Audio: Mark Levin blasts Hillary for flip-flop-flip-flopping
posted at 11:50 am on November 15, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Just trying to keep track here — Hillary was undecidedly for Spitzer’s licenses for illegals plan, then she was really for it, and now that Spitzer has withdrawn it, she’s against it. She’s starting to make John Kerry look like the paragon of sticktoitiveness.
This rant is from last night’s Mark Levin Show. The Great One is in rare form in this one.
“I think she needs to be drug tested. I think an MRI. I think something needs to happen here. She can’t be this stupid, can she? Because now she’s turning into a joke.”
Indeed. And it is beginning to catch up with her.
By the way, Mark has a new book out this month.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Flippity floppy flop.
terryannonline on November 15, 2007 at 11:56 AM
LOL @ “I am not a documented person! I am a citizen!”
GogglesPisano on November 15, 2007 at 11:59 AM
I like the phrase “the honesty card”
Mrs. Clinton is not playing with a full deck!
Ann on November 15, 2007 at 12:00 PM
So much flip-flopping that she’s flailing.
Vizzini on November 15, 2007 at 12:00 PM
it depends on what “flip flop” is, is. right?
palefaced on November 15, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Assuming that Rush will eviscerate her beginning in about 2 minutes.
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 12:04 PM
“Mezzanine” should be her nick name, since her elevator stops short of the top floor.
abinitioadinfinitum on November 15, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Tough-talking Mark Levin wants us to get weepy about his dog? Won’t the terrorists think we are wimpy if we read a book like that?
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 12:08 PM
If you keep changing your position you are right 50% of the time. That is a better average than most of the Dems manage.
duff65 on November 15, 2007 at 12:11 PM
That was pure gold. My gut is blowing up! Get me to the hospital!
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 12:14 PM
“She can’t be this stupid, can she?”
Nope. She thinks everyone else is stupid.
forest on November 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM
If we can’t get weepy over our dogs we aren’t strong enough to defeat the terrorists.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 12:26 PM
“Hillary rotten Clinton, her thighness.”
priceless :D
AlexB on November 15, 2007 at 12:26 PM
You’ll be warned any minute now about a backlash for piling on too much.
JammieWearingFool on November 15, 2007 at 12:29 PM
He did slip a little though.
It should have been …
“Her Thighness, HITLERY Rotten Clinton”
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Flip flop. Isn’t that what beached whales do?
Levin for President!
pistolero on November 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I think we can, but I don’t call other Americans weak or cowardly as Levin does. I’d care more about his dog if he treated other citizens as well as I treat my dogs.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Looks like the flop part is dominating.
iurockhead on November 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM
People see through flip floppers (although they understand small changes in attitude or degree). We have candidates all over the place…for abortion, against abortion, for illegals, against illegals, for gun control, against gun control. Rather have someone that I disagree with and with faults…but know where they stand, then a flip-flopper.
right2bright on November 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Why don’t you call the weak ones weak, and the cowardly ones cowardly. What words do you use for the real ones?
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Pandering Panda
Kini on November 15, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Big difference between calling out the weak and cowardly and getting weepy when your best friend dies.
Dogs are amazing animals; their bonds to us, and our bonds to them, are remarkable. Our tears are justified, and have no bearing on our scorn for the Democrats.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 1:12 PM
To jump from a disagreement on policy to an ad hominem attack does less to educate than to enrage. If you so freely disparage other Americans don’t appeal for sympathy regarding your feelings about a pet.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 1:25 PM
What do you call the weak and cowardly?
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 1:31 PM
I’ve had dogs all my life and know the feeling. I don’t respect, though, someone who treats people abusively and then advertises his love for an animal.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 1:31 PM
His best line was “Anyone that uses the term “undocumented” is automatically for open borders.”
True, true.
RMCS_USN on November 15, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether or not the Great One “treats people abusively,” I still don’t understand why you insist on connecting those two things. Why shouldn’t he write a book about his dog at the same time he excoriates the people he believes are harming the country. I just don’t see the connection.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I wish he would just state outright what he thinks.
Wade on November 15, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I manage to get through most conversations on current events without having to use those terms to describe those with different opinions.
Does cowardice exist? Sure. I’d say a man who doesn’t attend to the welfare of his family, and knows it, is cowardly and weak. I’d call a friend out for that.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 1:42 PM
On a side note, the picture of Sprite which adorns the cover of his book is adorable. What a cutey Sprite was!
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 1:42 PM
I’d say a politician who doesn’t attend to the welfare of his country, and knows it, is cowardly and week, too. I’m glad Mark Levin calls them out for it.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Please answer the question. What words do you use?
Wade on November 15, 2007 at 1:48 PM
If you substitute “politician” for man, and “country” for family, that’s what Levin feels– and a lot of others.
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Because he quickly takes policy differences with others and conveys them as failures of character. He is frequently invoking his audience with anger toward other Americans but, now, soliciting affection for an animal.
Maybe both cases are appeals to emotion, which I’m not a big fan of.
Many argue that the other side does it, and that’s true for sure. Others argue that its entertainment and you have to have heroes and villains in your story–just like the WWE–understood. At some point I just think you turn elections cartoon slugfests and the wrong people get elected.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 1:55 PM
You can substitute all the words and change the meaning of the sentence.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I think I did with the 1:42 PM post. We probably hit submit at the same time.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Can’t find the clip… but reminds me of Kramer when he goes without his briefs.
mikeyboss on November 15, 2007 at 2:04 PM
That’s a terrible non-response. You presented a scenario in which it is appropriate to call someone out on being a coward, and the point was made that your own scenario is applicable to the Levin situation; it’s only a matter of scale.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Non-sequitur. I didn’t respond to you with no meaning. I gave you a specific sentence. If you can call a friend a coward and weak if he doesn’t support his family, then there is nothing wrong with calling a politician, or someone else, the same for not supporting their country. We don’t have to agree, but I think my meaning is clear.
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 2:10 PM
I disagree with your logic that the contexts are the same.
I might tell my wife that a particular dress is too revealing. I shouldn’t believe, logically, it is the same to say that about a co-workers wife in an e-mail to the entire company. Further to say that the co-workers wife is a whore because I believe the dress looks whorish is a second leap.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 2:19 PM
There probably is a site for Gandhi somewhere in cyber space. What Mark does is appropriate for him. He takes powerful people who use their power to intimidate, steal, abuse, ridicule, in general harm, and calls them to task.
A shepherd has a sheepdog to protect the herd of sheep. The sheep dog is feared by the sheep and the wolfs. But the sheep (in this case the ones who are saying Levin is mean), fear and do not like Levin nipping at their heels. But without him, and many like him, the wolves would have free rein. Levin uses his teeth and power, a growl and snarl to beat down the wolves…the sheep lie back and…bleeeep, bleeeeep, bleeeeep…
right2bright on November 15, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I wasn’t talking about private individuals in the workplace. I’m talking about politicians, pundits, and other public powerful individuals. They are fair game. This is veering into the Hillary Clinton argument. She is fair game.
Calling a spade a spade is back in fashion. (You might not be old enough to remember when you could speak your mind. Ann Coulter is a very good role-model for that reason. You don’t have to agree with her, but you can be set free by her.) I agree it was dicey there for awhile, but the people rebelled. Now, you can say what you really think, without having to worry that somebody will be offended. They will. Get over it. Some people are weak and cowardly. He finds them and exposes them.
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 2:32 PM
He ridicules not just the powerful. I was listening to a clip where he called people on welfare “losers”. Even if you agreed with him, its clear they aren’t powerful.
I’ve heard that metaphor somewhere else. If people are looking for a shepherd, that’s a little outside my comprehension.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Fair enough. It’s just a different point than the one I was making. You implied that context didn’t matter. Clearly it does.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Dedalus,
Try this. http://mitchlewis.net/blog/2007/07/30/sheep-wolves-and-sheepdogs/
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Letting your pants fall below your boxers has also been in fashion. I’ll avoid that fashion too.
