to some extent is owned by his audience, who he got by being a bomb-thrower, and would lose (and maybe they’d throw bombs at him) if he wandered too far off the reservation.

    You can see it in his tip-toeing around things that he clearly agrees are stupid, but can’t come out and say (it seems birtherism is one of those things).

    I think it’s sad because Levin the Author was a decent guy, but Levin the Talk Show Host isn’t a nice guy, or even a very persuasive guy. Mostly, he provides the screaming loud-mouth hack voice to Rush’s more reasonable approach, without really adding anything to the conversation.

    Charles (7bf240)

  25. Seriously, Patterico, stop crying in your beer . . .

    I spent so much time in the post arguing for the right to correct errors because of this sort of attitude.

    ian, can you give me a list of people who are OK to lie about me?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  26. Well, even if you could get the waitresses attention, you probably could not afford to buy the round because you are just a civil servant and have not written a best seller.

    Now, I bet the Powerline guys could afford to buy, so I am still on your team.

    Huey (b95da8)

  27. I just don’t like how sneery Levin is it’s very silly cause you’re Mr. Patterico and he’s just a regular old media whore person, which is one of those parasitic niches what just can’t not get filled

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  28. You clearly implied he was responsible, it was a stupid vote, it was stupid for Peter King who should have known better, it was stupid for two
    representatives from my neck of the woods, It isthe epitome of all that was wrong in 2008, they leave our soldiers in the lurch, they spend more than the eye can see, it had nothing to do with what are the responsibilities of the Congress,

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  29. “You clearly implied he was responsible”

    ian – By quoting Riehl who claimed Levin was responsible? Blame Riehl, not Patterico.

    Patterico’s post went up at 11:37 p.m. West Coast time after the false meme had already been defused. Who had been pushing it?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  30. I’ve always been put off with Hannity and the rest calling Levin The Great One. Not because that name should always be reserved for #99, but because it’s too damn close to all the Obama, we are the one, bullshit.

    PC14 (4a4ed3)

  31. BTW, I think Tookie Smith wrote 4 books so that is hardly an indication of any kind of superiority…

    Gazzer (c062b1)

  32. I appreciate the sane and respectful commentary over here. I used to have Riehl on my daily first-read list but lately the place seems to have descended to the same depths as LGF…or even DU, for no apparent reason.
    I couldn’t give a rat’s a*s about Mark Levin. His voice is as grating on me as Michael Savage, and on the few occasions I bothered to listen to his show I was left feeling like I had watched two monkeys trying to fu*k a football.
    Keep doing what you’re doing over here and don’t let the bastards get you down. Sooner or later their meds will kick in and all will return to the status quo.

    Mike (13b926)

  33. Levin seems more like an immature, snot-nosed leftwing kid than someone who can be relied upon. IOW, he seems so emotional as to easily end up unhinged from common sense. That’s even more the case since a lot of people in his own immediate family probably are card-carrying liberals—ie, surveys indicate that around 80-plus percent of people in the Jewish community are of the left.

    So he of all people should be fully aware of the amount of leftist idiocy out there, of how many people have liberal biases, and therefore of how dealing with the tactical issues involving an election in, as one example, blue-state Delaware made perfect sense.

    Mark (411533)

  34. Foo Bar:
    Scott Johnson was referring to a speech made by NEH Chair Jim Leach on August 5, 2010. The speech does not refer to Terry Jones and as I recall, Terry Jones was not on anyone’s radar when Leach made the speech on August 5, so I’m not so sure he was “obviously” referring to Terry Jones.

    JamesPh. (acc23e)

  35. I appreciate your attempted restraint in getting mired in another spat. I like Levin’s message and impact, but his behavior often seems unnecessarily nasty.

    IMO, name-calling is never a good argument.

    equitus (dd04da)

  36. Riehl can go off on a tear, notably on the TPC/CPAC.brouhaha, Levin as did a host of others, can go over the top, say Dubai ports )formerly P & 0, but it becomes too easy for some to get trapped in the left’s memes, yes she did abstinence work in her earlier days, it was something rewarded in the last administration,it is part of Christian dogma,you knw ‘bitter clingers’ she should have focused her complaint more narrowly, then again we don’t really know the context.

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  37. Before there was Rush Limbaugh, there was Bob Grant — conservative, but with a hyper-aggressive/abrasive style that played well in New York (where the host hanging up on callers was standard operating procedure), but not many other places. Limbaugh’s insight was to temper conservative talk show anger at liberals with humor, so that the ridicule and disdain was both funny and angry.

    Levin is Bob Grant redux, or Rush with the humor for the most part removed. He’s smarter than the angry talk show hosts of the left, but suffers from the same flaw in thinking he can win the argument by never admitting a mistake, and lashing out at anyone he believes has crossed him, whether it’s Patrick Frey or Glenn Beck.

    Because he’s more well-known and is friends with Rush (and Sean Hannity), Levin will probably win over more hearts and minds in this battle, who’ll simply buy the lines he’s peddling without checking for their accuracy. But the feud with Beck leaves a lot more conservatives scratching their heads, because in this one Mark’s trying to blackball someone more famous than he is from the Certified Conservatives Club, and if he keeps the attacks up against others, well-known or lesser-known, who don’t measure up to his standards, he’s going to end up down the line looking and sounding like the right-wing version of Ed Schultz.

    John (e3fdad)

  38. жуй бублики!

    Daimi (f7c1ec)

  39. Not an alarming rate, but still, more growth than he’d ever noticed back in Los Angeles.

    Daimi (d8abcb)

  40. that’s the mode you fall into when traversing foreign lands.

    levin (d8abcb)

  41. Levin is acting like a bully.

    Terrye (2e6779)

  42. I only listened to him once. He’s a screamer. Rush is talented and even humorous, but Levin…not for me.

    I’ve tried to listen to him. But his constant hand-wring, sniveling tone – combined with a voice reminiscent of a bandsaw with adenoids – is too much to take.

    the friendl grizzly (2f59a6)

  43. I am curious: has Sean Hannity — who helped Levin rise to the relative level of prominence he now enjoys — commented on Levin’s recent attacks on behalf of O’Donnell?

    NCC (996c34)

  44. People get called “moron” all the time, to the point where the term is meaningless, other than to say, “I disagree with you.” But in calling you a “jackass,” Mr Levin has implied that you are a Democrat. Truly, that is below the belt; no comment could be more vile.

    The Republican Dana (3e4784)

  45. John @37 has a great point. Levin is like Bob Grant – or Rush without the humor. And, to take it a step further, Sean Hannity is like Levin without the education or intellect.

    Sometimes I liked Levin on the radio because it was funny when he went off on a tear against somebody. “Get off the phone, ya big dope!” (Though that doesn’t stay funny for long.) But I can’t stand Hannity on his best days. He drones on and on and on in his whiney voice, saying the same few talking points for YEARS. He listens to about a 1/2 sentence from a caller before he’s jumping in making stupid comments – not even responses, just dumb remarks. And then he complains that they won’t listen to him.

    In this area, it’s 2 hours of Levin, followed by 2 hours of Mitch Albom. It’s so bad that I sometimes tune in to Theyrone X.

    Gesundheit (aab7c6)

  46. I LOVE Mark Levin!

    Stacy M (0a7649)

  47. I see what’s going on here…. Pull up some old posts, delete Jeff Goldstein and insert Mark Levin.

    How does this keep happening to one guy?

    ef (f5abf7)

  48. Yes, Hannity drones on, as compared to what we’re up against, every single minute of a lie about the economy, the war, or liberties, our culture, he’s not terribly subtle. I got news for you, neither are you, Rove was acting just like that Taiwanese
    animation, paints him of being. The Tea Party has
    rolling over anything in it’s path, Christine is much stronger then the weak stuff they have been throwing at her

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  49. Prepare for more drive-by trolls. The guy has posted a fourth Facebook post about me:

    This guy really is nuts. He thinks we’re in a pissing match. He’s now arguing with himself. Anyone who wishes or cares is free to pull link after link and read it all and draw their own conclusions. But I don’t think I’ve ever dealt with such a psycho of this sort. He’s so invested in lamely trying to score points that he doesn’t realize how small and irrelevant he’s painted himself. I’m done reaching down. Now go prosecute some jaywalker.

    Actually, I prosecute gang murders, but that comment is typical Levin: belittling as unimportant anyone who dares to point out that he got the facts wrong. Note the lack of any correction or new argument.

    At least he’s declaring he’s done with this. Someone might have taken him aside and told him it’s time to stop. This war he declared on me has not enhanced his reputation, as the comments to this post show. For example, on Twitter, respected conservative Adam S. Baldwin said Levin owed me an apology. Meanwhile, Ace of Spades put it more colorfully:

    I’m personally purging @marklevinshow. We have had cordial if superficial relations in the past but, ultimately: Fuck you, rage-monkey.

    By declaring that he is finally ending his campaign of attacks, Levin may be silently acknowledging the toll that his recent series of flame-outs has taken on his reputation.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  50. Ah, I see the drive-by trolls already started as I was writing that comment.

    Is this post not calm? Is it not factual?

    Let’s see if any one of the drive-by commenters has any actual arguments on the facts.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  51. I would vote without hesitation for O’Donnell over her Marxist opponent.Heck, I will vote for Carl Paladino, warts and all, because it’s a vote to throw the bums out. If the current situation is normal, we need crazy.

    Yet I had unfortunate occasion to stumble onto Bill Maher’s show. Also present was that imbecile Mccain campaign manager Mark McKinnon. Thanks, Mark, for that hard-hitting campaign against Barack Obama, you genuinely goddamned idiot.Why would anyone hire this joke?When you look at the mess we’re in, recall always the incompetence of John Mccain.Oh, I can’t discuss Obama’s record nor his background nor his beliefs; that would be RACIST!Thanks, John and Mark. But I digress.

    Suffice to say there are videotapes of O’Donnell’s appearances on TV in the 1990s that aren’t going to play well with many people in Delaware. I’m sure by now they are on youtube. It would be best if she took the air out of the balloon and get them all out there herself so we can then focus on spending.Otherwise the left is going to release them piecemeal and the daily drip is going to harm her campaign.

    Bugg (4e0dda)

  52. She was young, naive, maybe a little overexuberant, the contrast is when someone actually says something
    truly significant, like their opposition to so called ‘negative rights’ like the firstAmendment,or their belief that under cap n trade,
    ‘electricity prices will naturally skyrocket’ that doesn’t seem to garnish as much buzz, we must rely on good intentions

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  53. “He’s now arguing with himself.”

    No he’s not Mark. This is the fourth post you’ve written about a jackass, an idiot, a moron with a keyboard. Why is that?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  54. She’s not going to defend every statement she’s made over the last 15 years, specially when the
    context is often ‘Boehlerted’ or Blumenthaled out.

    Now we have a pattern which we could ignore if it was only against Levin, but Goldstein and McCain fell under the circular firing squad, not that long ago

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  55. Cotmac-

    Agreed. get it out there, say you were a young and silly goose, and point out your ReidPet opponent at the same age was espousing socialist gibberish.And still does.

    If conservatives on occasion have these battles it’s because we actually believe in constitutional values.

    Think when you badmouth Bob Grant when discussing Levin, you do Grant a great disservice. He has never been a mouthpiece for any party. Grant is genuinely funny, but it’s a dry and cutting wit that simply doesn’t translate for many today.Grant cuts to the heart of the matter in ways Rush or Hannity never will. And that’s not a knock as much as it’s a fact.

    Bugg (4e0dda)

  56. ian – You left out TBogg, Greenwald, Boehlert, the LA Times, Balko, and a host of others. Include those and you may really understand the pattern.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  57. You are an IDIOT and a MORON!

    John Dowra (5d3089)

  58. “Fuck you, rage-monkey” has got to be one of the best blow-off lines of all time. Kudos to Ace.

    And kudos to you, Patterico, for sticking to the facts and refusing to stoop to the level of the aforementioned rage-monkey.

    Speaking of rage-monkeys, why is that the default mode for leading conservative commentators? Glenn Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin are all, for lack of a better term, assholes. Even when I agree with them, which is most of the time, I’m kind of ashamed that I’m on the same side as them. I have to go read DailyKos afterwards just to remind myself that the other side is even more disgusting. Is being an asshole good for ratings, or what? I would much rather listen to Mark Davis or Mark Steyn than I would any of the guys that they fill in for.

    Soothsayer (14eb1d)

  59. Cotmac, Bob Grant was great 20 years ago, now I find him to be a senile old fool. He just is not on top of things any more. It is sad because he was a great one.

    John Dowra (5d3089)

  60. Patterico,
    You are wrong about Powerline and Myers. Yes, they did support her. That statement that they did not is factually wrong. If they claim otherwise they are lying. I personally like their Blog, but they were very supportive of the Bush WH wrt Myers. This is the trouble with establishment Republicans..its always Party or Leader first. Hold your nose and vote for Specter, Murchowski, Crist, Castle, Dole, McCain……because we need to be a big tent… Hold your nose while we pick a Myers or a nothing Judge from New Hampshire (psst he’s really a Conservative and you’ll love him)….Then they whine about it when the RINOs lose and 3 out of the four are running because they cannot face losing Political Power for themselves and their frinds and patrons. It is the political elite in this country…Dems and Republicans both…that got us into this mess. Well its time to clean house.

    Budahmon (fc3d33)

  61. ian, you forgot Charles Johnson. You gonna blame Patterico for that too?

    Come on now. Its the internet, pissing contests are everywhere. I’ve frankly lost track of the number of blogger disputes (Andrea Harris vs. Allahpundit; Dennis the Peasant vs. Roger Simon; Rodney Balko vs. just about everyone except Glenn Reynolds; Moxie vs. Moxie; Reynolds vs. Sullivan; Kaus vs. Sullivan (the granddaddy of them all); Charles Johnson vs. everybody who doesn’t unreservedly believe in man-made global warming, likes Sarah Palin, likes Tim Pawltney and/or is willing to stand within 1000 feet of someone who believes in the birther conspiracy; and many more I can no longer remember.

    It happens, and when it does, and you decide to get involved, you evaluate the dispute, who’se saying what and who you think is in the right. The fact that two people on the internet don’t get along doesn’t prove anything more than the fact that people sometimes don’t get along.

    Sean P (a82c1f)

  62. I think she’s made some progress in that, I mean we could focus on her debate with Coons, but it’s more important to go ‘look squirrel’. Levin is not always my cup of tea, Glenn makes we want to build a bomb shelter at time, but it would be underwater down in South Florida, but he has his uses. What
    is being done now is called ‘releasing chaff’ the same pattern was tried two years ago, and it hasa cumulative effect if not countered

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  63. No, I appreciated Charles back in the day, when he
    caught the sense of ‘the Arab street’ and their left accomplices, now i don’t know him anymore, I still like Roger Simon, I like Jeff Goldstein, I even link this site, when they are not on a snipe
    hunt, like now

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  64. ian – I have been looking to read O’Donnell’s answers to the charges leveled against her all week. The links offered up by various bloggers do not work. The links on her website do not work. Help a brother out?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  65. Site seems to be down, maybe too much attention, she was running a very shoe string operation, leveraging people power rather than money and most
    establishment endorsements, because she had little.

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  66. Here’ we go Daley, with documents, as far as she has been able to scrounge up;

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  67. Patrick, you have provided a service to your readers with your posts on Mark Levin. Levin’s snotty response to his proven inaccuracies indicates a lack of character and respect for the facts. That’s important for people to know when judging how seriously to take him.

    I am mystified that Limbaugh promotes this guy. If I ever meet him, I’ll ask El Rushbo to read your posts on this.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  68. Levin may be silently acknowledging the toll that his recent series of flame-outs has taken on his reputation. Comment by Patterico — 9/18/2010 @ 6:25 am

    I’ve never heard his show on the radio before, but as far as I’m concerned, whatever credibility or reliability he may have had has vanished.

    Levin must be a real joy to be around at family gatherings. On such occasions, I bet there are plenty of liberals for him to argue with (ie, surveys indicate about 90% of people in the Jewish community tend to lean left, so that likely pertains to people like his siblings, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins). So if he’s such a total jerk and asshole to you, imagine what he must be like with those who he disagrees with 99.99% of the time.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  69. Budahmon (#59 — 9/18/2010 @ 8:33 am): There are three different — and indeed, unique — individuals who regularly write at Powerline. Generally each writes to express his own opinions separately; not infrequently, and quite routinely on matters as important as a SCOTUS nomination, they will cross-post or add updates to indicate when one or both other co-bloggers agree with an opinion the third has expressed in a particular post. So if you contend you’re describing Powerline’s position, please provide one or more citations to particular posts.

    My recollection, without having researched the matter, is that only one of the three ever expressed anything but profound reservations about Miers — and by the way, if you or Mark Levin want to discuss her nomination, at least one of you might bother to spell her name correctly. I also seem to recall that even that thin support from any of the Powerline authors had evaporated by the time the nomination was withdrawn.

    The reason I’m inclined to trust my memory on this is that I blogged very, very extensively about the Miers nomination, and some of my blogging put me at odds with their position(s), as indeed it did with virtually the entire conservative blogosphere, including Patterico. By the time her nomination was withdrawn, Hugh Hewitt and I were among her few vocal defenders. (John Podhoretz wrote that I did a better job of defending Miers’ credentials and fitness than anyone at the White House was prepared to do, and while I was flattered by that, the comparison set a very low hurdle: Dubya and Rove were caught, and remained, flat-footed or off-balanced from the morning the nomination was announced until the moment it was withdrawn.)

    Beldar (488d24)

  70. Levin is a self-promoter of the first order.

    His DOJ history is much LESS than he makes it out to be.

    He was born in 1957. He joined the Reagan Admin. in 1981 — but not DOJ in 1981. Do the math — he was 24 and fresh out of Temple Law School.

    He was an “advisor” to several Reagan Cabinet members — at 24. That is code for the position of “Boy Friday” — he made sure the cabinet member had the right briefing book when going to a meeting or to testify on Capitol Hill. He made sure the Cabinet Member knew whether a particular meeting was before or after lunch. He made sure a Cabinet member knew what was first up the next morning. Etc.

    Back in the 1980s, each Cabinet member might have have 2-3 such aides — which is what they are called in the military, not “advisors”.

    His official bio on his website doesn’t identify which “Cabinet” members he was an “advisor” to. But, in a curious arrangement, Ed Meese was actually a member of the Reagan Cabinet while serving as a “Counselor to the President” as well as being a member of the National Security Council in the same capacity.

    It wasn’t until Reagan’s second term that Meese became Attorney General, and when he did he took Levin with him as Chief of Staff.

    This position is not as critical as one might suspect, because while the AG is the head of the Department, the AG’s role is more policy based that operational. The AG spends just about every minute of every day in meetings trying to address the competing policy needs/demands of innumerable constituencies that are impacted by DOJ operations.

    The Deputy AG is back at Main Justice running the shop.

    The role of the Chief of Staff of the AG is principally one of “scheduler” and “prioritizer” — who does the AG spend his time with.

    The Chief of Staff of the Dep. AG is where the real work of the Department is managed.

    After leaving the Chief of Staff job — presumably when Meese resigned — Levin was given a couple mid-level bureaucratic jobs in the end of the Reagan Admin and then in the Bush 41 Admin.

    Far less impressive than he makes himself out to be.

    shipwreckedcrew (436eab)

  71. What is really weird is that Media Matters is on the hunt looking for…what, controversy on the right? Every time I think of them I think of Gutfield’s Robot Theater take on MM. Who can take them seriously?

    Patricia (9c62d9)

  72. Miers was another instance when the punditaratti went hog wild, at the time because of the Gang of 14, it was considered the way to go. Reid certainly
    suggested she was the only viable candidate, which shouldn’t have made a difference because we werede facto a majority, but didn’t for the reason above. You see how the template is set, this is what we have to settle for, whereas they can nominate any
    apparatchik they care too, and we have to rubber
    stamp it

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  73. Everything I learned about life I learned in a Louis L’Amour story.

    I paraphrase a story about a western town that had become overrun with bad guys and the good people that built the town had stood by while it progressively got worse and the innocent townspeople were becoming victims and the ones that tried to stand up individually were shot down and the sheriff stood on the sidelines because he was paid to not get involved. The townspeople had to hire a gun slinger and they gave him authority to kick the bad guys out of town and as he started winning his gun battles some of the bad guys thought better of it and started leaving but the ones that felt privilege stayed and there was a big battle at the end of the story where those townspeople that were able joined in the fight and the good guys won.

    The hired gun had warned those ahead of time that his tactics would repulse some of the civilized people and he wouldn’t be accepted as part of their culture once the battle was won but he had come to accept that was the way of the world and he was glad to serve those townspeople and lead the fight for their dream of living in a civilized town. He had had another warning for the good people that he was fighting for, once the battle starts, get out of the way or you could get hurt. The battle was between him and the bad guys and if anyone else was on the streets during the battle, they might be in danger, too.

    Being a Tea Party supporter, I believe there’s only room for nuance in an argument in a civilized society.

    pk (68ed4b)

  74. Ah, yes, you reminded me of something, Meese was dogged by two special prosecutors, Stein and Seymour, none found anything of note, yet he was
    tarnished ‘by the appearance of impropriety’ so Levin, most assuredly remembers that

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  75. Patterico: I’m no shrink, and don’t even play one on TV, but I’ve cross examined quite a few, so I will engage in some (mostly civil) hypothesizing about what’s motivating Levin.

    I am skeptical of the notion that he’s particularly concerned about his credibility. I think Levin’s motivation comes from Arbitron, Sitemeter, and Simon & Schuster.

    There may be a positive correlation between his credibility and his ratings/hits/book sales; but it’s certainly an imperfect or only partial correlation at best. Some of Levin’s competitors (e.g., Michael Savage) have pretty much decided to rely on the market segment that correlates inversely with credibility. At the far end of the talk radio spectrum, there is a market demand for ranting shock jocks, with comparable demand for their internet equivalents/versions. The listeners/readers who pay attention do so either because they hate the ranter intensely, or because they’re similarly imbalanced and therefore accept his rants pretty much regardless of the credibility, or lack thereof, of the rants and the ranter.

    Your only mistake, as far as I can tell, was perhaps in ever having expected anything from Levin other than that which he has in fact now displayed. But whatever his motivation, I think ultimately you’re just feeding a troll by continuing to pay him attention.

    Beldar (488d24)

  76. He is angry, justifiably so, because Castle was and would have been an awful candidate, he was already at the Specter 2004 mark, it could only get worse,and Rove’s rant, which only cements him as a temporizer, didn’t help things, he has another post up, on his Facebook page, so that’s not going to make any difference

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  77. Beldar,
    Saturday, September 18, 2010 Weekly Standard column. Yes Paul Mirengoff had reservations about Miers…but he still argued for confirmation. My point is that this is the same type of argument we have heard for years…Hold your nose, vote, support, canvas, poll watch, donate for these moderate Republicans so we can keep the Dems from the seat or in Miers case put a Moderate on the SC. Patterico, the Powerline guys, Weekly Standard and the political pundits are not understanding that Paradigm is over. No longer will people like me, who have worked the polls/phones/campaigns, donated money and spent our own money to travel and work for candidates be rolling over for the Party. I remember what John Warner and the Republican Party did to Ollie North in his Senate Race. So when the political elite lines up against a young conservative woman (whom I do not agree with on many positions) against a RINO..guess what…I’ll fight for her, I’ll donate to her and I will work the phones for her just to spite the Bastards like John Cornyn, McConnell and McCain….who worked so hard to give us Crist, Murkowski, Specter and Castle. At the end of the day we have to stand for something other than just political power.

    Budahmon (fc3d33)

  78. The issue with Del. from the perspective of the GOP establishment had to do with one thing, and one thing only — 51 and a vote for Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader.

    Del. is a state that has sent Slow Joe Biden to the Senate since Nixon was President. Castle is the only GOP candidate to be elected Statewide in …. forever.

    If you get Castle, you’re going to have to deal with some RINO issues from time to time — but at least you’re dealing with them inside the GOP caucus.

    Having 49 or 50 votes means Harry Reid — or Charles Schumer — will continue to do things like inserting Immigration policies into Defense appropriations bills.

    51 would put a stop to that.

    No one thought Castle would be a great conservative GOP senator. But he might have been 51.

    shipwreckedcrew (436eab)

  79. Supporting Beldar’s point, Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine has responded to what he calls Mark Levin’s “series of misstatements” about him regarding Miers, Toomey, Castle, O’Donnell, etc. , and John Hinderaker added this update to Paul’s post:

    “JOHN adds: Mark Levin has done some great work for the conservative cause, so it is disheartening to see him playing so fast and loose with the facts. There is an unfortunate tendency among some on the right to adopt the view that no one is a *real* conservative except for them and a handful of their friends or followers. This sort of divisive, exclusionary attitude is a sure ticket to perpetual minority status, and should be avoided by all conservatives.”

    Sounds right to me.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  80. #62: I get what you’re saying. Too be honest, whenever I see a post with Jeff Goldstein’s name on it I just skip to the next post. But I think Patterico has a point with Levin, as he did with RSMC. Not to mention Johnson.

    Sean P (a82c1f)

  81. Thanks, DRJ. This post from Paul on October 26, 2005 (the link for which I found in the post DRJ just linked), seems a pretty definitive refutation of Budamon’s memory:

    Miers should withdraw. If she doesn’t then, absent convincing evidence that her positions today are completely different from the liberal ones contained in the 1993 speech, the Senate should not confirm her.

    To describe the author of this statement as a defender of the Miers nomination isn’t even a half-truth, because the half that’s omitted — i.e., Mirengoff’s final position — is the half that’s vastly more important.

