About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Levin calls Rep. Frank "a schmuck"

October 21, 2009 11:39 am ET

From the October 21 edition of Citadel Media's The Mark Levin Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Limbaugh: "[W]e all know that Barney [Frank] patrols Uranus"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by christopher howard (October 21, 2009 11:48 am ET)
      7 1
      I'm conversant in Yiddish too. Levin is a putz, which is worse than being a schmuck.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by all your eyes (October 21, 2009 11:53 am ET)
        5 5
        I wonder why MMFA bothers with schoolyard insults. There's enough substantive smearing going on without worrying about which public official is being called names.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (October 21, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
          1 5
          Agreed, this is weak.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by RKAllen (October 21, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
          7  
          I disagree. I think it is important to document whatever they can, whenever they can, regardless of how trivial that it may seem at the time. Off hand remarks today tend to become talking points and smears of the future.

          For MMfA to have a documented pattern of this is invaluable to battling the spread of misinformation. Showing the history of how a talking point evolves is vital to defending yourself against it.

          I'm not saying that Levin calling Frank, "a schmuck," will be a future talking point, but is just an addition to the pattern of Levin's behavior.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (October 21, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
          4  
          I wonder why MMFA bothers with schoolyard insults.

          Because that's the extent of M. Rotte Levin's attacks, He's an ignorant, immature man-child who needs to shut his piehole.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (October 21, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
            4  
            This is just silly. I'm giving it a big "so what?"...which should earn me a zillion thumbs downs...go ahead I'm collecting them ;-)

            Maybe Barney Frank can respond back that Levin is a poopie head & we can all get on to more important stuff.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (October 21, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
          4  
          "I wonder why MMFA bothers with schoolyard insults."


          They're just pointing out one more example of how wingnut radio/tv screamers like Levin like to "raise the level of discourse" . . .

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Lizinbklyn (October 21, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
        3  
        Sorry Chris, I just posted 'putz' too . .

        But LevinE really personifies putz, bald head and all!!

        No offense to our baldheaded gents here . . [tee, hee]
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 21, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
          3  
          I'm not bald, I have a "high, intellectual forehead."
          Report Abuse
    • Author by PurpleState (October 21, 2009 11:56 am ET)
      7  
      And you, Mr. Levin, are a dining room table.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (October 21, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
      2  
      Not exactly insightful commentary but not as bad as Limbaugh's remark re: Frank.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by usp (October 21, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
      3  
      i guess if this is all you got? if this is all that's left? let them eat the crumbs from the table.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 21, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
      6  
      O yeah MARK you are one tough dude behind that radio mike.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (October 21, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
      1 9
      This is nothing. Janeane Garofalo routinely calls people that think like me a racist teabagger. At least Levin knows somewhat what Barney Frank believes in. Garafalo doesn't know squat about what I believe in.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 21, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
        7  
        So, tell us then, what DO you believe in? Because most of the tea party protesters I've spoken with as of late have no idea what is going on, or why they're so "angry".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (October 21, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
          2 8
          I want the government to back off. Our Founders were very specific in stressing that our government should be very limited in its powers. I believe in the Founder's vision of America; one in which the individual is free to pursue his best interests as long as he doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. To take from one to give to another is diametrically opposed to the values of our Founders. I believe that the primary responsibility of our government is to provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of this country. Note that it's the General Welfare of the country not the general welfare of the individual. According to our Constitution and our Founder's intent our government has no obligation to provide anything to the people.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (October 21, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
            5  
            In other words, you're a racist teabagger. :-)
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (October 21, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
              5  
              Correct, wz. That paragraph of generalizations and paranoid delusions is exactly what the teabaggers are protesting. In other words, they're protesting nothing.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (October 21, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
                2
              Are you kidding?!?! I can't tell on the Internet sometimes. What was racist about anything I said?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (October 21, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
            3  
            So you opposed the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (October 21, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
            6  
            I want the government to back off

            Back off from what? Saving the economy? Trying to end 2 wars? What do you want them to back off from?

            To take from one to give to another is diametrically opposed to the values of our Founders

            Who's taking what from whom and what values does that oppose?

            According to our Constitution and our Founder's intent our government has no obligation to provide anything to the people.