Old enough to remember Mailer vs Vidal or Vidal vs Buckley. Debates are more entertaining than rants.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 2:51 PM
You use the term “Americans” loosely.
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Thank you for the link. Not exactly my worldview, but I appreciate it.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 3:01 PM
I was using it in the strict sense of citizens of the United States, excluding illegal aliens and people here on visas or green cards.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 3:04 PM
That is a typical response influenced by post-war liberal thought. Calling a spade a spade isn’t, and never was, a “fashion.” It is free thought, and free speech. Speech codes, politically correct speech, and the inability to ever make black and white pronouncements on anything is dangerous to our freedoms. Liberals may have once taught us that not everything is black and white. Today, conservatives can teach you that not everything is gray. The politicians and media figures Levin calls cowards and weak are cowards and weak. They may be even worse things too.
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I was using your word. You introduced it, otherwise it wouldn’t have occurred to me.
Agreed.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 3:18 PM
She is the gift that keeps on giving
Defector01 on November 15, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Are you speaking positively about Vidal vs. Buckley? Was your favorite moment when Vidal called Buckley a nazi or when Buckley called Vidal a faggot?
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 3:43 PM
These coments regarding the ability to call Hillary what she is in less than glowing terms and having the same ability to love a dog is interesting. So, having been in combat and the resulting aggressive and cruel things that happen, I can’t love a child or dog? How did you get to such a cognitive dissonance? I have no problem with Mark Levin’s comments nor do I care to garner the respect of someone who can’t see how he and I for that matter, can hold such diverse attitudes and cares in one soul.
MNDavenotPC on November 15, 2007 at 3:46 PM
It seems that you’re supposed to stick to the high road whilst Her Thighness, Hillary Rotten, accuses you of being part of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, wanting to starve children and kill old people.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I sure feel that way these days. makes me proud to be a gun carrying Conservative, though.
MNDavenotPC on November 15, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Yep, those.
I enjoyed the back and forth between two smart speakers. The name-calling was shocking at the time because the debates contained much dry material. Eventually, the feud between Buckley and Vidal over the exchange became tedious.
Today, rather than debating, we have more monologues where hosts speak unchallenged to either a right wing or left wing audience. The savvy media figures realize that people related more to bombast of Mailer, Vidal or Buckley than remember the logic of their arguments.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 4:11 PM
I wasn’t focused on Hillary, who is a public figure. Also, I didn’t assert that Levin didn’t love his dog. Very probably he does. My issue was with his marketing that affection for a dog and asking us to care.
I’ve cared for dogs all my life, but over the years have seen things happen to other human beings that has made me adjust the way that I view animals. Would combat experience cause me to not love a dog or a child? No, but seeing someone do something unnecessarily cruel to another human being would make me less sympathetic to that person’s feelings toward animals.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 4:27 PM
No. Call her out on that. There will continue to be plenty to attack her on if she is the nominee.
I thought the attacks on Bush over SCHIP were cheap. He was 6+ years too late in vetoing a big spending bill. The veto was based on having a modicum of fiscal restraint not hating children.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 4:32 PM
She can’t be this stupid, can she?”
Nope. She thinks everyone else is stupid.
forest on November 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM
And her thinking is mostly spot on !!!!!!!!! Most voters are pretty stupid.
SIJ6141 on November 15, 2007 at 7:26 PM
As “braindeadamongus” (dedalus) has pointed out, attacking
wavering and indecision of Hillary Clnton is unwarranted
if your dog died and then wrote a book about it.
gary on November 15, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Why feed the troll ? We should not call anybody weak or a coward. That makes us, take your choice: mean/a Nazi/Fascist/Racist etc.
SIJ6141 on November 15, 2007 at 7:53 PM
If you scrolled up to 4:32 PM you’d see I made the opposite point.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Comprehensive?
I don’t want to comprehend it,
I want to stop it!
TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 7:16 AM
Comment pages: