Belling Defends Himself On Jewish Assertion, But Still Doesn't Get It

Mark Belling today on his talk radio show strongly defended himself over suggestions that his assertions about Jewish opponents to the Hilton development were somehow insensitive.

It was a pathetic, 'I'm-the-victim-here'  monologue, filled with references to his originally, parsed remarks, and with grandiose associations with national conservative talk show hosts whom Belling says repeatedly face efforts hurled their way to silence them.

I will post Belling's full remarks when his podcast becomes available.

His takeaway:

"I ain't gonna plead guilty to anything," he said, citing his long defense of Israel (note to Belling: Israel and Jewishness are not necessarily the same thing), and other pro-Jewish stands he said are part of his 22-year-long radio history.

His bottom line: Belling could not conjure up a good reason  - - as I had sought in my initial posting - - to explain why he brought some hotel opponents' religion into it, and along with that, some very old stereotypes about cabals and behind-the-scenes business string-pulling by manipulative Jews.

Richard Nixon, exhibit "A."

For Belling, what was the upside, the motive, the basis, the justification to introducing these elements into the Hilton hotel debate?