Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Audience Growing For Radio Clown Mark Levin

WMAL-AM Washington and WJR-AM Detroit have added radio clown Mark Levin to their weeknight line-ups.

News like this is particularly frustrating for those of us fighting the conservative noise machine.

Levin now offers his unique mix of fact-challenged "angry right" radio (here, here or here) on four sister stations. The others are WABC-AM New York, as well as WBAP-AM Dallas.

"Could a syndicated rollout by ABC be in Levin's future?" asks Al Peterson, a columnist with Radioandrecords.com.

If truth matters, then the answer should be "no."

85 Comments:

Blogger T. Stark said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Either we on the left are too nice or refuse to resort to right-wing tactics.
We don't launch an organized campaign to discredit Levin (for that matter Limbaugh and Malkin) like the Right has launched successful campaigns to question the credibility of Sheehan and Moore.

9:18 AM  
Anonymous Erika said...

Mark Levin is a male Ann Coulter

He offers hate and division, and nothing else.

10:01 AM  
Anonymous Gen. Patton said...

NEVER FEAR UNDERDOG IS HERE!!!!!

10:27 AM  
Blogger Chandira said...

Oh how I miss Howard Stern!! These idiots make him seem all the more intelligent... Yes, I'm serious.

Us Libs are way too nice Anon! I wish I could justify the left resorting to those dirty tactics, but I can't.. In my dreams...

2:15 PM  
Anonymous Rich said...

Of course he'll be syndicated. duh.

3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You wimps couldn't hold a candle to mark Levin. LOL

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clearly some of you haven't listened to Mark Levin if you can claim that he is lying on his program.

If you have an issue with the information he presents why not call in and debate him on the facts?

3:21 PM  
Anonymous Rich said...

You can even listen to him online on his anchor station here: WABC Radio
So go ahead and listen to him, and call in and tell him what you disagree with. I'm sure he'll give you the respect you deserve.

3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When libs debate Mark on the facts, the libs are fighting without weapons.

Heck, they don't like debate. That's why they delete comments they do not agree with. You know, the defenders of free speech...

3:25 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Anyone who listens to Levin's show knows that liberals never have a chance to get into a reasonable discussion.

I listen to Levin at least once or twice a week, and the few times he lets a liberal caller get through, he generally allows the caller to say two or three words, then:

-- Asks if the caller is drunk

-- Shouts over the caller

-- Hangs up on the caller

-- Makes fun of the caller

-- Moves on to other callers who praise him while misrepresenting the liberal caller's point.

I have yet to hear a liberal caller make an entire point without this happening.

As for examples of Levin lying, I think JABBS provides three.

You don't like the term "lying"? How about misrepresenting the other side of a point? Or excluding any other views other than his own? How about using name-calling and other bullying tactics in the place of actual commentary? How about making broad, sweeping, stereotypical statements without backing them up with facts or attribution.

Levin a few days ago admitted, "I am not a journalist." That's for sure. He's just a ranter with a microphone -- the angry right equivalent of Cliff Clavin.

3:28 PM  
Anonymous laststeamtrain said...

It's strange to me that a certain number of people listen to radio that validates their already (ill-formed) opinions.
I find 'ranting' boring most of the time. I prefer shows with guest interviews.
I haven't listened to this Levin guy but somehow I imagine another show with one person ranting.

3:29 PM  
Anonymous politicaholic said...

I haven't heard the cat, but he probably doesn't have anything to add. The syndicated market is pretty saturated. Bloomfield Hills residents probably get a chuckle while they're driving around their Rovers, but the people of Detroit proper are probably saying, "WTF man? My cousin died in Iraq and my brother just got fired from Ford. What the hell is this guy so confident about?"

3:30 PM  
Anonymous Steve_DeShazer said...

I've heard him, he's despicable

He calls Hannity's show frequently, also Bill Bennett's.

3:30 PM  
Anonymous DancingBear said...

No surprise about WMAL-AM

The station is wall to wall pigshit every day.

The good news here is that he is not being added to any stations that do not already carry the aforementioned pigshit every day.

Thankfully, the dials on all my radios just don't seem to be able to tune WMAL in.

3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't understand how people can listen to a station or a radio host that all they do is lie about everything, abolutely treasonous hosts, and vile content...but that is what Air America is about...

3:37 PM  
Anonymous Rich said...

Mark Levin is a male Ann Coulter? hmmm, are you sure Ann isn't a female Mark Levin? As you obviously know, Mark is a conservative compassionate, but is Ann? hmmmm very curious.....

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a better comparison would be Randi Rhodes and satan...

3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish some of these bloggers would provide specific instances where Air America lies, just as JABBS has provided specific instances where Levin lies.
I find the various hosts on Air America to exaggerate to some extent, but generally substantiate their claims with facts.
I especially find this true with Randi Rhodes, who is quick to correct herself if she is proved wrong. The Air American hosts also generally give the conservative callers a chance to express their views.
So let's hear it right-wingers, Give us a specific instance where an Air American host lied, or keep your fat mouths shut.

3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Mark shuts down callers on both sides of the political spectrum when they recite the same old talking points. His show serves up fresh material daily.

Mark is a conservative talk show host. He isn't there to present the views of the other side. It can hardly be called misrepresentation or lying if he fails to do so.

He has a viewpoint to deliver and it just so happens to be popular enough to get him on additional radio stations.

3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh boohoo! Mark doesn't present the liberal viewpoint alongside the conservative viewpoint boohoo. Maybe because Mark has developed the ability to reason?

And do the left-wing socialist radio hosts and commontaters present the conservative viewpoint next to theirs? NO!!! So don't be hypocritical...I know, it's tough for a lib...

3:59 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Yes, Mark shuts down callers on both sides of the political spectrum when they recite the same old talking points. His show serves up fresh material daily.

>>

If only that were true.

He shuts down callers before they make their points. He uses the liberal callers -- I assume they are real people -- as a platform for his angry right shtick. It gives him the impetus to talk about the "New York Slimes" and "The Washington Compost" and all those other witty things he says.

And original material? Please. It's the same garbage that you hear from Rush or Sean. It's the same talking points coming from the RNC. Levin is anything but original.

His idea of commentary is to recite a couple of paragraphs from a news story, then rant for a minute or two -- not with any facts, just variations of "liberals hate America" "liberals are treasonous" "liberals speak French," "liberals listen to Hollywood and the ACLU," etc.

And by the way, there are conservative hosts who are willing to allow other points of view. They tell them they disagree, but they give them a fair shake. It actually makes their shows better. WBZ in Boston, for example, has a very good evening political forum focusing on national politics, in which you have a slightly right-of-center host with a conservative sidekick, but the pair are very respectful of whatever liberals they bring on.

Levin probably can't handle those kinds of conversations. He'd rather rant and resort to name calling, and hope that enough of the audience accepts this as political discourse to survive.

4:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And do the left-wing socialist radio hosts and commontaters present the conservative viewpoint next to theirs? NO!!! So don't be hypocritical...I know, it's tough for a lib...

>>

We're not talking about Air America. We're talking about Mark Levin.

4:10 PM  
Anonymous Rich said...

rob of wilmington said:"liberals hate America" "liberals are treasonous" "liberals speak French," "liberals listen to Hollywood and the ACLU,"
------------
It's good to know we agree on something! LOL

4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, you being a hypocrit isn't part of the discussion? I think it is THE reason for the discussion. You want Mark to present the opposing view point while your lefty hosts don't.

It's his show. He can do what he wants. If you don't likeit, call him and tell him. And quit whimpering...

4:20 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

And we have a right to say it's a lousy show. And we have a right to wish that Levin doesn't wind up being syndicated -- and given a chance to spread his misinformation to more people.

I don't think any of the "liberals" on here are saying Levin should have a balanced show -- or expect that.

But don't say "oh call him if you have a problem," because, as stated above, the only purpose liberals have on his show is to give him a reason to be a bully and to rant some more.

4:25 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutipie" johnson said...

Why are you bothering to argue, Rob? They won't listen, and judging from the way the one guy spells "hypocrite," I don't think you are dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed.

4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:28 PM  
Anonymous Rich said...

News like this is particularly frustrating for those of us fighting the conservative noise machine.
-----------
Liberals are treated as entertainment by the Great One, and that is probably even more frustrating for the whiners of the left.

4:31 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

That's the point I've been making.

I wonder if the "liberal callers" are even real people, or just staff members who serve as props.

On a separate point, you should probably know that you have to earn respect. You can't demand it. So Levin calling himself The Great One is like Rush with the Excellence in Broadcasting network, or Michael Savage dropping references to his Phd.

4:49 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

I'll put it another way: calling someone else stupid doesn't make you smart.

4:50 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

People, people, (by which I'm referring to the 3-dimensional ones, not those cardboard cutout mass mailers sent here by the Great One [does he really call himself that?] himself)! Have we not learned by now to address the subtext. With so many cliched beyond meaning "LOL"s, "whining," "whimpering," not to mention so many Anons. you can't keep track of which is which. Do these not tell you something ? Are these not clues? Talking point central has sent them here, to defend their guy, armed with the most pathetic excuses for arguments and ad hominem vitriol...do you really intend to continue to address them at face-value level?

Really. Why are 2 posts "removed by an administrator"? How ugly does it have to be, judging from the posts which remain, for that to happen? The signs are everywhere. I mean 32 posts, that's more than twice as much as normal. What does that tell you?

5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
I'll put it another way: calling someone else stupid doesn't make you smart."

Something for which the left is very adept. Name calling and lies.

5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The signs are everywhere. I mean 32 posts, that's more than twice as much as normal. What does that tell you?

------------

It should tell you that you just connected with the largest and, believe it or not, fastest growing talk radio audience in the nation.

I have absolutely no affiliation with Mark Levin other than being one who listens to the show. I find myself on more and more blogs that mention his name as his market grows.

5:19 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

And next, they'll begin the real nasty stuff. Women are, well, I won't risk being removed. You know, wimps or sexual somethings, depending on the gender. That's all they have. Quick to threats of violence as well. It's all they have, and Levin knows it. The intelligent cons send their verbal armies out to the liberal websites, and everywhere you look, their posts wind up resorting to the same tactics. The real cons with power and wealth, the ones who don't have time to be here, just want the fame, the glory, the adulation, the loyalty, the dumb devotion, the willingness to be servile as they attempt to quell rebellion from the ones who don't obey (that would be us), to exploit their non-verbal natures into supporting them because of the preposterous characterizations they hear about the other side. You know, which values brains above brawn.

5:19 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Yeah, 5:19, and he sent you here. He said the word and you obeyed. Don't even attempt Alito-like weasel words, and BTW ratings? they're off topic. They're what the cons do when they get tired of using tough language threats.

5:21 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Anonymouses (all of them) are afraid of using other names. And Marks isn't about to plug the guy he just ravaged verbally.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, Mark probably doesn't even kow this blog exists, so don't flatter yourself...

"And next, they'll begin the real nasty stuff. Women are, well, I won't risk being removed. You know, wimps or sexual somethings, depending on the gender. That's all they have. Quick to threats of violence as well. "

Please do not project your liberaly views and means on conservatives. We are not like you nor do we hate like you libs do. We do not resort to violence and name calling; that is a lib tool.

Please, grow up.

5:29 PM  
Anonymous Rich said...

Levin sent us here? Now THAT is a joke! Do you really think he gives a hoot about this little blog? I read about you on a local blog called http://www.spunandspinning.blogspot.com/ (he's kind of crazy, so I figure you'll like him, thank me very much) and I let a couple of friends in on it. Don't flatter yourself, nobody sends soldiers to your little blog.

5:29 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Grow up. Project. Hate language revealing the lie about hate language. Lib tool. I like con better. Con means something. You didn't stumble here out of nowhere. There aren't this many posts because it's a fluke. 2 posts haven't been removed due to sensitive ears. And your writing doesn't reveal stupidity to no avail. The guy is insane. I've heard him. He's an egomaniac as well. Continue to support him at your own humiliation. Continue to prove my point about one-dimensional characterizations. Honey, you couldn't write this well if someone held a gun to your head. You couldn't act smart to save your life. Start thinking out of your own brain lest it should atrophe.

Oh.

5:32 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Nope, hate monger. Never heard of it. But you knew that.

And didn't everyone know it would devolve into idle threats.

The biggest fool is the one who'll never know.

5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ash, nothing in the 2 removed comments except the web site URL. Your admin is afraid of you poeple going to see the truth.

And again, please don't project on me. I don't even hate you. Maybe some pity, but not hate.

5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Honey, you couldn't write this well if someone held a gun to your head. You couldn't act smart to save your life. Start thinking out of your own brain lest it should atrophe."

See, there is the hate on your part. Why do you try to belittle those who might disagree with you? I am very educated. You really sound like a angry person...

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Maggie said...

those LIBS like al franken, and michael mooron, david leadbelly who Worship their idol Hilldabeast are Fools and Clowns of the worst kind.

6:23 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Leave the house because you - as they say, have a life - return, and what's that? the goonies are still here? Never learned to quit while they're behind? Mark filled their brains with some garbage about pansies? The ones they called 4 Eyes in high school and 4 Eyes grew up and invented this machine they're using? Instead they run straight into the fierce - not to mention articulate - opposition, as they do on every liberal website they bombard and still haven't caught on we don't just fold? That the dirty language and personal crap - that's your demain, I'm just calling you on it - is all they can fall back on?

Your guy is small and has a high voice. That's no problem on my side but he's your role model. Now you figure out what he's trying to compensate for.

6:27 PM  
Anonymous Susan said...

I have no doubt in my mind that liberals really want us to be attacked again so that they could hold it against George Bush.
They are the lowest of the low.

The kennedys, Kerrys, Clintons, Deans Schummers are all a bunch of Traitors to this great country.

6:30 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

My friend, Rich, is telling the truth. He heard about this blog and I guess the name made him curious. He posted a link, and a few of us decided to come check you out. The idea that Mark Levin is sending out his loyal listeners to counter blogs such as this one is actually pretty risible. :)

Anyhow, I will do my best not to get caught up in all the negativity I've seen here so far. I would just like to correct something that rob of wilmington, del. said.

Mark Levin does NOT go around calling himself "The Great One". That was a name given to him by his good friend, Sean Hannity, and those of us who love and respect Mark use it as well, as a term of affection. Rush Limbaugh, also a good friend of Mark's, refers to him as "F. Lee Levin".

To be fair, I can well understand why libs would not like this man. He is incredibly smart and witty, and in real life, an extremely generous and kind man, although you will never hear that from him.

More than that, he's a true patriot who wants only the best for this country. But do I think any one of you here would ever actually listen to him long enough to learn that for yourself, or to learn anything else that he could teach you for that matter? No. Of course I don't. And more's the pity, because you COULD learn a lot from him. He has a brilliant mind, and knows the Constitution in and out.

And ash, Mark is a big guy, over six foot tall, but you are right about his voice being a bit high. I've heard him make fun of it himself on more than one occasion. That's all right. We who know him and admire him, like his voice.

In closing, not that I want to depress any of you, but Mark Levin WILL be in syndication, most likely sooner rather than later, so brace yourselves. ;)

7:06 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

"I really believe...."

Wow. An even bigger lie than our side is polite and your side isn't. Oh. What's that? Not a lie? An honest opinion?

It's even worse than I thought. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

7:57 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

BTW sudden rush of con visitors (and such a happy coincidence you just happen to be here when there's a post about Levin), you might want to check out the DailyKos website - no, really - for what some Rep. lawmakers are saying about their side being too drunk with power. Maybe your hero would like to take on those sissies on his radio program, whenever it is. Since he's not running for anything and doesn't have to be careful to appeal to a broad constituency.

8:04 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Susan, that was a very foolish comment, but I'm sure after listening to the WABC lineup each day, you have been conditioned to believe such things about liberals.

The conservative noise machine can only survive if it can perpetuate the myth that liberals are un-American, control the country, aid and comfort the terrorists, hate you, want to impose their cultural desires on your life, etc.

To help perpetuate that myth, conservative hosts create myths about liberals and Democrats -- then they rally against those myths. You should realize that seldom do conservative hosts actually play lengthy audio clips from liberals, or allow liberals to present their opinions fully. Instead, they either draw gross stereotypes of what they think liberals think, or they take comments woefully out of context in order to yell and scream about them -- i.e. Sean Hannity's repeated and false claim that John Kerry called U.S. troops "terrorists."

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a few weeks ago and he was reading a news item about a Seattle man who was pronounced dead at the hospital, and had a knapsack, in which there were multiple home-made videos showing him involved in marathon bestiality sex. Limbaugh thought this was hilarious, and then segued into the brilliant analysis that this man and his movie-making friends must be liberals. He went on and on for about 10 minutes on this topic.

Why did he do that? Because it helps him rally his listeners into believing connecting bestiality with liberalism. It goes hand in hand with the conservative argument -- provided by Rick Santorum and others -- that if liberals defend gay marriage, then what's to stop them from supporting marriage to animals.

Now, if you have any intelligence at all, you know that there is no way Limbaugh knows the political beliefs of the dead man. Nor is it relevant to the story. Nor is the story particularly relevant to a political talk radio show (I recognize Limbaugh tries to be funny at times ...)

But if you accept the above paragraph, then you have to also accept the reason Limbaugh related the story, and tried to make it work as a platform for an attack against liberals.

There's something very wrong with that. Just as there's something very wrong with having to lie in order to make your point. If the evidence is so weak that lying has to be a cornerstone of the argument, then what's the point.

And ladies and gentlemen, it's just a boatload of lies when Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Savage prattle on about how liberals hate America, how they want to coddle the terrorists, how they listen en masse to Hollywood and the ACLU.

It's akin to hatemongers who try to convince people that there's a great Zionist conspiracy in order to justify hatred against Jews. Or people who blame their every misfortune on affirmative action. It's akin to radicals who believe that it's their Christian duty to blow up Planned Parenthood offices or shoot gays. All of these people use lies and misrepresentations to build mythical straw men that they can attack.

I'm not suggesting conservative talk hosts shoot people or blow up things. But the methodology is similar. They lie, misrepresent or offer half truths in order to build a mythical enemy that they can tear down. It may make great radio -- but it has no bearing on the truth.

12:06 AM  
Blogger David R. Mark said...

Hi all:

Great debate. Glad to see so many new faces -- even misguided ones.

Wanted to clarify something. While I doubt Mark Levin sent anyone here, according to sitemeter, someone obviously posted a link on marklevinfan.com.

Hope to see all you Mark Levin fans back here regularly. Unlike conservative talk radio, this site also welcomes a healthy debate between left and right.

And hey, you might even learn something.

Sincerely,

David R. Mark

12:11 AM  
Anonymous A ML Fan said...

The nastiness of the personal atacks at Mark is indeed appalling, but I never expected any less from you Libs...