            Which constitution are you talking about? I'm guessing you never had to take a civics class. I suggest you catch up to the rest of us. Here's some reading for you:

            http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html#
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (October 21, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
                7
              "Back off from what? Saving the economy?"

              What is so terrible with our economy that we need the government to come in on their white horse to save us? Maybe "back off" is the wrong phrase. The federal government needs to scale back its scope of operation. It's getting into places it was never intended to be.

              "Who's taking what from whom and what values does that oppose?"

              I'm referring to any tax increase on one segment or group of people or businesse in order to fund a government program that provides benefits to a separate group of people. Thomas Jefferson didn't like it. Ben Franklin didn't like it. John Adams didn't like it. I can't find a single Founder that approved of redistribution of wealth at any level.

              "Which constitution are you talking about? I'm guessing you never had to take a civics class. I suggest you catch up to the rest of us. Here's some reading for you:"

              I would suggest you read up on the Founders here and here. Enjoy your reading.


              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (October 21, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
                3  
                What is so terrible with our economy that we need the government to come in on their white horse to save us?

                Were you on a deserted island for the past few months? Apparently you missed the fact that deregulation led to rampant speculation which led to Wall Street gambling away our country's wealth. Oversight should not be scaled back.

                I can't find a single Founder that approved of redistribution of wealth at any level.

                Wealth has always been redistributed. Heck, in the past 8 years wealth has been funneled upward at such a rate that presently 90% of the country's wealth is owned by the top 1%. Any outrage over that? The pendulum is swinging back to the working man and that's better for the economy.

                It's not healthy for an economy when nobody can afford to buy anything. Remember Henry Ford? He realized that it made no sense to make all those wonderful cars if no one could afford to buy them. And it's even worse now because our economy is almost exlusively consumer-driven.

                And your links - conservativecolloquium and consource - mega fail.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (October 21, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
                    3
                  Apparently you missed the fact that deregulation led to rampant speculation which led to Wall Street gambling away our country's wealth.

                  Can you cite what regulations were abolished that led to our current economic problems?

                  Wealth has always been redistributed

                  And it's always been unconstitutional.

                  90% of the country's wealth is owned by the top 1%. Any outrage over that?

                  Source? All the figures I've seen put that number at around 40% not 90%.

                  And your links - conservativecolloquium and consource - mega fail.

                  Did you even visit them? Consource.org is simply a cite that publishes any and all literature concerning the discussion of the Constitution by our Founders. The other site simply listed quotes from our Founding Fathers. Why do you have a problem with that?
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (October 21, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
            4  
            "I want the government to back off. Our Founders were very specific in stressing that our government should be very limited in its powers." -- MagCynic



            OK -- so, I'm guessing you yelled the loudest when GW Bush disregarded enforcing laws he didn't agree with, wiretapped US citizens without warrants, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, or extraordinarily rendered and tortured anyone he suspected of being a terrorist -- right??
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (October 21, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
                6
              Don't worry about Bush. Don't worry about my beliefs towards Bush's questionable policies. The Founders made it very clear on the limits of our government. Can you honestly say the Founders would agree with the things those in Congress are thinking about doing?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mjh (October 21, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
                2  
                "Don't worry about Bush."


                Funny how wingnuts who squeal so loudly about Obama being a "dictator" -- without explaining in just what manner he is one -- are suddenly so unconcerned when Bush is brought up . . .

                Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (October 21, 2009 6:25 pm ET)
                3  
                The "Founders" laid the groundwork for our system of government. Ever think that the situation is a little different 200+ years later? I find your mind-reading of long-dead "founders" quite astounding.

                And isn't that why the "founders" established the Supreme Court in the first place, as a check on the legislature and executive branches? If anything Obama is doing is unconstitutional, well, why hasn't anyone appealed to the court?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (October 21, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
                    3
                  Ever think that the situation is a little different 200+ years later? I find your mind-reading of long-dead "founders" quite astounding.


                  This calls for some Thomas Jefferson:

                  "On every occasion…[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

                  With this one quote Jefferson lays to rest any notion of a "living" Constitution. We as a country can change the Constitution to anything we want, but we must do it through the amendment process.

