The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Mark Levin's $100,000 Challenge to Chris Matthews

By on 1.13.11 @ 3:38PM

Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin has put out a stunning challenge to those left-wing media personalities accusing conservative talk radio stars and Sarah Palin of encouraging murder.

First, he 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."

Levin, of course, is also a former Justice Department official, which gave his second challenge a crisp note: He's waiting for a very specific allegation "because I'm going to sue." In federal court.

Levin's challenge to Matthews and other left-wing media types comes on the heels of increasingly desperate attempts by the left-wing media to pin the Tucson violence by the mentally disturbed Jared Loughner on conservative talk radio stars. A friend of Loughner's has gone on television to specifically say Loughner didn't listen to "political radio" or watch television news.

"Somebody has to stand up," said an indignant Levin on his show, an audio replay of which can be found here.

View all comments (291) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.13.11 @ 3:44PM

Actually, I was kind of wondering what was taking Levin, Palin and Limbaugh so long to get attorneys and sue scum like Matthews, Krugman and Olbermann. By the way if you're not scum feel free to sue me.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 5:00PM

I think this is a great idea. It's about time we fought the hateful tactics of the Left.

Christopher Weaver| 1.14.11 @ 12:29PM

Wow. Levin regularly screams at callers and refers to people with different opinions as enemies, scum, and less than human. And you talk about the "hateful tactics of the left." Positively Orwellian. Nobody said Palin or Levin advocated murder. They said that their rhetoric was violent and irresponsible. But see how both of them twist these words and portray themselves as victims. Pitiful.

bob sanders| 1.14.11 @ 12:48PM

Not as pitiful as you coming here and spinning. The polls are out and the public isn't buying what you and your lefty friends are selling. A majority rightfully believe that the rhetoric of the left is more violent and hate filled than that of the right. The problem that you guys are having is that the internet exists so all of your crazy Bush and Palin hatred ( Where people actually called for death and assasination)is archived and available for all to see. Quit trying to move the goalposts every time you are busted. Just admit that the left is full of hate because they can't cintrol the narrative anymore. By the way no one ever took the 100,000 grand from Breitbart either. Notice how that story faded once proof was asked for. We're not as dumb as the elites think we are. Not so sure about you though.

ds80| 1.14.11 @ 1:08PM

Christopher Weaver, go play in your sandbox if name-calling hurts your feelings, little boy.

CFein| 1.14.11 @ 1:15PM

Yet wingnuts are suing over pretty much the same thing: "namecalling." What was that again about frivolous lawsuits? LOL!

bob sanders| 1.14.11 @ 1:21PM

There is a difference between name calling and slander but I wouldn't expect an Obama voter to know that.

ron| 1.14.11 @ 3:48PM

It's not the name calling it's the false accusations of causing someones death, U idiot

Oldefarte| 1.14.11 @ 1:57PM

CW, let's wait and see what a judge and/or jury decides inside of a courtroom. My guess is that attorney Levin knows something about the law, whereas you do not know EXCREMENT regarding same!!!!!!!!!!

John Q Public| 1.14.11 @ 2:56PM

"When they bring a knife, we bring a gun." - BHO
- Enough said, knucklehead. Care to see more examples?

Imperial73| 1.14.11 @ 5:59PM

JohnQ.Public--
Actually this is the only comment I would give the Kommunist from Kenya a pass-- I assume he's quoting from "Untouchables" the best movie of that time. Howvwer there are many other instances Obama said dangerous stuff. Glen Beck AND Sean Hannity brought up this comment today, matter of fact Hannity mentioned it about 20 min ago. But yeah, left wing media is disgraceful pinning everything that goes wrong on Bush, Palin and others.

memomachine| 1.14.11 @ 3:56PM

Hmmm

"Nobody said Palin or Levin advocated murder."

Complete and utter bullshit. They both have been accused of being accessories to murder.

Elephant Tusks| 1.14.11 @ 6:45PM

But your precious president can call hi political opponents "enemies," and if we bring a knife he's gonna bring a gun, and your DCCC can use the exact same imagery as Palin (bullseyes) and that isn't inciting violence. In liberal La-La land, it's only inciting violence if a Republican does it. You and your libtard friends are all useless.

Kala| 1.14.11 @ 9:02PM

YES THEY DID>

George B| 1.17.11 @ 2:43PM

Christopher, calling your political opponents names while talking in an angry voice isn't the same thing as calling for violence or advocating murder. What Levin does is more like the store customer, angry with poor service, who tries to get an employee fired. He's loud and angry, but in the end he just wants some infuriatingly incompetent people to lose their jobs.

sb| 1.14.11 @ 5:12AM

here you go, 100k please:
--
"Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?'
Palin claimed that the administration's inability to hunt down Assange showed a lack of effort."
--
I can already hear the adamant ripostes that Assange is a terrorist, and second that she's not actually calling for him to be murdered. To the first, I say Judge Napolitano disagrees (look up his stance on wikileaks on youtube) and to the second, come on, we all know what happens to al qaeda terrorists when they are "hunted down".
article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....orist.html

Deborah D| 1.14.11 @ 5:51AM

So now, "pursued" is equated with killing? And where did she say "hunted down" in the article. I see no quotes on that. Just because you read something and see something that's not there doesn't mean it's there, lefty.

Funkmaster| 1.14.11 @ 8:19AM

Assange is a terrorist and I agree with Levin that he should be hunted down (which he has been) and executed. I'll volunteer to pull the switch. Judge Napolitano? Please.

Jay Wells| 1.14.11 @ 11:34AM

Jesus..what a god damn idiot.

Kala| 1.14.11 @ 9:03PM

Talking to yourself again

Masterfunk| 1.14.11 @ 12:09PM

This is why we have due process. Idiotic vigilantism is beneath civilized societies.

Jack Bauer| 1.14.11 @ 3:29PM

"Assange is a terrorist and I agree with Levin (SIC) that he should be hunted down (which he has been) and executed"

When did Mark Levin say that? It's a rhetorical question because he never did.

I think you're a silly wittle weftist who assumes we're all as stupid as you appear to be.

PetiteFleur| 1.14.11 @ 9:40AM

Levin specifically excluded terrorists and Taliban. I'd say that applies to Assange.

teeps| 1.14.11 @ 1:35PM

Please enlighten me as to how Assange fits the definition of a terrorist.

Kala| 1.14.11 @ 9:05PM

Do you think he should be accountable for the killers he has emboldened.

Fred Beloit| 1.14.11 @ 10:48AM

sb (note how politely I shall endeavor to correct this personage), pursuing and hunting down are not anywhere near murdering. If they were our police, who pursue and hunt down criminals, would be all be killers and our jails would all be empty; now isn't that so? Please consider the matter, my dear fellow American, I beg of you.

Pockets 64| 1.14.11 @ 11:12AM

To pursue as we do the Taliban carries no implication of death. Have you seen the rules of engagement our troops have to operate by while pursuing the talibs? At one point, there was considerable pressure to have the troops Mirandize terrorists captured on the battlefield. I don't know how that went, though.

Thom Burke| 1.14.11 @ 11:41AM

"we all know what happens to al qaeda terrorists when they are "hunted down." Sure, they're put up at Club Gitmo for a while and then let go to try murdering innocent Americans again. Don't you Leftists ever get tired of being on the wrong side of the issues?

Julia| 1.15.11 @ 2:24PM

Club Gitmo? Oh, that must be where the US violates its own constitution and tortures people who never actually been tried and found guilty.

Lazarus Long| 1.17.11 @ 7:40PM

Illegal combatants have no "rights" under the Constitution. The do not have "rights under the Geneva Convention.

"Torture"? Your run of the mill terrorist in Gitmo puts on weight. Look, I know you pine for the days of the Soviet Gulag, but those days are gone, 'mkay?

jimboo| 1.14.11 @ 12:21PM

Unfortunately we have to be taxed in order for the educational system in this country to produce an imbecile like you.

Now listen and read this – go do a search called “Progressive climate of hate malkin” go and read about your own kind in the words of your own kind – no propaganda, just people like you with pictures made by people like you – then come back and pray that Americans will forgive a slob like you for being so stupid.

CFein| 1.14.11 @ 1:24PM

Jeebus. Malkin, the Right's cutest li'l anchor baby, is probably the most notorious hate-monger of them ALL. You expect anyone but far right-wingers to take her insanity seriously?

It appears all YOU are capable of is hurling insults. Your entire post consists of just that.

ron| 1.14.11 @ 3:57PM

Go suck up to bill mahr, k. olberman or c mathews they never say anything harsh or untrue, U IDIOT

Kala| 1.14.11 @ 9:06PM

You have no srgument, you have been reduced to pathetic ad hominim attacks.

ron| 1.14.11 @ 3:52PM

Yes they vacation at Guantomino then go home

Julia| 1.15.11 @ 2:27PM

That is disgusting to call TORTURE a "vacation." And, remember, while you assume that these people are guilty, they have not been proven to be guilty.

Eric| 1.16.11 @ 6:40PM

They are P.O.W.'s NOT citizens being accused of an alleged crime on U.S. soil, in the U.S. justice system! Miranda Rights are NOT given to people we (the U.S.) are at war with!

Lazarus Long| 1.17.11 @ 7:42PM

There is no "torture" in Gitmo.

Stop lying.

Lazarus Long| 1.17.11 @ 7:43PM

"they have not been proven to be guilty."

Sweet Cthulu on a bagel, how stoooopid are you?

Steve J.| 1.14.11 @ 7:05AM

Foamer Levin avoids the main point again. The real issue is whether or not he's an inflamationary demogogue and on that count, he's GUILTY.

Joseph McCarthy| 1.14.11 @ 7:38AM

Better dead than red.

Jack| 1.14.11 @ 11:14AM

Or in Mathews case, "better dead than read",

Loadmaster| 1.14.11 @ 7:38AM

SteveJ - Mark being demagogue is YOUR opinion. No laws have been broken and do you know how many OPINION's are out there?

How does Mark avoid the "main point"? Hell it's 100K. Are you talking about folks who do not like the direction this adm is taken us? If so, count me in with Mark and all the other conservatives, Indep and some Dem's. I refuse to stop expressing my thoughts and like you, my opinion. Are you the "thought" police? If so, move on brother, move on.

Terry ONeal| 1.14.11 @ 9:05AM

You are an idiot.

Jenney| 1.14.11 @ 9:27AM

Setve J: No, the real and present issue right now is that you commies started pointing fingers and asking for Sarah's arrest and accusing them of being a part of this crime. So, everything the left has been saying about them is not at all inflammatory? Hypocrite. And, if another demented person took all you commies seriously and actually was a lefty that went after Sarah, you wouldn't mourn, you would cheer, that's how sick all of you are.

George| 1.14.11 @ 1:38PM

no one wanted Palin arrested, no pundit even tried to call for her arrest.
there are plenty of right wing nut jobs who comment about killing the president so IF all us commies celebrated the assassination of Sarah Palin, right wingers would celebrate equally as hard if the president were assassinated

DaProf| 1.14.11 @ 2:33PM

Seriously?

Actually, choosing Biden on Obama's part was a good tactical move to prevent his own assassination. No celebration on the right for that.

Plenty have called for her to be hurt/maimed/injured/killed/etc or can't you google worth a damn?

Kala| 1.14.11 @ 9:08PM

No they wanted a poltical assasination of her character. They are scared to death of her and this started long before this ever happened when the JournoList started on day one. How you you like to ewxplain to your children if people treated you like Sarah Palin has been treated.

Steve J.| 1.16.11 @ 12:26AM

[you commies]

FAIL

JohnD| 1.14.11 @ 9:41AM

SteveJ is a first class idiot. Steve also seems to not understand that his comments identify himself as an inflammatory demogogue.

Pockets 64| 1.14.11 @ 11:15AM

JohnD: Dittos!!

scythe| 1.14.11 @ 10:01AM

Foamer Levin? So sayeth Steve J. You sound like an....."inflamationary" (WTF?) "demogogue" (do you mean demagogue, Steve?) And the loud pronouncement of GUILTY is sooo..nonjudgmental. Sooo circumspect. Got a hanky Steve? The spittle ain't too attractive.

JRon| 1.14.11 @ 11:20AM

Since Palin called democrats terrorists in 2008, does that mean he's looking for her calling for the death of anyone other than democrats?

P Berritsma| 1.14.11 @ 11:35AM

Levin didn't start this crap, progressives did.Would you stay silent if they accused you of this BS? NOT

jimboo| 1.14.11 @ 12:17PM

Unfortunately we have to be taxed in order for the educational system in this country to produce an imbecile like you.

Now listen and read this – go do a search called “Progressive climate of hate malkin” go and read about your own kind in the words of your own kind – no propaganda, just people like you with pictures made by people like you – then come back and pray that Americans will forgive a slob like you for being so stupid.

Lazarus Long| 1.17.11 @ 7:44PM

PROOF, please.

dumb| 1.14.11 @ 1:52PM

So why didnt he add Glenn Beck or Sharon Angle?

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:38AM

Because you already have a million times, nimrod.

k.d.| 1.19.11 @ 1:09PM

palin is pathetic. she has culpability for her negative rhetoric and she refuses to take responsibility. i wish she would just disappear. she is such a waste of space

GeronL| 1.13.11 @ 4:05PM

There should be about 75 defamation lawsuits by now. It would be glorious, especially if there is a print publication on the verge of bankruptcy.

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 4:42PM

Geron --

Palin is a public figure. Winning a defamation or a libel suit against one of her critics would be virtually impossible.

(See Constitution, first amendment thereof, and rafts of court precedents virtually guaranteeing anyone to say just about anything they want about a public figures.)

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 5:01PM

Are you an attorney, or do you just play one when you troll?

Mike| 1.13.11 @ 5:44PM

Anyone, Patriot, who was awake in middle school American history knows what Liberal Reader wrote.

You are playing the angry fool with posts like the one above.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 6:16PM

No anger here, Mike; you're projecting again.
You Leftists have NO sense of humor.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 6:18PM

Hey, Mike--read tonypal's (a REAL attorney, he doesn't just play one) post below. Who is the fool now?

W| 1.13.11 @ 6:35PM

Hey Liberal street lawyer, the suit is Levin v. Matthews, and matthews accused Levin of a crime. Levin will win.

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 7:17PM

W --
You're right about the people involved; I got mixed up and thought they were talking about Palin. So thanks for the correction. However, Matthews and Levin are both public figures. Same rules apply.

Jack Bauer| 1.14.11 @ 4:34AM

So what? So what if it would be unlikey that Levin could win damages for Matthews public slander?

There are other courts ouside the judicial system. The court of public opinion being one.

Dragging Matthews sorry ass through court, making him spemd time and money would be a good victory in itself.

I hope Mark Levin does it for that alone.

elizabeth| 1.14.11 @ 10:43AM

Levin and Palin are NOT public figures. They are private citizens. Public figures are those elected to public office. Let the lawsuits begin!

JRon| 1.14.11 @ 1:51PM

just because you quit halfway through your term doesn't mean you're no longer a public figure.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:39AM

Stop whining JRon.

TC@LeatherPenguin| 1.14.11 @ 11:12AM

No, LR, the rules you think you know do not exist. Whether a person is "public" is irrelevant per accusation of libel/slander. All Levin would have to do is prove Matthews acted "with malice" when making his accusations. To refute the charge, Matthews would have to admit he was talking out of his arse, and had no idea whether his words were true.

George| 1.14.11 @ 1:42PM

Sooooo

when Glenn Beck accused G. Soros of leading jews to gas chambers.... that wasn't acting with malice right, no case there

gh| 1.14.11 @ 7:16PM

No. It was true according to wikipedia. There are four references and a quote from Soros himself.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:40AM

George is confused because Liberals don't know squat about the truth.

Lazarus Long| 1.17.11 @ 7:46PM

DAMN those direct quotes!

DAMN them!

It wasn't an accusation, he was reporting what Soros said.

Cpm| 1.13.11 @ 5:02PM

How about her children? It's been open season on them too.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 5:04PM

Leftists will destroy anyone to get power. They are absolutely heartless.

George| 1.14.11 @ 1:45PM

Yes, every left leaning person in the world is totally heartless and are hell bent on destroying EVERYTHING.

yea that makes sense, I guess its only a amtter of time before they take over the world and KILL EVERYONE. I mean there are about 1.5 million more registered democrats than republicans

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:42AM

You're responsible for 50 million dead babies since 1973, so Patriot is right. Sorry.

Lazarus Long| 1.17.11 @ 7:47PM

120,000,000 dead poeple missed the point of your "sarcasm".

tonypal| 1.13.11 @ 5:37PM

Liberal Reader, I am an attorney and you are dead wrong. Go take a look at the various successful lawsuits against tabloid magazines. The key is you must prove that the statement was made with deliberate and reckless disregard for the truth. There must have been intent to do harm.

It seems to me that Chris Matthews did just that. Without any evidence, just his insane mindset coupled with a leftist ideology, he deliberately communicated a vicious attack specifically designed to damage Levin, if not outright ruin him and his ability to make a living. He doesn't have a shred of evidence and he doesn't even make any sense. But he put it out there because that's what vicious people do.

Now we know he did it deliberately, as no one was holding a gun to his head (sorry for the incendiary rhetoric - I just hope no one shoots Mr. Matthews as a result of my post). Webster's dictionary defines reckless as "marked by proper lack of caution" and "carelessness of consequences." Do you really think that's too tall a mountain to climb? Do you honestly doubt that Matthews intended to do harm to Levin's character and ability to make a living as a radio talk show host?

There is no "raft" of court precedents supporting your contention. You just made that up, as any non-lawyer does when trying to argue a point without any knowledge of the subject. As with any other legal proceeding, it will be fact specific. I personally would love to see Matthews hauled into a court room and try to demonstrate just how Levin was complicit. In any case, it's high time that good citizens fight back against this kind of viciousness. Matthew's clear aim was to destroy Levin, but things have a funny way of working out.

In conclusion, yes Levin is a public figure and the bar for proving defamation is higher. But it's hardly insurmountable, especially when you give a dope like Matthews an hour of access to the airwaves on a nightly basis. The man is so filled with rage and hatred for all things right of center that he loses control of his senses and blurts out whatever comes to mind. Combine stupidity with malice and you get Chris Matthews, a defamer of the highest order.

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 7:22PM

tonypal -

You may be a lawyer, and if you're so confident about this, maybe Levin and Palin will hire you to do some suing. (What is it with conservatives and lawsuits these days? Time was when they descried a litigious society.)

Public figures have a hell of time proving libel or defamation, and I did not just make this up.

And what Matthews said -- if you would actually listen to him -- was a rather modest claim that conservatives who use violent rhetoric run the risk of spurring violence. This is standard fare; it was before the AZ shootings, and it will be in their aftermath. You're free to disagree, of course, but I think you'd have a hard time suing Matthews for saying so. I'd like to see you try.

And Matthews doesn't strike me as someone full of rage. Jesus, tony. Do you ever listen to Savage? The guy's a complete nutcase. But there's no arguing taste. So sue Matthews. Hell, sue me. It's a free country.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:40PM

Quit using Christ's name in vain, punk.

DGinTN| 1.13.11 @ 9:33PM

Amen !

FuckJesus| 1.14.11 @ 11:47AM

Jesus wouldn't care if someone took his name in vain. He would forgive them.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 12:19PM

Only if they repented, you disgusting, cowardly little blasphemer.

JBeemish| 1.14.11 @ 12:53PM

There's no god, therefore no blasphemy.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:43AM

Loughner's not the only Leftist punk who worships at skull altars.

tonypal| 1.13.11 @ 9:26PM

Before addressing your points, I find it humorous that you come to this site to tell us how Levin has little to no chance of succeeding in his suit when you don't even know the proper terminology. You continue to use the term libel, which is defamation in print. What Levin is accusing Matthews of is slander, which is spoken defamation. Try learning the correct terminology before engaging in a debate.

I'll take things in reverse order. I'm amused that in order to defend Chris Matthews you need to invoke Michael Savage, a guy who most conservatives will not defend. It's the same as when liberals invoke the hated and reviled George Bush to defend Obama's policies. Just pathetic.

I have listened to Matthews quite a bit. Apparently you and I are hearing different things. All I know is that within the context of discussing the AZ shootings, Matthews essentially laid part of the blame on the "heated rhetoric" of Levin and Savage. Again, if you understood how the law works, you would understand that a malicious implication of this sort may rise to the level of slander, even against public figures. That's how the law works, whether you approve or not. Public figures do have a tougher time proving slander, but they're not just sitting targets for losers like Chris Matthews.

Lastly, we conservatives do believe in bringing suits when they have merit. Unlike liberals and the slobbering trial lawyers like John Edwards who spend their days targeting (I can still say that, can't I?) largely innocent people in order to line their pockets, we believe that there are instances when it is proper to seek damages.

We still decry (which is a real word, unlike "descried") a litigious society that punishes the very people that liberal trial lawyers purport to care about. But when we are attacked for no reason other than ideology, you bet your ass we will strike back with great fury (uh oh, more heated rhetoric).

Interested Conservative| 1.14.11 @ 12:11AM

It could get very interesting if Levin were to sue MSNBC.

It's been a long time since law school, but I think the baseline is the Sullivan case, with both a falsehood AND the actual malice standard. The hang up always seems to be the malice, but isn't that just another definition of "overheated rhetoric"?

The are many huge distinctions between Savage and almost any other conservative talker, Levin included. In some senses, Savage isn't even a conservative. Levin, however, is a very experience attorney, and while intense, is almost certainly truthful - so he'd be a rare bird who could be malicious but not libelous since there's no provable falsehood. Again, though, it would be a spectacle to see a trial about malice - the cross examination alone would be worth it regardless of the verdict.

Though the old saw about only a fool represents him/herself applies, it is interesting that many of the talking heads on the right are lawyers of one stripe or another, but not so much so on the left. I wouldn't want to be MSNBC's legal staff working on this - these are no-win cases for the defense.

Occam's Tool| 1.14.11 @ 12:32AM

No, LR, we Conservatives decry FRIVOLOUS lawsuits. If someone stated in public that I was complicit in a murder it would be lawsuit time for me.

Quite frankly, the MSM tactics are foul even for their low standards. I can't wait to see Mark kick some tail, in a legal fashion of course.

Jack Bauer| 1.14.11 @ 5:01AM

Note the complete inability to use joined up thinking -- and a childish debating (sic) style to bolster a non-response to a winning argument by tonypal

"You may be a lawyer, and if you're so confident about this, maybe Levin and Palin will hire you to do some suing."

What has THAT got to do with anything. The bizarre thinking process being, I assume, that unless they do, this somehow proves your point? This is the level of a ten year old, and a not particularly bright ten year old at that.

"(What is it with conservatives and lawsuits these days? Time was when they descried a litigious society.)"

Again a fallacious argument. So certain people have suggested that there is an excessive amount of friviolous legislation, sometime in the past. Is that "untrue"?

So this is supposed to be a reason why a "conservative" should never sue someone for slader and libel?

There is NO connection here, except your odd proclivity to lump everyone in one amorphous group think, and frantically build strawman.

Mike | 1.14.11 @ 9:45AM

Jack Bauer. LOL.
Hey, folks. A real, live Walter Mitty

Jack Bauer| 1.14.11 @ 12:15PM

Mike. BRAINFART.
Hey, folks . A real, life jack ass. He came. He saw. He bonkered.

Mike| 1.14.11 @ 2:32PM

Jack,

The rapier wit! The brilliant reposte!

Why, if William F. Buckley were alive, I'm confident he would pass the mantle.

Jack Bauer| 1.14.11 @ 3:08PM

If Buckley were alive I'm sure he'd be tuirning in his grave.

Though I am confident that compared to you I am Jonathan Swift.

Mike| 1.14.11 @ 3:44PM

If Buckley were alive I'm sure he'd be tuirning (sic) in his grave.

Now, that is a Swiftian turn phrase, Jack.

What do you say, folks? Shall we give Jack a big hand for being our Jonathan Swift?

Lazarus Long| 1.17.11 @ 7:52PM

[golf clap]

ds80| 1.14.11 @ 1:17PM

Jack Bauer, "Note the complete inability to use joined up thinking -- and a childish debating (sic) style to bolster a non-response to a winning argument by tonypal"

Exactly. Liberal Reader reasons exactly like my 8th grade daughter did. Thankfully, at least she matured.

Mary| 1.14.11 @ 7:23AM

Liberal Reader,
it used to be a free country.

Mike| 1.14.11 @ 9:46AM

Still is, Mary. You obviously have never visited countries that aren't.

Jack Bauer| 1.14.11 @ 12:19PM

How do you know?

The only country you seem familiar with is Lilliput, judging by the Lilliputian size of your brain.

jimboo| 1.14.11 @ 12:18PM

And the same for you ---

Unfortunately we have to be taxed in order for the educational system in this country to produce an imbecile like you.

Now listen and read this – go do a search called “Progressive climate of hate malkin” go and read about your own kind in the words of your own kind – no propaganda, just people like you with pictures made by people like you – then come back and pray that Americans will forgive a slob like you for being so stupid.

Mike | 1.13.11 @ 9:31PM

Liberty University Law School?

Lurker| 1.14.11 @ 2:19AM

What does that mean, toad?

Mike| 1.14.11 @ 2:10PM

Kind of ruins it if I have to explain

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:46AM

Yeah sure.

Imperial73| 1.14.11 @ 6:48PM

Hey folks, I read down pretty far and didnt see what I was looking for...I'm guessing that Liberal Reader was referring to Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler magazine, where it was ruled that it is legal to parody a public figure. This must still hold up because Ive seen Joker posters on the net of both Obama and Palin, caricatures of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi as a witch etc. I'm glad, too, because other wise SNL would suck even worse than it does. Parody is different than accusing someone in public of something, and a lawsuit could happen, because we all know the National Enquirer has been successfully sued by celebrities.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:48AM

What's funny about accusing others of complicity in mass murder? Pathetic.

Ellsworth Toohey| 1.14.11 @ 7:44AM

As all good liberals should know, the purpose of a lawsuit is not to further justice, but simply to harass and antagonize people you don't like. Nothing in the Constitution prevents pressing a losing cause in court. In fact, our courts rarely ever find any cause of action too frivolous to entertain. Hopefully you will relish your day in court just much as your compatriots in the bar.

Oldefarte| 1.14.11 @ 2:00PM

LR, DITTO my above comments to CW regarding your equally asinine statements!!!!!

paul| 1.13.11 @ 4:20PM

Bravo!!! finally someone who's willing to take on these nutjobs like Matthews. Maybe someone will step forward to challenge Maddow, Olbermann, Maher, and any other libleft mediaperson who wants to throw out accusations that will only stoke the fires of confrontation

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 4:32PM

Good luck with that, Levin. Breitbart's $100,000 reward for proof that Black legislators were called racist epithets and spat upon by the Tea Party still hasn't been collected.

Leftists lie.

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 4:39PM

Levin's "challenge" is offered in rather bad faith.

Matthews -- whom I've watched this week -- has never charged that Palin "encouraged the murder" of anyone.

What he has asked repeatedly is why "ballistic" metaphors -- the mixing of gun talk in politics -- is so popular and whether it is appropriate, given the astonishing frequency of assassination in our history. He also points out that assassination in American history has always been carried out with guns.

I'm not saying it's impossible to disagree with Matthews. Sometimes he may put too fine a point on his criticism, and obviously Palin is not the only politician to use "gun metaphors" in the world. As many conservatives have pointed out, Obama has used similar language.

What I would say, however, is that Palin has a strange preoccupation with gun metaphors. Guns are a constant source of images and a constant theme in her political rhetoric. I think it's strange.

Now we use images and themes and metaphors for their rhetorical power; Palin has been happy to benefit from the power of this rhetoric when things were going her way. It seems to me a fairly interesting case of poetic justice that the metaphor has, as it were, ricocheted.

He who liveth by the sword, etc.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 4:54PM

Does that mean that Obama should live by the sword, too? The Bamster has indulged in some pretty vicious and violent rhetoric over the years.

Hypocrite.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 5:23PM

Wasn't it Obama who said "if they bring a knife, then we bring a gun"?

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 5:25PM

Yes. I was waiting to see if LR objected before I sprung my trap! LOL

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 7:26PM

Yes it was. That was the single case of him using language like this that I know of. (He got that line, I think, from The Untouchables.) I think it wasn't one of his strongest moments as an orator.

Palin says something more or less directly related to guns or violence on a regular basis. It wasn't just the crosshairs; it wasn't just the many "reload" statements. It's a constant feature of her speech. Which is fine by me. It just suggest a rather shallow and impoverished moral imagination.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:39PM

Of course Obama would use that line from "The Untouchables!" The movie was about Chicago's Mafia thugs, right?

The Bamster's used a lot of violent words to make political points the last two years--it's those thuggish community organizer roots of his, you know.

tonypal| 1.13.11 @ 9:29PM

Again Lib Reader, you don't know what you're talking about. Take a look at this video, then recall the mob scene outside that AIG executive's house, when a 14 year old was trapped inside in abject fear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eszcEC4sk0o

How's that for hateful, heated rhetoric? Just let me know if you need anymore examples, because there's plenty.

Occam's Tool| 1.14.11 @ 12:34AM

Oh, right, LR. The encouraging Hispanics to "punish" their enemies, the "get in their face" comments, the "hand to hand combat" comment, the blowing off of an open and shut case against the Black Panther thugs...no, he doesn't encourage violence at all.

MacDaddy| 1.14.11 @ 8:54AM

Lest we forget the 'whose ass to kick' comments re: BP and the 'boot on the neck' comments, as well....oh, sure, Obama can say whatever he wants and the Libs give him a pass. But what about his minions and the constant Bush denigration... disgusting and unfair and unmanly.

jimboo| 1.14.11 @ 12:20PM

Unfortunately we have to be taxed in order for the educational system in this country to produce an imbecile like you.

Now listen and read this – go do a search called “Progressive climate of hate malkin” go and read about your own kind in the words of your own kind – no propaganda, just people like you with pictures made by people like you – then come back and pray that Americans will forgive a slob like you for being so stupid.

Curtis Rasmussen| 1.13.11 @ 5:26PM

I would like all to remember this troll used guns and the tragic death of a 9 year old to set up an Obamacare and Gun Control straw man in another thread, hoping to personally benefit from his own disgusting rhetoric.

What a hypocrite.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:20PM

Liberal Screeder's a sneaky creep, I know--a real smooth and pompous concern troll. That's why I like to irritate him.

Clint| 1.13.11 @ 5:57PM

That's Right ObamaBoy.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11

Nick| 1.13.11 @ 6:22PM

Marxist Reader,

So, you're one of Matth-spews 10 viewers.
Now, if we could only find the other 9.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:21PM

No, please don't!

ThatJoeGuy| 1.13.11 @ 7:32PM

I'm curious, when watching Matthews this week did it send a tingle up your leg?

Wilbur| 1.14.11 @ 12:24AM

When you are in a battle of any sort, be it political or otherwise, guns are not a strange way to describe anything.

Occam's Tool| 1.14.11 @ 12:48AM

It's only bad faith if he doesn't pay up. Otherwise, if Mark thinks he has a case, I believe he's on the Supreme Court Bar (or whatever the term is that describes lawyers who can plead before the Supremes; sorry, tonypal) and is probably quite precise.

Pockets 64| 1.14.11 @ 11:41AM

And so after Caesar was offed, you would jump us for asking that a speaker "get to the point."

Oh well. Once again into the breech.

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 1:15PM

But Matthews did encourage the murder of Palin Tuesday. He suggested that someone do her in.

Oldefarte| 1.14.11 @ 2:04PM

Obviously you also get a tingle up your leg [from listening to Chris]!!!!!!!!!!

smartvoter| 1.13.11 @ 4:46PM

Levin is puffing up about something that was never said -- that he caused the shooter. It's theatrics because Matthews called him out on his angry b.s. And there is ample proof that what Matthews said is spot on (which is why he's challenging him on something he did not say):

http://mediamatters.org/research/201101120041

Don't be fools.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 4:56PM

What about Matthews' vicious and violent bs? He is one of the most hateful media pundits out there.

The hypocrisy of you nasty Leftists knows no bounds.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 5:07PM

I can't believe you referenced the discredited Soros' hate site, Media Matters.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Clint| 1.13.11 @ 6:01PM

Chrissy Mathews is still upset that his brother was censored by The Montgomery County GOP & His beloved LaSalle High lost The Pennsylvania Championship.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 6:19PM

I can't believe that soulless jerk went to Catholic school. Sad.

Tarmangani| 1.14.11 @ 7:44AM

How can anyone include the word "smart" in their handle when they reference MediaMatters as a source. I would trust Wikipedia first. And the suit would not be whether Levin "caused" the shooter but, rather, that Levin encouraged anyone to perform a violent act in the political arena.

Don't be a fool.

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 4:46PM

And all he said about Savage and Levin is that they are outraged every night, that rage is their normal emotional state.

Seems about right to me.

This is why of all the right wing talkers, Hannity seems like the most decent. I can't stand the guy's politics, but I also don't think he'd line me up with the rest of my Democratic friends and have me shot if he had the power to do so. I'm not so sure about the rest of them.

Andrew B| 1.13.11 @ 4:57PM

So, if you are concerned that conservatives would have you executed, I have to assume that you will grant me the same concern about those on the left. Randi Rhodes has simulated assassination and discussed killing her political opponents on her show, Ed Schultz seems to be just shy of insanity and Alec Baldwin has called for the murder of the family of a Republican politician. Or are they considered honorary right-wingers when they talk this way?

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 4:59PM

Please stop pretending you're a victim. Sarah Palin is receiving death threats at an unprecedented level from you thugs on the Left.

Nauseating troll.

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 7:28PM

Oh go fuck yourself, Patriot.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:44PM

Now, see--that's the REAL Liberal Screeder I know.
You're ugly and soulless, and you have a foul mouth to boot. You're pond-scum to me, loser.

Baraka| 1.14.11 @ 10:58AM

lol, way to take the high ground bud.

George| 1.14.11 @ 1:57PM

I think Patriot used a direct quote from Jesus

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:51AM

Screw you stupid.

Occam's Tool| 1.14.11 @ 12:38AM

Dear LR,

only when the Liberal Troll girl is truly in Love with the Liberal Troll male can intercourse occur.

Or, you could be a hermaphroditic C. Elegans nematode---they actually do intercourse themselves (the males are selectively fertilized, however).

Mike| 1.14.11 @ 2:16PM

Occam's Tool. LOL.

Now I get it. You think with your dick.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:52AM

At least he has one.

MacDaddy| 1.14.11 @ 8:58AM

I've been waiting for it since the start of the thread...the point at which Liberal Reader reaches the end of his train of misguided 'logic' and resorted to vulgar language and insults. Didn't take as long as I thought. Thanks for that moment, LR....

Average Guy| 1.14.11 @ 9:41AM

Here, Here, LOL, I knew it would happen.

Thom Burke| 1.14.11 @ 11:55AM

LR is a reject from the Ron White debating team.

Jack Bauer| 1.14.11 @ 12:24PM

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 7:28PMOh go fuck yourself, Patriot.

I'd suggest the same to you, but I fear even that onanistic challenge is beyond your abilities... with both hands.

Oldefarte| 1.14.11 @ 2:11PM

LR, next you'll be imitating Rachel's, Joy's, and Anderson's TEABAGGING verbal-sexual assault!!!!

Julia| 1.15.11 @ 2:42PM

(1) I am generally liberally inclined and very much do not support Palin, but I also think that death threats towards her are despicable. The vast, vast majority of liberals would agree with me (just as, I would assume, the vast majority of conservatives would feel the same way about death threats towards Obama). Let's not confuse the beliefs of the crazy extremists with the beliefs of the "typical" person.

(2) She SAYS she's receiving death threats at an "unprecedented level." She's said so many things that are convenient yet untrue that I'm not sure whether to believe that.

(3) "Unprecedented levels" is a weird statement. You do realize that anyone who has ever received a death threat has, by definition, had at least one point in time of "unprecedented levels," right? It doesn't even mean a HIGH level. It just means "at a level different from before" (and presumably higher). For rising politicians, they may be almost continuously at "unprecedented levels" of death threats.

Patriot| 1.17.11 @ 2:09AM

Unprecedented levels for HER, dingbat. Death threats for the Governor are more numerous than ever because of all the hate you filthy, despicable sacks of crap are spewing at her.

Not only are you nasty but you're quite stupid, too.

Clint| 1.13.11 @ 6:05PM

If you think that You already got Jared Loughner Disease, Sport.

Thomas Aquinas| 1.13.11 @ 5:05PM

Liberal reader writes: "What I would say, however, is that Palin has a strange preoccupation with gun metaphors. Guns are a constant source of images and a constant theme in her political rhetoric. I think it's strange."

Many people think that Andrew Sullivan's love of sodomy is strange, and they are called "haters." So, you're hater.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 5:11PM

Sarah is a hunter who lives much of her life in the wilderness, of course guns are a part of her life. She needs them to hunt and for protection.

A mealy-mouthed, chained to a computer, city boy troll like Liberal Reader would never understand a wild at heart woman like Sarah Palin.

Guns are soooo scary!!

Clint| 1.13.11 @ 6:19PM

Yeah LibBoy, where we come from we learn young how to handle our guns, our horses & our women, in no particular order.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:23PM

Alrighty now! LOL

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 7:34PM

Where you come from, you "handle" your guns, horses, and women in no particular order?

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:45PM

I'm sure you don't know how to handle any of the above, wimpy troll.

Clint| 1.13.11 @ 7:54PM

Apparently, LibBoy "handles" himself.

Literally.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 10:34PM

So wrong in so many ways, Clint*. :)

Occam's Tool| 1.14.11 @ 12:39AM

Clint,

And yet you still get invited to "lots" of bar-mitzvahs. Interesting.

You're right on Liberal reader, but I still don't like you.

jay wells| 1.14.11 @ 11:46AM

You can't be serious. Patriot, have you ever hunted anything? I saw her abortion of a reality TV show. There was nothing authentic about the way she held or fired her rifle. It honestly looked like it was the first time she'd ever laid eyes on a firearm in real life.

For Christs sake. It's guys like you that make a mockery out of decent Americans. I for one like to acknowledge your little blow up doll Palin as the Jersey Shore of the political arena.

Sure they're funny to watch because of their parents substance abuse while she was in the womb. But, no one with half a brain will ever take her seriously.

It's trash like you that makes me wish that mandatory IQ tests are issued before you're allowed to breed (with people..in response to Clint's statement below about the horses)...

Thom Burke| 1.14.11 @ 12:07PM

"that makes me wish that mandatory IQ tests are issued before you're allowed to breed" sound like a fascist thing to secretly wish for, let alone put in writing. You would like to CONTROL who gets to breed? How about line up your "enemies," as Obama refers to Conservatives, and have them shot? Is that where your dreams lead you, totalitarian sicko?

Jay Wells| 1.14.11 @ 12:19PM

As far as I know Conservatives are the only ones that are doing the shooting these days.. The IQ test is a great idea. It's for the betterment of society.

It's big picture stuff. Leave that to the thinkers Thom.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:56AM

Don't think so, Jay. Loughner voted for Kerry in 2008 and his ex-girlfriend said he was a pot-smoking Leftist. Nice try though loser.

Better watch that mandatory IQ requirement--you wouldn't make the cut.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:17AM

--2004---

Liberal Reader| 1.13.11 @ 7:30PM

Thomas --

Your namesake wouldn't be impressed by your use of logic here.

Let's review.

You claim

a) That some people find Andrew Sullivan's "love of sodomy...strange,"

and that

b) Other people call those people "haters."

Therefore, you conclude

c) that I am a "hater."

Now Thomas. Let's think about this. Is what you're saying here sensible? Please explain.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:46PM

What's sensible about an adult being paid to troll a Conservative web-site? You're nuts.

Thomas Aquinas| 1.13.11 @ 5:08PM

"Anger" is an emotion that a third party literally cannot know. We can see signs of anger, but you really can't know for sure. A good actor make us think he is angry, and a really angry person can hide it well. So, no one, literally, can know that another is angry. It is an incorrigible first-person belief.

Chris Matthews is blowing smoke and perhaps Olbermann.

bluecollarbytes| 1.13.11 @ 6:03PM

Thank you Mark Levin.

It's due- standing up to the blowhards and scumbags on the Left.

Charm| 1.13.11 @ 6:15PM

Good for Levin. Why not sue? Who believes that dims mean well in their nasty comments. They are terminally destructive. Taking lots of their money would be good for the country.

Nick| 1.13.11 @ 6:31PM

Good for you, Mr. Levin. I hope Matth-spews takes you up on your challenge.

This is the kind of response I would like to see from Sarah Palin in her next Facebook post:

We conservatives are under severe attack from the elite Lame Stream Media. It is time to rally the troops. Man the ramparts. The enemy is at the gates. But, don't fire until you see the whites of his eyes!

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:27PM

Sarah's got young children, I don't know how she can take all this hatred. My heart and prayers go out to her.

Mimi| 1.13.11 @ 7:35PM

If Matthews does take the challenge...He'll have to go over all Mark's former programs...Maybe he'll LEARN about freedom and Liberty and TYRANNY....Who knows, Mark may even CONVERT him or am I dreaming!!!

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:48PM

Oh, Chrissy already knows a lot about tyranny.

VN Vet| 1.13.11 @ 7:03PM

The left has by far the most vicious and hateful people in the media, if for no other reason than that they own 90% of the media. I believe therein lies the reason for their insanity. They just can't stand losing that other 10%. They had a lock on the dissemination of information for so many years. That said, the "rhetoric" of Limbaugh, Levin, et al, is tame compared to the abject hate spewed out regularly by the likes of Doberman, Maddcow, the putz Schultz, Matthews and Mahr. And that's just for starters. However, they hold a special place in their cold stone hearts for Ms Palin. As part of the democrap party, it's the old media's job to soften up the republican candidates for their lackie politicians. The old media are in the body-blow business, when they aren't busy with propaganda.

The putz Schultz used to be on here local. He's more stupid than he is political, but he's a good hater. He's on the leftist side now, because he failed in his feeble attempt at conservatism. First cheating on his wife, which ended in divorce and then shooting his dog instead of the pheasant he was obstensibly trying to hit. One would guess he was trying to shoot the pheasant on the ground, a serious Faux Pas in these parts.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:25PM

Sgt. Schultz cheated on his wife? I think I'm going to be sick. Please no more info.

VN Vet| 1.13.11 @ 11:04PM

LOL, stomach turning. tAS, why did you put an extra b in my ostensibly? tsk, tsk.

Baraka| 1.14.11 @ 11:01AM

Wow, can't believe I read this far, enjoy your circle jerk conservatives.

By the way, handguns are the bane of society, they are designed to kill people. They are not "sporting equipment" just because you know how to use them.

Pockets 64| 1.14.11 @ 11:55AM

And again: Back when Caesar was offed, who is it that came out and said that knives are the bane of society as they are designed to kill people?

And back when Ug of the Clan of the Cave Bear was offed, who was it that came out and said the same thing of heavy rocks?

If someone wants to off someone else, they will find a way. If they choose to use an illegal firearm, they won't care that the firearm is illegal if they are already willing to create the greater crime of offing someone.

Mimi| 1.13.11 @ 7:10PM

We who listen to The Mark Levin radio show KNOW that what Chris Matthews said on the air is far from the TRUTH...He should listen more often, he might just learn a lot.
Levin makes me LAUGH... he's a riot and everything is so true....every bit an entertainer...But he is so wonderful, intellegent, and is the best teacher of CONSERVATISM , the CONSTITUTION, AMERICAN HISTORY, POLITICS, CURRENT EVENTS . He truly serves the NATION'S citizens and country. Has the most "GRAVITAS" and is the LION of LIBERTY...bar none!!!!!

hugh BNYN| 1.13.11 @ 8:29PM

---Infighting, parodies and sideshows.
Who needs it!

MEANWHILE take note, not a single of even our
most 'outspoken' talk show hosts have come to grips with outting the GARGANTUAN issue of
Freemasonic organized control of our entire
government, cultural and religious establishment via 'charitable foundations' and NGO's.

These capstone foundations are pure brimstone!

Forgetting even the traditional aims of such
configurations ---money and the consolidation
of power----the agenda of our heavy mainline
foundations has openly included, indeed, featured
destruction of traditional cultures and religion
and unashamed calls and, indeed, not only plans,
but plans IN THE WORKS for vast extermination
of the human race (90% by 2100).

------WHY are there no calls from any quarter
for investigation, auditing, dismantling and
prosecuting the same a la Nuremberg???

WHY????????

Remember kids! watch out for yuppies who giggle...

ladydi| 1.15.11 @ 11:58PM

HUGH BNYN - Best comment on this whole blog; see how it went over heads. Secret societies have forever molded and destroyed civilizations. John Kennedy gave a speech (youtube) highlighting the serious threat secret societies pose to governments and that they should never be tolerated.

Mike| 1.13.11 @ 9:33PM

Liberal Reader,

Just remember that what masquerades as conservatism at this site is, in reality, insanity.

tonypal| 1.13.11 @ 9:54PM

Mike, I don't know if you're engaging in projection or if it's just a case of someone thinking they've recognized their own kind.

Mike| 1.13.11 @ 10:09PM

What masquerades as conservatism...

A little too subtle, tonypal?

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 10:40PM

I understood what tonypal meant and it made perfect sense; obviously, it flew right over your head, Mr. Obtuse Phony Conservative. lol.

tonypal| 1.14.11 @ 9:15AM

Mike, I'll break it down for you so you can understand. Projection is a psychological mechansim whereby you deny your own thoughts and behaviors and ascribe them to others. I thought you might have gotten that one, but apparently not.

The second part was where you earned your new moniker, "Mr. Obtuse" (all credit to Patriot). You were probably confused when you came across the word "thinking." Anyway, I was simply pointing out that when you came across people on this site acting in a manner that you described as insane, you were in your comfort zone because people tend to gravitate towards their own kind.

I hope that wasn't too confusing. I'm not a linguist, but if necessarry I'll break it down further if you're still confused.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 1:58AM

LOL

Occam's Tool| 1.14.11 @ 12:43AM

Dear Mike,

are you a mental health professional? If not, stifle Edith, please.

I don't think even Clint masquerades. True, he's a Paleo, so that means he's occasionally out there and obnoxious, but not insane, just misguided.

Otherwise, I'mj a former VEEP of my college's YAF. I don't masquerade as anything ---I am an RR Conservative.

VN Veg| 1.13.11 @ 10:54PM

Just to be accurate, Savage is a Libertarian (big L), that is to say anarchist. Paradoxically, Libertarians and Leftists share many of the same traits. Conspiracists, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, atheism, pro-illicit drugs, Isolationists, anti-corporation, anti-banking, etc. They both hated Bush and Cheney. One bunch thinks Bush blew the twin towers up the other bunch thinks Israel did.

VN Vet| 1.13.11 @ 10:55PM

VN Vet, that is. Damn keyboard.

DRed| 1.13.11 @ 11:21PM

ha-freudian typo? Can't we all come together as a country and agree that Savage is a hate filled idiot and all stop paying attention to him?

Lurker| 1.14.11 @ 2:25AM

I think you should focus on the many hate-filled idiots on your side first.

Albert constantine jr| 1.14.11 @ 9:37AM

I don't like Michael Savage (because, among other things, I think he is phony) so I don't listen to him. Everyone else is free to make their own choice. One of the things that I think is fundamentally different between a conservative approach and a liberal approach to a situation is that rather than choose not to listen, the left wants to shut Michael Savage down.

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 1:13PM

I think he is way over the top.

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 1:07PM

I prefer the VN Veg ;-)

Occam's Tool| 1.14.11 @ 12:44AM

Savage isn't antisemitic, sorry. Nor anti-Israel.

Pockets 64| 1.14.11 @ 12:04PM

You must be listening to a different Savage than the one I have heard.

I don't like the man, but he is not an anti-Semite, not an atheist and I don't think I've ever heard him support illicit drugs.

I believe "Dr Michael Savage" is a corporation or at least a business. So that doesn't apply to him.

While he could not stand Bush, I never heard him suggest Bush or Israel was behind 9-11.

So, what are you trying to say with that posting?

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 1:11PM

In my opinion, most Republicans were a bit too loyal to Bush and let the NeoCons take over the party. Now many Republicans are left defending what they did. For example Iraq: Bush said he would not do Nation Building, but then he dumped 1 Trillion dollars into the nation. Then he said that Iraq would pay for this with its oil, and we haven't received a dime. In other words Americans are once again the saps. Savage is one person willing to say something about this. Globalism is a problem in my opinion whether it comes from the right or the left.

Ginger | 1.13.11 @ 11:54PM

Get real! Would you want your child to follow Palin's example and post a target online of a classmate they didn't like today? Would you want your child to be targeted? Like it or not, adults are role models and and these examples translate easily into the digital world of children today. Her "hate" posting are irresponsible, and as a parent, Palin should know better.

Lurker| 1.14.11 @ 2:29AM

Do you worship a skull altar in your backyard, Ginger? Or are you still trapped with the professor on Gilligand's island? Perhaps you worship a skull altar on Gilligand's Island.

Senyordave| 1.14.11 @ 11:26AM

Great answer. Because Ginger has the real point here. The original posting with crosshairs is obver the top. Not illegal, not "actionaable" in any legal sense, just over the top. And the ironic thing is that Giffords herself spoke out about it.

In any period, it was inappropriate, but in the current political climate it was assinine.

And I reiterate Ginger's original point:

Would you want your child to follow Palin's example?

Pockets 64| 1.14.11 @ 12:14PM

I, personally, would be thrilled.

By the way, the cross-hair images are common and used across the political and advertising spectrum. They imply a focused and accurate attention to something specific, not the destruction thereof.

But this is getting off target, so to speak. The odds the shooter saw the web site are slim to none. He was a-political at best, liberal at worst.

All of this talk against Palin, Beck, Levin, Limbaugh, etc coupled with the ready-made slogan and t-shirts for the memorial service, and the instant rallying cry of "irresponsible speech" (of only the righties, mind you) points to a larger and more sinister objective.

CFein| 1.14.11 @ 1:42PM

Cross-hairs don't imply destruction of the thing they are centered upon? In what universe?

And the "slogan and t-shirts" at the memorial service were created by the COLLEGE. Did you manage to miss that in YOUR hurry to point fingers?

Are any of you folks familiar with something called the Dunning-Kruger effect? There seem to be so many examples of the phenomenon on display here today... I just have to ask.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 2:40PM

CFein,

So, in 2004, when the D.L.C. "targeted" several states with BULLSEYES, what were they implying?

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:00AM

Crickets...

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:37AM

Those "Thrive" t-shirts were coordinated through Pelosi Galore's office and are based on Organizing for America (leftist) ad campaign.

John Brasseur| 1.14.11 @ 12:33PM

Maybe you can't distinguish between adult life and childhood but we on the right can and yes I think Sarah Palin is a model citizen. I feel sorry for your child but, perhaps she will see the light in spite of your foolishness.

AJsDaddie| 1.14.11 @ 12:48PM

No, it wasn't. At all. Bullseye, gunsight, arrowhead, locator, who cares. Every person whose brain functions in a clinically correct manner knows that Palin (and the DNCC who used a similar graph) meant to beat these people in an election, not kill them. Anybody who thought they were exhortations to murer is deranged and needs medical attention. Ironically, Jared Lougher clearly needed that attention even though just as clearly it was the voices in Jared's head that drove him, not the images on Palin's Facebook page.

I would have no problem with my child putting out a poster that put bullseyes on litter, for example, to express the desire to "target litter" or on hungry kittens to "wipe out animal hunger". And I would recommend any loony-tune who thought that meant to go out and shoot kittens to seek professional help immediately.

Those who shoot people are reponsible for their own actions, whether they come from pride, anger, jealousy, pure evil, or just the voices in their heads. And to try to make this a "blame Palin" or "blame the right" is to take away from the real underlying issue, the deplorable state of mental health care in our society. The next time some crazed whackjob shoots an innocent victim, the blood will be entirely on the hands of the Leftists and the news media (I repeat myself) who are wasting this opportunity to engage the issue of mental health by trying (desperately and increasingly unsuccessfully) to score political points off this tragedy.

AJsDaddie| 1.14.11 @ 1:07PM

Loughner, not Lougher.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 12:29PM

This is why I always liked Mary Ann.
Ginger was an airhead.

Fantastic356| 1.13.11 @ 11:56PM

Why what is wrong with 'Hate' ? It's the energy galvanizing the Matthews, Olberman, the John Deans of the Liberal World ? Everytime I debate or question any thing that a Leftie Liberal Progessive assumes to be correct, I normally receive an angry response. It seems that there is no room for dialogue or civil discussion with them. My question as always is: "Why does the Leftie Leberal Progressive assume that only thet hold the version on anything that is correct ?"

Lurker| 1.14.11 @ 2:30AM

Because they're poorly educated and stupid. Arrogant, too.

Mark MacDonald| 1.14.11 @ 12:14AM

Personally I am glad to see Levin suing Matthews. Perhaps more suits such as his will tone down the political rhetoric. Be careful what you wish for liberals.

Norman Rogers| 1.14.11 @ 6:05AM

"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."

And then Matthews qualifies his remarks and says, "I heard you say something about the Taliban," and yadda yadda yadda--no lawsuit, nothing. Just another day in paradise.

zimmy| 1.14.11 @ 7:57AM

The frequent double-standards exhibited by liberals are without parallel. As an ex liberal I know only too well how child-like and infantile their arguments are.

What liberals constantly accuse others of - they do themselves and 'feel' exempt because of their false sense of superiority.

John B| 1.14.11 @ 12:38PM

Ya, Coulter said if you ever want to know what liberals are up to just listen to what they are accusing the right of doing.

She is dead right. (can I still say that or is it "hate speech"?)

zimmy| 1.14.11 @ 7:57AM

The frequent double-standards exhibited by liberals are without parallel. As an ex liberal I know only too well how child-like and infantile their arguments are.

What liberals constantly accuse others of - they do themselves and 'feel' exempt because of their false sense of superiority.

MacDaddy| 1.14.11 @ 9:03AM

Zimmy...congratulations on coming over to the light....

Frederick| 1.14.11 @ 10:26AM

Julian Assange. Now wheres my money.

Thomas| 1.14.11 @ 10:37AM

As discomforting ait is, I find myself in agreement with Liberal Reader on something. Why in the world would WE encourage lawsuits, of any kind, let alone ones with regard to political argument?

Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, et. al., are rapidly going the way of the mastodon; sinking slowly into the tar pits of public apathy. Look at their viewership numbers. More people live in Milwaukee Wisconsin than watch them on television.

Challenge them, yes. But sue them, no.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 11:35AM

Thomas,

So, you are against slander and libel laws?

Liberal Reader| 1.14.11 @ 12:41PM

I'm not against slander or libel laws.

However, in the great traditions of this country, I also know that people who CHOOSE to be PUBLIC FIGURES, especially those who have POWER or who make HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY giving their opinions, are NOT entitled to the same protection as the average person.

This just the way it is, bozo.

If you don't like it, move to some country that doesn't have our first amendment protections.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 2:19PM

Marxist Reader,

The 1st Article of Amendment does not protect lies, twitling.

You didn't claim your Military Occupational Strategy was in civil law, so, what would you know about libel laws in the first place?

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 2:21PM

Oops! Typo. That should've been:

Marxist Reader,

The 1st Article of Amendment does not protect lies, twitling.

You didn't claim your Military Occupational Strategy was in civil law, so, what would you know about libel laws in the first place?

mario| 1.14.11 @ 10:41AM

Thank goodness someone will shut that blow hard Mathews up! The sheriff needs to resign. All these idiot leftist commies will make something out of this to blame the right. The shooter didn't like what this congressman said and he shot her...it was the lib's that passed the stupid law that nobody wanted and the guy ended up shooting this poor gal...so it was the lib's that are to blame for this!

roflcopter| 1.14.11 @ 11:10AM

LOL @ politicizing death with monies LOLOLOLOL

Pat| 1.14.11 @ 11:16AM

Here's an exchange Mark Levin had with a liberal caller to his radio show in May 2009:

Mark Levin: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?

CALLER: Yes.

Levin: Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 11:33AM

Now that's funny, right there, I don't care who are.

tonypal| 1.14.11 @ 12:43PM

That's pretty funny. Almost as funny as Randi Rhodes of Air America twice calling for the assassination of George Bush.

Bobs house| 1.14.11 @ 11:46AM

Really, it's up to Levin to defend himself. He needs to sue. Libel, defamation etc....The onus is on him to show what has been said.

fannity| 1.14.11 @ 11:47AM

Mark Levin: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?

CALLER: Yes.

Levin: Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.

Brad| 1.14.11 @ 11:49AM

So funny to see all this talk of the left's "hateful tactics." You mean like bringing a lynch mob to the headquarters of the opposing candidate who won fair and square? Like celebrating the murder of a little girl because "she probably would've grown up to be a liberal anyway"? Like Glenn Beck saying that he would have no problem looking Michael Moore in the eyes as he chokes the life out of him? Like Bill O'Reilly inevitably screaming down any guest who he disagrees with? Like every single Fox News talking head calling Obama a Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, and more? Like Sarah Palin putting gun sights on politicians she dislikes? Like yelling "You lie!" to the President of the United States during an official address? Find me someone on the left who has shown disrespect at that level to a Republican president. Scrolling through the comments on here, the only people I see calling others derogatory names are the conservatives calling out liberals. Like the word "liberal" has a negative connotation by default. We all have different ideologies and different opinions on why and how we should accomplish them. That doesn't mean we should dismiss the ones we don't agree with. What happened to respect in America? But hey, don't think twice about writing me off as a "lefty" and disregarding this.

RIChris| 1.14.11 @ 12:02PM

Another 'liberal' who slept thru the Bush years.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 12:16PM

Brad,

Should we not dismiss the ideologies and opinions expressed in the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf?

Are we supposed to give Al 'sharpy-sharp' Sharpton and David Duke a fair hearing?

You go right ahead. I will continue to dismiss them out of hand.

Pockets 64| 1.14.11 @ 12:31PM

"You Lie" was a "hateful tactic?" Is that as bad as a President taking time "during an official address" to redress the Supreme Court for a decision they made?

Violations of decorum, for certain. Hateful, certainly not.

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 1:04PM

No it is not. Nor is it nearly as bad as the Democrats in Congress applauding the President of Mexico who was condemning the State of Arizona.

john B| 1.14.11 @ 12:47PM

What lynch mob was that?

I remember the Presidents brown shirts at SEIU beating people and going in "a mob" to a private citizens house and terrifying a 14 year old child.
I have listened to Dem congressmen and senators spewing the most vile screed worse than any right wing radio or TV pundit has used. Go peddle your lies over at the Daily Kos or one of the other Fascist sites.

Nitwit.

Liberal Reader| 1.14.11 @ 1:39PM

The president's brown shirts?

I can't imagine why crazy people are threatening and shooting Democrats. It can't have anything to do with right wing rhetoric.

Interested Conservative| 1.14.11 @ 1:52PM

Well, in this case at least, it apparently didn't. The clincher for me was the friends comment that Loughner would see orange sky, blue trees, and purple grass - classic hallucinatory schizophrenic symptoms. Unless and until that gets explained or debunked, this guy is at the far end of the mental illness spectrum.

The remaining commentary is useless, so I'll try some - why not blame "Hollywood" and its culture of depravity, nearly a century in the making!

If anything, this whole episode is a useful bias detector tool. I'm surprised there is no commentary blaming Bush 43, or Reagan or Lincoln for that matter.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:04AM

Loughner KILLED a Conservative judge, asshole.
How convenient you forgot. STFU

tonypal| 1.14.11 @ 12:56PM

Simple question Brad. Try to be honest. Have you ever watched Fox News? Do you know how many on air personalities at Fox are liberals? Once you figure that out, compare it to the on air conservatives at MSNBC, CNN or any of the major networks. You might be surprised by what you find.

I also think RIChris makes a good point. It would be helpful to know what you think of all the crap that was spewed during the Bush years. In fact, I'm willing to bet that during the Bush years, you routinely voiced the very same hate-filled rhetoric you ascribe to conservatives. You and your ilk have a pathological hatred towards anyone who disagrees with you. Your diatribe is no more than a classic case of projection. Now pull up your pants, go out and get a job and move out of your parent's house.

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 1:06PM

Or Chris Matthews suggesting that some one "do in" Sarah Palin.

W| 1.14.11 @ 1:17PM

Matthews is an opportunist, without any principles. He made his career during the Clinton years attacking (with cause) Clinton every nightl. Then he attacked Bush every night. What will do next?

Jonny V| 1.14.11 @ 1:37PM

Didn't Palin call for the death of Julian Assange? This should be easy enough...

PALIN 2012| 1.17.11 @ 10:33AM

No. Stop making stuff up.

ILLINOISE Dre| 1.14.11 @ 1:41PM

A Liberal in here trying to come in peace and explain the situation from my view point. It really seems to me that a lot of these people, from Palin to Mr. Levin here are trying to defend their right to use violent and gun-related rhetoric to make their political points. They know (and I bet a lot of you know as well) that for their segment of people they are trying to fire up, these metaphors work, and they work well. What Congresswoman Giffords, and many on the left (and even a few on the right) were saying is that if you continue to use rhetoric like this, eventually someone might snap and actually DO what's being constantly insinuated by a lot of these people.

"Don't retreat, reload", "Second Amendment Remedies", Michelle Bachmann saying "I want people armed and dangerous" over the energy tax issue, right wingers bringing guns to political rallies, saying the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with blood or something of that nature. I'm not going to be naive enough to say that the left doesn't say vile stuff too sometimes, but if you step back for one moment and look, can you HONESTLY say they are the same? Take off your conservative hat for one moment and HONESTLY think about that. If you can be honest about it, you'll see it's not the same. But it works, it worked well for this past election, and it works...until some crazy person actually DOES what's constantly being insinuated. Then people, rightly so, start to point out, is this type of rhetoric really necessary in politics, because it could POSSIBLY cause something like what happened to Mrs. Giffords. And because of this, and people start to ask question, the same people who advocate, and regularly use this type of rhetoric worry that an effective part of their "playbook" so to speak can't be used....and it worries them so they lash out.

Think about it, rationally. I'm not saying all conservatives are bad people, I don't agree with much, if any of Sarah Palin's politics, but it's not about that, it's about using violent imagery in communication.

Interested Conservative| 1.14.11 @ 2:02PM

You lost about 2/3 of the way in, but do you really think or believe (two different concepts) that this nut has any connection with the "rhetoric" so much discussed?

Honestly, sure, I'll accept an argument that the rhetoric is the "same" across the spectrum, and even raise the concern that historically, the so-called "left" has been more prone to organized political violence, though most assassinations in this country have been completely independent lunatics. Not all, but most.

Still, this guy is not an effect of the causes so many list.

Confusing the argument doesn't help anyone in the long run, and misleads us from the problems at hand.

ILLINOISE Dre| 1.14.11 @ 2:31PM

Thank you for your civil response. Let me be clear, I do NOT think there is a DIRECT causation of what Sarah Palin did with her infamous map, or SPECIFICALLY tied to one person...in this instance (for one moment, I'll leave out of the more specific incidents I've heard about).

With that being said, when there is an atmosphere of hate, and violence, and despotism, and illegitmacy which is so pervasive, something like this is bound to happen. If I'm a little mentally ill, things suck for me right now, and I hear politicians and media stars alike using these metaphors, then for a person who cannot grasp reality, this violent metaphors become more likely to become a reality. All I'm saying is that the right has used these tactics (with great success I might add) and they need to step back and rethink their strategies. I would also add this to any mainstream figure from the left do so as well. I read over on Andrew Sullivan's blog that Sarah Palin has gotten death threats recently. Obviously, I think that's wrong and I hope nothing happens to her, even moreso now, I would think she would realize "you know, there are a lot of crazy people out there, maybe I should not do something to incite these people", even if for the selfish reason that she wouldn't be implicated in it. Just my two cents.

Interested Conservative| 1.14.11 @ 3:18PM

Here's my point.

You write: "Let me be clear, I do NOT think there is a DIRECT causation of what Sarah Palin did with her infamous map, or SPECIFICALLY tied to one person...in this instance (for one moment, I'll leave out of the more specific incidents I've heard about)."

But if there is no DIRECT cause, why discuss Gov. Palin at all? Why not discuss Al Gore, or Bill Clinton, or John Wilkes Booth?

The cause and effect we're seeing is that much of the left, and much of the national media (and not the local Az media which seemed to care more about the actual local story) did ascribe the cause, immediately and both directly and indirectly.

Sorting it out and qualifying it after the facts is a fool's errand and in bad faith without serious mea culpa. It's the very essence of a rush to judgment, in fact without even bothering with the rush.

The guy is a nut. That's the end of that story.

To say the right has "used these tactics" is an invitation to all sorts of actions which have nothing to do with this case, and may lead to serious harm. How do you stop "these tactics" and why should the reactions of the mentally ill dictate how that is done? What if you cannot and should not stop these tactics? How do you quantify or determine which "side" is more "effective" or more culpable, and if you can determine that, what can be done about it which doesn't deter freedom of speech.

It's the knee-jerk bossiness which most concerns me about the left - the instant and naked reach for police power whenever almost any issue spins out of their control.

Again, this guy is a nut, and that's 99 and 44/100 the problem here - almost nothing of the discussions so far gets within shouting distance of that.

ILLINOISE Dre| 1.14.11 @ 3:28PM

Here is my response:

The point is, and the empirical evidence in my view, shows this, RECENTLY, I'm talking about the last few years, not going back 10 years, or to the 60s, or even before, I'm talking about NOW, (putting aside Nixon's southern strategy), the rhetoric has been inflamed MOSTLY on the right and I think they need to own up to it. So does any left leaning person who uses explicitly violent imagery and rhetoric as if they are dog whistling to certain constituents, but as we have seen, basically since the first day Obama stepped into office, the rhetoric and imagery by some on the right have been WAY over the top. I don't think it's helpful for our public discourse, it doesn't encourage cooperation towards solving problems, and in certain situations, it could potentially cause devastating violence. All I say, own up to it, have some self-introspection to say, "you know what, I am a good enough politician and person, I don't need to constantly to refer to guns and violence to make my point". If Sarah Palin had said something like "in light of this tragedy, I will not use violent imagery in my political discourse because it doesn't help and I want to be known as uniting people." or something like that, I would've applauded her. It would've shown an empathy and understanding of a situation of someone who's learning from the situation. But she chose to blame and appear petty. She could've done a lot more, but she chose not to, and it's disappointing.

ILLINOISE Dre| 1.14.11 @ 3:34PM

One other thing I forgot to mention, I do agree with you, some on the left are using this incident to try to get more power. I think I read one proposal to make it illegal to use some images or phrases or something like that. I don't agree with that either. But what I do think is that using this type of rhetoric, like Congresswoman Giffords said, has consequences, and the bigger person would step back and rethink what they are doing, and to me, that's incredible progress over continuing to dig in and being defensive.

Interested Conservative| 1.14.11 @ 3:42PM

Okay - I'll try another line of approach (I don't want to try another line of attack, for obvious reasons).

Has any democratic office holder ever done what you seek of Gov. Palin?

ILLINOISE DRE| 1.14.11 @ 3:53PM

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if any democratic office holder has done what I think should be done. For this particular incident, she would've come off a lot better if she did that. That would be Sarah being proactive and being the bigger person, and with that I would've given her the utmost respect.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:07AM

Impirical evidence IN MY VIEW? What?

You mean facts based on your opinion?

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 3:37PM

ILLINOISE Dre,

You have no such empirical evidence.
Just false assertions.

Michelle Malkin has example after example of lefty "hate speech" and actual violent acts. Go check it out:

http://michellemalkin.com/

http://michellemalkin.com/2011.....2000-2010/

ILLINOISE Dre| 1.14.11 @ 3:49PM

No, they are not false assertions, and I didn't want to bring up the direct incidents where the protagonist said they cited Glenn Beck and Michael Savage among others before their unspeakable acts because I'm not saying there's direct causation here.

