"The Great One" authors his latest book!

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

The mainstream press looks away: Somehow, we're always disappointed by the work of Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth is one of the three official "friends" on the deeply atrocious Fox News show, Fox & Friends Weekend. All in all, he's movie star handsome. Based on some events we've seen him do on C-Span, it always seems to us that he's much smarter, and secretly more sincere, than the other two weekend "friends."

Even at that, we were surprised to learn, just today, about his academic background. The leading authority on his life and times tells us this:

Hegseth is an Army National Guard officer and former executive director of political advocacy groups Vets For Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. The latter, a conservative advocacy group funded by the Koch brothers, advocates greater privatization of the Department of Veterans Affairs...

Hegseth has been active in conservative and Republican politics since his days as an undergraduate at Princeton University. In 2016, he emerged as a strong supporter and ally of Donald Trump's presidential candidacy, and served as an occasional advisor to Trump throughout the latter's presidency.

[...]

Hegseth was born on June 6, 1980, in Forest Lake, Minnesota. He attended Forest Lake Area High School and received his Bachelor of Arts at Princeton University in 2003. In 2013, he received a Master of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

We're always surprised, and disappointed, by the way Hegseth goes along with the comically awful agitprop on Fox & Friends Weekend. That said, even we were surprised to see that his path to the big white couch led through both Princeton and Harvard.

Last night, we were disappointed by the way Hegseth interviewed "The Great One," Mark Levin, on Levin's Sunday night Fox News program. 

Levin was discussing his latest book. Clownishly, this is its actual title:

 The Democrat Party Hates America

Yes, that's the actual title! For the record, Levin must have repeated the childish term, "Democrat Party," a hundred thousand times during the hour. 

Despite his obvious smarts, Hegseth played right along.

Who the heck is Mark Levin? Perhaps tendentiously, the leading authority tells us this:

A 2016 study which sought to measure incendiary discourse on talk radio and TV found that Levin scored highest on its measure of "outrage." The study looked at 10 prominent radio and television programs, known for incendiary discourse on political matters, and scored content on the basis of whether it used "emotional display", "misrepresentative exaggeration", "mockery", "conflagration", "slippery slope", "insulting" or "obscene language", and other factors, finding that Levin was the radio host who engaged in the most outrage. 

The study found that he utilized "outrage speech or behavior at a rate of more than one instance per minute." In How Democracies Die, Harvard University political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky write that Mark Levin was among the popular right-wing talk radio hosts who "helped to legitimate the use of uncivil discourse" in American politics, and contribute to the erosion of democratic norms. According to Politico, Levin has a "penchant for hysteria."

Does Levin have "a penchant for hysteria?" We can't really say that's wrong.

Like so many others, he also has a penchant for refusing to call the Democratic Party by its actual name. But them, the childishness and the stupidity are endless in these arenas. This goes undiscussed in the mainstream press—in the New York Times, for instance.

The dumbness is endless on Fox & Friends Weekend. Hysteria tends to prevail when Levin goes on the air.

It's amazing to see the sorts of things red tribe viewers are persistently told. News orgs like the New York Times have long since agreed that this public insanity should not be reported as news. It's part of the way we all got here! 

It always seems to us that Hegseth surely has to know better. But then, we sometimes get the same sensation when we watch our own tribe's imaginary friends—some of whom are said to be "dear, dear friends"—on our own so-called cable news.

What did Levin say last night? Levin strikes us as a serious nut. Fox News reports his session with Hegseth here, with some videotape provided.

Levin strikes us as a serious nut. As our nation's current "soft" secession proceeds, it seems to us that the things he says should be regarded as news.

Levin strikes us as a serious nut. We've long been puzzled by Hegseth, and strangely disappointed.


98 comments:

  1. A Trump supporter behaves badly? That’s no surprise at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why is anyone wasting time discussing this?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wrote Levin once with a question about his Reagan days and we exchanged several letters. He was gracious and funny. Not at all like his radio show. Later, I was glad to see that on his tv show he was like the person in those letters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wrote Levin once, and told him I was a Democrat. He sent messages cyanide capsule with instructions. I was strangely disappointed.