                  And isn't that why the "founders" established the Supreme Court in the first place, as a check on the legislature and executive branches?


                  Yes, but to clarify we go to Alexander Hamilton:

                  [The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.


                  If anything Obama is doing is unconstitutional, well, why hasn't anyone appealed to the court?


                  I don't know. It bothers me though. I'm surprised you liberals didn't challenge Bush more often in court. You would've had many winning arguments.



                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mjh (October 22, 2009 1:16 am ET)
                    2  
                    "If anything Obama is doing is unconstitutional, well, why hasn't anyone appealed to the court?" -- foghornleghorn


                    "I don't know." -- MagCynic



                    Well, Mag, here's a possible explanation:

                    OBAMA HAS DONE NOTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL . . .
                    despite the constant screams of "dictator" by wingnut radio/teevee hosts . . .




                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MagCynic (October 22, 2009 1:36 am ET)
                        3
                      Who's calling him a dictator? I guess you're right, though. He hasn't personally done anything unconstitutional. I could argue though that signing unconstitutional bills into law is itself unconstitutional.
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (October 21, 2009 7:42 pm ET)
            3  
            Let me ask you this then.

            Who is on your back not allowing you to pursue and or do whatever it is you want to do without infringing on the rights of others? The answer would be, nobody. As a matter of fact, you, like myself, probably received a tax cut.

            Nobody is taking from one to give to another, unless you're talking about taxes, which is what we've had to do to survive as a country since our inception. The Founders imposed, GASP! yes, taxes.

            Don't you think providing for "We the People..." provides for the general welfare of the country? I think it does, and I'm pretty sure there are lots of people who think that providing for the people lifts up the general welfare of our nation, and could indeed, make us better. If the people are not well, then the country is not well either, and hence, the whole general welfare thing gets flushed. The Constitution also didn't say that only rich people should get rights, well, it did at first, but that part was changed.

            Also, we don't really know what our Founders intended for the most part, which is why the Constitution is sometimes vague, and not specific, and also, they allowed for it to be changed, because they knew, they didn't know it all, and that they were looking for the future, as in, what the country could become, and how our Constitution would have to change along with it.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 21, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
        2  
        If you define balance as having both sides about equal Fox is more balanced.
        And she's usually correct.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 21, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
          1  
          My copy and paste didn't work. The copy should have been:
          Janeane Garofalo routinely calls people that think like me a racist teabagger.
          My response remains the same.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MagCynic (October 21, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
              4
            So somehow Janeane Garofalo knows me well enough to label me a racist teabagger? That's pretty impressive.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (October 21, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
        3  
        I really think someone who has nothing more to bother them than what Janeane Garofalo thinks has a pretty easy life. Oh, wait, you vote Republican, so you're either obscenely rich or blissfully ignorant, so I repeated myself.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (October 21, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
      4  
      Levin is the worst when it comes to making up childish little nicknames for everyone he talks about. He's like a 4th grader whose parents never taught him the meaning of respecting other people.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by usp (October 21, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
        4  
        my mom would have slapped it out of him. clearly he was favored.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (October 21, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
          5  
          I'm sure that he was. His Mom was probably one of those parents who told him how special he was all of the time. Not a hard day growing up in his life I'm sure, and probably little to no discipline either, ever.

          I'm pretty sure if I acted like he does, even today as a grown man, my Mom would probably still kick the crap out of me, and she'd be right.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Lizinbklyn (October 21, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
      4  
      CONGRESSMAN FRANK: I'll double your schmuck and call you a PUTZ!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Alcove-One (October 21, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
        3
      Why is using the term "schmuck" or "Barney's Frank" as Levin does immature and over the line but the term "teabagger" used by supposedly serious news people and politicians just fine?
      Double standard?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (October 21, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
        2  
        The teabaggers called THEMSELVES that until they realized why everyone was snickering. Which was fairly hilarious.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (October 21, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
        3  
        "Why is using the term "schmuck" or "Barney's Frank" as Levin does immature and over the line but the term "teabagger" used by supposedly serious news people and politicians just fine?"



        Well, it might be due to the fact the teabaggers named themselves . . .

        [http://www.lesliebyrne.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/teabaggers.jpg]

        Besides, its just so darned cute!!


        Report Abuse