Skip to comments.Mark Levin's problem with Glenn Beck ( Beck is correct about mccain )
Posted on 09/26/2009 3:11:14 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
click here to read article
If you don’t think Levin can change minds, listen to this interview he had with big lib and former Obama supporter Stephen A Smith:
Please don’t compare Savage to Levin. Levin is a solid conservative. He’s been in the movement since he was a kid. He worked for Reagan to defeat Ford in 1976 and Bush in 1980. He worked in the Reagan Justice Department as Chief of Staff to Ed Meese. Levin has a very sharp mind and that is why I listen to him. I don’t think anyone can deconstruct a leftist argument on radio like he can. Not to take anything away from Rush or the others. I just think Mark is right up there.
BTW offtopic, but a friend called Hannity's show after the DC march and they screener said they only wanted to hear from liberals and hung up on him... I've heard this same thing lately on FR... to me that is a turnoff, if all Hannity wants is a fight on the air and not to impart infomation about what is going on in DC... I also have an issue with him always having the same people (Newt, etc.) as guests... JMHO ... anyway, this was a good interview and I'd like to hear more of this and less grousing about other commentators.
No, N&L completely made that up just like he did everything else he posted to me so I quit wasting my time. Mark never said he originated anything about Alinsky or Sunstein if you follow those links to his FR posts or listen to him on his radio show, they are just hysterical manifestations from N&L and others on this thread. No, I only claim what I wrote in my original post and agree with HelloooClareese's post.
I did some research and found the 70 second audio of Mark and the use of his paragraph, which apparently is too difficult for some to hear, and thought you'd be interested in listening. Either you believe Mark can recognize his original work or else he's a liar, being an officer of the court that would be a big no no.
So your argument for why he wasn’t on Geraldo defending OJ in the 90s is that he’s no fan of Geraldo, and criminal law is not his field? What, no proof?
I distinctly remember him, and am 100% certain - not just 99.9.
I am 100% certain as well. So I guess that’s all there is.
Have a happy day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.