Yes, I've read that Michelle Malkin list of hate speech. Some of it is truly bad, but once again, if I step back, and look at it objectively, it just doesn't equate. For all this talk about Sarah Palin's map, I think what Sharon Angle said about "second amendment remedies" is even worse. That's about as close as you can say "we have the right to get our gun and start shooting people if we don't get our way", without actually saying it. She just casually threw that out there. I truly do try and look at both sides because I have biases, so I actively look for other points of view, that's why I visit right leaning blogs in addition to the lefty ones I follow, and objectively, I just don't see the equivalence. And even moving beyond that, say for example, I do accept the equivalence, would it not be a good thing to stop the violent rhetoric? I truly thing the only reason this entire thing really got out of control is because the Congresswoman specifically cited Sarah Palin's map as being dangerous...and it turned out to actually happen to her. I just want somebody on the right to "be the bigger man" and say it's time to stop this. Who cares about what the left does, you can't control what they do, you can control what YOU do.

Interested Conservative| 1.14.11 @ 3:54PM

OK - I'll end with an old joke:

In a Paris café, a man says: “You know, it was the Jews who caused World War I.” Another man replies: “Yeah, the Jews and the bicyclists.” The first man says: “What did the bicyclists have to do with it?” The second man replies: “About as much as the Jews.”

Try not to think of Gov. Palin as Jewish

ILLINOISE Dre| 1.14.11 @ 3:59PM

I see what you're saying, but again, and I close it out with this, she didn't directly cause this, but because she put out that silly map, she had the chance to rise above that stunt and be the better person, and she didn't, and that's disappointing.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 4:34PM

ILLINOISE Dre,

Mrs. Palin did show she was the better person.
She released a video statement Wednesday.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 4:44PM

ILLINOISE Dre,

You obviously haven't read Mrs. Maulkin's litany of lefty death speech.

Is Sharon Angle's innocuous quip "worse" than when, last October, U.S. Representative Paul Kanjorski (democrat-PA) said of GOP Florida gubenatorial candidate, Rick Scott, "'They ought to put him against a wall and shoot him.?"

I agree with you, there is no equivalence. The left is far more disgusting, and violent, with their speech than the right is.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:09AM

It's not even close. The Left has no conscience, so their hatred, though despicable, is understandable.

Marco| 1.14.11 @ 2:04PM

What? Handguns aren't designed to shoot people, just libs.

CFein| 1.14.11 @ 2:19PM

Bottom line: Matthews did NOT say Levin had "promoted the murder" of ANYBODY, so this is a publicity stunt and nothing more. There is no "libel" (as Weiner-Savage called it) or slander. You wingers are ALWAYS taken in by these foaming-at-the-mouth demagogues. You think you're so intelligent... but you're just fawning fanboys. This entire comments section is an embarrassing display of OGC.

DaProf| 1.14.11 @ 2:28PM

I'm guessing the bet won't be reversed, given the number of times the Left/Libs/Progs/IDJITS have called for death and destruction of Palin, Limbaugh, Bush, etc, etc, etc.

Easily a couple million just waiting for the right, um, left, fool to take that bet.

Reagan| 1.14.11 @ 4:09PM

I thought the right were against frivolous lawsuits.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:10AM

This isn't frivolous, brainiac.

hang 'em high| 1.14.11 @ 4:30PM

more power to you, mr. levine.

it's about time someone had the balls to step up and go after these idiots who claim that the rhetoric had ANYTHING to do with shootings.

so sue mathews, and the whole lot of 'em.

and while you're at it, sue that idiot veteran who was one of the tucson shooting victims. someone needs to shut him up too, out there saying, "it looks like palin, beck, sharon angle and the rest got their first target."

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:11AM

Only a Liberal would use the injured and dead to score political points. You're a loser.

Hey Liberals Fauqueux| 1.14.11 @ 4:52PM

Just ask for proof from any liberal and their arguments go up and smoke.

really?| 1.14.11 @ 7:22PM

Kinda like asking a conservative to READ THE HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS ABOVE and actually understand said words.

Kala| 1.14.11 @ 9:13PM

Kinda like your rubber I'm glue first grade response. And these are the smartest guys in the room. NOT

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:12AM

LOL

rock| 1.14.11 @ 9:19PM

CAUTION:
This was a calculated attack ,by the lap dogs for Obama,to try and shift back to the "super" position they were in for the past two solid years. It is absurd that these devils would call for "civility" now ,after this baseless attack of Sarah Palin, has run out of steam..
These are vile human beings ,if you can call them that. You must not take anything they do at face value. They want to "nudge" this country ,to their will. By any means possible.

rock| 1.14.11 @ 9:24PM

CAUTION:
This was a calculated attack ,by the lap dogs for Obama,to try and shift back to the "super" position they were in for the past two solid years. It is absurd that these devils would call for "civility" now ,after this baseless attack of Sarah Palin, has run out of steam..
Thes are vile human beings ,if you can call them that. You must not take anything they do at face value. They want to "nudge" this country ,to their will. By any means possible.

rock| 1.14.11 @ 9:37PM

the very word "campaign" is a military term. They know that. They are wolves dressed as sheep,and they don't give a damn what is truth ,and is not truth.
Someone put up the photo of GIFFORDS , holding ,and aiming an automatic rifle, i saw it. is she a criminal ? ..Hell no.
I would never condem her for that,but these lunatics must not be allowed to get away with this abomination ,and this "blood lust" against Sarah Palin must be shown for what it is.
At the same time that we pull the teeth out of this agenda to destroy our country.
No fear,no backing down.

The sad part about this is that half the haters of Palin,do not even know the murderers name,nor do they care.
It is a tangled web they spin.

grace| 1.15.11 @ 4:03AM

(As quoted)
…In the op-ed, Assange defends the publication of the secret documents. But he also writes, “Sarah Palin says I should be ‘hunted down like Osama bin Laden.”

…In a November 29 Facebook posting, Palin blasted the Obama administration’s handling of the matter. And she also wrote, “Assange is not a ‘journalist,’ any more than the ‘editor’ of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a ‘journalist.’ He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?”

To pursue Assange with the same urgency as we pursue Bin Laden/Taliban’al Qaeda would be to seek to assassinate him, since that is U.S. policy. Palin is promoting and inciting MURDER by definition.

I challenge Levin to make the same offer to me of $100,000 IN WRITING and I will take him up on it. I want a contract made up (but not the kind Palin likes to put out as head of the “Moosechili Mafia”). This is an open challenge and if he pretends to have the right-wing wacko fringey NUTS to throw down with me, I will redeem that right now.

I also challenge Levin to “reFUDIATE” and prove in a legitimate and credible forum that Palin has not, as I think I have evidenced herein, committed the crime of international terrorism, defamation, libel, reckless endangerment, malice, fraud, and slander in obscenely hypocritical attacks on Assange and/or others she has “targeted” akin to the “blood libel” accusation she offensively, misguidedly vomited from deep within her frozen Batcave lair.

Throw down, Levin, and let’s “duel” with our little plastic “surveyor” symbols like good “titles of nobility” esquired lawyers do. And bring on all the tapes of your show so we can apply the same standard of “evidence” to you as you hold Matthews to. That’s the deal.

Oh, and BTW, unlike Bats in the Beehive, I don’t have the arrogance to make baseless accusations like “pals around with terrorists” as if they are facts. I have at least the civility our rational president implored…to admit this is MY opinion and I have presented a basis for it and not implied anyone should be assassinated or that the Geneva Convention’s civilized mandates be violated because Levin and Palin don’t agree with me.

Patriot| 1.15.11 @ 3:19PM

Sarah never mentioned murder, you did--stop putting words in her mouth. You probably want to give the stinker Assange a medal--especially if his revelations get our soldiers killed on the battle-field. Traitor.

That's "bats in the belfry" libtard. lol

Debbie| 1.15.11 @ 12:57PM

Lets play Lib Ball!

May| 1.17.11 @ 7:04PM

That's right! This liberal loosers have been harassing Christian Conservatives for many years now. We MUST get in the game. The latest is Tom Daly who may end up wrongly in jail for years due to the Activist Prosecutor!

may| 1.17.11 @ 7:11PM

Hey Grace, Obama admitted to hanging out with the Terrorist named Bill Ayers who is now (of course) a college professor probably teaching our kids how to blow stuff up like gov't buildings. Other comments made by Obama:You bring a knife, we'll bring a gun; the Republicans need to sit in the back....Furthermore, our President sat in Reveran Wright's church for 20 yrs as he admitted where the reveran spewd,"God Damn America" and called white people "White Devils". So, hey Grace,is that gracious?

Mason| 1.17.11 @ 8:59PM

The only reason Im commenting is because of how ridiculously long this thread is.

Take your anger out on exercise and lose a few extra pounds... geez. (speaking to both sides here)

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/13/mark-levins-100000-challenge-t

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition

W. James Antle, III | 11:13AM

Johan Santana Shines on Rusty Staub Bobblehead Day

Aaron Goldstein | 5.26.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

Regarding America's 21st-Century Population Edge

Reid Smith | 5.25.12

Tom Coburn on the Debt 'Disease'

Vivien Chang | 5.25.12

WND's Aaron Klein: Obama Spoke at Socialist Conference

Jeffrey Lord | 5.25.12

Bradley Prize Winner Meese's Originalism Should Figure in 2012 Race

Kevin Mooney | 5.25.12

Latest Headlines

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker|52 comments

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer|82 comments

In a Class of His Own

Daniel J. Flynn|30 comments

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi|164 comments

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch|37 comments

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley|155 comments

Terrorism à la Carte

George H. Wittman|25 comments

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick|124 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

Empowering Individuals or Bureaucrats?

Rep. Paul Ryan

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

The Millennial Perspective

David N. Bass

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2012, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.