    Beldar (488d24)

  82. _____________________________________

    Castle is the only GOP candidate to be elected Statewide in …. forever.

    Why is that reality so hard for rightists — of which I’m one — to friggin’ understand!?

    Conservatism that isn’t also attached to a bit of tactical savvy is worthless, if not a bit idiotic.

    Now if O’Donnell does manage to perform an upset in November, I’ll happily say I was too meek, too cautious, too pussy-fied. But I’m also fully aware of the large number of people who fall for the foolish notion (even more so in a blue state like Delaware) that liberal sentiment — particularly on election day — means that a human therefore is oh-so sophisticated, oh-so humane, oh-so honest, oh-so wonderful, oh-so generous and oh-so open-minded.

    If O’Donnell screws up the momentum in the next few weeks, or certainly on November 2, I’d like to see her put on a dunce cap and made to sit in the corner.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  83. Budahmon

    I respect your position, but the issue some of us have regarding Levin; et al. is less the merits of this position than the way it was sold: by impugning the motives of conservative voters who were nevertheless supporting Castle as a tactical decision. You sound like you don’t support the idea of voting tactically, in any case. Fine, but lets have a debate about THAT, and not this childish namecalling that has sprung up over the O’Donnell/ Castle fight.

    Sean P (a82c1f)

  84. Foo Bar:

    Scott Johnson was referring to a speech made by NEH Chair Jim Leach on August 5, 2010. The speech does not refer to Terry Jones and as I recall, Terry Jones was not on anyone’s radar when Leach made the speech on August 5, so I’m not so sure he was “obviously” referring to Terry Jones.

    Terry Jones was on CNN’s radar by the end of July.

    Foo Bar (c1726e)

  85. You mean if she can get all the knives off her back, that don’t seem to be thrown at Coons with anything close to regularity, is that what you’re saying. Now Biden was objectively a walking malaprop on relevant issues, yet somehow he garnered
    enough cache to be selected, by the people that brought you the subprime disaster, as VP

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  86. _______________________________

    by impugning the motives of conservative voters who were nevertheless supporting Castle as a tactical decision

    For them to be, by contrast, so confident in O’Donnell’s ideology is even more a case of BS. That’s because there are aspects of the woman that indicates she can be both dishonest and a flake. I tend to equate such characteristics as being stronger in people who tend to have left-leaning sentiments. So for all we know, O’Donnell might just as well be a closeted liberal.

    Is there even a well-documented, lengthy track record of the way she’s voted in the past? If I’m not mistaken, she’s never held an elected office, in which her opinions and resulting responses can be verified. That’s why I don’t believe it’s presumptuous to suspect she could end up as philosophically squishy as Castle is.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  87. I don’t know why Levin’s getting so upset.

    Maybe it’s just that time of the month.

    Dave Surls (8515be)

  88. ian:

    I am tired of hearing about the knives in O’Donnell’s back. The Tea Party guy in Colorado has been pretty much dumped by the GOP and a lot of Tea Party people because he was less than forthcoming about some of financial dealings and because he embellished his resume. No one started going on about the ruling class and people picking on him and all that he is a middle aged white guy and they don’t really care about hurting his feelings…but Christine O’Donnell has some very real issues with the truth and her past and in spite of that it seems that everyone is just supposed to ignore all that unpleasantness. Any questions and concerns are seen as grounds for name calling, whining, but at no point do we actually see or hear explanations for anything…just a lot of talk about the ruling class.

    Well excuse me, but I don’t want to throw away a Senate seat and hand it to the Democrats on a silver platter and be told that I am not supposed to even question the new mama Grizzly or whatever.

    Levin has been a regular little tyrant over there and the truth is he does not help his cause by attacking anyone who disagrees with him or just ask questions he apparently does not people to ask.

    Terrye (d6aeed)

  89. They shouldn’t have forced Penry out of the race, and for god sake , McInnis should have plagiarized,
    not the same thing, by a long shot. He’s a radio guy, Patterico seem to be in this ‘scorpion in a bottle’ configuration, there’s already another post, stop turning the key, ala Wargames. How about one post about the bearded Marxist

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  90. “Here’ we go Daley, with documents,”

    ian – Thanks for the link. I wonder if this just came back up. As I said I’ve been trying. Will read now.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  91. The primaries are ALL over. Why are we rehashing them and re litigating them and keeping grudges going? Maybe we could concentrate instead on the REAL Democrats/liberals and save some rage and fire power for them? There’ll be plenty of opportunity for post mortems after November. And who knows—maybe some of the patients everyone’s so worried about won’t even die.

    elissa (c0db17)

  92. It’s like the Salem witch trials, elissa, if she drowns, she’s innocent, if she flies away she’s a witch, (yes I intended that metaphor)

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  93. ian, why are you still ignoring the point of Patterico’s post?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  94. Actually, ian its the opposite, if she pulls it off she’s innocent, if she drowns, she’s a witch.

    Anyhoo, I basially agree with elissa. I’m not a big fan of O’Donnell, but there are things at the Chernobyl petting zoo I’d rather see in the Senate than Coons, and the fact is we have to go into the battle with the candidate the voters have chosen.

    Sean P (a82c1f)

  95. ian – She’s going to need to beef up those counters IMHO. Make the URS lien situation into a positive if she can. She’s had financial struggles just like many Americans, which is why it took her so long to pay off her college tuition and finally formally receive her degree even though her studies were finished 10 years earlier, and the struggles led to unpaid tax issues with the IRS which she has now cleared up.

    There is nothing on the employment litigation situation, which on the surface looked like somebody looking for jackpot justice.

    If she is going to refer people to her website for answers instead of answering questions in public, the answers need to be there. Right now they aren’t.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  96. Amazed by all the people who agree with you… but still think you should drop it.

    Despite that whole “don’t read further unless you agree that liars should be called out for their lies” thing.

    EVERYONE who has written that needs to understand, if Levin is a liar (which he clearly is. Either that or monumentally stupid. Neither is a particularly virtuous trait) then he is more damaging to conservatives than helpful. He can not help this country by being dishonest- regardless of what or who he is supporting.

    Conservatives can not afford to let people like Levin tar the movement by letting him be loose with the facts whenever he wishes.

    Jewels (c7b6c5)

  97. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Delaware Republicans now support O’Donnell after the party’s divisive primary, while Coons picked up 84% of the state’s Democratic voters. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer O’Donnell by eight points.

    She has plenty of room to convince remaining GOPers (e.g., disgruntled Castle voters) to back her. That 71% will increase, especially after Coons’ record as a quasi-Marxist county commissioner comes to light.

    And indies already back her by 8. Watch this number increase. She can win this thing. And don’t forget the Tea Party excitement factor.

    ColonelHaiku (1546ed)

  98. “Seventy-one percent (71%) of Delaware Republicans now support O’Donnell…”

    Yeah, but there’s only 100 Republicans in the whole state!

    Dave Surls (ff14be)

  99. JACKASS, MORON, IDIOT and one more: ASSHOLE – that about sums you up…

    Basturd 44 (f13b31)

  100. Another Levin fan heard from.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  101. Mark Levin, liar?

    See how I put the ? in there, I’m not certainly not calling him a liar.

    Darin H (9146e8)

  102. Comment by Dave Surls — 9/18/2010 @ 3:29 pm

    “… the O’Donnell-Castle match-up drew almost 60,000 voters compared to 33,000 for contested statewide races on the Democratic side…”

    AD-RtR/OS! (39097e)

  103. “… the O’Donnell-Castle match-up drew almost 60,000 voters compared to 33,000 for contested statewide races on the Democratic side…”

    AD – I did not know there were that many witches, warlocks, wiccans, satanists, baal worshippers and others of similar stripe in the state.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  104. daley– you seem to know a great deal about the dark side, youself. Verrrry Interrrresting. Are you a dabbler?

    elissa (c0db17)

  105. Elissa, that reminds me of a great line from the fine movie, “The Wicker Man.” Edward Woodward discovers that all the people on his rural island are pagans, complete with human sacrifice.

    He confronts the leader of the island, Christopher Lee, and accuses them of all being unbelievers (he himself was devoutly Catholic).

    Christopher Lee looked pained. “We are a deeply religious people,” he protested.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  106. Plus it had Britt Eklund. ‘Nuff said.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  107. “The Night They Raided Minsky’s” was on last night, EB!

    AD-RtR/OS! (39097e)

  108. Comment by daleyrocks — 9/18/2010 @ 4:50 pm

    Now we know why DE sent Slow-Joe to DC for all those years.

    AD-RtR/OS! (39097e)

  109. AD, when I was an undergrad in the 70s, I met Britt Eklund at UCLA event. I couldn’t talk. She was very polite and nice to an 18 year old who was supposed to help her with her luggage.

    She was covered in freckles (well, the parts of her I dared look at), which surprised me.

    Ah, youth.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  110. You were a very naughty boy.

    AD-RtR/OS! (39097e)

  111. Beldar,
    Wrong….Oct 10, 2005, Paul Mirengoff in his Weekly Standard column argued for supporting Miers. There is no maybe, that is a fact! There is no refutation of my previous statement when that blog post was 15 days after his column. Why was he supporting Miers? Because the President wanted her. Now I think that’s a pretty thin argument to base a Supreme Court Judgeship on…Federal Court no problem…Supreme Court big problem.
    “To describe the author of this statement as a defender of the Miers nomination isn’t even a half-truth, because the half that’s omitted — i.e., Mirengoff’s final position — is the half that’s vastly more important.” — To paraphrase John Kerry “I (Mirengoff) supported Miers with reservations, but in the end (right before the nomination got pulled) I was against her..and that’s my final position and it was my position all along. Forget that column I wrote for the Weekly Standard…

    Budahmon (fc3d33)

  112. She was in a swimming pool, AD, and asked me if I could help her out of the pool. She had to ask twice.

    Naughty I was not. My brain simply shut down. Still, she was very nice.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  113. Yes, I’ve experience sensory overload such as that too.
    Bittersweet memories.

    AD-RtR/OS! (39097e)

  114. I figure, that she was just frustrated over her firing, and the attorney kind of egged her on, in piling up the charges, but it never went anywhere.
    The whole revealing of the lawsuit, via the standard
    reminded me a little too much of the Axelrod gambit
    on Ryan

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  115. Sean,
    “….by impugning the motives of conservative voters who were nevertheless supporting Castle as a tactical decision.” Those tactical decisions has gotten us where? The problem is that the RSC is always making decisions based upon tactical decisions. Where did they ever side with the conservative in a tight race…I don’t remember it. Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords are just a few of those tactical decisions. The RSC has made a habit this year of supporting candidates such has Crist, Murkowski, and Castle. How much $$$ did they waste on these candidates for tactical considerations???
    Sean…I respect your position, but I have seen too much “tactical considerations” from these types of politicians over the years that never pan out for conservatives.

    Budahmon (fc3d33)

  116. Budahmon, if I write on my blog tomorrow, about you, that you are a bedwetter, that will also be literally true (unless you’re the only human who was born with perfect bladder control) — exactly as true as what you and Levin have said about Mirengoff. But that statement would also be (in all likelihood) badly misleading and unfair. Wouldn’t it?

    Beldar (488d24)

  117. “Are you a dabbler?”

    elissa – I think my dabbling would likely put Christine’s to shame, whatever she ultimately reveals. Public office is not in my future, even at the local level. Misspent youth and adulthood. I spent too much money on wine, women and song and I wasted the rest.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  118. Levin did not say that Castle voted in favor of Bush’s impeachment, but rather that Castle voted in favor of a motion to refer to committee a proposal that Bush be impeached for reasons related to the war in Iraq (for which Bush obtained bipartisan support in Congress before the war began). It is indeed “stunning,” as Levin said, that any Republican member of Congress would vote in favor of such a motion to refer, as it suggests that Castle (in contrast with the overwhelming majority of Republicans) thought that serious grounds existed for a committee to consider the impeachment of a president of his own political party. Seems like Castle was behaving like a Democrat when voting in Congress but claiming to be a Republican when seeking support from Republicans when he ran for the Senate. This is the sort of Republican who cannot be trusted not to switch over to the Democrats when convenient.

    Rob (8cf4ac)

  119. “Seems like Castle was behaving like a Democrat when voting in Congress but claiming to be a Republican when seeking support from Republicans when he ran for the Senate.”

    Rob – It might seem that way unless you read Castle’s contemporaneous explanation for his vote, which Levin does not bother to present to his readers, asshat that he is.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  120. Either way, Castle did not vote for Bush’s impeachment, as claimed, but rather for a motion to refer for the purpose of considering Bush’s impeachment.

    Do you have a link for Castle’s contemporaneous explanation of his vote?

    Rob (8cf4ac)

  121. Castle has not endorsed O’Donnell, which raises the question as to whether he may be considering endorsement of her opponent. That his support for the nominee of his party tells us something all by itself about the extent of his party loyalties.

    Rob (8cf4ac)

  122. Rob – Did you read any of the posts in question before commenting?

    JD (8ded14)

  123. “Do you have a link for Castle’s contemporaneous explanation of his vote?”

    Rob – It was contained, with links, in the responses by Powerline to the smear that Levin lied about. Go there and read about it.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  124. No JD, obviously he didn’t. It’s so much easier for him to parachute into a thread and without considering context, hope people will be dazzled by his input.

    Look, everybody is entitled to their opinion and even to nurse a grudge if they want, but all the continuing dead horse beating is getting very tiresome. The primary in Delaware was Tuesday. O’Donnell won.

    elissa (c0db17)

  125. elissa – Some people pay good money to dabble in beating dead horses or conversely from beating them.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  126. err.. make good money from beating them.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  127. daley– Now you are just looking for ways to insert the word “dabble” into conversations. 🙂

    elissa (c0db17)

  128. elissa – Why would I do that?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  129. I agree there is little point in rehashing the merits of primary candidates once it is over, and whatever minor benefit might accrue would be overwhelmed by the negative effects. But in this case, Levin has dissembled, lied, gone ad hominem, and persisted in this calumny after multiple opportunities to correct himself. That cannot be allowed to stand, because failure to respond to a nationally known figure like Levin will always be interpreted by some as concession of the argument. But just because OUR discussion of O’Donnell’s qualifications is over doesn’t mean the Democrats don’t get to take their shots at her. And they care even less about fairness and accuracy than does Levin.

    Adjoran (ec6a4b)

  130. Patterico,
    I suspect you might want to unblock David Weigel if you havne’t done so already. Seems he’s no fan of Mark Levin either.

    wolverstone (d1265d)

  131. Comment by wolverstone — 9/19/2010 @ 5:10 am

    Apologies if I’ve gotten this wrong, wolverstone, but just curious: weren’t the only other times you commented here about Weigel also? Am wondering what the exclusive interest in that subject is on this site, I guess. Again, sorry if you commented on other things and I missed it.

    At any rate, am glad to see you reconsidered your intent to leave.

    no one you know (72db9b)

  132. Beldar,
    You can write what ever you wish to write. All that would prove is that you are a spiteful hack, but then you’ve already proven that by ignoring Mirengoff’s own words.

    Budahmon (700c30)

  133. Holy wall of text, Batman!

    Jesus Christ get a life and stop being so damned self-absorbed!

    Malvenue (dcd182)

  134. wolverstone – Could you point out where exactly Weigel got banned? Now run along, we cannot miss you if you do not stay away.

    Thank you for your contribution, Malvenue.

    JD (8ded14)

  135. Grow up & shut up. You sound like you have never left the playground. I used to read your blog but now I wonder what I could ever have possible seen in you that was admirable.

    jcp370 (021620)

  136. Here’s some consistency, JC Penniless: we’ve never seen anything admirable in you.

    Icy Texan (6c1e87)

  137. “You sound like you have never left the playground.”

    jcp370 – Do you mean like calling people jackasses, morons and idiots? Welcome rage-monkey Levin fan boi.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  138. Well it looks like coherent argument is not to be found in jcp370’s toolbox.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  139. Budahmon, only one of us has spelled Miers’ name correctly, knows the difference between this year and 2007, and when challenged has actually provided a hyperlink and direct quote from Mirengoff. The other of us continues to ignore the most definitive and important of Mirengoff’s words about Miers’ nomination. I’ll let Patterico’s readers decide which of us is a “hack.”

    I’ll also point out that he who’s a hack does damage to his cause because he seems impervious to the facts. I don’t care much about O’Donnell or Castle; time will tell if Delaware’s GOP primary voters have been anticipating a trend or shooting themselves in the foot. But like the proprietor of this blog, I have more than a passing fondness for the truth, and I despise people who willfully distort it. Having fans like you and Levin in her camp isn’t likely to do O’Donnell much good in the long term.

    Beldar (488d24)

  140. And by the way, you’re a bedwetter.

    Beldar (488d24)

  141. For those trolls newly visiting, I’ll only point out that I hate Beldar because he’s always a far better writer than I am, as well as far better informed.

    Damn him.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  142. Beldar, that depends on your definition of “bed” and “wetter.”

    See what I did there?

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  143. Beldar, I guess given the date, the magazine and the author…you don’t think that’s proof Not only are you a hack but a pretty bad one at that. You are a liar. Mirengoff supported the ifs…no buts..That BTW makes you a provable liar….Oohh I spelled Miers name wrong, that doesn’t alleviate the fact that you are a liar.
    Let me give you some help..Google Weekly Standard, type in Mirengoff’s name and look up the column from Oct 10, 2005. Subtitle..”Why Harriet Miers merits support from conservatives” Paul Mirengoff. are not only a spiteful hack…but you remind me of Andy Sullivan….How’s those beagles?

    Budahmon (700c30)

  144. This website has become a boring pissing contest between Patterico and himself.

    Jason S (c854e3)

  145. Thank you for that incisive wit, Jason S. Now run back to Levin and Riehl and get your little pat on the back.

    JD (8ded14)

  146. Budahmon is a bedwetter.

    JD (8ded14)

  147. Budahmon, given that you’ve ignored what Beldar wrote, ignored the links he provided and provided none of your own, you’ve established that you are an incompetent clown. Good job.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  148. The question, is did Levin say’ Castle voted to impeach GW Bush, yes or no, should be kind of straight forward, there were a myriad of deviations
    from the mean, after that, that’s not at all clear.

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  149. did Levin say’ Castle voted to impeach GW Bush, yes or no

    Why would that be the question?

    Seems ad hoc. Did he read articles of impeachment for 90 seconds and then say, and I quote, “Castle voted for it.”? Yes. He did that. And a lot of his loyal fans got the impression Levin meant Castle voted for impeachment, even though the vote passed and Bush wasn’t impeached.

    Levin got this story wrong. There’s no doubt about it. He made up this notion of this vote allowing an investigation (completely allowed without this vote occurring). Is that enough to make his misleading and sloppy smear, at the last moment of the campaign, acceptable?

    Of course not. But it’s enough to make an ad hoc defense available. You could just as well ask if Levin said Castle murdered any nuns. No, he didn’t. So? His reporting was unfair, sloppy, wrong, and gave people the wrong impression of Castle’s views at the last second of the campaign.

    I have noticed a lot of radio personalities will have a catchphrase. They change it depending on the book they are selling. Levin’s is that so-and-so’s principles are negotiable. He often mentions examples of principles being negotiated when the stakes are enormous. Thus, negotiated for a huge sum. My point here is that Levin’s principles were negotiated away for next-to-nothing. Or perhaps honesty just isn’t one of his principles.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  150. I’ll also point out that he who’s a hack does damage to his cause because he seems impervious to the facts. -Beldar

    I’ve been trying to make this seemingly banal point several times, and I’m glad Beldar made this point more clearly.

    Castle voted against impeachment. There was a different bill, HR 1345, I believe, that was not a privileged resolution. There was less motivation to kill it in committee, so Castle voted against impeachment because his view was that Bush committed no crime.

    A much better proxy for his views, and something easily noticed if you actually follow Levin’s library of congress links, under ‘related bills’.

    Beyond that strange issue, several people have exposed that they are so loyal to certain candidates that they will not play fair with facts. They are no longer useful to me if I wish to be informed. A lot of Levin’s closest friends, and Levin himself, have a huge problem with Beck. Beck’s big issue these days is being honorable. While Beck’s not my cup of tea, I think he really annoys the right’s hacks because they don’t measure up.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  151. My husband and I usually listen to Mark Levin (it’s 3pm here in Los Angeles) and read his “Liberty & Tyrrany”. We really like him and appreciate what he’s done for liberty. The only thing we didn’t like was his antipathy towards Glenn Beck whom we watch every night.

    When I heard last year that Levin recommended Dan Riehl’s blog I started reading it.

    Plus, I read PowerLine almost every day.

    I’m sorry to say I wasn’t that familiar with this blog (but I am now).

    It’s very disheartening to see such serious infighting among you all. This is such a crucial time in our history!!!

    I think you all should meet in person, because it seems impossible to carry on this kind of a “debate” without personal contact and personal conversation to resolve it. And resolved it should get.

    United we stand and divided we fall isn’t just a “slogan”–it’s what’s going to happen to us if we can’t resolve petty infighting (although I known it’s not “petty” when you are involved in something like this–a local candidate has just absconded with my husband’s website design and not paid him for it: I want to fight it but my husband’s just going to let it go).

    I find it all very disturbing since I’ve spent every waking hour for the last 2 years trying to fight in my own small way what I see as a huge progressive bulldozer demolishing our country. My husband and I now have to deal with some pretty serious digestive problems (and a lot of expensive medical tests) since we both started writing (him at his website and me at my blog) and trying to fight this.

    We thought our only chance was to pull together.

    Maybe not.

    Linda Starr (7f850a)

  152. This is what I do not understand. How come these people were saying Harriet Miers was unqualified and calling her out in 2005, but five years later many of these same people say Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell are the best thing since sliced bread and basically worship them for what’s kind of the same thing?

    Timothy (a56191)

  153. I suspect there is much that timothy does not understand. Starting with honesty.

    JD (306f5d)

  154. Wait, you like McCain, Lugar, Snowe, and Collins?
    Those Senators are pretty liberal.

    Timothy (a56191)

  155. JD-This thread’s been dead for a while. I just don’t get that.

    Timothy (a56191)

  156. I just don’t get it. They were against the Harriet Miers nomination in 2005, saying she was unqualified, but zoom to 2008, they loved Sarah Palin although her qualifications were questionable too.
    No need to personally and childishly attack me for saying that.

    Timothy (a56191)

  157. Gee, you are a real bright one, aren’t you?

    JD (85b089)

  158. I used to admire some of Mark Levin’s writings, but I truthfully cannot abide his voice.

    SarahW (af7312)

  159. Your comments sure as hell say a lot more about your intelligence than they say about mine.
    Grow the hell up.

    Timothy (a56191)

  160. Christine O’Donnell are the best thing since sliced bread and basically worship them for what’s kind of the same thing?

    Comment by Timothy

    Well, to be fair, I think many said they would rather settle for someone with her views over someone with much more credibility but cap and tax RINO views. It was a bit of a ‘we draw the line here, no matter what’. And yeah, a lot of people went out of their way to blast people who simply noted this is going to help the democrats win a precious Senate seat. A lot of ugliness. I draw the line on character as well as politics, so for me the choice was less clear (though I thought a RINO in that state was more palatable than some thought).

    Dustin (c16eca)

  161. Oh, I get it. Miers looked like a stuffy old maid.
    Palin looks like a hot librarian.

    Timothy (a56191)

  162. Dustin-Oh, alright.
    It was a message that they were sick of RINOs.

    Timothy (a56191)

  163. Timothy leads with a mendoucheous comment based on dishonest and flawed assumptions in a thread that has been dead for almost 9 months, and then whines when he gets called on it.

    JD (85b089)

  164. Yeah. I’m willing to read one of his books, but I really cannot stand his voice.

    Timothy (a56191)

  165. Palin is much more qualified than Ms Miers, whom I don’t have anything against. Both are/were being discussed for a position at the top of a branch of government, but Palin’s been a governor and Miers has not been a senior judge or otherwise demonstrated herself.

    I think you’re making a strange leap, Timothy. I don’t think Palin is the right nominee, nor experienced enough, but her supporters have much more basis than her looks to believe she would make a good president. Claiming they bashed Miers and liked Palin because of how pretty they are is completely baseless.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  166. Okay, JD, since I see you have nothing but name-calling, I’ll concede that many don’t really idolize O’Donnell. But many do Palin, Queen of All That Is Pure, the Great Communicator.

    Timothy (a56191)

  167. Palin, Queen of All That Is Pure, the Great Communicator.

    I’m unclear why you are talking about this in an old thread. You’re just bashing people who like Palin? Just random trolling at some general group you don’t like, in a months dead thread about Mark Levin being douchey a while back?

    Are you mentally ill? Your behavior is lamer than 99% of Palin’s fanboys.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  168. Go bugger yourself, asshat. Your contention was that people think ODonnell and Palin are the greatest thing since sliced bread, happened to be the same people that thought Harriet was a lousy choice. You have done nothing to demonstrate that position exists anywhere outside of your addled brain.

    JD (29e1cd)

  169. Sorry, it’s mainly just a lot of her fanboys who give her supporters a bad name, from what I’ve noticed.

    Timothy (a56191)

  170. Well, JD, George Will was consistent by not liking either one.

    Timothy (a56191)

  171. You are arguing with the voices in your head, clown. You chose this discussion, made some douchey blanket assertions, got called on them, and now are running around spitting out unrelated points.

    JD (29e1cd)

  172. Boo hoo. I see I struck a real nerve with poor widdle JD.

    Timothy (a56191)

  173. Yes, dishonest mendoucheous twatwaffle what lie tend to grate on my nerves. I have rough edges, and a low threshold for tolerance of asshattery. You manage to reveal your asshattery in 1 comment, a rarity.

    JD (b98cae)

  174. My comment couldn’t have gotten you THAT butthurt, could it?
    You want to call anybody a dishonest twatwaffle on top of being a thin-skinned whiner? Look in the mirror.

    Timothy (a56191)

  175. tim has yet to make an argument. He’s insulted a lot of people, and asserted it’s their fault, and to respond means he’s somehow winning.

    A troll, in other words.

    And dumb.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  176. I also like how “timothy” uses the standard leftist tropes and buzzwords, while being a concerned conservative. Your sophistry is apparent to anyone reading “timothy”. Maybe you can find a post from Aug of 2010 to troll on too.

    JD (29e1cd)

  177. Dustin, it’s JD who insulted me. Time, after time, after time. There is a difference between criticizing a politician and personally attacking another poster. The difference between JD’s asshattery and my rough edges is that I don’t let him get to me.
    “He’s insulted a lot of people, and asserted it’s their fault”. You forgot the part where I kidnap damsels in distress and tie them to a train while twirling my mustache.
    You actually want to play the victim card for JD? Look at how many times he’s repeatedly issued ad hominems against me. I struck a nerve with that fool.
    Why is it okay for him to insult me, but not for me to do likewise after being insulted?
    His whole statements were insults! Almost everything he said was an ad hominem.

    Timothy (a56191)

  178. So just because you’re a conservative, you have to like certain people? You have to love Palin?
    Just who are the people you cannot speak ill of, for fear of blaspheming the higher-ups?
    Anyone else who’s exempt from any and all criticism?

    Timothy (a56191)

  179. Hey, Dustin. You claim it’s ME who has yet to make an argument. The TRUTH, however, is that it’s JD who’s acting like a child, insulting and complaining, and not saying anything of value.

    Timothy (a56191)

  180. JD and Dustin – Please stop insulting Timmy. He is obviously a delicate flower who should be allowed to make strawman comments about conservatives on dead threads in peace.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  181. “Hey, Dustin. You claim it’s ME who has yet to make an argument.”

    Timothy – What is your argument?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  182. So Timothy, can you actually point to comments by the people you claim hold the positions you ascribe to them or are you just spitballing here?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  183. It’s not conservatives. It’s the certain brand of conservative, not people who like Palin, but the certain high-profile segment that thinks she’s the greatest thing ever.
    Dustin was actually contributing until he tried to portray me as a mustache-twirling villain/bad guy from a Lifetime movie at the very end. JD was whining, moaning, and crying because I apparently hurt his feelings. You want to say I have no argument although I argued my positions several times? It’s actually JD who had nothing but sour grapes and clearly hurt feelings.

    Timothy (a56191)

  184. Timothy is a delicate little flower, Daley. He must be allowed to spit out his dishonest nonsense without fear of being called on it. Did you know that criticism of Palin is not allowed? ODonnell was the greatest thing since sliced bread? They are analogous to Miers? If you object to any of timmah’s underlying flawed assumptions, it is just butthurt, and ad hom. F@ck yu, timmah.

    JD (318f81)

  185. Dustin was actually contributing until he tried to portray me as a mustache-twirling villain/bad guy


    You mean I took your unserious point seriously. I do that a lot, and it doesn’t suggest much. I thought you were genuinely ignorant about O’Donnell supporters.

    Now I see you were just being a troll.

    I don’t think you’re this powerful villain you are pretending JD thinks you are. He and I probably agree you’re just another drooling jackass who is so obsessed with Palin, but also unable to clearly articulate why without saying something completely screwy, such as this ‘Harriet Miers isn’t pretty’ comparison, relying on a BS concept that Palin’s loudest fans hated Miers the most.

    No, Tim, you don’t appear to have an argument besides this general ‘let me cherry pick the worst Palin supporter I can imagine and then bash them a bunch without actually even pointing out anything that really happened’.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  186. Standard nonsense from your type. Whining moaning and crying is actually just pointing out your asshattery, and mendoucheity. Now, run along and savage some more straw people. O seem to enjoy it.

    JD (318f81)

  187. Timothy – Why are you so wee-wee’d up? People who start comments with “So you are telling me….” are not making arguments or asking questions, they are making statements.

    You have not hurt JD’s feelings. He just dislike dishonest commenters such as yourself with an agenda.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  188. JD’s comments so far. Decide rather it’s “contributing”:
    First comment called me dishonest.
    dishonest mendoucheous twatwaffle what lie tend to grate on my nerves
    Go bugger yourself, asshat.
    You have done nothing to demonstrate that position exists anywhere outside of your addled brain.
    Gee, you are a real bright one, aren’t you?

    And you want to say I’m the bad guy? I’m the troll?

    90% of what he said was just childish ad hominems against me. But I see that’s alright, isn’t it?

    Timothy (a56191)

  189. And every single one of those was true, Timothy. That has to hurt. Butthurt, even.

    JD (318f81)

  190. “Did you know that criticism of Palin is not allowed? ODonnell was the greatest thing since sliced bread? They are analogous to Miers?”

    JD – Every progressive knows these things.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  191. Let’s go back to your first dose of idiocy, in a thread that has been dead for almost 9 months. The same people that did not like Miers think ODonnell and Palin are the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are at least 3 unsupported assumptions and/or dishonest twatwafflery in yur first comment. Discuss.

    JD (318f81)

  192. It’s tough out there for a troll.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  193. Tim thinks describing people he hates but obviously doesn’t understand is a contribution, and he also thinks someone noting what this says about Tim is not a contribution.

    My guess is that Tim is a miserable bitter nut. He thinks anyone who is passionate must be correspondingly nutty. I know there are a lot of Palin fanboys out there, but in real life, every Palin fan I meet is an intelligent patriot. A moderate in some ways, though fed up with a broken government. On the internet, that’s not the case, so people who only live on the internet might get the wrong idea.

    Also, I suspect many of the ugliest Palin fans online are not Palin fans at all, and many aren’t even conservative.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  194. I’m not wee-weed up. I think JD is.
    I was going to be more polite before, but if we’re allowed to say it, I’ll say f@ck you right back.
    “Did you know that criticism of Palin is not allowed? ODonnell was the greatest thing since sliced bread? They are analogous to Miers?”
    I stand by some people think #1 should be a rule, #2 mostly isn’t around, apparently her charm didn’t work as well as some muggles, and #3 I don’t see why they shouldn’t be.

    Timothy (a56191)

  195. Who here thinks the first should be a rule, Palin shod not be criticized? By the way, can you effing read, or do you knw what blog you are on? Oh, it is cute that you are now editing our own original assertion about ODonnell.

    JD (318f81)

  196. Editing our own? I typed refuting your own, as in, you are now refuting your own mendoucheous assertion about ODonnell. You really are a clown, timmah.

    JD (318f81)

  197. I’m mostly on the internet. This is the sh*t I see on a regular basis.
    ““Did you know that criticism of Palin is not allowed? ODonnell was the greatest thing since sliced bread? They are analogous to Miers?”

    JD – Every progressive knows these things.”

    Just how am I a progressive? Apparently I’m an evil Nazi Communist too?

    My point, responded by a lot of name-calling, was the same people who opposed Miers loving Palin. This isn’t always the case I know.
    I know there are a few people who supported both, and intellectuals who opposed both.

    Timothy (a56191)

  198. I don’t really stand by the whole O’Donnell thing. I was being inclusive. There’s really no way to tell today because she’s keeping a low profile. I know she has die-hard supporters. Of course, a lot of people do.

    Timothy (a56191)

  199. You asserted that the peole that opposed Miers were the same that love Palin. You offered nothing beyond your ASSertions. Only an intellectual like timmah would oppose both.

    Timmah refuted himself. How cute. What is it with that name?

    JD (318f81)

  200. Timmy – What is your argument?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  201. Certain commentators criticized Miers, but later got weak over Palin.
    And while I don’t associate either with the words “highly qualified”, I’m anything but an intellectual. I am pretty smart, but an intellectual is something I’m not.
    But I’ve noticed it’s you, Justin Dorian, who can’t keep a cool head.
    Dustin-You say they’re moderates in some ways. I know online a lot of her fanboys try to denigrate everybody else, all the “competition”. So that’s pretty interesting, because she’s supposed to be this hyper-conservative firebrand, from what I’ve noticed people online. I mean, who thinks Newt Gingrich is a flaming liberal? Some of her online supporters. I know there’s plenty like the ones you know that are just regular people, I know a few, too, but the ones online are pretty hyper-partisan.

    Timothy (a56191)

  202. Certain comments criticized Miers, and later loved Obama.

    You could make an even stronger example with Hillary.

    Here’s the thing, though, Tim is pretending he has proof of a contradiction, but all he’s proving is that he is so insulated from reality that the only difference between Miers and Palin is what they look like (to say nothing of his repeated inability to point to an example of something he is moaning and moaning about in the most out of context threadjack I’ve ever seen).

    There are plenty of sensible reasons from a consistent POV to support Palin and not Miers for the Court.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  203. Pretty on point for any democrats bashing Palin or her supporters.

    I think criticizing Palin is generally fair game. But do so specifically and about real things, not this stupid sportsfan level ‘her fans must be wrong’ crap. Tim’s underlying premise is that there is no reason to support Palin. That doing so is so absurd automatically. That’s because he knows he has no real argument.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  204. I do not give a flying f@ck if you think you have a cool head, all while being mendoucheous, timmah. Yu wandered into a place, took no care to learn anything about yr audience, and started spewing nonsense. Your idea of supporting your ASSertions is to reASSert them.

    JD (318f81)

  205. Her most vocal supporters online have a tendency to be hyper-conservative.

    Timothy (a56191)

  206. Obama’s most vocal supporters tend to be hyper partisan.

    Hillary’s most vocal supporters tend to be hyper partisan.

    hairy Red’s most vocal supporters tend to be hyper partisan.

    Weiner’s most vocal supporters tend to be hyper partisan.

    Your point is, timmah …. .

    JD (318f81)

  207. Ace of Spades is supposed to be a libertarian, but he’s pretty sycophantic towards the 2 1/2 year Alaska Governor.
    If you replaced Palin with any other national politician, the reverence would get a lot of snark, widely.
    It’s okay to like someone, but it seems like Palin’s the only one you can like-like.

    Timothy (a56191)

  208. It was my above comment. Like she’s the new Strom Thurmond when she’s really not.

    Timothy (a56191)

  209. Ha, ha, you’re serious, Ace has gone aggressive Eeyore on her, in the last year or so, and much of his Green Lantern Corps, Gabe, Hollowpoint, et al,
    are in that same vein,

    ian cormac (72470d)

  210. What’s Gabe and Hollowpoint?
    Can you fill me in?
    The new Green Lantern movie seems kind of interesting.

    Timothy (a56191)

  211. WTF are you bibble babbling about? Ace currently has +\- 40 posts on his front page, and there is 1 about Palin, and 1 tangentially referencing Palin.

    JD (318f81)

  212. This is the most quickly self-refuting Weiner troll we have seen in a while.

    JD (318f81)

  213. Like Norman the android, without the anti logical paradox circuitry.

    ian cormac (72470d)

  214. This was someone doing a sock puppet of an imbecile. Fess up. Who was posting as Timothy? That was epic funny.

    JD (318f81)

  215. I don’t know anybody what thinks the new Green Lantern film looks interesting

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  216. Okay, so there are a lot of movies I’d like to see before that.
    It doesn’t look too bad, though.

    Timothy (a56191)

  217. Oh, yeah, JD? Weiner can suck a weiner. I’m nothing like him.

    Timothy (a56191)

  218. Timmah is arguing with the voices again. Pity.

    JD (318f81)

  219. Happy feet – Kung Fu Panda Dos and Mr Poppers Penguins are surprisingly enjoyable.

    JD (318f81)

  220. Timothy:
    1 – Palin has more applicable experience to be President than Obama did in 2008.
    2 – Palin has more applicable experience to be President than Harriet Myers had to be Supreme Court justice.
    3 – The Presidency is not a lifetime appointment.

    See how easy that was.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  221. Don’t tweet your meat is a good motto to live by I think.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  222. Timmy should use Venn Diagrams to figure out how the groups floating in his head overlap.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  223. Well said, SPQR.

    Though it hardly needed saying until Tim pointed out who exactly he’s talking about or what this has to do with anything.

    I think Tim’s real point is something he’d like to say about Palin, but he can’t argue that effectively, so he’ll just skip that step on his road to ‘see how unreasonable those I disagree with are!’

    Dustin (c16eca)

  224. Mr. Popper’s Penguins I was curious about. I have to see the first Kung Fu Panda yet though. I’ll watch pretty much anything though as long as it doesn’t have James Franco in it.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  225. Since everyone is bored with Weiner, I guess it makes sense to respond to a cretin who dug up a zombie discussion.

    Ag80 (391f9a)

  226. Ag80 – Weiner’s weiner is a distraction and so is this discussion.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  227. OK, Daley, you’re a good guy. Sorry for the interruption.

    Ag80 (391f9a)

  228. Screw Wiener and his wiener.
    How come I get the feeling that if I had said anything bad about someone besides Palin, I wouldn’t get so much backdraft?
    Miers was opposed because she did not have enough experience to get on the Supreme Court.
    Palin was opposed because she was a two-year governor who an old man chose to be his choice to succeed him to the Presidency should anything happen.
    There were better choices to pick from.

    Timothy (a56191)

  229. And this is the thing. Would everybody get so defensive if I say, bashed Mitt Romney? Or Newt Gingrich?
    What is it about Palin that is so so special?
    Would I be portrayed as an evil, evil person?
    Unless I pointed out that Gingrich cheated on his wife while being the poster guy for “family values”.

    Timothy (a56191)

  230. SPQR-On one hand, the Presidency isn’t a lifetime appointment like a Supreme Court Justice, but on the other, it’s a more powerful appointment.

    Timothy (a56191)

  231. Let’s just not say Palin is the anti-Harriet Miers, alright?
    If somebody values experience in somebody, you don’t look for it in someone who’s been Governor of a pretty isolated state for 3 years.
    We saw what Brownie was able to do.

    Timothy (a56191)

  232. ^ LOL

    Dustin (c16eca)

  233. So…were the same people who opposed Miers the same who supported Palin?

    Timothy (a56191)

  234. “So…were the same people who opposed Miers the same who supported Palin?”

    Timothy – That was what you suggested? Are you doubting yourself now?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  235. So…were the same people who opposed Miers the same who supported Palin?

    Not really. Most of the prominent Miers bashers seem to support other candidates. Ace is a great example. Patterico is a great example. In fact, I cannot think of a single prominent example of a Miers detractor who was of any significance online and is also a Palin 2012 voice.

    Sorry. You’re wrong. And crazy.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  236. What was the last movie you saw?

    Timothy (a56191)

  237. Timothy, unimpressive.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  238. There’s Ann Coulter.
    Also, Robert Bork, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol.

    Timothy (a56191)

  239. Okay, this is getting boring. It’s wasted too much of my time. How about yours?

    Timothy (a56191)

  240. Are you gonna make any more comments? Because I’m done.

    Timothy (a56191)

  241. Timothy, done what? Trolling? Krauthammer and Kristol are not Palin supporters. I doubt Bork is either.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  242. Robert Bork, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol.

    Comment by Timothy

    Is Tim trying to prove that he was wrong about practically everything he was talking about?

    What an idiot. I hope he wasn’t hoping to persuade anyone. He’s quite right that he has been wasting his time if he meant to, by saying A and then proving the opposite of A.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  243. Krauthammer isn’t a Palin supporter. Kristol is, though. Right? He recruited her for the McCain campaign.
    I wasn’t saying they were synonymous with supporting Palin.
    Like I said, I’m bored, I’m done.
    I don’t have a vendetta against Palin or most of her supporters.
    It’s Coulter, for Palin although she wants someone she thinks can beat Obama.
    Kristol’s for Palin, right?
    Krauthammer, Will, not so much.
    I don’t know about Robert Bork. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was for her, but I dunno.

    Timothy (a56191)

  244. I wasn’t saying they were synonymous with supporting Palin.

    Yeah you were. Otherwise, you’re just saying nothing.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  245. Wait, Meiers, who’s been well off the radar for years, was briefly mentioned by Levin in the article. I found it unusual he would correlate supporting her with NOT supporting O’Donnell.
    But this article had nothing to do with Palin at all. Weird how it turned out to be about her.
    This isn’t even a hard-line (not like there’s anything wrong with that) blog. The Great One doesn’t like you guys.
    By the way, Mark Levin rocks!

    Timothy (a56191)

  246. When can we wrap this up? I know I have a very unusual style sometimes when I make blog posts.

    Timothy (a56191)

  247. I’m ADD and sometimes I go with stuff on the spot.

    Timothy (a56191)

  248. Timothy – Did you know Mark Levin was a minor functionary in the Reagan Administration? Why does he mention it like every show?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  249. Timothy – Has Mark Levin ever been in a court room?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2012 secs.