7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And ladies and gentlemen, it's just a boatload of lies when Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Savage prattle on about how liberals hate America, how they want to coddle the terrorists, how they listen en masse to Hollywood and the ACLU.

Could it be that these talking heads create these myths as a smokescreen for the policies of their current party in power which have accelerated poverty for children, hugely inflated the federal deficit, and advocated a dismal job creation record compared to the Clinton years?
I guess these policies aren't entertaining enough. It's much easier to call Cindy Sheehan a terrorist.

8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dismal job creation record compared to the Clinton years??!?! Are you still living in 2001?

What basis do you have for that claim? The job creation rate, the absolute numbers almost each and every month, and the overall employment rate have exceeded the figures from the 90's.

The "hugely" inflated deficit *projection* has been lowered substantially in recent weeks due to rising tax revenues.

Do you care to expand on "accelerated poverty for children?" We are experiencing the largest increase in wages since the 90's alongside with the largest increase in home ownership including minority home ownership.

All this and inflation is extremely low.

Take off the blinders!

This information is freely available from the US government and the most recent report came out earlier this week.

9:58 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

What basis do you have for that claim? The job creation rate, the absolute numbers almost each and every month, and the overall employment rate have exceeded the figures from the 90's.>>

Untrue. The Clinton Administration averaged 206,000 jobs created per month. The Bush Administration has averaged close to that level for the past 30 months or so. But that forgets the first 3+ years of his administration. Using the Bush claim that more than 4 million jobs have been created, and dividing by 60 months in office, you get an overall five-year average of roughly 70,000 jobs created/month.

The "hugely" inflated deficit *projection* has been lowered substantially in recent weeks due to rising tax revenues.>>

Again untrue. Yes, the administration announced that its current fiscal year deficit is "just" $333 billion, down from more than $400 billion in the previous year. But the deficit figure didn't take into consideration the true costs of the Iraq and Afgahanistan wars -- Bush recently asked and received additional money through an emergency spending bill -- and it didn't take into consideration the cost of the recently passed legislation to preserve the Alternative Minimum Tax ($30 billion). It didn't, obviously, anticipate costs associated with Hurricane Katrina.

So, while the initial projection of $333 billion sounds better than $400 billion-plus, the actual number for the current fiscal year is going to be a lot higher.

And let's not forget that Bush was inheriting a budget that essentially had no deficit.

But "9/11 changed everything," right? Well, it changed things for about two years, according to economists. It increased the deficit by about 40-50% in that short-term. But it shouldn't be blamed for the $2 trillion-plus of new deficit the Bush team has added since coming into office in 2001.

Any other conservative misinformation you'd like to discuss?

10:13 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

alongside with the largest increase in home ownership

>>

This is not exactly true. What is true is that the US homeownership rate is at an all-time high.

It reached an all-time high during the Clinton era, and since home ownership has outpaced foreclosures, the percentage has grown slightly during Bush's presidency.

However, the claim of "the largest increase in homeownership" -- I assume you mean the largest year-to-year percentage gain -- is not true. That happened in the late 1940s.

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for trying to counter with hypotheticals. I'll stick to the trends and published facts, after all this is the industry I work in.

We shall see what the future holds, but you are painting the future with a very negative view that doesn't quite jive with the data coming out right now.

10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hypotheticals? What hypotheticals?

11:59 AM  
Blogger don dzikowski said...

Thanks Rob for saving me some work.

Here's some other statistics you won't hear these right-wing blowhards, Levin, Malkin, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. either not talk very much about, or spin the truth out of:
Household incomes failed to rise for the last five consecutive years -- for the first time in the nation's history.
According to a September report from the IRS, Only for those Americans in the top 1 percent, the nearly 1.3 million taxpayers who made at least $327,000, did incomes increase significantly more in 2003 than the rate of inflation. And this increase was concentrated within the top tenth of 1 percent. The income of that group grew by 9.5 percent in 2003 over the previous year while the rest of the top 1 percent had a gain of 3.7 percent.
For the bottom 99 percent of taxpayers, income rose by slighly less than 2 percent, which was below the inflation rate of 2.3 percent.
Had enough Bushies. Try these statistics from the Congressional Budget Office on for size:
** Under President Bush, we have gone from a projected 10-year federal surplus of $5.6 trillion to a projected deficit of $3.5 trillion – a reversal of $9.1 trillion.

** The national debt has increased by over 62% since President Bush took office and is now over $8 trillion for the first time in our nation’s history. Today, ever man, woman and child living in America owes $27,000 just to finance the national debt.

** Under President Bush, interest on the national debt has become the fastest growing category of spending in the budget. In 2004, the federal government had to spend $182 billion just to make interest payments on the national debt, more than triple all appropriations for education, and more than 5 times the amount spent on the environment and veterans’ health care. By 2015, under the Bush agenda, these net interest payments will rise to $458 billion or about what we now spend defending this country.

President Bush has now borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined.
Bush Tax Policies are the number one reason we have gone from a projected 10-year federal surplus of $3.5 trillion to a projected $5.6 trillion national deficit.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 48% of the deficit is attributable to Bush’s tax cuts – more than any other policy initiative
37 million Americans, almost 13 percent of our population, live below the poverty line. The nation's poverty rate has climbed from a 27 year low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 percent last year, an indication that Bush trickle down policies are not working.
In the last four years alone, we have seen 4 million more Americans enter the ranks of poverty. 21.9 percent of the children in this country live in poverty, more than one in five.
Compared to the rest of the industrialized world the U.S. today has, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country.
Despite these statistics, Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent, while raising the ceiling on the national deficit.
But why do I bother.
Instead of looking at conservatives/Republicans failings to correct these problems, and even causing them to increase, they will continue to obfuscate these issues through calling liberals weak on terrorism, blah blah blah.

1:18 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"Wanted to clarify something. While I doubt Mark Levin sent anyone here, according to sitemeter, someone obviously posted a link on marklevinfan.com."


Which is precisely what I said in my first post. :) Obviously, we are fans of Mark Levin, and by no means is this his official website/blog.

Thanks for the welcome. It probably won't come as a surprise to you that we conservatives believe that you guys are the "misguided" ones. ;)

2:06 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Wow. Mr. Marks proved my assertion. Not that it wasn't obvious, and need I list them: the removed posts, the number of Anons., a record number of postings (read: bombardment, as Marks directed, implicitly or explicitly). As usual, you cons are too easy.

3:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

What the hell is your point?

3:16 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

I'm sorry, Mr.Marks, and I'd like to see your invaluable website reach a larger audience as well, but they're not going to stick around for a "healthy debate," which is as apparent as all they clues they left as to what brought them to this particular thread. If they had any intention of a civil discussion, they wouldn't have started out with the substanceless declarations. Just like on MMFA, the site that led me here, when there was a thread about Janet Parshall, and someone new zapped in - and out, never to be heard from again. A fluke? You and I both know it wasn't.

3:18 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Trinity, if you were directing yourself to me, and even if you weren't, see post to Marks. That's the point, in hell, or in trinity,or wherever you like. We gotcha.

3:21 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Wow! Judging from your posts, ash, you have quite a large chip on your shoulder. Why so nasty? Take a lesson from the very civil David R. Mark, why doncha? :)

We explained how we happened to start posting here. No big mystery or conspiracy. If you are indicative of what kind of poster we have to deal with, however, don't sweat it. It's highly unlikely that we'll stick around very long.

4:05 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Trinity, in all honesty, there was trash talking on both sides of the aisle.

If you look in the comments fields over the past few dozen entries, you'd see that the rare conservative who comes here isn't interested in reasoned debate, but is looking to drop off a mean-spirited one-liner -- such as calling David a communist un-American jerk.

Some of the regular liberal posters on here, myself included, have wondered aloud whether this site, have essentially begged for a conservative who can have a meaningful back-and-forth.

So if you want to be that person, or if you and a bunch of fellow Mark Levin fans want to be those people, great.

David updates about 10 times a week. The stuff is generally well-attributed, strongly written material. There's lots to debate, and I for one would welcome the chance.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

That's because you're no judge of my posts. Now go back and read the first, oh, 20 entries and explain to me how it's not a concerted frontal attack.

And here's a clue. It's not about me.

7:07 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

"stick around very long." No, because you never intended to.

7:08 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Really. #1. Removed. 7 "wimps" 8,9,10. Call in, like the guys gonna allow that.

Ready for the next 10? And may I add, not one word of substance, as in why the guy makes sense, or has come to the correct conclusion on ANY issue. Tell me again you weren't here to cause trouble, 'cause I have the evidence.

Shall we continue?

7:18 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

17 - other people=irrelevant
19 - disingenuous if not an outright lie
20 - "boo hoo" (my personal favorite).

Substance? Debate? Content? Are you reading this too, fellow libs?

Again, Mr. Marks, don't kid yourself about these cons. There surely are thoughtful ones. Too bad they didn't come here.

7:24 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

22 Socialism - no, not the topic of the post, natch

23 juvenile sarcasm

24 "whimpering" (what, no "whining"?)

Substance? Issues? Reasoned, adult debate?

Now I'll return to my regularly scheduled life, which I do have, and preempt your attempt to counter with that cliche and anything else like it. Angry? Au contraire. It's been fun, just not quite challenging.

7:29 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Special mention to Maggie and Susan, who managed to tie for most vile robots without a word about who Levin even is. Come to think of it, 72 posts- including mine - and someone who never heard of the guy would have no idea what he believes about any issue. Satisfied, Mr. Marks?

7:44 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
David updates about 10 times a week. The stuff is generally well-attributed, strongly written material. There's lots to debate, and I for one would welcome the chance.


Well, thank you for the civility, "cutiepie", as well as for the challenge! :)

I do enjoy debating, so long as it is intellectually honest. There is nothing that I abhor more than sophistry, and I have left more than one liberal website because of it.

I don't want to pre-judge anyone here, although one in your group does appear to be a bit of a ranter. ;) But I don't want to talk "behind her back", so I'll address her posts directly.

Others here seem to be more reasonable, and less hysterical, so I will probably pop in once in a while to see what's being discussed, and hopefully we will be able to engage in some meaningful dialogue.

Thank you for your welcome.

10:42 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

ash said...
That's because you're no judge of my posts. Now go back and read the first, oh, 20 entries and explain to me how it's not a concerted frontal attack.


Ash, I usually try not to comment on something I know nothing about. I had indeed read this entire thread before making any of my posts. Thank you.

And although I agree with "cutiepie" that there were negative comments made by both sides, I think most of ours were more reactive than anything else.

To begin with, most of us were probably responding to the title of the thread. Since we know that Mark Levin is no clown, that probably made some defense mechanisms kick in.

I'm not suggesting that people aren't free to write as they choose on their own blogs, mind you. I'm just explaining what probably caused some of the rhetoric.

But as I said, there was plenty of nastiness coming from you guys. Since you seem to enjoy lists, how about some of these references to conservatives made here on this very thread?

Clown
fact-challenged
hate and division
Bushies
idiots
dirty tactics
lying
ill-formed opinions
despicable
pigshit
fat mouths
garbage
lousy
not sharpest tools in shed
threats of violence
dumb devotion
weasel words
insane
egomaniac
goonies
dirty language
personal crap*

*immediately following your accusation that conservatives engage in dirty language and personal crap, you made this very snide, personal comment about Mark, viz:

Ash said...
"Your guy is small and has a high voice. That's no problem on my side but he's your role model. Now you figure out what he's trying to compensate for."


tsk tsk, Ash. Don't make me use the "H" word! lol

4:50 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

H for what? No idea. lol Wish you'd put it at the beginning. Never read further than that overused abbreviation.

You're a terrible apologist, conveniently overlooking the fact that I never singled you out for the substanceless initial posts. Time to return to conville for more lessons on how to debate.

6:03 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Hey, trin, if you're still around. Maybe I'm being unfair. I mean it, this is not a set-up. I really don't know what Levin has said about any issue lately, since I sure got no sampling of it on this thread. I know he wrote a book fairly recently, I know I disagree vehemently with his definition of activist judges, but that's all I know. In fact, haven't seen him on TV at least since the Lewinsky days, when, guess what, I was against Clinton for his careless deception. (Maybe we have something in common?) So how's this. What has he said lately? Refreshing, huh, a discussion minus the sissy on one side vs. dummy on the other. No cliches. Just tell me about his position on anything. Then we could start behaving like grown-ups.

You know, it was coming here with guns blazing - whoever did it - that set the bad tone.

6:25 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

ash said...
"H for what? No idea. lol Wish you'd put it at the beginning. Never read further than that overused abbreviation.


Sorry. I know "lol" is a pet peeve of yours. ;)

I meant "H" for "hypocrite". Didn't think it was such a riddle since I explained it had to do with your doing exactly what you accused others of doing. (see asterisk in my last post)

ash said
"You're a terrible apologist, conveniently overlooking the fact that I never singled you out for the substanceless initial posts."


Perhaps not, but you did seem to include me in some of your generalizations, written after I made a couple of posts.

Again, Mr. Marks, don't kid yourself about these cons. There surely are thoughtful ones. Too bad they didn't come here.

"stick around very long." No, because you never intended to.

12:09 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

ash said...
"You know, it was coming here with guns blazing - whoever did it - that set the bad tone."


That's probably true, ash. And you were defending your turf. Although it's difficult to say, since I have no idea who made the first post, or what is said, since it's been deleted.

But, no matter. I'm all for a fresh start. But where to begin? You say that you vehemently disagree with Levin's definition of activist judges, so why don't you start the ball rolling by clarifying to me how you believe he defines an activist judge, and why you disagree with it?

Also, I did comment earlier on the other Levin thread, the one about McCain, and torture, in the event you or anyone else might want to pick up on that discussion.

12:32 AM  
Anonymous ash said...

An activist judge is one who interprets the constitution as having advanced beyond the date upon which it came into existence. He or she considers it a living, breathing document which is scrutinized through the lens of advancements in technology and the changing consensus of society, not fixed in time. An activist judge also renders opinions and judgments which do not conform to the conservative perspective.

I am not familiar with any other threads pertaining to Mr. Levin.

8:10 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Okay, ash, we have a place to begin. And since it's a fresh start, I'll refrain from suggesting that you take a course in remedial reading comprehension, even though you suggested I needed help with my debating skills. ;)

Soooo, first things first. This is a partial quote from one of your posts...."I know I disagree vehemently with his (Levin's) definition of activist judges..."

Now, since that was your own statement, I asked you to clarify for me what you believe Levin's definition of an activist judge might be, so I could get an understanding of why you disagree with him so "vehemently".

You gave me your own definition of what you believe an activist judge is, not what you think Levin believes it to be. Just try to explain to me why you so strongly disagree with Mark Levin's stance on activist judges, and I'll be able to respond to you.

As far as other "Levin" threads, David provides a few links in the 3rd paragraph of this blog post. Look for (here, here or here). I believe the one on the torture subject is the first link.

2:23 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

ash said...
"An activist judge is one who interprets the constitution as having advanced beyond the date upon which it came into existence. He or she considers it a living, breathing document which is scrutinized through the lens of advancements in technology and the changing consensus of society, not fixed in time."


Ash, put that way, all judges would, by definition, have to be called "activist", since it would not be possible to govern in a vacuum or a time warp.

As you stated, times have changed.
Technology not available or even imagined at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, is now reality.

But technology is not the issue. Technology advances, yes. The world changes, yes. But the principles imbued in the Constitution, such as the rule of law, popular sovereignty, separation of powers and a system of checks and balances, individual rights, etc., these concepts do not change, and that is why they can always be applied to an advancing world.

ash said..."An activist judge also renders opinions and judgments which do not conform to the conservative perspective.

Well, yes, if he or she is a "liberal" activist judge, I suppose that's true. But it's entirely possible for a conservative judge to be an activist as well. For instance, what if a Supreme Court Justice believed that Christianity should be taught in all public schools, and his decisions reflected that belief? He would be an activist judge. Far-fetched, I know, but just the first example that popped into my head.

Of course, there are probably some people who can't sleep at night, for fear that this, indeed, might be the case. ;)

2:56 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

I'm starting to like you. First, you stuck around. No drive-by approach for you. Second, an honest, thoughtful, intelligent presentation. But did you not detect the sarcasm with which I wrote my last post? Yet in seriousness the evidence I've seen thru my liberal lens is that, in fact, conservatives are quick with the "activist" label when a judge renders an opinion simply inconsistent with conservative principles. That where something specific (abortion, technology) is not to be found, it is tantamount to forbidding it to so much as BE interpreted. As opposed to when - well, it's cited so often I hardly have to repeat it - the ultimate activist decision of this country's history just happens to coincide with Ted Olson's et. al's argument. You know the case.

7:26 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

ash said...
"I'm starting to like you. First, you stuck around. No drive-by approach for you."


LOL ash! Ooooops! So sorry. Now you won't read beyond that first word!

Well, I'll respond anyhow. Ash, all people, whether libs or cons or in between, are just people. If we treat others with respect, most times that courtesy is reciprocated. In fact, it's even contageous.

Just as an aside, I used to live on Long Island, and driving out to Jones Beach on either the Wantagh or Meadowbrook Parkway, there used to be a sign saying exactly that, "Courtesy is contageous", with a big silly smiley face on it, and it made me smile every time I passed it.

But back to business, I guess we all have trigger words that we respond to, words that can set us off. Still, with just a minimum of effort from both sides, things can at least be kept civil. I guess the trick is not to pre-judge, and a little bit of tolerance goes a long way as well.

But did you not detect the sarcasm with which I wrote my last post?

Nope. I'm afraid it must have flown right over my head. In fact, I just went back and re-read your post, and I still couldn't discern it. (shrugs)

"...the evidence I've seen thru my liberal lens is that, in fact, conservatives are quick with the "activist" label when a judge renders an opinion simply inconsistent with conservative principles."

That might be, but that's merely coincidential. The real reason that conservatives have a problem with some of these opinions/decisions, is not because they are inconsistent with conservative principles, althought that is true in most if not all cases, but because we believe those particular issues should never be decided in the federal courts in the first place, since the Constitution does not assign those powers to the SCOTUS.

We believe in an "originalist", and not an "activist" role for justices. Simply put, and you really cannot find it put any more simply than in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.....are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Now, how we have come so far from what our Founding Fathers intended this government to be, well, we can blame on judicial activism.

ash said...
"the ultimate activist decision of this country's history just happens to coincide with Ted Olson's et. al's argument. You know the case."


I'm more than willing to discuss Bush v Gore with you, ash, if this is the right place to do that.

Also, do you still want to explain on what grounds you vehemently object to Levin's take on activist judges or not?

1:25 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

ash said...
"I'm sorry, Mr.Marks, and I'd like to see your invaluable website reach a larger audience as well, but they're not going to stick around for a "healthy debate," "


EPILOGUE:

How ironic that after writing something like that, it turns out that it was "ash" who never stuck around for that healthy debate. Here's a "LOL" especially in your honor, ash! :P

5:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares