Jan Helfeld is my hero

Apparently this journalistic genius has been interviewing politicians (and making asses out of quite a few of them) for some time now, but I hadn’t heard of him until I saw the video of his interview with Congressman Pete Stark (D-Calif).  After Stark realizes that Helfeld has made his repeated assertion that a bigger national debt means we’re a richer country (no, I’m serious, that’s really what he said) he goes Stark Raving Mad (I know I’m not the first to make this pun, but really, it’s too good to resist), drops an f-bomb on camera and threatens to throw Helfeld out a window.

I first saw the video at Hot Air, where Mad Congressman Stark had to share billing with two other leftist loonies in a post Allahpundit called “Too many Democratic congressmen behaving like jackasses for bloggers to keep up anymore.”  He got the video from Michelle Malkin, who made it a hot web property even though it’s about a year old.

Picking up on Stark’s sneering where-did-you-go-to-college-and-do-you-have-a-PhD line of defense, Smitty at The Other McCain has less than flattering things to say about “PhD weenies” so I should point out that Pete “do you have a PhD?” Stark does not, in fact, have one himself.  All he’s got is an MBA, which means that my academic credentials (a Redneck Republican blogger has a PhD???) trump his.  Being an intellectual doesn’t make you a weenie, any more than being a Republican makes you a redneck.

Being Pete Stark, however, does make you the internet laughingstock of the hour.  Fortunately for Mr. (not Dr.) Stark, the internet is a fast-paced place, and tomorrow some other jackass will have usurped his place on Memeorandum.

Comments 11

  1. smitty wrote:

    PhD weenies are, of course, only a subset of the entire ivory tower food menu. 😉

    Posted 05 Sep 2009 at 5:30 am
  2. CGHill wrote:

    My favorite example of Starkness, if you will, dates back to 2005, when Rob Schneider (!), offended by a comment by Patrick Goldstein in the Los Angeles Times about one of those Deuce Bigalow films, took out an ad in Variety to denounce Goldstein for his lack of credentials. “Disappointed, I went to the Pulitzer Prize database of past winners and nominees. I though, surely, there must be an omission. I typed in the name Patrick Goldstein and again, zippo – nada. No Pulitzer Prizes or nominations for a “Mr. Patrick Goldstein.”

    The last word, however, was had by Roger Ebert: “Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo while passing on the opportunity to participate in Million Dollar Baby, Ray, The Aviator, Sideways and Finding Neverland. As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.”

    Obviously Pete Stark knew nothing of this interchange, or he’d have kept his big yap shut.

    Posted 05 Sep 2009 at 11:54 pm
  3. Ivan Tolstoyov wrote:

    Being Pete Stark, however, does make you the internet laughingstock of the hour.

    Internet laughing stock= Liberal icon.

    Posted 07 Sep 2009 at 10:07 pm
  4. Dan wrote:

    Its funny that Republicans are once again pretending to hate deficit spending when Reagan essentially invented it and every GOP president since him has taken it to a new level. Bush II more than doubled the federal debt in only 8 years. Republican superhero Dick Cheney stated that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”

    Just fyi.

    Posted 08 Sep 2009 at 4:17 am
  5. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Lecture to somebody else, and save your snide FYIs for the truly ignorant. I’ve written numerous times about how I did not approve of deficit spending by Republicans, and you know it. I’m not having that debate again.

    Posted 08 Sep 2009 at 9:38 pm
  6. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Its funny that Republicans are once again pretending to hate deficit spending when Reagan essentially invented it and every GOP president since him has taken it to a new level. Bush II more than doubled the federal debt in only 8 years. Republican superhero Dick Cheney stated that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”

    Once again, all Dan can do is misconstrue and obfuscate Brigette’s position on excessive government spending.

    Dan, she’s told you like three times already she didn’t support Reagan’s, Bush’s (both) or a Republican congress spending more than the government took in.

    Why do you persist in pretending she supports big government spending? Honestly Dan, is the only way you can make your point is by lying about what those who oppose you have said?

    Pathetic.

    Posted 09 Sep 2009 at 9:50 pm
  7. Dan wrote:

    Brigette and the rest of the GOP support big government spending whenever they consider it in their own self-interest. The GOP considers massive corporate welfare for the defense industry in their self-interest. Brigette advocates massive unnecessary government spending to improve intersections in Santa Fe to her benefit. Same tune, different lyrics.

    Posted 09 Sep 2009 at 11:10 pm
  8. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Brigette and the rest of the GOP support big government spending whenever they consider it in their own self-interest.

    Dan,
    Brigette is not a libertarian, she isn’t opposed to all spending like they are. She believes in necessary infrastructure outlays, such as Ike’s inter-state highway system.

    I know she is opposed to all corporate welfare, and that includes all the corporate welfare that you and your “green” allies are favoring. You know, like the billions upon billions we’ve wasted in tax-breaks and direct assistance for the last 30 years to the ineffectual Solar industry? Or how about all the billions in direct subsidies we’ve given to Big Ag, who own the Democratic Congress since 2007 for their equally ineffectual and enviromentally harmful Gasohol products?

    Let’s face it, if you take away the subsidies and tax-breaks, your “alternative” energies disappear like a fart in the wind when compared to conventional petroleum products and nuclear power.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. “I’m against Corporate Welfare”.

    Posted 11 Sep 2009 at 12:36 am
  9. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Brigette advocates massive unnecessary government spending to improve intersections in Santa Fe to her benefit.

    A freeway on-ramp is neither “massive” nor “unnecessary” spending. Highways, bridges, roads, sewers, etc. are necessary infrastructure. It’s legitimate government expenditure. It’s the kind of thing our taxes are supposed to be paying for. Your constant harping about how I’m opposed to all taxes, all government, all spending is making you sound ridiculous.

    I’ve said repeatedly that we need government, that it has legitimate functions, and that it needs tax revenue to function. This does not mean that government spending needs to grow exponentially in every direction — i.e., the reckless throw-money-at-everything approach of the stimulus monstrosity.

    Posted 11 Sep 2009 at 4:25 am
  10. Dan wrote:

    Its hilarious that Bowden tries to lay agricultural subsidies at the feet of Democrats when the vast majority of congressmen from rural agricultural states are Republicans. Keep trying to blame everything in the world that you don’t like on Democrats Bowden. It makes you look so mature.

    By the way, all those solar subsidies and agricultural subisidies combined add up to about 2 months of the illegal in Iraq that you supported. Oops, so much for fiscal responsibility.

    Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 11:37 pm
  11. Bowden Russell wrote:

    By the way, all those solar subsidies and agricultural subisidies combined add up to about 2 months of the illegal in Iraq that you supported. Oops, so much for fiscal responsibility.

    Irrelevant. They are still “corporate welfare” and your party is 100% behind all of the current said welfare in the nation, especially the Military Industrial complex.

    You keep wanting to debate the past, why can’t you bother to stand and defend the present?

    Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 1:47 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *