Jen Kuznicki
Mark Levin linked to a story in the Atlantic about what former Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, reads on a daily basis. She cited a number of progressive and liberal columnists, as well as liberal journalists and news outlets. But, she also had to tell all of us how she hates Rush and Mark Levin.
“If I had to name people I don’t like, I’d say Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin. It’s that breed of real toxic-spewers who are really damaging to our discourse. I’d be embarrassed to have my mom or dad listen to them. I don’t think they shouldn’t be on the radio but when the rhetoric inflames and exaggerates to the point of lacking integrity, that bothers me.”
Mark Levin reacted,
Aw Jennifer, the feeling is mutual… fb.me/1Iix5u6tF
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 20, 2012
Heh, heh.
I live in Michigan, and can talk for hours about how exactly Jennifer Granholm screwed over this beautiful State for many years to come. And, of course it is because of her leftist ideology that she obviously practices on a daily basis. The easiest way I can think of to persuade the reader that her ideology is the problem is simply to take what she said and translate it. Hey, we lived with her for eight years, Michiganders know her.
“If I had to name people I don’t like, I’d say Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin.”
The easiest target is Rush Limbaugh. A heavy-set cuddly teddy bear of a guy who is wildly popular in America. She isn’t really targeting Rush though, she just used his name because it’s a house-hold name. Because he’s wildly popular…because America is conservative.
Granholm doesn’t like any conservatives especially Palin. See, Jennifer used to be a female Governor when Sarah Palin was getting all the attention. Stay with me here, I’m trying to help you understand how liberal women think. She went so far as to say that Palin was getting all the attention, not because her ideas are popular with the American people, or because her ideas are common sense, but because Palin is very pretty.
Don’t underestimate how the basic female “she’s prettier than me” lament is at play here. Granholm, always teased about her facial moles has had them removed for her new TV show on a channel no one has heard of. In the photo used for the Atlantic article, Granholm is shown mole-free in a blue shirt up against a brick wall.
A brick wall, just like the State of Michigan encountered in about 2009. That reminds me, I have remember to ask David Limbaugh if he would change his twitter pic.
Jennifer’s target is Mark Levin, and I think I know why.
When Granholm was swinging the axe on the last few sectors of growth in Michigan, Supreme Court Justice Stevens was announcing his retirement. Granholm was on the short list of replacements, but Obama nominated Elena Kagan instead. Kagan must be a genius or something, according to Granholm’s logic, because she’s nothing whatsoever to look at.
So Granholm was passed over and was named to Obama’s Economic Team, (I’m not making this up) and got a neat amount of money to teach at Berkeley. She was born in Canada, so she can’t be a VP nominee, but there are going to be openings on the Supreme Court in the next four years, and since there are no requirements save Senate confirmation for Supreme Court Justice, she may just end up on the short list again.
Since Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation has filed one of the key briefs in the Obamacare SCOTUS argument, Granholm mentions Mark Levin as a direct swipe at his “meddling” in the progressive takeover of the nation. Jennifer is if anything, a fantastic team player.
Now that Granholm is officially media, like Palin and Levin and Limbaugh, she feels empowered to chime in what she thinks about these people.
So can I, Jen:) Back to translating…
“It’s that breed of real toxic-spewers who are really damaging to our discourse. I’d be embarrassed to have my mom or dad listen to them.”
Notice she said “breed.” As if understanding of freedom and liberty and the enlightened foundation of this nation contitutes some sort of strange breed of people she cannot fathom. It doesn’t take deep thought to be a progressive/liberal, on the other hand, it takes an open mind and love of nature and humanity to be a constitutional conservative. If being a constitutional conservative is a vile “breed” that needs to be rubbed out of public discourse, what does that make Jennifer Granholm?
Notice she thinks she has the power to control what her parents listen to. Control is a tendency of progressives and liberals. She said she would be embarrassed to “have” her parents listen to constitutional conservatives. Are her parents still in Canada? Maybe they do listen, has she asked them?
Control and describing people who have a certain love of country as a “breed,” are some of the reasons Jennifer Granholm reads what she does and who she is ideologically. Socialists, progressivists, National Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Fascists, are all about control, concern for people’s thoughts, their individuality, and setting people against one another.
She is exactly what Mark Levin describes in Ameritopia as a “mastermind” who, in order to rule over people, would control freedoms and limit liberty. Her ideology is foreign to our nation, and thankfully, unpopular.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
26 Responses to Jennifer Granholm’s swipe at Mark Levin isn’t about his ideology, but hers.
My Tweets
Follow Me On The Web!
Liberals like to put people into their little categories. When she said "breed of people"…she put conservatives into the evil bin.
Below her name in this column, her title is "Conservative Writer." WHAT?!!!! There's nothing conservative about her!! It surely must be a typo, MS. Jennifer.
I stand with Mark Levin and the Honorable Sarah Palin!!!!! Lets roll people!
To quote Bob Beckel,
Penny Jenny, "You don't know WTF your talking about".
Thanks, Jen! As a fellow conservative Michigander (Michiganian?), I concur completely. Got here via tweet from Mark Levin, the great one himself!
TGO is the best!
Governor, what is being spewed is anything but toxic.
It, however, is uncivil … and for good reason. After years of field observations, we have determined that civility in response to Progressive intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive to the defense of liberty.
Governor, you are used to not being faced with determined opponents who are working to curb such dishonesty in our public discourse. Well, things have changed … as we saw this week with the "dog-fights" in the media, Alinsky and comedy now cut both ways.
And understand this … the reason that Mr. Limbaugh, Dr. Levin, Governor Palin, and even Mrs. Kuznicki here, have the popularity you seem to envy, is not because of their looks, or that they are some sort of Pied Pipers … they have the following that they do, because they give a public voice to what MILLIONS have ALREADY figured out FOR THEMSELVES, before they ever spoke it … yet is ignored by our supposedly Best and Brightest, in favor of ideas that have failed repeatedly when implemented as policy.
We are here. Get used to it.
We'll stop the yellin' … when y'all stop the lyin' …
Thanks for the 'talking points'! We're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!!!
By the way I enjoy you article,but yes there is a but;Where do you get that the next President will have the oppunity to nominate 3 supreme court justices? I know of one and that's Justice Ginsburg might retrired,but Kennedy is not going to step down or either is Scalia so where are you getting this information?
I didn't write 3.
I have nothing to add, but wanted to be the first to comment. Dittos.
Coming from a nation that has no first or second amendment rights, she really can't be expected to understand the United
States, can she?
Toxic is what years of Democrat rule has done to Michigan, that's toxic!
Amen, look at Detroit alone.
She is disgusting beyond belief. When I read that she had an affair with the father of Kwame Kilpatrick, convicted felon and former mayor of Detroit, it all spelled Marxist Democrat.
I'll have to take a better look next time JG is on Meet the Press and see if I can see the remnants of those past 'facial moles.' Interesting. I wonder if she eats dogs too.
Anyway, I like your take down of JG. She has always struck me as someone who wants to run other peoples lives. The more ridicule we can heap on people like her, the sooner they will crack. It has been going the other way around for too long. That is why Mark Levin, 'Jim' 'Treacher', Rush, Sarah are so hated – they are our warriors. But with Andrew Breitbart's early passing: We Are Breitbart!
The thing that gets me is how closed off progressives are nowadays. I wouldn't feel ashamed if my mom and dad listened to her or Maddow. Seriously, if Levin or Limbaugh are the toxic, obnoxious people she makes them out to be, then why not let them be exposed? The real issue seems to be that she dislikes them because they are successful and her only defense concerning her own failures are to silence her opponents. It's almost like she is the epitome of all progressives!
Excellent point ATL!
Like all Libs, she lives in a world of fantasy! Libs will never see the light and will always spin the truth, you know LIE to make themselves look good in their make believe world!
Yes she messed up Michigan and then left. Why didn't she stay and enjoy all that she provided for us here in Michigan. She said she would blow us away and she did… but not in the way she implied.
Governor Granholm was the best governor we had. We need her back.
Thank God for term limits.
Yes, yes, she certainly was! If it wasn't for her, how could we possibly be this blown away by now?
What you have pointed out is that socialism is not for the people; it is for the socialists.
American progressives constantly decry that the gap between the very wealthy and the poorest is largest when capitalism and free markets are unregulated. And of course that is true because liberty and inequality are directly proportional while freedom and equality are indirectly proportional. The lack of liberty creates equality in misery. No matter how wealthy a corporation or an individual becomes his wealth often spawns more trickle down wealth and prosperity and yet while the gap grows the bottom also rises; yet socialists (fabian or otherwise) always like to take out the top even at the expense of the bottom. Gee, did not Lincoln state a belief that a poor man cannot be made wealthy by making a rich man poor. And Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln (and Reagan). Recall Obama's understanding in 2008 that the reduction in capital gains results in more federal revenues but he would not support such a tax code because it was not fair. What is even more disturbing is that Romney also supported increasing capital gains among the wealthiest. Why? Because they can afford it or because he is unable to articulate conservatism? BTW this reflects what many capitalists unwittingly ascribe to and requires that they play class warfare against themselves. Now a true conservative, unlike Romney, would never treat any class unequally because of "natural law", because he really lacks such authority and therefore would not support raising capital gains taxes even if it decreased federal revenue.
So what is the difference between Obama and Romney? Both do not understand conservatism yet Romney practices conservatism when it comes to his personal gain and strangely so does Obama, Buffett, Pelosi, Soros and a multitude of others that wish to spread the wealth of others that don't have as much to go around as these proponents do. This is a very old concept. It is tribal. It is nepotistic. It is fascist. It is crony capitalism. It is socialism designed for the wealthy. What is especially disturbing is that the reddest of states, Kansas, with a republican governor and republican House and Senate, a veritable republican trifecta, recently voted to mandate that medical insurance companies cover children with autism. More central control based upon coercive altruism, albeit with an understanding of the 10th Amendment, but sorely lacking any comprehension of Burkian freedom and individualism. Are these the same people who despise ObamaCare and critique Romney for what he did in MA?
What we all know is that conservatives can take a lot of political heat and still remain steadfast in their beliefs while pseudo conservatives often fall by the wayside and institute policies that only their opponents would support pre-election. What I fear most this coming election cycle is not Obama but Romney. We know he will be better than Obama but post election will come the real struggle, within the republican party, to teach Romney, as we (conservatives) monitor his every move, to not let him stray and prevent him from further institutionalizing central control policies. Should we and he fail, so does the nation as he goes the way of Sarkozy.
Actually task, I've been thinking that it will be fun to teach the Republican party.