Levin also whined about how awful and cowardly Glenn Beck was for plugging "Liberal Fascism" and "The Forgotten Man" and similar books instead of his [Levin's] book. And this was after his book outsold all of the non-fiction books that Glenn was reading and pushing on his show. He claimed that Glenn was afraid of the competition and that was why he wouldn't mention Levin's book.
This is just more of the same. Fox host plugs Fox host. It's business not a conspiracy. Mark's good on a lot of issues, but his rabid insecurities about his rankings as a conservative talk show host circles get annoying. I can listen to highlights from his show, but 3 hours? Can't do it. Alex Jones takes himself less seriously than Levin.
Just for the record, let me say that I watch Beck alot here on rightscoop,com, I listen to Levin on my way home from work, and I watch O'Reilly at home. I like all three of them for different reasons. However, I too agree with some of the posts here in that "commentators" like Beck, O'Reilly, Levin, Hannity, Rush, etc. should ALL STOP bashing the other guy. I would even go so far as to say leave people like Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, and all the others alone too. Just tell me what you need to tell me and ignore ALL the others. I for one don't care what any of them say about any of the others. I wish they wouldn't either.
Levin is brilliant, but his attitude and the way he presents himself is almost identical to Ed Shultz. Half of his time is spent attacking and the other half is spent whining. Like others have said, I'm glad he doesn't have his own television show because he absolutely would be damaging the conservative movement as a whole. He has a very obvious elitist streak running right through him. A lot of us do, but some of us are better at hiding it.
So why is Levin so desperate for O'Reilly's affirmation? He says he doesn't care if he gives him credit or not, but in the same breath is pissed off that he didn't.
He put Van Sustren on because she's part of the network, it's what they do; it's a professional courtesy. Levin and Greta both hard interviews and covered most of the same points. To quote O'Reilly "Any fair minded person..." could see this whole thing stinks.
I respect Levin but this segment just makes him sound petty.
They're all insanely jealous each other--all of them except Beck who will give credit where credit is due.
I swear Levin is what Savage is now, just a little younger. As for BOR and ML- I could care less if they both fought to the death. Levin is a crybaby from what I've seen and he is starved for attention. Almost every post I see of this guy it's him attacking and complaining, followed up by some talking about how great he is. At least that's the impression this guy has given me in almost every instance I've heard him.
This is an easy one. I'm a huge fan of Mark Levin, but he has a habit of attacking other conservative pundits. He routinely criticizes O'Reilly and Beck --- especially Beck. I'm sure Beck would've had him on to talk about Liberty and Tyranny if Mark wasn't constantly criticizing him. The same goes for O'Reilly. At the end of the day Mark should remember that we're all on the same team.
Why shouldn't he challenge other conservatives? We need to watch one another's backsides and the best way to do that is to challenge each other. It keeps everyone honest. Why shouldn't we call each other out? We can agree to disagree, and we need to know where we disagree with one another. For instance, I'm not an anarchists. I think agencies, such as the FDA for example, are needed. If anything to insure I'm not buying snake oil thinking it's pepto. Some agencies need to abolished outright, some need to be downsized, some just need better oversight. But we need to challenge each other, especially now, so that the best ideas are enacted, not just some commentator's pet theories.
Stossel actually had a pretty good solution to the FDA monopoly problem and yes, the FDA monopoly definitely is a problem which I would love to see dealt with being one of the main reasons why healthcare and drugs cost so much in the first place.
Why not allow the FDA to be kind of like the Better Business Bureau and have it to where if a company wants to be endorsed by them, then let them spend the money to test and charge more while emerging companies can just put a disclaimer on their deals and let consumers make their own informed decisions on the drugs they take?
The big problem with FDA is that it's not doing its job, dangerous drugs are still coming onto the market. That was it's mandate, along with keeping the food supply sanitary. But now it's using it's regulatory powers to control the market, and we as consumers are getting screwed. A BBB wouldn't stop that, and consumers still wouldn't be able to trust the safety of their medication. The answer is going to be much more complicated, but I believe there is one that will lower costs and guarantee safety.
Isn't it ironic that Mark went down this road while he himself seems 'afraid' to mention 'Mr. 5 o'clock' or give him any credit whatsoever?
oh the 8pm'er, what an effing joke this guy is... such a blow-hard jerk... he's just a "populist boob" anyways, pay no mind mr. levin, he's probably just mad at you because you won't mention him by name, what a little baby. we know full well who/what he is and expect nothing more of him as he is incapable of being anything more than what he already is...