The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Somebody Has to Stand Up’

Posted on | January 14, 2011 | 30 Comments

So says Mark Levin:

[H]e offered $100,000 to Chris Matthews to find any example where Sarah Palin or Levin himself had “promoted the murder of anybody.”
The direct challenge to Matthews took place shortly after Levin had played clips of Matthews suggesting Levin’s passionate radio shows were “angry” and apparently implying that Levin’s shows and those of talker Michael Savage had some responsibility for the Tucson murders. The allegation came on the heels of a specific allegation by left-wing Pima County Sheriff insisting Rush Limbaugh was at fault, while MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann demanded Palin “repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics.”
Said Levin, who is also a considerable lawyer in his role as head of the landmark Legal Foundation:
“I challenge Chris Matthews, I’ll put $100,000 on the table, to find any example where Sarah Palin has promoted the murder of anybody,” said Levin — specifically excluding terrorists and the Taliban.
Levin went on: “A hundred thousand on the table if Chris Matthews can find anywhere Mark Levin has urged the murder of people who have different political viewpoints. That’s the murder of politicians …where I said go out there and kill X,Y,Z…go out there and kill A,B,C. I challenge him right now. Sarah Palin. Me. Go ahead.”

Matthews is a gutless faggot Canadian. Meanwhile, the “Lean Forward” network has now made a graphic out of its counterfactual guilt-by-association, prompting Radley Balko to say:

It’s a powerful image. . . . It’s also complete bullsh*t.

And when are people going to start talking about the influence of Zeitgeist on Tucson shooter Jared Loughner?


30 Responses to “‘Somebody Has to Stand Up’”

  1. gg
    January 14th, 2011 @ 2:00 pm

    This was the comment by MD ConStrat to which B. Charles G Hill above is refering to:


    RSM – Still waiting for you to write ANYTHING on Obama’s speech . . . you know the one the Wall Street Journal says “won over critics” such as Krauthammer, Gingrich and others.

    Let’s see what you’ve posted since the speech was delivered:

    – A long update on your Zeitgeist shtick (about Laughner’s purported influences and obviously a way to gin up some tip-jar filling traffic);

    – Something on social media and hiring decisions;

    – A screed hating on Canadians, occasioned by an obviously priggish regulatory decision (from your Rule 2 updates, it looks like this one did better in the tip-jar department) — perhaps shockingly, I think I fully agree with you about the decision itself . . . but, your anti-Canadian rant puts us in diametrically opposite camps yet again (not to mention your gleeful homophobia);

    – An exegisis on a Times piece on Laughner’s actual views on abortion; fair enough comment, but this piece is still about him and you’re maintaining radio silence on Obama’s moment;

    – A ditty on Alyssa Milano (‘nuf said);

    That was your full output yesterday. This morning:

    – Some adolescent boy must have hijacked your first post, with its lovesick moanings about the injustice of Gyllenhaal actually dumping Taylor Swift (OMG CYBI???!!!???);

    – At the moment, your top post is a bit of stream-of-consciousness vent involving Mark Levin, Chris Matthews, Canadians and Zeitgeist.

    Whatever the merits of these individual posts (not going there), one thing should be pretty obvious (except to your fanboys, but probably not to you): You can’t figure out how you can say something vengeful about Obama without further exposing yourself even more as the hate-drenched maniac that you are . . . alternatively, you can’t say ANYTHING POSITIVE about the President, for fear of driving way the fanboys.