The Beck-Malkin Throwdown

March 9th, 2010 at 7:10 pm | 35 Comments |

| Print

Sharp words were exchanged this morning when conservative writer Michelle Malkin called into Glenn Beck’s radio show to rebuke him for hosting disgraced former Representative Eric Massa (D-NY)  on his show.

Malkin’s point was that Massa had been disgraced over charges of sexual harassment, and that his credibility was moot – any charges he would level on Beck’s show would be tainted by a desperate man seeking to salvage his reputation.

Obviously irritated by the criticism, Beck lashed out at Malkin.

BECK: I don’t understand you people, Michelle.

MALKIN: You people? Who are you, Ross Perot? We’re on the same side.

BECK: Are we, Michelle? Because it seems to me that the right has come out and attacked and attacked and attacked and attacked every single time. I don’t understand it.

What hypocrisy! This from the man who said that he wanted to kill Michael Moore:

I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out of [him] – is this wrong?

Listeners of Beck’s show would not be surprised about this freak-out. After, all he can’t stand criticism of any sort.

Check out this clip:

Beck is already under fire from other conservatives, like Mark Levin, who said in response to Beck’s recent CPAC speech:

I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It’s incoherent. One day it’s populist, the next it’s libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it’s conservative but not really, etc. And to what end?

Glenn Beck is slowly but surely alienating everyone around him, even those who are supposedly on ‘his side’. With the gratuitous crying; the lashing out at friendly critics; the pure vitriol heaped on opponents, even those who agree with him don’t seem to respect him.

WATCH: See the full Malkin-Beck confrontation below – it gets pretty intense:

Glenn Beck & Michelle Malkin disagree over Eric Massa
Uploaded by therightscoop. – News videos from around the world.

Recent Posts by Tim Mak

35 Comments so far ↓

  • mike farmer

    Yes, he’s practically ruined his popularity. I hear people are tuning into Olberman in droves. Mr. Mak, if you can’t understand Beck’s humor regarding Michael Moore, then you need to get out more, and if you understand it, yet contiue to misrepresent it, then you ought to be ashamed.

    You should be praising Beck if Levin and Malkin disagree with him — from your perspective it’s not like you are a strong fan of either Levin or Malkin. This is a weak attempt to smear Beck by any means at your disposal.

  • franco 2

    Mike farmer,

    You are absolutely right. This site has no real coherent ideology. They just try to smear talk radio. They are essentially bigots – elitist bigots who would really prefer there were no voters. People who listen to talk radio are stupid in their opinion.They are jealous of these people’s ratings. They can’t understand – they are sooo smart, and no one pays any attention to them. They think everything should be decided in a debate within the confines of the Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass.

    Mr. Mak and these interns spout pure drivel. This site is more guilty of pandering to tabloid sentiments than than any talk shows on the radio. Look at the headlines and photos they choose. >>>> Condoms!!! Bikinis!!! >>>Child abuse scandals!!>>>Stolen Hockey Sticks!!>>>

    Child support payments!!>>>>

  • cporet

    Hey guys, Your Kool Aid is ready.

  • sinz54

    Getting back to the main topic:

    I’m uncomfortable with putting Massa on some kind of pedestal as a martyr to the cause, as Rush Limbaugh seems to be doing. Massa is an ultra-liberal Democrat trying to find any excuse to avoid admitting wrongdoing. If he wants to go around damning the House Dems for having allegedly shafted him, that’s his business. But not with our help. In November, we’ll look worse with the voters for a blatant piece of hypocrisy and deal-making like this.

    Michelle Malkin is right about this and Glenn Beck is wrong: We conservatives should have nothing to do with Rep. Massa.

  • franco 2

    sinz54 // Mar 9, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    “putting Massa on some kind of pedestal as a martyr to the cause, as Rush Limbaugh seems to be doing.”

    He’s not.
    And all Beck did was interview him.

    People should have some facts before they make conclusions. This site isn’t too good with that – lots of spin here and misleading headlines.

  • PracticalGirl

    Beck is not my favorite, but to try to have a substantive discussion about what an entertainer chooses to do with his show is silly.

    Malkin and much of the right seem to think that there is a consistency of ideology that is the hallmark with perspective talk hosts. She should know better. Beck’s primary goal is to entertain and make money, not promote hers or anybody else’s preferred brand of conservatism. Should this concern those most concerned with promoting conservatism? Absolutely, but they should stop taking so seriously a former stand up comedian who simply changed his targets.

  • franco 2

    The clip from Beck is at least 8 months old and comes by way of MEDIA MATTERS which is a left-wing site. Guess this is why Frummers always sound like they are apologists for all things right of center.

    Beck modulates his voice and clearly he becomes angry. If you didn’t know, anger is the new verboten emotion. You also get ridiculed for being sentimental – if you are a man that is. But anger? That is really bad.

    ANGER is actually TABOO. Can’t get angry or else you are being really, well, angry. Which is VERBOTEN. You can be gossipy, you can be mean and cruel ridiculing your opponents, you can lie and mislead, you can play the victim and solicit sympathy all you want. Mostly lying and then if you opponent gets angry…that’s the new currency. Didn’t get the memo? It’s OK if you are Oberman or Dylan Rattigan…we never see clips of them here…hmmmm…

    The woman Beck was reacting to was a complete ignoramus. Obviously never listened to beck’s show. “You people never complain about bailouts” she actually said. That’s like saying Frum Forum likes talk radio personalities and thinks they should advise the GOP.

    But beyond the stupidity this woman was obnoxious because she mischaracterized Beck and her opponents (who would also include Frum and Republicans in general) as uncaring out-of -touch selfish louts. See, you can say that all you want as long as you are not angry. see? Anger = Bad. LIES half-truths, propaganda, innuendo smears, are all OK.

  • franco 2


    Why not? This site has lots of silly adornments. This is the go-to site for political gossip and gossip in general!

    They should subtitle it ” Building a Consensus through Gossip and Random Posts by Recent College Graduates, with a Canadian Bent”

  • PracticalGirl

    Franco 2,

    I’ve read your critique of the Forum here and other posts, and there are some headlines and content that I might agree with you on. But really-this Forum, just like the other 7 million political websites and blogs out there, are just another arm of the perspective media. Meat-and-potatoes for all perspective media is controversy. At least here, the writing (when it’s there) is done really well! :)

  • franco 2

    I really think they are being blatantly hypocritical and the journalism is shoddy. The writing isn’t that good generally. If Frum is trying to put himself above talk show hosts – and he IS trying to do that, he’s not helping his case, because at least these talk shows stick to politics and aren’t trying to titilate. Look at the photo with the condom story. What does that tell ya? And is that REALLY a story? Then there is this serial killer story featured. What does that have to do with anything? If Rush started talking about either of these stories, unless he had a very interesting larger point, I’d turn off the radio. It’s everywhere and it isn’t interesting how many condoms SA has. It just isn’t – it’s stupid.

  • COProgressive

    Tim quoted Mark Levin;
    “I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It’s incoherent. One day it’s populist, the next it’s libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it’s conservative but not really, etc. And to what end?”

    Levin is right. From the little I’ve seen of Beck, he has the appearance of a snakeoil salesman hawking his wares on Cable. But different than Vince Shlomi, the ShamWow guy, or Billy Mays, the dead guy, this huckster si selling nothing but BS. He’s an guy selling his mouth and anything that falls out of his mouth and into the ears of the mindless listener.

    Beck is a fraud with a shtik that sells.

    “Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid.” – Heinrich Heine      

  • kevin47

    I don’t think Beck is a fraud. He comes across as incoherent, insofar as he ascribes populism to his libertarian ideology. The libertarian view is the way to go, in many cases, not because it appeals to the working man, but because it benefits the working man in spite of himself. Libertarians usually come across as austere and condescending for this reason.

    This incident should give lie to the notion that conservative sit around waiting for one of the kingmakers to deliver marching orders. Kudos to Michelle Malkin for consistently applying her beliefs, and doing so publicly.

  • athensboy

    Beck is just a nut, anyone who has watched him knows he’s certfied crazy. The right used to love him because he attacked Obama nonstop, but now he’s even too nutty for them.Crazy rightwing loons like Beck eventually self-destruct, why is anyone surprised? I smell me some civil war among all the teaparty,and rightwing crazies.All their hatred of Obama is coming around full circle and it ain’t pretty.When you lie with dogs you get fleas, the right has embraced all the crazies and now they can’t them. Poetic justice.

  • Independent

    Well, we now have the answer to understanding the farLeft trolls and the FF writers.

    Monday is bash Sarah Palin day. (Envy and jealousy abounding by the Left)

    Tuesday is smear or slam Glenn Beck day. (The spite is literally dripping at FF)

    Wednesday is Dump on Bush Day –any Bush. (Benedict Arnold lives at FF)

    Thrusday is Let’s Frog March Rove to the Gallows day. (Hyperbole much, FF)

    Friday is random liberalness, randomly applied.

    For the FF and farLeft trolls here, Glenn Beck is a toxic mix of common-man logic butressed with easily channelled anger that creates stunning ratings the envy of every liberal who’s hated talk radio’s high efficacy.

  • franco 2

    I just love how these leftists who fancy themselves ‘free thinkers” are actually the most dogmatic drones out there. Anyone who doesn’t toe the party line and say what everyone else is saying, they label as “crazy”.

    They won’t even listen to or entertain new ideas – if only to test their own theories. No, they are AFRAID of people like Beck. He challenges their safe notions too much for them to even listen. They protect themselves by dismissing him as “crazy”.

    I listen to Beck and watch him sometimes. I haven’t made up my mind exactly about him. He makes some very good points. Right now he is educating people about the origins of Progressivism and such. He is also the only national figure who is doing real journalistic work exposing the reality that so many wish to avoid. You talk to anyone who knows what is really going on in the financial world and they do not refute Beck.

    People just don’t want to hear the bad news. They want to pretend it’s all crazy talk. I wish Beck was full of crazy talk, too. Unfortunately for us all, he’s not. He hasn’t been making stuff up. It’s all factual and it’s all verifiable ,which is why people use the “crazy” meme so they don’t have to address the facts. And by the way NO ONE HAS REFUTED ANYTHING BECK HAS CLAIMED – and he’s claimed quite a lot. Er, Van Jones IS a communist. How come Glen Beck is the only one that found out?

    I don’t agree with everything Beck says though. I also listen to Levin and Rush. Those guys have some animus towards Beck – he’s a competitor for one thing. These guys aren’t purely ideological – no one is. Second they are not happy with him lazily and perhaps self-servingly lumping Republicans in with Democrats on many issues. I agree with them on this. Sometimes Beck is unfair to Republicans. It bothers me when committed socialists like Maxine Waters or Bernie Sanders are equated with moderate or even conservative Republicans. By the way Rush and Levin are taking a similar relative position as Frum. Levin is to Beck what Frum is to Limbaugh, only in a relative ideological position not in ratings or influence of course.

    Levin and Limbaugh recognize there are statist Republicans (McCain, Bush, Frum et al) and are working to defeat them from within the two-party system. They are practical men who know that a third party is self-defeating. Beck may well be flirting with the third party model as a solution, or as market differentiation, or both. They agree more on ideology and diverge on tactics and strategy. They don’t trust him and I don’t fully either.

    A third party, while tempting ideologically would be a disaster in practice.

  • franco 2


    You got it. Self loathing Republicans and the left-wing trolls who help them feel bad about themselves.

  • sinz54

    franco 2:

    Don’t change the subject.

    On his radio program, Limbaugh pointed to Massa as someone who really knows what’s going on with the Dems and who’s telling it like it is. WRONG.

    Beck did the same thing. And he’s wrong too.

    Massa was (I’ll explain the past tense later) saying anything he could to save himself from disgrace. And some Republicans jumped on it.

    Well, now that more of Massa’s conduct has come to light, it’s clear that NO Republicans should have anything to do with him. He’s a despicable liar.

  • sinz54

    franco 2: Er, Van Jones IS a communist. How come Glen Beck is the only one that found out?
    Because much of the mainstream media fell in love with Obama (as they fell in love with John Anderson and John F. Kennedy before him), and gave Obama’s administration a free pass.

    You know that and I know that. We agree on that.

    The problem with you–and all the Republicans who think like you–is that instead of trying to find common ground with folks like me who share many but not all of your concerns–is that you constantly look for areas of disagreement, and pounce on those.

    To you, the passing grade for qualifying ideologically as a Republican is 100% agreement with its policies. Anything less dooms you to be a “RINO” and incur your wrath.

    Tell me: Do you really agree with every word, every line, and every sentence in the 2008 platform? No? Maybe you’re a “RINO” too.

    The purest political party of all is a party of one.

  • Independent

    sinz54 plays God with: “Don’t change the subject.”

    Sorry to say, sinz54, franco 2 wasn’t changing the subject… he was broadening the thread beyond the simplistic, narrow frame of reference you’d like to stay with.

    sinz54: “On his radio program, Limbaugh pointed to Massa as someone who really knows what’s going on with the Dems and who’s telling it like it is. WRONG.”

    In your rash rush to trash Rush, maybe you should try listening to the soundbites instead of creating them out of whole cloth? Limbaugh, who I don’t like at all, was saying that Massa (D-NY) was giving us an unusual insight into the inner workings of the Chicago Thug Politics game as practiced by Obama’s goons –like Rahm, Steny, Gibbs and others.

    You can scream that Limbaugh was wrong, but the claim won’t get past a simple sniff test. Massa was the guy getting poked, getting targeted, getting trashed by the WH for past political –not criminal– actions. Thug, thug, thug politics all the way around and that –sinz54– was what Limbaugh meant when he said we were getting a look inside the operations of the Democrats.

    Seems to me that the Democrats spent nearly 10 yrs preaching a false story of the GOP as the Party of Corruption and many agreed. The Massa controversy, the Louisana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Florida Flim-Flam and now the al Qaeda 7 are all potent examples of the level of corruption and debasement that fleshes out the Democrat Party.

    It’s fair for GOPers to underscore these instances of corruption and debasement… and many, many other. Thank God someone is, because if it was left up to the old MSM, these stories would be declared non-gratis like the ACORN stories were of old.

    “He’s a despicable liar.” Massa may be. When did Washington worry about the truth? And I think that charge is better saved for Obama these days –he’s the guy who is supposed to stop the buck on lying and yet he’s raised it to an art form.

  • Jeffry1

    Beck sometimes has a good message (and he cares about the origins of the nation and the vision of the Founding Fathers) but he seems to be losing it a bit. He annoys the hell out of me. Typical talk radio host.

  • Independent

    franco 2, there’s a segment within the conservative movement and some within the GOP who like to claim that the Party has to A, B or C on issues 1, 2, and 3 or else they don’t feel welcomed, don’t feel a part of the Party, the movement, whatever. And they’re justified in tossing rocks, bricks and anything else from the outside.

    sinz54 and more than a few commenters here have maintained they’re independents, they’re conservatives –and the best and most shallow one– they were ONCE GOPers but were forced out by the Party’s lurch to the far Right fringe.

    In a very real way, they are the “party of one” pushing purity tests and, even if the GOP or conservative movement adopted their pet position on their purity issue, I serously doubt if they’d put down the pitchforked keyboard and join up… and be loyal. For some, it use to be that if the Party would just drop the abortion plank… or embrace affirmative action… or spend more money on the rotting urban areas… it’d all be ok… they’d come back.

    I often think of the FF as representational of those spirited souls… absent the sometimes annoying farLeft trolls. Many here at FF want the GOP and conservative movement to change the planks that are proving most successful… or distance the Party from the anti-elites in talk radio, or stand up to the military-industrial complex and say “Win these wars by next month or we’re out of here”… or something else that would cater to their progressive impulses.

    But the truth is, they’ve grown very comfortable with being reduced to just tossing bricks instead of grabbing a missing brick and making the Party structure stronger.

    And the truth is that if Sinz54 had his way, the GOP would be a party of one… him… and I doubt, as the only member, if he’d even pay the dues.

  • DFL

    I don’t much care for either Glenn Beck(Jeff Beck is more to my liking) or Michelle Malkin. But rockemsockem boxers are great!

  • franco 2


    I just don’t understand. Massa was on record with anecdotes of Emanuell’s arm twisting tactics. Rush and Beck, along with everyone else reported it. That’s ALL Massa said, there really is nothing new here. It’s very believable, it corroborates other stories out there. Beck wanted more details, Massa clammed up. Maybe there is really nothing just generic corruption as massa says. No one is staking their reputation on him. He is a potential source of news not an ally or a champion. I don’t think your sources for news are that good especially when it comes to talk radio and what they actually *say* vs. what some wish they would say. Is Larry King a Republican for interviewing Massa too?

  • LFC

    Independent said… Seems to me that the Democrats spent nearly 10 yrs preaching a false story of the GOP as the Party of Corruption and many agreed.

    False story? Really? Let’s just stick to Congress for the moment…

    Tom DeLay
    Randy “Duke” Cunningham
    John Doolittle
    Tom Feeney
    Chris Cannon
    Bob Ney
    Rick Renzi
    Conrad Burns
    all (3) Alaskan members of Congress

    …and at the top end …

    George W. Bush / Dick Cheney and the magically “lost” e-mails and interrogation tapes

    Any questions?

    (We’ll just skip over the whole closet full of hypocritical gay bashing Republicans.)

  • LFC

    And, of course, the entire “K-Street Project” was a shining example of transparency and what’s good with government, right?

  • jabbermule

    Well, finally this site is fulfilling some of its promise, which is to be a forum to debate issues between moderates and the more ideologically conservative among us. Save for a little sprinkling of leftist rants from trolls like LFC, this has been a pretty good debate on this subject…kudos to sinz54, franco 2, Independent and others.

    We should just ignore the lefties in here who spew their anti-Bush, anti-Cheney venom (like teabag, etc) and stick to the subject between ourselves. The trolls infuriate most of us and tend to get us off-track, which is what they want.

  • franco 2


    Very good analysis and great points. I’ve know this type for years and have had it with them. There is a constellation of things that provide an incentive for these types to operate and you have been touching on them.

    In the case of politicians, I’ll use John McCain and Arlen Specter as examples. They get to distance themselves from Democrats, thus getting votes from Republicans, and distance themselves from Republicans garnering media accolades and attention. In order to justify their chronic disloyalty they get to hold themselves up as non-partisan, enlightened free-thinkers. When conservatives get angry and attack they use that to bolster their credentials with Democrats and the media.

    Ultimately, however strongly these guys try to convince us they are above the fray, there are a couple glaring problems. First, the positions these men take dovetail nicely with their own career re-election chances in every case. That’s certainly a coincidence, isn’t it, for the ‘above the fray” types. Second, they have each exposed themselves many times as not being that smart (McCain especially) and not being that principled (Specter LOL) as to warrant their status as principled “mavericks”.

    Then you have those who somehow can’t align with Democrats but are embarrassed to be Republicans like Colin Powell. Colin Powell was a military man, above average intelligence, not a genius but a good soldier. Being in the military you don’t have to be political – in fact you can’t be, so Powell was effectively apolitical for years and probably has very little grounding in political thought. These people don’t or can’t see ideological direction, they just see a panoply of issues from which they pick and choose. Powell an ex General and close to Republican administrations gravitated toward the GOP based on his experience with anti-military Democrats. All Obama had to do to get Powell was tell him he wasn’t anti-military.

    In this group is also other so-called moderate Republicans who will not be allowed to operate among the default leftists in the media and elsewhere without being shunned or else endure continual harassment. Even as declared moderates, they are constantly challenged to rebuke and distance themselves from others who share their candidate be it Bush McCain whatever, and they have to continually disavow someone like Limbaugh or whoever. Unable to confront these people on their despicable tactics (because they will be shunned) they turn to those with whom they are being smeared, and try to make them change or otherwise go away.

    These types don’t see or understand that leftists are absolutists. They believe leftists are what they say; “open minded” and “tolerant” and are simply misguided. (Actually most moderate republicans are really liberals who didn’t drink the whole tumbler of kool ade and still want free enterprise and a strong defense…JFK types.) But the new Democrats are not at all open minded or tolerant. Not at all. Moderate Republicans believe that these folks will embrace them once they see that moderate Republicans don’t want to spy in their bedrooms and whatever else. They might even think that these folks will someday vote with them for a John McCain type (not!)

    Then there are the focus group voters who, often because they know very little, hide behind one of two tropes:
    A) Both parties are bad/wrong
    or B) They each have some good ideas but they are always fighting and that’s bad.

    Coupled with this position is the conceit that they are “independent” thinkers and not swayed or loyal to any one party. This position has the most ignoramuses because they can HIDE with these positions. They also never have to make or defend an argument. This is also a typical “beauty queen” non-offensive position.

    There is an element to some of these people that is quite like the c- teasing date who makes the guy jump through hoops for her, only to leave him hot and bothered anyway. It’s just an expression of power and as soon as they commit they lose all their power, so it’s not in their interest. They are never going to vote Republican themselves, they just think that those Republicans should be “more centrist”, just like I wish more leftists would be “more centrist”.

    I think Sinz actually votes for Republicans and is one of these moderates, but most of the other trolls here are just voyeurs. And I suppose I am too. I am monitoring this site because it gives me yet another perspective – one that keeps me away from the deluded middle. And to read comments. I learn more from comments than I can cite. And thanks for yours.

  • kevin47

    “On his radio program, Limbaugh pointed to Massa as someone who really knows what’s going on with the Dems and who’s telling it like it is. WRONG.”

    Do you think that if Massa was a reliable vote on healthcare, we’d be seeing these charges? You think Barney Frank doesn’t hear all the Houseboy gossip? I think the Dems would have been willing to sweep it under the rug until the fall.

  • Independent

    jabbermule, thanks for the compliment.

    franco 2, your examples of McCain and Specter are fair. It seems like whenever a Dem or GOP moves their position on an issue toward the center –they get a pass as being bipartisan or noble or “effective” or, as you suggest, “free thinkers”. No questions on whether the move is calculated to secure votes back home… or gain some media attention… or polish their star a bit for some later inside ballpark gamesmanship. It’s noble. McCain did this over and over, was courted like a King by what appeared to be a loving, adoring media in the 2000 prez nomination campaign, continued that until 2008 and then got dropped like a lead brick when the media got their real candidate the nomination.

    When someone on the right or left dig in, draw lines in the sand or won’t budge on principle –it’s labeled “politics”. And it’s usually accompanied with that tsk-tsk look that should be reserved for playground aides lecturing sandbox kids about sharing toys. It happens here at FF and hundreds of other drive-by media outlets, day-in, day-out.

    I’m always reminding my classes that its ALL politics, all the time, that’s why they are there in Washington… to engage in politics. We didn’t elect anyone to go to Washington and become a film critic or –worse– a pundit. Politics is the oil that makes govt work; been that way since the Greeks first practiced democracy.

  • Independent

    LFC, I don’t doubt you’d miss almost any qualification on any statement if it helped you lash out at your superior.

    But the word was “falsely”. False as if to suggest the GOP was the only party engaged in corruption. We now know that Democrats were using SEIU and ACORN to engage in voter fraud and electoral corruption. We now know that several Dems were as corrupt and ethically challenged as the worst GOPer who was caught (see Barney Frank, see Charlie Rangel, see Wm Jefferson, see Bill Clinton –and I’ll leave off all those NJ Dems and local Dems caught mired in corruption).

    The charge of corruption is one that is best laid on both parties –and it was a charge that Nancy Pelosi often made in her rush to the Speaker’s Chair. That’s why the Dem’s charges for 10+ yrs were false… compare all of that corruption plus the corruption Nancy Pelosi has brought to bear against the Bush Administration –which was the most ethical and prudent administrations ever.

  • LFC

    which was the most ethical and prudent administrations ever.

    This HAS to be GOPProud. He’s the only one who said things that dumb.

  • Independent

    LFC, if your standard is Bill Clinton, the impeached, disbarred ex-president, Bush had one of the most ethical and prudent Administrations. If your standard is indicted senior officials… I’m guessing that Slick Willy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, Jimmy Carter’s and Dick Nixon’s would exceed the Bush record by a far, far pace.

    Of course, the truth is that you have no standard –just the gut feeling of a partisan apologist.

    Despite what the farLeft trolls here like to advance in the vacuum of their echo chamber, neither Bush nor Cheney were as close to being indicted by anyone as their Democrat predecessors –Slick Willy and his cheatin’ wife– were.

    Granted, with the Clintons as the benchmark of ethical conduct inside the WH, proably anyone can above their standard. Except, probably, Obama; he has such promise.

  • kevin47

    “I think the Dems would have been willing to sweep it under the rug until the fall.”

    And… I called that one.

  • franco 2

    Absolutely kevin47 you called that. Not to take anything away from your powers of prediction but, in light of Democrats craven desperation and their record of corruption, this is minor.

    Something is wrong with our system when guys like this get elected and fly under the radar. He’s positively weird. Washington is a magnet for them.

  • Independent

    kevin 47, franco 2: the democrats did try to sweep it under the rug for quite a while… from the very beginning when Massa made his first run for the House (and lost), former Navy peers and shipmates of Massa’s approached one of the House leadership’s major players with a reputation of decency, Dale Kildee of Michigan, and told his CofS that Massa had a problem with sexual harassment of men and subordinates.

    I guess when the Party elevates a president –who is himself a legendary serial sexual abuser of subordinates and vulnerable women– to the position of “Party Statesman”, it’s kind of hard to see the problem in yet another democrat? Leaving aside the sexual misprisons of all the Kennedys and their extended clan on vulnerable women and male subordinates.

    The democrats indeed have been sweeping Massa’s reputation and record under the rug for a long time and I don’t doubt for a second that a Chicago Thug like Rahm Emanuel probably tried to use outing Massa in order to coerce a vote out of him.