      Delete
    2. Levin screens his listener calls and rarely if ever allows a dissenting opinion or someone who knows Levin has been lying. If someone does get thru he'll scream at the caller and call the person all kinds of invective names before he hangs up on the caller.

      I don't much favor this type of "cancel culture", Ceclia.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 5:12pm, Cyanide? He should have known it would take a cross or sunlight.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 5:12pm, yes. He is far more mature and likable on his tv show.

      Delete
    5. on the Fox NOOZ network? You mean like when he obscenely slobbered over the orange abomination, otherwise known as the leader of your party?

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 5:21pm, how many tv shows does Levin have?

      Delete
    7. I hate to disillusion you but those replies were undoubtedly written by a member of his staff.

      Delete
    8. Oh lawdy, now Cecelia is doing it too.

      Ok, I guess it’s unsurprising coming from someone pretending to be a woman, but no Cecelia, you did not exchange letters with Levin, and no, David is not a cousin to Lizzie Skurnick.

      These right wing fanboys would be hilarious if it weren’t that their condition arises from being wounded lost souls.

      Delete
    9. anon 2:20, what is it with always claiming that Cecilia is "someone pretending to be a woman?" do you have any evidence of that at all? Have you met her? Or is it just a way to be insulting, a name calling bully? When have you ever said anything intelligent here?

      Delete
  4. "Does Levin have "a penchant for hysteria?" We can't really say that's wrong."

    Yes, Bob. Check out his daily hysterical Twitter posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We can't really say that's wrong." This kind of phrasing is why some of us feel that Somerby doesn't express a clear opinion about much.

      Delete
    2. I feel you brother. It's so so confusing to read words.

      Delete
    3. Is it wrong? “I can’t really say that.” Is it right? “ I can’t really say that.“ yes or no? “Anything is possible. He strikes us as a nut, which means his hysteria may only seem like hysteria, meaning he cannot truly have a penchant for it since he may be seeming to be possibly expressing his nuttiness, rather than a penchant, which might seem to mean deliberate (non nutty) behavior. Seemingly. Whatever you do, don’t call him a liar or impute rational motives to him, since he strikes us as a nut. What was your question again?”

      Delete
  5. Any Republican that says something Somerby finds inexcusable is a “nut”. Is the nuttiness perhaps purposeful?

    NAHHHHH. They’re all just independently nutty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mh, yes calling someone a "nut" is actually complementing them, I get it now.

      Delete
  6. This is special for DiC. I ran across this article today.
    It's a good long read. Read it, David.

    Is Thomas Sowell a Legendary “Maverick” Intellectual or a Pseudo-Scholarly Propagandist?

    In fact, it turns out that Thomas Sowell is not very interested in serious empirical evidence at all. His books rarely engage with the major academic literature on the subject he’s writing about, he cherry-picks the studies that are consistent with the ideological beliefs he already holds, he leaves out crucial pieces of data that would make his position look weaker (and make The Intellectuals looks less absurd), he argues with ludicrous straw men, and he makes totally unsupportable claims about work he has clearly not bothered to read.

    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/09/is-thomas-sowell-a-legendary-maverick-intellectual-or-a-pseudo-scholarly-propagandist/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks you, @5:09. This is an immensely long article. I read about 80% of it. I would credit the author, Nathan Robinson, for making a serious effort to deal with Sowell's books. The tendencies he claims to find in these book are ones I would agree with.

      Robinson honorably quotes people who praise Sowell. Those quotes have more impact that this entire article. Praise from Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich von Hayek and the brilliant Steven Pinker carry more weight than than criticism by an unknown like Robinson.

      The worst part of the article, is where Robinson discusses minimum wage. He disparages the law of supply and demand. This is the most fundamental law in all of economics. There might be exceptional circumstances where it doesn't hold, but Robinson. sounds like he's really stretching to find fault when he disputes this basic law. Sowell's POV is a lot closer to standard economics than Robinson's.

      The article inevitably fails, simply because of length. How do you critique almost 50 books in a single article, no matter how long?

      Robinson accuses Sowell cherry-picking. Robinson's article consists entirely of cherry picking. He chose as examples only comments or analyses that he can find fault with. The cherry-picking is the biggest fault in the article. In almost 50 books, Robinson found a few instances of Sowell using examples that illustrate his point, while ignoring examples that go the other way. OTOH Sowell's books include innumerable wise observations and insights, supported by details and facts drawn from countries around the world. Very few authors support their points with as many facts as Sowell does.

      Delete
    2. David in Cal,
      How is this different from you disparaging the law of supply and demand?
      Or do you now realize the cost of living is so high in San Francisco, because so many people want to live under the San Francisco values, that a few random Right-wingers hate?

      Delete
    3. Thomas Sowell=Uncle Tom, his status is wholly due to a form of racism called tokenism, his work is considered a joke outside of right wingers engaging in tokenism.

      Furthermore, the “law of supply and demand” is no longer taught in graduate economics departments, anyone extolling the “law” is ignorant of economics.

      Delete
    4. All racial epithets are better than fine with the left as long as they’re aimed at inconvenient people.

      Delete
    5. We on the Left do not crumble at “epithets”, indeed, it is Somerby’s daily incantation to implore the blue tribe to stop “insulting” right wingers, due to their fragile sensitivities, that somehow also will turn suddenly to aggressive violence. Hilariously, Somerby considers any criticism directed towards right wingers as “insults”.

      Uncle Tom and tokenism are not “epithets” of the victim, in this case, Sowell, but are accurate criticisms of oppressors.

      Get a grip, you sad and wounded lost soul.

      Delete
  7. The mainstream press looks away…from Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, and Levin, a nut whose ravings should be regarded as news? Why should they not be attacked as the ravings of a nut?

    There is so much “nuttiness” emanating from the right wing that it would crowd out legitimate news if it were all attended to by the mainstream press. That’s kind of the point of the nuttiness, one might think.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When did Somerby ever expect more from Hegseth to be disappointed in him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't make it to the second paragraph huh? Reading is hard.

      Delete
    2. Talking about someone's looks and their schooling is not the same as discussing their performance as a Fox Friend. Someone is only as sincere as their behavior. Implying that Hegstreth is secretly an OK guy, without any evidence, strike me as fatuous.

      Somerby has never discussed Hegstreth here before today. I don't think it is particularly wonderful to be slightly less bad than Levine.

      Delete
    3. I totally feel your pain. It's very very difficult for a lot of people to understand and deal with written words.

      Delete
    4. Was it Hegseth’s movie star looks that caused Somerby disappointment? Many shallow people do equate good looks with good character. That’s the first quality Somerby mentioned. Why would anyone care enough about this person to be disappointed? He’s a Republican. He’s been supporting Trump since at least 2016. Was Somerby disappointed 7 years ago, or just now? Did he “seem” smart or sincere back then? Why would anyone, particularly a supposed Democrat, respect Hegseth enough to be disappointed in him now?

      Delete
    5. mh, it's very very hard to understand what is written here. It's confusing. Sometimes it doesn't make sense and can even be scary. If I were with you now I would suggest that we hold hands and form a caring circle just to empathize with each other on the difficulty of these passages!

      Delete
    6. Oh, I understand 9:00 perfectly well what Somerby wrote. I am mocking him for it. That you didn’t get that shows that, indeed, reading for meaning is hard… for you.

      Delete
  9. Levin knows his audience. That's why he treats them like fools.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does the Democratic Party hate America? I don't think that's a fair accusation. But one might be forgiven for thinking they do, because of the results of Democratic policies. In the cities long governed by Democrats, one finds high crime, high cost of living, poor city services, and poor educational results. Yet, the Democrats remain wedded to the polices, while seeming to ignore the tragic results these policies are producing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democrats in general don’t hate America, but anonymices do.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the Democrats do try to address problems such as high crime, a liveable wage (the high cost of living), educational progress and so on. Just because these are problems that Democrats address, doesn't mean that the Democrats caused any of those problems. We are, in fact, the main ones doing anything about them. Progress is incremental.

      When you don't have workable policies to address such problems, they get worse. That is what happened under Trump.

      This is like a sick person who comes to believe that his medication is causing his illness. That is a common delusion among the mentally ill but you hear it too among the anti-vaxxers. They think the vaccine is causing covid because people didn't have covid before the vaccine was invented.

      Earth to David, poverty has always been with us, even in poor areas (there is such a thing as rural poor, even where Republicans run everything). And David also tends to confuse visibility of a problem with the magnitude of the problem. That people talk about homelessness more under Democratic administrations doesn't mean there is more homelessness -- it means the people in govt care more about helping the homeless and have made the problem more important on their agenda, a more visibile part of their efforts in office.

      Delete
    3. California used to have two powerful political parties. That changed a few decades ago, when the state became reliably Democratic. Things have gotten a lot worse since that happened.

      Taxes are among the highest in the country. Highways are deteriorating. Elementary through high schools are mediocre. We have the highest rate of poverty of any state. Homeless encampments are growing. Crime is increasing.

      These things all happened since the Democrats gained complete power. California has immense advantages: natural resources, enormous agriculture, an educated populace (due in part to good things done by past Democrats), excellent weather, excellent ocean harbors. It took a lot of bad laws and regulations to screw things up here.

      Delete
    4. David in California will be moving to Alabama very soon.

      Delete
    5. 6:44 California and Texas are quite comparable. Both are large states with good agriculture and good natural resources. Both have the problem of the border with Mexico. Texas is booming under Republican rule, while California is deteriorating under Democratic rule. I'm not moving to Alabama, but California is losing population, while Texas is growing.

      Delete
    6. California's poverty rate is 12.58, which puts the state 26th from the top. Far from the highest of any state as David claims.

      If you look at state and local tax rates (combined), as of July 2023, CA is not highest either. Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Washington are all higher. Quite a few are at about the same level as CA, including Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Texas.

      Crime increased in CA following covid, as is true nationwide. It is still way below historic highs. The homicide rate declined 5% last year.

      More than half of the cities with the lowest homeless rates are run by Democratic mayors. CA laws did not create homelessness. The cause for many people is a medical crisis or job loss. They say that if they had access to just $300 they could have stayed in their homes and would not be homeless. More than half are over 50.

      https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatters/the-biggest-survey-of-homeless-californians-in-decades/103-af3c34f1-8d2b-4081-8863-13e75c741acb#:~:text=Losing%20income%20is%20the%20No,yet%20at%20California's%20homeless%20crisis.

      I recently moved out of CA but my reasons were not any of the things David lists. I moved because of the increasingly hot summers, the wildfire risk and lack of insurance, increasing likelihood of a major earthquake (now overdue), increase in traffic, MAGA extremists driving trucks through crowds in my home town, high property taxes on a house that was too big for my needs after my husband died.

      None of those things were caused by Democrats. Not even the property taxes, given that San Bernardino is a very red county.

      I am tired of David typing mistaken statistics without verifying them in order to smear a state that is doing very well, even with its serious problems of homelessness, drought, and fire.

      Delete
    7. Texas has had serious problems in both summer and winter because it cannot manage its electrical grid properly. People have been stranded without heat in winter and without AC in very hot summer weather. This is partly because TX will not join a regional power grid and partyly mismanagement because they did not fix the problems after they became aware of them. There are still blackouts this summer. That isn't exactly "booming" as David claims.

      "Texas puts final estimate of winter storm death toll at 246"

      https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/02/texas-winter-storm-final-death-toll-246/

      And then there are the stunts performed by the TX governor, the attacks on teachers, the shooting at Uvalde which was entirely mismanaged by law enforcement, and the ongoing trouble at the TX border which is in no way comparable to the way California manages its own immigration procedures. The barrier that is drowning desperate immigrants in TX at the river is unconscionable and illegal.

      Texas does have better K-12 schools, but it doesn't have the breadth of diversity that CA has. There are no cities in TX as large as Los Angeles. The CA university system is much better than TX based on national ratings.

      But David wants to use as an example a state that is steadily turning blue. I could argue that the more blue TX has become in the past 10 years, the better the performance of the state's services and resources. Ask people in Austin what they think of Abbott.

      Delete
    8. Where did you get these wild statistics? California has a sales tax rate that varies from 7.75% to 10.75% and an income tax rate that goes up to 12.3%. Texas sales tax is 8.25%. Nevada sales tax is over 8% in the larger cities. Texas and Nevada have no income tax.
      How can they have a comparable tax burden to California?

      Delete
    9. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/2023-sales-tax-rates-midyear/

      Delete
    10. States tend to have either income tax or sales tax, as two different strategies for raising revenues. You want to consider income tax and ignore state sales tax but that is unfair when these are just two alternative strategies for funding the state.

      CA has a booming economy often called the 8th largest economy in the world (comparing CA to nations). Taxes on commerce are going to provide a lot more money in CA than in other states which means there is less burden on individuals. There have been surpluses and CA maintains a very large emergency fund for dealing with wildfires and a potential destructive earthquake. It runs its own earthquake insurance program for homeowners. I assume you are aware that Trump denied CA any wildfire relief funds as punishment for being a blue state, when he was president. Do you think any aware citizen of CA is going to vote for Trump after that?

      Property costs and taxes are high along the coast in desirable residential areas. I lived in the Inland Empire where housing was not expensive and the cost of living was more affordable. There are many areas like that in CA that are beautifully scenic and not over-populated but lack the industry and non-agricultural jobs that make the coastal areas affordable for tech workers.

      Your view of CA is pure propaganda and I resent the way you have mischaracterized a place where I lived nearly 70 years.

      Delete
    11. if it weren't for bad-faith arguments, the Right would have no arguments at all.

      Delete
    12. To clarify, CA is the fifth largest economy in the world, one of those that are larger is America, which in large part, owes its economic size and power to CA.

      CA is America, and America is CA, no other state comes close, CA sets the agenda for both the economy as well as culture; as CA goes, so goes the nation.

      7:23 displays an astounding lack of knowledge about how state sales taxes work, and state taxes in general (I actually explained this to him a few weeks ago when he posted the same nonsense stats), coming from someone who claims to be an actuary, it’s reasonable to say that claim is dubious at best.

      Delete
    13. "In the cities long governed by Democrats, one finds high crime, high cost of living, poor city services, and poor educational results."

      Perhaps those cities should do more to emulate the successful policies of Republican-run cities where there's no crime, kids are all above average, the trash is always picked up on time, and there's free balloons and lemonade every Saturday.

      Point 'em out, Dave.

      Delete
    14. D in C - claiming that cities have more crime and poverty because they have democrats for mayors is silly, a dumb GOP trope. Cities have more crime and poverty because more poor people live there. Are states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, with Democrats in control more prosperous than Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama, run by right wing Republicans? and as far as crime goes, it may have risen recently, but it had sharply declined for several years before that, and has not again reached those prior high levels. And what's with the fanatical resistance to any gun laws?

      Delete
  11. Levin may be a lot of things but one of the top ones is a despicable, lying, media whore.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Today Somerby is writing about Hegstreth and Levine without saying a word about anything they have said that is worth anyone's time. Why are we discussing them if they are right-wing nuts? I knew that about Levine the first moment I heard his show. So what is new that is worth Somerby devoting any time to two right-wing disinformation spreaders?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's so hard to read.

      Delete
    2. Somerby links to Levin’s session with Hegseth. Please tell us, 8:11, which part of that should be regarded as news, in Somerby’s opinion. “ the things he says should be regarded as news.” does that mean everything he says? Or just what he said to Hegseth? Please be specific.

      Delete
    3. Why would I want to do that, mh?

      Delete
    4. You want to just have Chad GPT settle it?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Because you, 8:11, criticized 6:22’s reading skills, and yet, 6:22 asked a sensible question that neither you nor anyone can answer, which you just proved by your non-answer.

      Delete
    7. Mh, you are 622, right?

      Delete
    8. Why are you pretending like you're not?

      Delete
    9. mh, why do you ask these questions?

      "Does that mean everything he says? Or just what he said to Hegseth? '

      Delete
    10. mh, is the "sensible question" "Why are we discussing them if they are right-wing nuts?"?

      Delete
    11. mh, if the sensible question is "Why are we discussing them if they are right-wing nuts?", the answer is addressed in the piece. Plainly and clearly. Although I know he writes in a very unusual and annoying way. But that's why some of us took it upon ourselves to learn how to read. And I just don't think it's fair for me to have to read for you. And interpret something for you that is addressed very simply and clearly. Your questions are fucking idiotic.

      Delete
    12. Levin, in my view, is a right wing liar and media propagandist. I see nothing newsworthy in anything he says. Somerby does. Is it so much to ask him to explain his reasoning?

      Delete
    13. It is not addressed. He uses outrage, and calls the Democratic Party the Democrat party. That describes every right wing clown in the media.

      Delete
    14. I empathize that you're confused. I guess. It's hard for someone to explain to someone else something that is clearly expressed in writing before both.

      Delete
    15. How old are you?

      Delete
    16. Accurately or otherwise, Somerby feels there is a general childness and stupidity that goes unreported by mainstream news media. He feels, as he is written completely clearly over and over again in unambiguous terms, that this lack of reporting has put us in the polarized position in which we find ourselves. I know it's really hard to understand, but he's not suggesting that everything be reported. Is that what you feel like you've read here? mh, did you feel like he is suggesting that all the childish stupidity has to be reported? Do you feel he could be suggesting that in general the childish stupidity has never been reported and that that is a problem, and that the interview with Levin was another example of this childish stupidity? It's really hard to know where you're coming from because your questions don't make a ton of sense.

      Delete
    17. 9:24 Somerby’s “explanation” does not justify his belief that what levin says is newsworthy. Are you that dense that you didn’t get that from what I wrote, and what 6:22 wrote?

      Delete
    18. He described a scenario of very famous and powerful propagandist who is also serious nut that gave an interview that was full of childish stupidity.

      mh, let me get this straight. You are doubting that?

      Delete
    19. mh, yes! Absolutely. I am that dense. For sure!

      Delete
    20. You are looking for documentary evidence that Levin s a serious nut who engaged in childish nonsense during that interview?

      Do I have that right?

      Delete
    21. Well, when I click Somerby’s link to the interview, I get this: “Access Denied

      You don't have permission to access "http://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-levin-democratic-party-devoured-culture-forcing-failed-marxist-ideology-free-people" on this server.
      Reference #18.9bf8cd17.1695692159.224af878”

      So, no, it isn’t clear what Levin specifically said that was so newsworthy.

      Did you try to click that link?

      Delete
    22. Of course not. What do you think I'm stupid?

      Delete
    23. I am able to access it though.

      Delete
    24. So you doubted, without ever even reading it, that it was nutty and childish propaganda? And you feel like nutty and childish propaganda should never be discussed in the mainstream news media?

      Delete
    25. That's all there is to know mh, that's simply where you and Bob diverge. It's pretty simple. And I'm sorry to have been caustic before because it's nothing really to be caustic about. You both feel like he is a crazy right wing liar and media propagandist. Where you diverge is Bob thinks that crazy right wing propagandists and what they tell their viewers should be discussed in the mainstream news, and you don't.

      Delete
    26. Oh, you didn’t try the link, but you could access it. Will wonders never cease. Wonderful. Perhaps you can give us an idea of some of the specific things Levin said in all their nutty, childish stupidity that were newsworthy, seeing he is a powerful propagandist. I mean, for all I know, he talked about his 15 cats and his pet llama, and how Biden is controlling their minds. I’m sure you can help out here…

      Delete
    27. You may feel like in this particular instance Levin is not being crazy and propagandistic. That is your business. I don't need any kind of proof that it is myself.

      Delete
    28. Yeah I tried it after you posted it there. I tried it directly from your post. Do you want me to read some of it to you?

      Delete
    29. mh, you are using this blog as a scapegoat for other larger problems in your life that you are afraid to confront directly. You do know that, don't you?

      Delete
    30. Why don’t you print some of it here? If it’s important to know what Levin is saying, don’t you think Somerby’s readers ought to be able to at least read the transcript? Isn’t that the whole point of the post?

      Delete
    31. But yes, I accessed the link from your post and it came up directly and I could see Levin s face with his stupid glasses. And like fucking hell am I going to read one fucking word of that. If you doubt it is childish propaganda, it's your business. It's boring. You're just using this whole thing as a scapegoat for other issues.

      Delete
    32. It's a public page that can be accessed by anyone. I don't want to look at that fucking assholes face again.

      Delete
    33. Check this out. This is the headline.

      "Democratic Party has 'devoured the culture,' forcing failed Marxist ideology on free people"

      I see that as news.

      Delete
    34. I’m pretty sure it’s propaganda, but not that it is childish, because it is a deliberate destruction of our discourse. That was also in the blog post. Would you like to continue this nonsense?

      Delete
    35. If I was a reporter I would get right up in his face about every word of that.

      Delete
    36. And a deliberate destruction of our discourse isn't news? A deliberate destruction or a discourse is not something that the mainstream media should be covering?

      Delete
    37. “ forcing failed Marxist ideology on free people"
      Stop the presses! That’s never been said before about the Democratic Party by Republicans…except all the time, since the days of FDR.

      Delete
    38. mh, did you have a chance to attend grade school?

      Delete
    39. You don't believe deliberate destruction of our discourse is newsworthy. Bob does.

      Next.

      Delete
    40. "Levin claims the Democratic Party's history is rooted in the racism of the Confederacy, and later Jim Crow and Woodrow Wilson"

      Delete
    41. Defending Somerby here is just trolling.

      Delete
    42. I can’t read because my school didn’t teach phonics.

      Delete
    43. To the smug troll, today Somerby says the blue tribe is ignoring right wing nuts, tomorrow Somerby will say the blue tribe is committing a grave error by calling out right wing nuts.

      There’s a gap between what you think you know and understand and what you actually know and understand.

      Demonstrating that gap is amusing, but makes your comments irrelevant, to the extent they are even coherent.

      In all likelihood, Somerby wanted an excuse to extol a man’s appearance, more power to him, although it could come across as grooming, particularly considering Somerby’s infamous bitterness towards females.

      Delete
    44. So to this illiterate, the mainstream news now IS the blue tribe. You illiterate idiots can't keep your stories straight. What's the matter?

      Delete
    45. Somerby not only includes the MSM as a subset of the blue tribe, but also applies the same nonsense criticism to both the MSM and the blue tribe.

      “The matter” is that, perhaps due to being enraptured by your own smugness, you remain blind to what is obvious.

      Delete
  13. I read a Levin book years ago and yes, he’s a creep, bully and fool. He’s been peddling this tripe of FOX for YEARS. That Bob has suddenly discovered him his reminds us how long ago Bob stopped paying any real attention to FOX and concentrated on kicking the left press.

    ReplyDelete