Mark Levin On Dreher, Frum And Friedersdorf
Friend and radio host Mark Levin and I had an opportunity to discuss Rod Dreher's criticism of him a bit over the weekend. The latest chapter in that debate between Conor Friedersdorf and myself is here. The commentary below from Mark was unsolicited and he requested that I post it when he sent it along. I've not had a guest blogger in five years. I can think of few people I'd be more happy to oblige with a first guest post, of sorts.
_______
Every now and then I have to lower myself to deal with the undeveloped minds of kooks like Rod Dreher. I don't know Dreher and as best I can tell, most nobody does. He has a column for a Dallas newspaper and created his own blog site, from where he writes love letters to himself and wonders why his brilliance is lost on the multitudes (while, of course, claiming to represent them and speak for them).
Rod learned of me, he says, from his friend Conor Friedersdorf. Honestly, who is Conor Friedersdorf? Well, after about 90 seconds of googling, I found out that Conor is (or was) a journalist and is (or was) a student and he blogs too. So, it appears that Rod and Connor are cyberspace pen pals of a sort.
Now, apparently Rod learned from Conor, who just happened upon 15 minutes of my radio show, that I said something that was so disgusting and controversial that it merited their immediate commentary. As Rod put it:
Conor Friedersdorf listened to a Levin bit the other day, in which the radio talker had the following exchange:
MARK LEVIN: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?
CALLER: Yes.
MARK LEVIN: Well I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.
This is the same Mark Levin whose book is a huge bestseller. A cretin who would say something like this on his radio show is a big deal among a lot of conservatives. Good grief. Having spent about 15 unpleasant minutes listening to this creep, I cannot imagine why anybody pays attention to him. Seriously, where is the pleasure in listening to this kind of trashmouth? If I were on the left, I would make sure that people thought that Mark Levin was the face of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Oh my. How brutish of me.
You would have thought I had spent the last 25 years befriending the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, or had driven the car that ended Mary Jo Kopechne's life. But no, those are the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Anyway, back to Rod. I did a little more googling and found this on wikipedia (I know, wikipedia is unreliable, but then again, so is Rod, consider):
In 2002, Dreher wrote an essay in National Review that explored a subcategory of American conservatism he defined as "granola conservatism", whose adherents he described as "crunchy cons". He defined these individuals as traditionalist conservatives who believed in environmental conservation, frugal living, and the preservation of traditional family values. They also express skepticism about aspects of free market capitalism and they are usually religious (typically traditionalist Roman Catholics or conservative Protestants). Four years later, Dreher published a book that expanded upon the themes of this manifesto. This book was Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, Gun-Loving Organic Gardeners, Evangelical Free-Range Farmers, Hip Home schooling Mamas, Right-Wing Nature Lovers, and Their Diverse Tribe of Countercultural Conservatives Plan to Save America (or At Least the Republican Party).[4]
Dreher is working on another book with a new theme. He has said on his blog that it will center on "the Benedict Option", the idea that those who want to live with traditional morality should separate themselves to some degree from mainstream society and try to live in intentional communities or other subcultures.
I think "the Benedict Option" would be good for Rod. Will he be blogging from Drehertown? Will Drehertown segregate itself from the Internet and talk radio, so as not to be polluted by the rest of us? Now, this will have broad appeal with the American people, don't you think? This is the way back for the GOP and conservatism — "the Benedict Option." Rod is a self-deluded kook. He is also thin-skinned, like so many of the kooks with God-complexes and a keyboard.
As I study the genius that is Rod and the wisdom of his words in his post about me, I am stunned that a leader of our party and our movement such as Rod would lower himself to use such shock-jock language as "shrill crackpot," a "cretin," and a "creep." Come now, Rod, we need to raise the level of debate if we are to take back power.
In his second post on this huge subject, Rod wonders, among other things, "Think about what WFB would say about Levin's rhetoric. I bet he'd be embarrassed by the low-class schlock of it all." Well, Rod, WFB is a hero to all sound-thinking conservatives. But I do recall an exchange between Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley in which Buckley called Vidal a "queer." Maybe Rod missed it while doing his vast research for his post about me. Well, here it is. http://www.kronykronicle.com/1968/BV4.html Buckley was a brilliant and complex man, unlike Rod. He was also a fighter who knew his adversaries, unlike Rod. It was certainly wrong and offensive for Buckley to say what he did; yet Rod intones Buckley to admonish me. He wants readers to think Buckley would stand with him and against me. How cheap and pathetic.
After Rod wrote his post about me on his website, he solicited comments from the common man (who he represents, of course) asking whether they agreed with his take on me. Well, apparently they did not. But Rod wasn't about to tolerate that. So, he applied his "Benedict Option" and began selectively editing them. Eventually he cut them off altogether. Something tells me Drehertown won't be a very open and democratic place. Ah, if only Rod were a host of his own radio show. Then he could give these people what for.
And while Rod represents the future of conservatism (just ask him), he doesn't understand my appeal. I mean, he listened to 15 minutes of my radio show and he just doesn't get it. No, Rod doesn't get it and he never will. He's just not that smart or interesting. Rod says he knows I have a "huge best selling book" but he doesn't know why. Of course, he gives no indication of ever having read it. Rod is supposedly unaware that for many years we posted articles and comments on the same website (nationalreview.com). So, a geek who spends most of his days and nights on the Internet doesn't know I am a contributing editor to National Review? Oh the pain of it all.
Now, if I might, on to David Frum. What does Frum have to do with any of this, you ask? David has never recovered from my drubbing him on my radio show, or should I say the drubbing he gave himself. He immediately went crying to Newsweek, MSNBC, various broadcast networks, etc., to complain about the low state of conservatism. If only the rest of us would embrace the "true reformers" (you know, in addition to Frum, David Brooks and Ross Douthat, among others), we would be so much the better. Dare I say if they were intellectually coherent and consistent, not to mention principled, it might be easier to understand them. But they are, with a few exceptions, ineffective lightweights who shoot spitballs at conservatives from the backbenches. This is precisely why the media promote them during their little hissy fits.
Well, David happened upon Rod's post about me and, of course, he was deeply disturbed by my exchange with the caller. Now, this would be the same David Frum who hawks himself and his irrelevant books (yes, another unsuccessful author by another of our leader wanna-bes) on Bill Maher's show and the Daily Show. Somehow David has a high tolerance level for the endless vulgarity and ridicule these hosts viciously and personally unleash against prominent conservatives and Republicans. So, too, do liberals and Democrats. With Maher's and Stewart's "f" bombs falling all around him, David enjoys the attention he so craves but does not get from conservatives. And this character flaw is only part of the reason why David is so contemptible. He is a self-serving hypocrite who seeks not the advancement of conservatism but himself. Always concerned about the tone of the debate, here, in part, is what he wrote about Rush Limbaugh:
With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence.
How Bill Maher of David.
I may have more to say. If I do, at least for now I will save it for the radio.
– Mark Levin
I don’t always agree with Rod, but I’ll defend him here.
He says in the comments, “My complaint is not with what Levin believes; it’s with the way he presents himself.”
I love the NRO Levin, I have my own copy of L&T, and I admire him greatly. Still, I can’t listen to his radio show, though I am a Rush enthusiast (a 24/7 subscriber since it was available, and a listener since I was 12 — a “Rush baby”). I can understand how some find him caustic, and though I am a deeply conservative woman, I’m turned off by the comment Levin made. Mark Levin’s ratings seem to be great, and I am supportive of that; I wouldn’t, however, play his show for a moderate friend who I am trying to convert to the conservative cause (something I’m always trying to do). I think Rod has a point, here, although I don’t always agree with the way he goes about making it.
Give me a break. Mark is the real deal…true Patriot, American traditionalist and pure honesty pours from this Mans mouth to our ears.
Because some of the stupid people have pc written all over their thoughts and lives does not excuse them for no sense of humor.
Lets get on with it Mark…..ignore this creep and ones like him and this comment I am responding to, and keep up the informative honest streaming of news, liberals ruining our Country and our World as well as your funny and sentimental stories of our furry ones…(dogs). I am forever your biggest fan! Thank you and don’t ever have a second thought about what you say and do!
Rod’s point, as I recall it, was that the Right should shun Levin. It doesn’t seem to me to be the same thing you are saying at all.
Does Mr Levin actually except to influence folks with that boring old tu quoque tripe? Or even the even the 4 year old’s game, “You think I’m bad? Well look over there at that guy!”? I had never heard of him before this whole foofarah and I was happy to see him given a chance to defend himself, but no, one of the supposed most brilliant minds in conservatism gives us personal attacks and fallacies that would fail in 7th grade English. We live in a strange world where clowns are thought philosophers.
No personal attacks from Mark, just the facts.
Always just the facts. The problem is, Libs can’t take the facts, so they whine…just the way it is…just saying
Mark,
I notice that you don’t address the substantive criticisms that I make, instead merely pointing out that I am not very well known. Of course, my fame isn’t relevant to the flaws in your rhetoric. The fact that you’re unwilling to defend yourself on substance leads me to believe that you’re unable to do so.
You write, “Oh my. How brutish of me. You would have thought I had spent the last 25 years befriending the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, or had driven the car that ended Mary Jo Kopechne’s life. But no, those are the leaders of the Democratic Party.”
Of course, the fact that Democratic Party leaders have behaved badly is irrelevant to the question of whether or not you’ve behaved badly.
The balance of your post is mostly ad hominem attacks against Mr. Dreher. I realize that is your comparative advantage in arguments, and that it serves you well on your radio show, but it sure looks thin in print, where you can’t rely on the volume of your voice and your control of the medium to win arguments.
I am game to debate you on substance anywhere in print. Are you confident enough to take me up on that challenge? Or is your only defense a rambling, largely irrelevant post that substitutes criticism of others for standing behind your words?
You are small compared to the great Dr. Levin. If you really want to challenge him and his great wit, call his show…I am sure we would all love to hear what your whining consists of…void of fact of course, but that is expected.
Oh Coner, with one N, he did address your “substantive criticisms”. You just didn’t get it, it went over your head. That is funny..
That was very funny. Reminds me of what Winston Churchill said
Nancy Astor: “Sir, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.”
Churchill: “If I were your husband I would take it.”
Actually, Kat, he did not address my criticisms, as you’ll see if you take the time to read my post.
I think Mark Levin is a great writer and I purchased both Men In Black and Liberty and Tyranny. I also think David Frum and Rod Dreher contribute to the conservative argument usefully. But Mark’s radio show is off putting. He calls people names for no good reason. In response he notes one use of the word “queer” by Bill Buckley 40 years ago. Mark is a lawyer and a very good one. He would never use the language and name calling he uses on his show to persuade a judge or a jury. The criticism is that he is channeling an unfunny Don Rickles, not that he is not conservative or bright. I also think it funny that he asks who the people are who are criticizing him. Some have labored in the conservative vinyards a very long time, others are looking at why conservatives are not where they once were politically. Ronald Reagan did not name call the way Levin does yet he was on radio for years and got his start there. Rush does not call people names by and large. Frum goes on liberal shows to move people not in his camp. That is how political ideas grow. Not by preaching to the choir with increasingly mean and rotten language.
I count myself as having legitimate conservative credentials, having served as the president of a national pro-life organization, helped found several state and local ones, attended YAF conferences, spoken at C-PAC, and taught at LI.
I also count myself as having left the conservative movement in part over the absence of any substantial conversations occurring outside of the “entertainment” genre. So dumb “jokes” about telling a woman her husband should shoot himself is entertainment that ought not be criticized for their content? Fine, then neither should lame jokes about Rush being killed, the Daily Show, etc. Fair is fair, and if you’re going to deal it then you ought to take it. But if you’re going to criticize folks for calling you out, then you ought not call out those who are doing the same thing on the other side of the aisle.
Judging from the length of Levin’s “defense” and its excessively vitriolic tone, it sounds like Dreher must have hit a nerve. All Levin did is convince me that Dreher’s criticism was probably right on the mark. And Friedersdorf added the final nails.
Oh, my God, I am out of breath with laughter. Thank you for posting this! As a huge, huge Levin fan (radio show and books), it gives me great glee to read Mark’s eloquence as he dismembers and scatters the narcissistic body parts of faux conservatives like Dreher, Frum, Brooks, etc. (Conor, I neither know or care who the flip you are, and obviously neither does Mark.) Dreher for me became a utter laughingstock in 2002 with that Crunchy Con crap. I fit some of the profile and even I was appalled. An idiot can see through Dreher to his real agenda. He’s actually an ideological cousin of Colin Powell and that’s no compliment.
At a 4,000-strong Tea Party in Fishkill, NY on Tax Day, one of the hot topics of conversation was Mark Levin, since his book had just come out. Everyone loves him. I have yet to meet a conservative who doesn’t. At least one attendee had Mark’s bookcover prominently displayed on his poster. The man is a saint on the right. Complaining about the “vitriol” of a conservative while the Left on cable news shows runs amok and skirts obscenity and torture laws (it is pure torture watching CNN and the White House/Overbite network) is hypocrisy at its finest and a double standard of mammoth proportions. Real conservatives don’t whine about vitriol. The only way to beat the enemy is to get down in the muck with him – whether he’s an Islamofascist or a Vichy Republican (thank you Erick Erickson) or a filthy, lying Democrat. Mark doesn’t back down from a fight, he drives the Left insane, and he is head and shoulders the intellectual superior of any single person on the Left I can think of. He has taught me how to go to battle against the enemy.
God, I love Mark Levin. Thanks, Dan – best post I’ve read all day (except Erick’s Vichy Republican post).
“Real conservatives don’t whine about vitriol. The only way to beat the enemy is to get down in the muck with him – whether he’s an Islamofascist or a Vichy Republican (thank you Erick Erickson) or a filthy, lying Democrat.”
“The enemy?” You’re talking about your fellow Americans on Memorial Day, dear. Even “filthy, lying Democrats” have given and will continue to give their lives for this country. You dishonor their sacrifices with your “vitriol.”
All of you pseudo-conservatives make me sick. Not one of you is qualified to wash Mark Levin’s car. Not one of you is intelligent enough to get what Mark does and why. I am so sick to death of liberal elitists who masquerade as thoughtful and decent conservatives who just want to advance the conservative cause by being nice to others of your kind like Maher and Stewart. I don’t want Mark being nice to liberals and if you have noticed, the Huffington Post and Daily Kos make Mark Levin look like a choir boy. Please don’t call yourself conservative! You are not welcome in the conservative movement.
Thoughtful readers should see from Peg’s comment why Mr. Levin’s approach to discourse is so destructive to the right. As she states, “He has taught me how to go to battle against the enemy.” In other words, Mr. Levin has convinced Peg that Democrats are enemies of America — worthy of being lumped in with Islamofascists! — that they are best fought by vitriol as opposed to reason, and that anything a conservative does is beyond reproach so long as there is a liberal out there behaving badly.
It is striking how frequently that last argument comes up. It amounts to a kind of moral relativism — “nothing I do warrants criticism so long as what my political opponents do is relatively worse.”
I wonder, Peg, if you can enlighten us as to what Rod Dreher’s “real agenda” is? I’m pretty sure he’s a Christian conservative who believes everything he writes in Crunchy Con. It’s also worth pointing out that Colin Powell and Rod Dreher aren’t particularly alike in their beliefs.
If this is the best defense of Mr. Levin, he is faring even worse in this exchange than I formerly thought.
Craig,
Fortunately for the conservative movement, you aren’t the arbiter of who gets to belong. Also, as a native Californian I am pretty good at washing cars. Unless Mr. Levin has an exotic model I’m pretty sure I could get it clean just fine.
I agree that there is sometimes objectionable content on The Huffington Post and Daily Kos. But that hardly excuses Mr. Levin telling a woman he doesn’t even know that her husband should put a gun to his head and pull the trigger rather than stay married to her.
Since you claim to be the only one among us intelligent enough to understand what Mark Levin is doing and why, could you explain it to the rest of us?
There are a few things worse than a “man” who whines, but not many.
But Conor, that doesn’t matter… it’s all entertainment, after all.
Mr. Levine has a style that Conor Friedersdorf (that’s Conor with one n)doesn’t like. It’s rather obvious that not everyone likes everyone elses style but what about the ideas put forth? I have more of an argument with Mr. Friedersdorf’s ideas than Mr. Levine’s.
Vince,
What are your arguments with my ideas? As far as I can tell, I’m making a rather narrow case against hateful rhetoric. But if you’ve got an objection or counterargument to anything I’ve written, here or elsewhere, I’d be happy to consider it with an open mind, and grapple with your objections as best I can.
Conor asks: “I am game to debate you on substance anywhere in print. Are you confident enough to take me up on that challenge? Or is your only defense a rambling, largely irrelevant post that substitutes criticism of others for standing behind your words?”
Ok, let’s debate your point Conor. I told the caller she way extremely annoying. That is what any sensible person would have understood the comment to mean. Now, you don’t like it. You don’t like the way I said it. So what? If you were a dear friend or someone I knew and admired, I might think about it. But you are none of those things. I don’t know who you are and I don’t care if you don’t like it. My purpose was not to win over converts or represent the Republican Party. It was to dispatch this caller as I chose to. As for appealing to people, if I say I have a very large following in broadcast and print media, the likely response would be, “well, what does that have to do with the substance of my criticism.” So, you will have created your own maze of logic by shifting points.
Now, you say you want to debate substance. Presumably, you want to debate something substantive I have said? I am not sure because you don’t say anything substantive. I have comprehensively set forth my positions on conservatism and non-conservatism in my book. How did you like it? Have you read it? Are you prepared to post comments about it here? How about Men in Black? Have you read it? You want to debate aspects of it? I don’t think you have, Conor, because you’ve not raised them or anything in them. You want to stick with the caller, which is fine, but your opinion in that regard is just that.
Did you like any of the monologues over the past few weeks? Did you hear them? You say you want to debate substance but you provide none. You see, Conor, listening to 15 minutes of my radio show does not give you license to pass judgment on me or what I have done without my doing the same to you. So, I take note of how little you have done or have accomplished in promoting conservatism. I say this not to be arrogant, but to respond to your original point, such as it was, i.e., (and I paraphrase) how do you expect to influence anyone if your efforts are without an audience? Follow me? How do you, Conor? No doubt by critiquing me, albeit unencumbered with years of my efforts. This is not to complain, just to expose your unwitting self-condemnation.
Critics are not above critiquing, Conor. Your manner of argumentation is weak. You say you want to discuss substance but you provide none — just an opinion based on 15 minutes of radio listening and your distaste for what I said and how I said it to an annoying caller. You would really dislike my show, Conor. I recommend you listen to something else and maybe for more than 15 minutes.
I also see Conor is not a fan of Rush Limbaugh either. http://theamericanscene.com/2009/05/12/no-one-on-the-corner-has-swagger-like-rush And here’s a more complete list of his wisdom, which he archives here http://theamericanscene.com/archive/?author=Conor%20Friedersdorf Frankly, I have neither the time nor desire to plow through your great works, Conor. But you might want to consider, that while you play the role of Miss Manners here, let me suggest that you come across as a snotty punk with some of your comments. Sorry, just trying to help you relate.
Please do not misread my inability to respond to your subsequent comments as anything but boredom with your circular arguments and a busy and active life. But you keep at Conor. I can see you are winning over so many people with your manner and intelligence.
Quit now Conor, before the Great One completely reduces you to mincemeat.
Just some friendly advice…
I wonder how Levin would respond to Peg, above, who says that she’s “a huge, huge Levin fan,” and that Levin “has taught me how to go to battle against the enemy.” She then goes on to include “filthy, lying Democrats” and insufficiently zealous Republicans among “the enemy,” along with Islamofascists. Mr. Levin, do you think that Peg has learned the proper lessons from you?
Conor, let me see if I can explain Levin’s argument to you. It’s complex, so try to keep up.
You are not famous. Nor is Rod Dreher. Mark Levin is famous. Therefore he is a real conservative and you are not.
Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy are a traitor and a murderer, respectively. You did not criticize them when criticizing Levin. Therefore you are also a traitor, and a sympathizer with murderers and terrorists.
David Frum is not famous, and he went on the Daily Show. Therefore he is not a real conservative like Mark Levin.
Finally, you are an idiot, and should be thankful that Mr. Levin has deigned to respond you and your fellow kooks and hypocrites.
“In other words, Mr. Levin has convinced Peg that Democrats are enemies of America — worthy of being lumped in with Islamofascists!…”
Wrong. The Democrats and the Left have convinced most conservatives who have been paying attention the last decade that they (Democrats/Left/mass media) are the enemies of America. No one with any bit of common sense and logic and two eyes for reading and two ears for hearing needs anyone, let alone Levin and Rush, to make them aware of the Democrats’/Left’s/mass media’s despicable behavior of the past decade; they reveal it on their own to anyone willing to read them and listen to them. People such as Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh simply teach us how to deal with their (Democrat/Left/mass media) ridiculous lying, smearing, vitriol and hatred on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, instead of uniting to defeat the Democrats/Left/mass media in the ideology arena of ideas (as Rush likes to say), we get putzes like Dreher, Frum, whoever you are, Colin Powell and Meghan McCain whining not about policies or ideology or principles or values or about the Democrats/Left/mass media taking this country further and further and further Left, but rather about the “tone” of popular, influential conservatives. These popular, influential conservatives have been around for decades preaching about conservatism, ideology, principles, values and policies and going into great intellectual debates on all of them. Yet, now all of a sudden, in the age of Obama, some little scamp nobodies decide to make a name for themselves, not by learning by the example set all these decades by the conservative leaders and taking the torch from them and continuing to discuss these ideas, but rather by tearing down the very leaders of conservatism who have helped teach and inspire millions of conservatives of multiple generations all across this nation. And not tearing them down in the arena of ideas, but rather based on “tone”. Brilliant.
Sorry, but people don’t earn respect in this world by tearing someone else down in order to prop themselves up. The Drehers and McCains and Frums and Conors needs to learn to argue and debate on the merits of their ideas and make a name for themselves based on their own ideas, not based on childishly tearing someone else down on a personal level.
I haven’t read Rod’s or Conor’s (whoever they are???) comments on Mark but a couple of glaring problems exist.
1) It seems to be they are making a case that Levin is so harsh he turns people off. This certainly flies in the face of reality as he has a rapidly growing nationally syndicated radio show and a best selling book.
2) A judgment is being made based on listening to 15 minutes of his show. The man is on the radio for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week. I don’t think it takes a statistics expert to realize you’re the moron for using such a small sample to make a judgment as to the content of the show.
Also, the example of his commentary is snipped in which it provides no context as to how annoying the caller was. If some annoying woman is on the phone blabbing obnoxiously it isn’t that strange to wonder how her husband could possibly tolerate it. Levin’s passion + humor is why he has ever increasing popularity.
Oh, and one other thing, Conor. As I scan your many written works, I see you don’t much like (in addition to Rush and me), Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Dick Cheney. Admittedly, I have only spent “15 minutes” (actually less) with your posts http://theamericanscene.com/archive/?author=Conor%20Friedersdorf, but maybe you can elaborate here on your criticism of them, as well as you support for the radical enviro movement (right?), same-sex marriage (right?), enhanced interrogation right?) and some of the other mainstream conservative positions you advocate (or at least appear to). Night all.
(Correction – make that opposition to enhanced interrogation.)
Coner,
Your idea of calling Mark Levine a cretin and a creep doesn’t give you much leverage here. I actually don’t know what your idea of a conservative is but if you dismiss Mark Levine and Rush Limbaugh out of hand because you don’t like their style, then I’ve got to believe that you didn’t find them to be your kind of conservative. If that’s the case, then you’ve lost me and a great deal of others as well I would guess.
Mark,
In regards to your radio segment, I’ve advanced three substantive arguments.
#1) When the caller expressed the opinion that Barack Obama can move prisoners from Gitmo to the United States despite Congressional objections, Mr. Levin angrily shouted, “I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY! WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?”
His words are problematic. On substance, the leap he makes is illogical. It is perfectly possible to love the United States and to believe that President Obama possesses the authority to move War on Terrorism detainees. Indeed, a common position among conservatives is that the Commander in Chief possesses the inherent authority to make arrangements for prisoners in war time. Mr. Levin is smart enough to know that. Perhaps anger clouded his thinking, as is common among folks who suddenly begin screaming loudly during conversations about politics. Or maybe the whole thing was theater, in which case the host unfairly berated a fellow American for the sake of entertainment. Finally, as a general proposition, it is reprehensible to question someone’s patriotism in that fashion. Should you disagree, or not understand why, I can return to that point.
#2) Unless I am mistaken, you believe yourself that a wartime president possesses the power to house detainees where he sees fit, at least if the President asserts that his chosen policy is needed to keep America safe. As we all know, President Obama thinks that Gitmo is a PR disaster that helps Al Qaeda recruit more terrorists, and therefore makes us less safe. So by your own standard of executive wartime powers—not to mention Dick Cheney’s standard — President Obama possesses the inherent power to move people from Gitmo, what Congress says be damned. Yet when a caller suggested that he possesses that power, you called her unAmerican.
#3) Finally, thinking someone is annoying is no excuse for telling them that their spouse would be better off committing suicide than staying married to them. It is a hateful statement, the kind of thing that poisons our culture and our political discourse.
I’ve laid out most of those criticisms in posts you’ve referred to before, so obviously I don’t expect you to delve into all the writing I’ve ever done, just to have read the posts you’ve mentioned yourself.
Now you’ve addressed this matter again — and still without defending yourself against the substance of my criticism. Having weighed in again, you’re obviously not bored by this. I’d say your agitated by the fact that you’re being beaten so soundly.
So forgive me if I interpret your unwillingness to address my points as an inability to do so.
Conor, Rod, and David Frum are all “Vichy Republicans”.
And they are ones who, when the civil war comes along, will be considered “Niedermeyer material”.
Michael at 10:24:
“Sorry, but people don’t earn respect in this world by tearing someone else down in order to prop themselves up. The Drehers and McCains and Frums and Conors needs to learn to argue and debate on the merits of their ideas and make a name for themselves based on their own ideas, not based on childishly tearing someone else down on a personal level.”
Oh my god. Hilarious that this is said in defense of someone who told a woman that her husband should commit suicide rather than defend his ridiculous argument that Obama doesn’t have the power to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo! You’re making Conor’s point for him.
To the so-called-conservatives: Frum, Dreher, Friedersdorf — please listen — we do not want to “win” if it means giving up our principles. What principles are those? Well, much to deep to get into here (and few will see this post) so let’s just say these are the principles for which Levin, Rush and Cheney are being abused by you guys! You wanted a kinder gentler Republican party — we got Bush–generally okay but at the end he forgot free market principles; we want a strong national defense and an aggressive war (to win) against Islamo-facism– we got McCain, hero? Yes, but too soft on terrorists–we got moderate candidate and got beat-bad; we want low taxes and personal resonsibility — we get Colin Powell telling us that Americans want higher taxes and bigger government– and he wants to stay a Republican!? Okay, you don’t Like Levin’s style? You agree that Rush ought not to be the “voice of conservatism”? Fine — get your own radio show — write your web-logs — try to practice what your preach and don’t call people names or take personal shots at them — do your thing, make your case, stop the personal attacks — if your “bona-fides” (yes, Frum, this is directed at you) are what you say and your brand of conservatism resonates you’ll win. But I doubt it. You guys have fallen into the same trap liberals have fallen into for years– you think Rush, Levin, Hannity, Cunningham are making the listeners think the way they do — but we listen because these guys say what we already think–they reflect our principles–our worldview. If you can do that in a “nicer” way you may win us over–but again, I doubt it — you seem more interested in being “nice” to and well thought of by the likes of Rahm E., David Ax. and the NYTimes than winning the conservative base to your pov. Until you “get it” stop telling us to stop listening to the guys (and gals, let’s not forget Ann!) who say outloud what we believe and KNOW– the liberal policies of BHO and the dems are going to ruin this once great country!
Conor, you smell.
I’ll interpret your unwillingness to address my point as an inability to do so.
“bailey”
“Hilarious that this is said in defense of someone who told a woman that her husband should commit suicide rather than defend his ridiculous argument that Obama doesn’t have the power to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo!”
Again, you and Conor seem to be pretty dense. Mark Levin has been around for decades now, making his case for many different principles, values and policies of conservatism. Yet Conor, and other nobodies trying to make a name for themselves, decide to define Mark Levin not by his entire body of work, but rather by 15 minutes of his radio show that has been on the air for 3 hours/day, 7 days/week for what 5-10 years now? As Brent said earlier, it does not take a statistics expect to figure out that only a moron would define someone based on such a small sample.
Conor has about maybe 25-50 articles posted on the American scene site. I think even he and you would call it moronically unfair for me (or anyone) to go there, take 1 sentence out of his 25-50 articles and then say that one sentence defines him and then go around the web calling him out for one thing he said among 25-50 articles. But that is exactly what he and you are doing here on a much bigger level of stupidity.
May I just point out that getting defensive about this caller’s husband is ridiculous? This wasn’t Wanda Sykes wishing kidney failure on Rush Limbaugh, this was a throwaway retort regarding an unnamed person who may not even exist, for all we know.
It’s kind of a big difference, really.
“Frankly, I have neither the time nor desire to plow through your great works, Conor. But you might want to consider, that while you play the role of Miss Manners here, let me suggest that you come across as a snotty punk with some of your comments. Sorry, just trying to help you relate.”
Hey, I’m a recent high school graduate. Can I jump in on this catfight?
Mr. Levin: the above quote is precisely the way that bickering high school girls talk to each other. Insincere apologies and projection do nothing to strengthen your own self-defense or to weaken your opponents’ arguments. That may lead detached observers to conclude that your real purpose is not to persuade, but rather to build up a reputation for toughness or courageousness.
Rebuzz,
I am not asking Mr. Levin to give up his principles. I am asking him to stop berating callers with hateful rhetoric, employing flawed arguments, and resorting to ad hominem attacks against those who criticize him for the first two sins.
I actually thought your 3 points were so absurd that it was self-evident. Apparently not, at least not to the person who made them.
Conor writes:
#1) When the caller expressed the opinion that Barack Obama can move prisoners from Gitmo to the United States despite Congressional objections, Mr. Levin angrily shouted, “I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY! WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?”
His words are problematic. On substance, the leap he makes is illogical. It is perfectly possible to love the United States and to believe that President Obama possesses the authority to move War on Terrorism detainees. Indeed, a common position among conservatives is that the Commander in Chief possesses the inherent authority to make arrangements for prisoners in war time. Mr. Levin is smart enough to know that. Perhaps anger clouded his thinking, as is common among folks who suddenly begin screaming loudly during conversations about politics. Or maybe the whole thing was theater, in which case the host unfairly berated a fellow American for the sake of entertainment. Finally, as a general proposition, it is reprehensible to question someone’s patriotism in that fashion. Should you disagree, or not understand why, I can return to that point.
ME: Where did I say the president does not have the power to move the prisoners to the United States? The reason they were housed at GITMO was because of a 1950 Supreme Court decision (Eisentrger) in which Justice Jackson made clear that the court had no jurisdiction over detainees held outside the United States. I have written at length about it. The issue of the Constitution, the nation, and the Declaration relates to the danger moving terrorists into this country would pose to the country, a fact that even the Democrat-controlled Congress somewhat understands, and is the reason they voted down Obama’s $80 million request to shut GITMO. And, yes, Conor, I believe such a mindless position is unpatriotic. That may offend you, but it seems you are easily offended, except by your own accusations.
#2) Unless I am mistaken, you believe yourself that a wartime president possesses the power to house detainees where he sees fit, at least if the President asserts that his chosen policy is needed to keep America safe. As we all know, President Obama thinks that Gitmo is a PR disaster that helps Al Qaeda recruit more terrorists, and therefore makes us less safe. So by your own standard of executive wartime powers—not to mention Dick Cheney’s standard — President Obama possesses the inherent power to move people from Gitmo, what Congress says be damned. Yet when a caller suggested that he possesses that power, you called her unAmerican.
ME: See my answer above. Your second point is repetitive.
#3) Finally, thinking someone is annoying is no excuse for telling them that their spouse would be better off committing suicide than staying married to them. It is a hateful statement, the kind of thing that poisons our culture and our political discourse.
ME: If you don’t find my humor in that case humorous, big whoopie. I have trouble taking you seriously.
Conor Freidersdorf is unable to understand Mark’s Shtic. Marks rhetorical comment to the women wasnt literal and it wasnt nice either. Mark understands the only way to beat these people is to get in the trenches with them and defeat them not accomodate them.
Liberals like you Conor think accommodation and appeasement is the way to handle people who want to destroy society and warp the culture of this country. Mark cares about the future of the country and his children and he sees whats at stake.
What Mark means to do is to teach people to stop appeasing these neosocialists and fight them. If feelings get hurt so be it.
Obama sees American business as the enemy .Only a Neo Marxist thinks that way. Mark’s energy is devoted to rallying people to educate those in their perimeter about what this Chicago thug of a president is up to and how to stop him.
So if you care about this country criticize the thugs in power -not a talk show host who is trying to stop a socialist power grab that this country has never seen before.
All,
I am leaving right now to catch a flight, but I’ll return to this threat tomorrow at the latest and do my utmost to address every substantive point. Meanwhile, thanks for the conversation.
So, once you have earned the respect of (some) people, it’s perfectly fine to tear people down on a personal level? Got it.
When you return from your flight, please do answer the questions I put to you Conor. I may not be around to read them, but others here might be. If you do not, I will have to conclude you fear revealing yourself to the readers here and your inability to engage in thoughtful debate. Night.
Also, liberals who call into Mark’s show surely know how these things go, especially if they set out to antagonize the host, as so many of them do. This wasn’t Mark strong-arming some random liberal on the street and batting them about.
You dainty types are not our way back to electoral victory. I’ll take one Mark Levin over a hundred Rod Drehers any day.
Additionally, there’s so much wind being blown Mark’s way about how his show won’t convert people? Well who said the purpose of his show was to convert people? He’s not there to deprogram Moonbats!
Maybe, just maybe, there’s merit in some hosts simply keeping the base informed and fired up. That really might be a good enough reason for some shows to exist, and I say that as a man who came to realize that he was conservative from several years of listening to Rush Limbaugh in the early 90s, another man that the Frum types would insist are of little use in their version of the GOP.
Conor…
“I am not asking Mr. Levin to give up his principles. I am asking him to stop berating callers with hateful rhetoric, employing flawed arguments, and resorting to ad hominem attacks against those who criticize him for the first two sins.”
I have a suggestion. Why don’t you try listening to Mark more than 15 minutes before you decide to judge his work? Maybe then your opinion would matter. As it stands now, it doesn’t.
My own opinion…I’m fed up Vichy Republicans.
Conor,
You missed my point so let me be clear — SHUT UP — (too Levin like?, sorry); here it is, if you are trying to get conservatives to listen to you stop attacking a respected conservative (for a supposed “sin” that really isn’t if you knew how talk radio “works” and if you knew more of the context of the show–look people who call into Levin EXPECT that sort of treatment — it’s a game with them and Mark — you missed the humor . . . but I digress . . .). We are not going to listen to you or those other guys (like Frum) unless you PROVE that your principles are sound — you are not making any headway in that regard on this thread!
Rebuzz
Mark’s monologues are brilliant.
He hasn’t yet mastered the art of the talk in radio. No reason to take potshots at citizens…there is a difference between sarcasm and vitriol, humor and humiliation.
For all the criticism lobbed at Rush, he is polite. He doesn’t tolerate fools, but when he cuts someone off, it’s not rudely done…more of a don’t waste my time with drivel. Mark, on the other hand, seems to launch on people before they get any words out of their mouth.
Dreher is a dreadful bore, as is Frum…they have the Internet to speak, but few listen. until they piggyback attacks on people like Rush. Still, Mark Levin, pride goeth before a fall…just because these guys are no names, is no reason to pull that out in a debate. It is a debate of ideas after all, at which you are a master.
My advice…ignore Dreher, Frum, Douhat…everyone else is. But lighten up.
nark levin is great.
dreher and coner pipsqueeks who should stop squeeking.
May I make the modest suggestion that Mr. Levin and Mr. Friedersdorf (And can we please spell names correctly here? Is that to much to ask of presumably intelligent people who are presumably thinking about what they are writing?) provide a written response to one another outside of the combox so that we can judge their substantive arguments without the interlocutory remarks?
As an aside, could we suggest that the ground rules include a basic level of decency, such that getting annoyed with a person isn’t expressed by telling their spouses to commit suicide?
“So, once you have earned the respect of (some) people, it’s perfectly fine to tear people down on a personal level? Got it.”
Are you deliberately being dense, “BAILEY”. Are you deliberately skimming right over the main point of you and Conor wrongly and stupidly defining Mark Levin’s entire collective work in conservatism based on 15 minutes of his radio show?
There are two points here in case you missed them:
(1) Mark Levin has an entire body of work of conservatism based on his career in politics, his authorship of at least two successful books and his highly-successful radio show, which is on the air 5 days a week for 3 hours a day for many years. So, to know nothing about Mark Levin, then listen to 15 minutes of his show and then go around the web claiming that Mark Levin = X, based on 15 minutes of listening to the man is completely and utterly intellectually dishonest.
(2) Assuming that Conor and Dreher are not complete and utter morons, then most of us determine that they are participating in this utter intellectually dishonest exercise solely in order to make a name for themselves by smearing a popular, influential conservative.
Now, if you’re still too dense to understand these two points, then I can’t help you. I have to assume you are beyond help or are just deliberately being dense.
Conor, if you had listened for more than 15 minutes you would probably already know the answers to your questions.
Mr. Levin, I’d like to ask you again if you’d respond to my question above. Again, commenter Peg claims (I’m paraphrasing) that she learned from you how to fight “the enemy,” and that said enemies included “filthy, lying Democrats,” “Vichy Republicans” and “Islamofascists.” I honestly don’t know because I’ve never listened to your show: has Peg picked up an accurate impression of your message? Do you really believe that Democrats are “the enemy?”
I think Levin should hang up on and tell more callers off. He’s not exactly manning a suicide hot line. A certain element calls just to be annoying. I don’t want to listen to them. They have nothing intelligent to say and they add nothing to the show. Levin is courteous to people who are courteous to him and his fellow conservatives. Maybe, Frum, Dreher, and others should try it? I’m sick of these people who do nothing but bash conservatives.
“The enemy?” You’re talking about your fellow Americans on Memorial Day, dear. Even “filthy, lying Democrats” have given and will continue to give their lives for this country. You dishonor their sacrifices with your “vitriol.”
Righto, Bob, which is why your Obama Party not only pushes for government resolutions to have our troops declared as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, it gladly counts as its members the people who vandalize military property and verbally assault our troops as murderers and baby-killers.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/02/371741.shtml
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/12/jodie-davis-code-pink-founder-obama-bundler-osama-apologist/
Please do not misread my inability to respond to your subsequent comments as anything but boredom with your circular arguments and a busy and active life.
Do you expect anyone to believe this? You wrote a rambling 1400-word essay about Friedersdorf and Dreher’s criticisms, and you keep plunging into this conversation to chatter some more.
Whatever people think about the remark on your show that set off this debate, I doubt your performance in this thread is earning you any new fans. You’re coming across as a chest-thumping, self-infatuated prima donna.
“Please do not misread my inability to respond to your subsequent comments as anything but boredom with your circular arguments and a busy and active life.”
Do you expect anyone to believe this? You wrote a rambling 1400-word essay about Friedersdorf and Dreher’s criticisms, and you keep plunging into this conversation to chatter some more.
Whatever people think about the remark on your show that set off this debate, I doubt your performance in this thread is earning you any new fans. You’re coming across as a chest-thumping, self-infatuated prima donna.
I sincerely doubt that the democrats that have sacrificed or will sacrifice their lives for this country are filthy or lying. However, there are a hell of a lot of filthy lying democrats who do everything possible to harm our troops and country and they should be fought.
Listen, Dreher said that Levin was “disgusting” after listening to 15 minutes of his show, during which Mark made a rude joke at a caller’s expense. I am sure that Dreher knows that Levin is a rising star in the conservative world, and that picking a fight with him would draw attention to Dreher himself, a relative non- entity in conservatism.
It really seems just as simple as that – a cheap bid for attention. Well, now I know what a crunchy con is. And I don’t care.
is this the mark levin your talking about?
http://pssht.com/fauxnews/biolevin.html
Conor, you are pathetic. You name-call Levin, then complain when he does the same for you. You complain that Mark won’t debate you on issues of substance, yet you go on and on (and on and on and on) about an alleged “15 minutes” yet comment on nothing but a one-minute exchange.
Levin has millions of listeners. You probably have dozens of readers. Mark Levin did you a favor by calling you out. At least now someone besides your parents have read your columns.
And Mark, Oh Great One, please stop giving this hack the attention he doesn’t deserve. Please instead promote your fellow great up-and-coming conservatives, like Alfonzo Rachel. And me.
“All,
I am leaving right now to catch a flight, but I’ll return to this threat tomorrow at the latest and do my utmost to address every substantive point. Meanwhile, thanks for the conversation.
Posted by: Conor Friedersdorf”
Of course you’ll be back. This is more attention than you’ve received (or deserve to receive) in a long time. Stick with it. Colbert or one of the others will recognize your brilliance soon and before you know it you’ll be sitting next to Meggie Mac telling us how we can become better Republicans by embracing more liberal ideas.
Has anyone checked the time? Is it 15 minutes yet?
Being on the radio for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, you’re bound to say things to upset one person…as a fan of talk radio that I’m sure would make some who even agree with what I’m about to say shiver (Opie, Anthony, and the cavalcade of “retard” jokes at the expense of callers, it’s like mothers milk to a cubicle jockey).
I think what Levin had to say was funny…but, again, I have a dark sense of humor.
I’m assuming Conor Friedersdorf is also not a fan of South Park, Nick DiPaolo, Jim Norton, or people like Greg Gutfeld or TV’s Andy Levy that are rightward leaning but have a certain kind of gallows humor. I suppose that’s not the brand of humor that Mr. Friedersdorf appreciates, and it’s within his right to attempt to regulate what the right should and should not listen to or find funny via his criticism…
…I’m just not buying into that argument. Sometimes dark is funny…and if you don’t get it, you don’t get it. I like to think that I get it.
Mark Levin is an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable man. I don’t normally like talk show hosts who abuse their guests, but I love Mark Levin. He is funny and he reserves his vitriol for those who deserve it.
He has no patience for those who are trying to rob, silence, and enslave us to the state and destroy our great nation.
Mark is the one of the few people in the media with the right sense of urgency about what is happening in America today. We are losing our nation and our liberty, and he is one of the only people shouting about it.
Wow, this is hysterical.
Having read Dreher’s Crunchy-Cons and having read Men in Black before I knew who Mark Levin was, and then seeing this fella Conor get into the mix via Dreher, I have no problems stating that when it comes to Levin, these fellas are way out of their depth. Conor, apologies, but I’m not familiar with your work, and after reading your retorts in this thread, I don’t think I really need to be.
I listen to Mark a couple times a week because I love hearing coherent explanations about why the Constitution is structured/worded the way it is, and larger explanations of the philosophy that girds this construction. You can hate him for his abrasiveness with annoying callers (I cringe at it), but he is who he is: one of the few, well-known conservatives who do not apologize for conservatism, and do not try to shape it into their own worldview. I notice that those who critique him follow the same pattern of those who critique Coulter – they find an out-of-context clip of something either has said that they find offensive and then begin with the lambasting.
He’s not above critique, nor is Coulter, nor are other “abrasive” conservatives. However, if you’re going to throw darts, at least spend a couple of hours reading what they write – you know, the books, the efforts where they actually explain what they believe, why they believe it, and where they’re coming from.
Mark, maybe you should start publishing your books in Twitter format, so those who avoid your books can keep up.
Let’s just nominate a Crist/Huntsman ticket in 2012 and when it gets destroyed in the general election we can get back to REAL conservatives by 2016.
I have always found it amusing that a ‘moderate’ like Frum attacks guys like Rush. Frum is the author of the ‘Axis of Evil’, and yet he says OUR discourse needs changing.
Guys like Frum and Conor had their chance, now it’s time for a conservative party in America.
Mr. Braunlich, do you agree with Conor or Mark? I am curious???? it would help if you would address their specific constitutional questions that have been a point of disagreement and not what kind of humor you do and do not like.
Personally, if you are turned off by Mark or Anne’s dark humor, and also voted for Obama because of it, then you are not the kind of pro-life or conservative leader the USA needs. You are basically the reason Republicans have been losing ground since the 90s. You want to play nice with Libs while they runs circles around conservative family values. And anyone who gets offended or uses dark humor to counter the Left, you seem to despise. In the end, you work against those same conservative family values you supposedly have fought for. It seems you would rather go along with, or be “friends” with, or even vote for, a friendly socialistic baby-killer provider.
If the dark humor of conservative talk-show hosts has made you a apologist hit-man for moderate and left-leaning Republicans, why have you not gotten your shorts in a twist over the dark humor of the Left? …or would that be too “uncivil” for anyone to ask you for fear of you offending the Left?
cheers sweetie. wink wink
Mark Levin is a Jabberin’ Jackass.
Really, he is.
It is a fact only a fool could argue against.
Start arguing posters!
Here is a shout out to Mark.
SEMPER FI!
War fighters can’t afford to suffer fools (despite what murtha says).
Hey Levin. I don’t need to read your book, your thoughts are courtesy of the blood and guts of those whom you speak for.
Semper Fi
winemkr
out
mark levin is a half pint piece of crap
Not that it is necccessary, but if only for FYI purposes, I think I can second Mr Levin’s reference to Mr Dreher ‘disappearing’ some comments down the memory hole. I just checked, and a comment I made appears to no longer exist. In the comment, all I did was note that there must have been some reason, some behavior beyond the pale, that would have stimulated Mr Levin to give the lady in question the liberal bum’s rush.
I also asked as a BTW question: “Who is Rod Dreher?” — A question that seems to still needs answering. That is of course, beyond the apparent insecure Beta male thing.
I defend Mark Levin because he defends me.
I believe, by listening to him, he realizes the peril the Democrat Party has hoisted on the American people, but especially the blue-collar country folk who will suffer the most because of the ignorance of the common Democrat and the manipulation of the elite of the Democrat Party.
It is fool’s logic that begs Republicans to cringe when a brain-washed victim or an out-and-out socialist hag like the caller gets verbally lambasted.
Mark did not wish the woman’s husband to die by the way.
I too have friends whose wives are totally in love with Obama and the big idea (lie) that he portends. It is extremely aggravating to try to counter some of the incoherence that they spew.
Am I to assume I would be a “crunchy con?”
I’m a Catholic, wife of a union boilermaker, country, blue-collar.
I tell any so-called conservative that if the movement is going to moderate, y’all better understand that we will take it over and you will be begging for placement.
I’m not allowed to call Mark Levin a Jabberin’ Jackass?
Mark Levin is so great.
Everything he says is so smart.
I’ve been a listener (at length) of Mark Levin’s radio show ever since I became involved in politics. I found it fairly obvious that the things he says are useful for injecting humor into a more serious discussion. I mean, after detailing what is wrong with the woman’s opinion, I don’t think he is going to win any brownie points by saying “Have a nice day miss.” or using any other phony words. After the intelligent discussion of why she is incorrect, he makes a humorous statement, as if to say “I bet dealing with this woman is a nightmare” – and who would deal with the woman the most? Her husband. But none of this seems to matter anyway, it looks as if Friedersdorf is another Democrat in disguise (RINO), trying only to undermine conservatives and their principles in hopes of moving the party more towards the center until all that exists is the left. What is the point of conservatism, if at the end of the day, there is little difference between a Democrat and a Republican? No, supporting the environuts, same sex marriage and the abandonment of enhanced interrogation is not something “everyone” should agree on.
Three words: Mark . . . Levin . . . ROCKS!
’nuff said. Moving on.
This Conor guy is an annoying, whiny little wimp doing his best to justify his existence. I believe the kids these days would say the following of Conor’s efforts to do that- FAIL. Conor- you might want to start practicing the following phrase, “Would you like fries with that?”
Why can’t we first defeat the Socialists who have taken over our country before we attack each other? It doesn’t matter if your point is valid or not, let’s do that first, OK?
Conor and Rod, your criticism isn’t helping. We need to focus every effort on defeating our political enemies.
Mark Levin is doing it. Why don’t you join him and help out a bit, eh?
Republicans should drive EVERYONE from the party who isn’t sufficiently pure and fervent. A strict and rigid code of conservatism MUST be upheld, and the only way to do that is by demonizing, bad-mouthing, shunning, eschewing, and otherwise giving the stink-eye to ANYONE who is found to harbor one iota of uncertainty about their core values. This will GUARANTEE the CONTINUED DOMINANCE of the Republican Party henceforth. The ONLY way to rebound from recent electoral setbacks is through even more stringent alienation of all non-right-thinking people.
Conor wrote:
“I am not asking Mr. Levin to give up his principles. I am asking him to stop berating callers with hateful rhetoric, employing flawed arguments, and resorting to ad hominem attacks against those who criticize him for the first two sins.
Posted by: Conor Friedersdorf | Monday, May 25, 2009 at 10:45 PM”
Excuse me, but I wasn’t aware that God had died and left you Commander of the Thought Police Brigade, Conor. Since when, in a free market system, did it become the realm of over-inflated egomaniacs to set the parameters for what a talk radio show’s host may or may not comment upon and in which manner?
The facts are that talk radio shows are driven by numbers: Numbers of listeners, and numbers of advertising dollars generated. If a talk radio show does not generate sufficient listenership, then the ad revenue falls off, and eventually the show gets canceled and/or the show’s host retires after seeing the handwriting on the wall.
What your opinion is, Conor, of Mark Levin’s modus operandi when responding to people who clearly are ignorant and/or just plain morons and idiots who refuse to open their minds and engage in meaningful debates about the facts of issues and/or events…… is irrelevant. Only Mr. Levin’s radio show listeners’ opinions matter, and they will express their opinions most importantly via the show’s ratings.
If people are sufficiently upset over Mr. Levin’s method of responding to close-minded and ill-informed callers, the ratings will drop off, and his show will start tanking. You, Conor, assuming the role as some pseudo-spokesman for the general Mark Levin listenership is presumptious at best, and frankly irritating and unnecessary. It’s as if you’ve decided that Mr. Levin’s listeners are insufficiently intelligent enough to be discerning when it comes to determining what is satire, or what may just be a “bad hair day” for the host, who, after all, is only human himself.
We have too many self-appointed “public watchdogs” in the Mainstream Media who are so ideologically driven that they have forgotten that their role is to simply and objectively report the facts, and let the public make up their own minds about the issues. We certainly don’t need you jumping onto that particular bandwagon by attempting to establish Rules for Radio Talk Show Hosts because your opinion of the listenership does not allow for independent discernment.
My opinion of the reasons why you are acting out this charade is that you are attempting to make a name for yourself and grab a place at the head of the line in the current Conservative Renaissance Movement, by trampling on the established leaders already there who have given much and sacrificed more to earn that slot.
You, Frum, and so many others are merely opportunistic parasites in this realm, as far as I’m concerned, Conor. It’s so obvious…..well, perhaps except to you?
And while I’m at it, one more thing . . . a year ago, I would’ve laid down my life to protect the right of even idiot leftists to have their say, because we’re all “Americans.” We’re all on the same page, or so I thought, when it comes to understanding the greatness of the constitution, and the sacrifices that have been made by others who have come before us. Sacrifices that made our lives much saner, more free . . . sacrifices that give us all the right to say what we want when we want to say it, and to have a chance at achieving what our hearts and minds ask us to.
And that’s what Americans have always done . . . “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country” . . . “give me liberty, or give me death.” When push comes to shove, we fight for each other, even to the point of death.
Well, no more. The “change” brought by Obama is NOT the silly lefty dreams of “cap and trade,” “income redistribution,” “social justice,” and “peace through appeasement.” No, the change is that people like me have finally realized that we’re NOT all on the same page – that we all do not “get” what being an American is all about. And let me be the first to say it (ok, write it) – I DON’T WANT TO LIVE IN THE SAME “COUNTRY” WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO SUPPORT OBAMA.
I’m “out” – and y’know what? It feels great! I’m taking care of myself, and my family – and that’s it. The 53% of you who voted for “change”? Well, you got it. You’re on your own now, and I (along with millions upon millions of people like me) are circling the wagons to protect ourselves, and not YOU. So when the barbarians come knocking at the gate, which they most surely will, and when you realize (too late) that you actually had it pretty damn good, and that the “system” that you so despise and that you helped destroy was actually your best, last chance at freedom . . . YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN!!! And you won’t have us to rely upon, as you have smugly assumed throughout your lives, to fight your battles for you.
I like Mark’s show, but sometimes find his “rudeness” to be tedious.
But, it’s his show, and he can do whatever he wants. He’s a conservative entertainer and educator, responsible to no one but himself.
Conor, why do you care what approach Mark uses? You aren’t your brother’s keeper.
On your blog, you said:
“Doesn’t it remain the case that he was wrong to speak as he did to that female caller, that he should stop employing unsound arguments and hateful rhetoric, and that he should be criticized insofar as he fails?”
Should we all be monitoring Mark for “hateful” rhetoric, lest any go un-criticized?
To me, he was wrong (“ungentlemanly”) to use that rhetoric. But, he should be criticized when he fails, no more nor no less than the Left. Are you balanced in criticizing both Left and Right “hateful” rhetoric?
I just searched your blog for “garofalo”, and came up empty.
I know that means you didn’t hear about her saying that Tea Party participants were racists, right?
Cuz, you would have criticized that, right?
As to the other Steve B in this thread, I feel it necessary to redeem the name of the martyr. My doppelganger writes:
“Conor Freidersdorf (NB: Correct spelling! A sure sign of a similar intelligence!) is unable to understand Mark’s Shtic. Marks rhetorical comment to the women wasnt literal and it wasnt nice either. Mark understands the only way to beat these people is to get in the trenches with them and defeat them not accomodate them.”
So the message here is, in the colloquial, that two wrongs make a right.
“Liberals like you Conor think accommodation and appeasement is the way to handle people who want to destroy society and warp the culture of this country. Mark cares about the future of the country and his children and he sees whats at stake.”
Interesting that Mr. Levin then feels compelled to justify violations of basic rules of decency we learn from birth (like two wrongs not making a right) and broader Christian principles like charity.
More generally, the broader argument seems to be missed here: namely, that decency matters.
In defending against the charge that he is being indecent, Mr. Levin cites the fact that William F. Buckley called someone a queer once on television. However, we can easily distinguish that case from Mr. Levin’s conduct. Mr. Buckley had just been the target of horrible vitriol by Vidal, culminating in Vidal calling Mr. Buckley a crypto-Nazi. As one who had actually fought in WWII, Mr. Buckley had good justification to be upset by these personal attacks, and responded in an understandable (but uncharacteristically uncharitable) way. In contrast, Mr. Levin is not subjected to personal attacks by those for whose spouses he advocates suicide. Even his defenders (like dantes) admit that he “seems to launch on people before they get any words out of their mouth.” It is also worth noting that WFB was very good friend with many men and women on the left, something it is hard to see Mr. Levin being (since he considers them an enemy, not a friend). Therefore, to rely on Mr. Buckley to defend Mr. Levin is intellectually dishonest and only does damage to the former’s good name.
For someone purportedly interested in preserving values, as noted above he is apparently willing to throw out that most Christian of virtues: Charity. Even the great polemicist St. Augustine, who tore down heresies, told his priests to hate the ideas not the heretics. (see “Saints for Sinners – The Lives of St. Augustine and St. Margaret” by Fr. Alban Goodier).
This is an interesting discussion, so I’ll add my two bits. First, I have to admit that I do not listen to Mark Levin’s show anymore. About a year ago I realized that, fundamentally, my beliefs were at odds with his. I don’t trash him or have anything against him really, but I no longer waste precious minutes of my day listening to him. In substance, I agree with Dreher concerning his criticism of Levin. I don’t care for the way Levin treats people who are not in complete agreement with him. He does not allow dissent on his show, cuts people off, insults them, and attacks them in a very ugly manner. As my inner lawyer would say, I am perfectly happy to stipulate that all of Dreher’s facts and arguments are true.
Here’s my problem – as distasteful as Levin’s schtick may be to some, who does Dreher think he is to tell Levin what he should and should not say on his own show? Levin is a radio host – no more and no less. He is not speaking for the Republican party, nor does he have a monopoly on the conservative movement, though his views, for the most part, are in the conservative mainstream. If Levin’s speech is too distasteful, he will lose listeners, which will eventually lead to a loss in revenue and affiliates. On the other hand, if his show attracts more listeners due to his abrasive nature, then good for him.
The first amendment was not written to protect speech that people agree with. Levin has a perfect right to say what he wants. If you don’t like it, Mr. Dreher, start up your own show in opposition to his and defeat him.
One of the more annoying aspects of the current political climate is the attempted “mini-purges” by the self-appointed guardians of Republican or conservative prospects. There is apparently some bolshevik-type need to denounce people for ideological impurity, lack of fervor, and now bad manners. True believers, it would seem, must not be content with debating ideas, or of advancing a particular interest among a mosaic of competing conservative causes. No, we seem to have convinced ourselves that we need a revolution, complete with heretics, counter-revolutionaries, double agents, and splinter groups. We can’t be bothered to debate the bad policies until we first dispatch the bad characters.
Most conservatives noticed that Obama won the presidency, in part because circumstances which favored style over substance. The more nervous conservatives panicked, thinking that some measure of emulation was the path to recovery. Mark Levin’s style can be off-putting, but he has the audience that he does, and the book sales that he does because he is consistent about substance. Say what you want about his unnecessary rudeness, shrillness or boorishness, if you listen to his monologue from 5/19/09, you will see that he is a man of immense feeling and insight.
I have been listening to Mr. Levin for about two months, always the replays that I download from the internet. I heard the comment about a caller’s husband putting a gun to his temple. My wife was aghast, and I would have preferred that he didn’t say it, but I recognized it as a poorly thought out extension of a remark he made a couple of weeks earlier, in which he remarked, after hanging up on another liberal female caller “You see, that’s why there are so many single men.” I suspect that Mr. Levin’s interactions with callers is not scripted, and occasionally he will make a remark that he wishes he hadn’t or in retrospect wishes that he said something that he didn’t. I am going to guess that it is much much harder than it looks to talk into a radio microphone for fifteen hours a week. I couldn’t do it. And Mr. Levin, as he often reminds the audience, has a responsibility to maintain listenership, to make his show entertaining, informative and useful. At times he more successful at this than at others, but I can’t imagine how poorly he would fare if he gave fifteen hours of Republican policy lectures every week.
If you listen to Mr. Levin’s show from last friday, you will notice that he seems to contradict himself. He advises a caller to engage liberals “politely” in order to be more persuasive. My first thought on hearing this was “take your own advice, man,” but it highlighted the difficulty between maintaining a viable radio persona and getting out a message that he cares about. I personally would prefer that he not use the term “Re-pubic-an” but I put up with it because I believe that Mr. Levin’s knowledge, analysis, and love of country make him too valuable a mind to discard over questionable taste. Because here’s the thing: in my opinion Mr. Levin is a much better philosopher, legal analyst and conservative thinker than he is a radio host, and I’d rather not sacrifice that on the altar of form over substance.
Sorry Dan but I just wanted to be included in this thread because it was so much fun to read.Mark is an aquired taste and Im one who enjoys his broadcasts on a regular basis. If these pantywaist bloggers cant take the heat Mark dishes out on his show then they should get a fresh pair of panties as thiers are obviously wound too tight.
“You would have thought I had spent the last 25 years befriending the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, or had driven the car that ended Mary Jo Kopechne’s life. But no, those are the leaders of the Democratic Party.”
So Levin’s defense of his condemnable words amounts to, “But there are Democrats who’ve done worse!” Yeah huh.
I’m with John J.Vecchone on this one. Levin is bright and articulate. Yet he results to wondering why people aren’t committing suicide because they’re married to someone he disagrees with? And then, rather than trying to convince them of his view, tells them to “get the hell out of here”? It’s off-putting even to fellow conservatives who don’t need to be convinced to believe his views.
I wonder if this annoying woman was Coner’s wife? And if so, could she lend him one of her testicle?
Well, Mark Levin isn’t coming across very well in these replies. If it’s just shtick, there’s little reason to continue it outside the show. His reply is ridiculous, with pure ad hominem attack and very little actual defense. if you are going to channel Michael Savage in your announcing style, of course people are going to overreact like that and treat you like savage.
That’s the whole argument against in a nutshell. Being fashionably angry makes it very easy to discount what you say, and Levin is a lightweight anyways and can’t risk that. Bork did men in black much better much earlier with Coercing Virtue. If Levin had actual substance, he wouldn’t need the angry shtick. Even rush and hannity, who are lightweights too, don’t bother with that. They just bring out the issues and comment on them.
But no, being angry gets all the conservatives who have little idea about what conservatism actually means and just defines it as a lifestyle choice against some mythical liberals in the far east somewhere left of shangri-la. It’s much easier to play to the crowd even though in the long run it damages the conservative cause.
I don’t agree with dreher either-I don’t see crunchy cons being any form of force, and its much too class and lifestyle based. But conor at least seems to be coming off a heck of a lot better in this, and levin is just playing into his hands.
Some people might not like his humor. I like his humor. When a caller is being dense and not responding to his logical arguments, Mark will usually get impatient and yell at him/her saying something similar to what started this discussion. I find that FUNNY and ENTERTAINING. It happens almost every day on his show.
Of course his comment to the caller is taken out of context because the context is his entire show and his entire personality. You have to hear how he builds his case, like a lawyer, and lays out his reasoning. And then when he takes a caller, how he reacts. You cannot just listen to his reaction without listening to his entire show and understand the meaning and purpose. If you listen to the show, you know that. If you don’t listen to his show, I suggest you give up because you don’t know what you are talking about.
Lu-ee
My apologies for having failed to respond to your questions before now. I had missed your earlier comment in the large number of comments. I usually do not wade into combox discussions, but I felt compelled to on this one. Let me try to address your questions, before I hit the hay and fade out of this conversation.
“Mr. Braunlich, do you agree with Conor or Mark? I am curious????”
The answer is that on the specific issue of torture, I side with Conor, while on other issues such as SSM I side with Mark. However, one of the best homilies I ever heard preached was on the idea that it’s not just what we do in our lives, but how we do it. I’m a Christian, and I believe the greatest virtue is Charity (aka Caritas or Love). I do not see a conservatism that addresses its opponents outside of this spirit of charity as one that I can support. I left one job in the movement because of it, and I’ve found myself estranged from the movement altogether because of it.
“[I]t would help if you would address their specific constitutional questions that have been a point of disagreement and not what kind of humor you do and do not like.”
My concern is not so much with humor as respect, and not so much the constitutional questions as the means of engaging the opposition. I didn’t see Mr. Levin giving the caller the basic human dignity that everyone deserves, as annoying as it may be to give it to them. The Golden Rule remains, and I would no sooner have someone tell me that a loved one should kill themselves as I would tell someone else the same.
“Personally, if you are turned off by Mark or Anne’s dark humor, and also voted for Obama because of it, then you are not the kind of pro-life or conservative leader the USA needs.”
That’s a massive leap to make. I am indeed turned off and away from conservatism by Levin’s means of conveying it, at least on the air. However, that doesn’t mean that I’m about to go vote for a baby killer. Ron Paul is to limited government as I am to the right to life. No compromise (with either party).
“You are basically the reason Republicans have been losing ground since the 90s. You want to play nice with Libs while they runs circles around conservative family values. And anyone who gets offended or uses dark humor to counter the Left, you seem to despise.”
I want to play honest with the left and those I oppose because 1) they deserve it as human beings, and 2) I don’t want to use bad means for good ends. I don’t despise Mr. Levin, in fact I think my parents actually knows Mr. Levin from their days in YR/YAF and I know they respect him. That matters. I do despise rhetorical styles that extend disrespect for an idea (which is not a bad thing) to disrespect for the person. The effect isn’t to make me despise the speaker, but his style. More than anything I’m sad to see debate degrade like this, because I would love to be able to get involved in the movement again without feeling like my soul was rolling in mud.
“In the end, you work against those same conservative family values you supposedly have fought for. It seems you would rather go along with, or be “friends” with, or even vote for, a friendly socialistic baby-killer provider.”
Again, a big and unsubstantiated jump. Just to be clear, I did not vote for Obama, or any other candidate that supports abortion or embryonic stem cell research.
“If the dark humor of conservative talk-show hosts has made you a apologist hit-man for moderate and left-leaning Republicans, why have you not gotten your shorts in a twist over the dark humor of the Left? …or would that be too “uncivil” for anyone to ask you for fear of you offending the Left?”
As I noted at the start, I tend not to wage into these combox debates. Neither do I count myself as a hit-man for moderate or left-leaning Republicans. While in college I actively campaigned against them for staunch pro-lifers. That said, I care more about correcting the style of those on the right than those on the left because I find myself more ideologically aligned with the former than the latter. But you are right, I should care equally about each side’s disrespect of the dignity of those they oppose. To the extent that I fail to do so, I deserve correction. So far in this discussion, though, I do not think that I have approved of the left. Rather, I have disapproved of both left and right. Since the conversation focuses on the Right, though, it is natural that my comments would likewise focus on them.
Sweet dreams, and God bless! May Thomas More pray for all of us interested in politics.
Rod Dreher must grow faint at the torrents of abuse Groucho heaps on Margaret Dumont.
I LOVE it when Mark lets them have it. It’s everything we are thinking and want to say to these crazy people. He always makes me laugh and cry and that’s every time I listen to him. You can always know a true conservative, you can see and hear their core. Their heart is raw and open, it gives me goose bumps just thinking about it. Rush, Glenn, and Gov Palin does it to me too. Their beliefs just don’t change. That is why they are successful.
All-wise Braunlich stated: “Is that to much to ask of presumably intelligent people who are presumably thinking about what they are writing?)”
I think you need to take your own advice as it should have read “Is that TOO much to ask of presumably intelligent people…”
but I guess I am a fan of Mark’s, Rush’s, Ann’s, etc and we are all just mean and condescending…when actually we just do not like weak-kneed liberal conservatives as they have destroyed our party over the last 15-20 years. I am proud to stand with Mark, Sean, Rush, Ann, Michelle Malkin, etc as they are the Jefferson’s, Madison’s, Franklin’s of our day.
“Rod Dreher must grow faint at the torrents of abuse Groucho heaps on Margaret Dumont.”
Dumont’s characters were probably Republican so I’d guess not.
Hey “Mike No cents”,
I had no idea what a Jabberin Jackass was until I saw your comments. In your case, Jackass will work just fine. You’ve gone and removed all doubt.
I have to say, this Goner Friedersdork guy is quite the bore. I just read some of his blog and I realized that I’d just found the cure for insomnia. Can I patent his blog?
I’m still trying to wake up, so bear with me folks. I’ve seen this type of guy before and it’s all the same thing. Nothing new here. He’d spend months replying to Mark Levin the same tired ” You still haven’t addressed the substantive criticisms that I make” line. It’s his only way of making it appear to readers here that he didn’t just get his ass kicked.
Goner Friedersdork is the classic moderate/liberal who claims to be conservative, who thinks that he is smarter than everyone else in the room. We are just a bunch of knuckle dragging neanderthals roaming the countryside in need of his enlightening wisdom to set us down the proper path.
If we conservatives would just listen to him, and follow his non principled advice, we’d all live in a happy world where everybody would just get along and play nice. We’d be shoulder to shoulder working in the rice fields, but hey, we’d all be good little worker bees getting along working for the state instead of having our say.
Guys like Goner think that we need to play pattycake with liberals and even the terrorists. Heaven forbid we offend them with our ideas or our dreaded principles. We’ll just make them madder and that will lead to discourse and conflict. Goner prefers pattycake, and we’d better toe the line. It’s when we speak our minds or say how we feel, that’s when Goner gets on his high horse and puts us back in our place. How dare we!
To guys like Goner Friedersdork, it’s not the terrorists that we should fear. It’s not the liberals or the socialists that should concern us the most. Nope, instead what we need to fear the most is conservatives who actually mean what they say and believe in what they preach. “Damn those guys!” he thinks.
In his mind it is guys like Mark Levin, El Rushbo, and Sean Hannity who are embarrassing guys like Goner who REALLY WANT liberals to like him! That’s the core here.
Phony conservatives like Goner Friedersdork want adulation and respect from liberals. He craves their attention. He wants them to say, “Hey, I don’t agree with that Goner Friedersdork, but he seems like a smart guy. A real intellectual. He’s not bad, for a Republican.”
But again, it’s those darn guys like Mark Levin that ruin this for him, and therefore become his number 1 targets. They are the enemy. They must be taken on.
A classic moderate/liberal posing as a conservative. End of story.
Gosh, I can’t believe I just wasted my time on this guy….
Oh, “Hey Mike no cents,”
Are you married?
If the aforementioned caller wanted Mark to play nice she should have asked him about his Sprite book. He’s a totally different guy on that topic.
To all of you complaining about the suicide comment-I’m guessing the toilet seat stays down 24/7-yes?
Some talkshow host like to engage fools and attempt to make them see their own folly or use it to demonstrate to the other listeners the flaws of the liberals’ arguments.
Some talkshow host do not suffer fools gladly and quickly drop them in the shredder, then move on.
Guess which group best categorizes Mark Levin?
Frankly, I like the show better when there are few or no callers. He’s far better in lecture mode than interactive mode. For instance, a while before the the 2008 election, he focused the first half of a show entirely on the subject of Saul Alinsky, his book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ and how Obama’s campaign was guided by it. It appears that Obama hasn’t found any good book on what to do one you win, which is why he acts like he’s still campaigning.
I strongly believe that if a major portion of the voting public had listened to that one show it would have altered the outcome of the election. You couldn’t process that information without realizing that while the wouldbe Emperor isn’t buck naked, what he is wearing is awfully threadbare.
Until his supposedly conservative critics can produce something comparable to that Mark Levin broadcast, they need to tend to their own house before worrying Levin might have offended somebody.
Mark Levin expresses the anger many of us feel at what Obama and the Dems are doing to this country. If you don’t get this, you’re not serious about the principles upon which this country was founded, and the damage our children are going to suffer due to this regime. He also has the ability to be able to pick apart arguments using logic in a clear manner that anyone can understand. From my own experience in law school, this is a gift few professors have. Lastly, the guy is just freaking hilarious, and when you’re frustrated about the direction this country is headed, humor goes a long way toward taking the edge off.
@ Conor? Conny? Cornhole? whatever your name is…
Lighten up you little nerd. He’s making you famous…now shut your mouth and take your fat girlfriend Megan McCankles and leave our party. WE’RE DONE WITH YOUR ILK.
America, please resist these types that are soo easy to spit venom at someone like Mr. Levin who truly has a great heart and is concerned for our country, yet these same types pander and look the other way at Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Saul Alinsky, and Jerry Wright. When do you ever hear flakes like Frum, or this Conor nobody, attack the left and their preposterous agenda the same way they go after their own (Levin)? Something is off here.
PLEASE be mindful that the talk of Rush, Great One, and Laura, being minimized as “just entertainers” couldn’t be further from the truth. The real “Entertainment” is CNN who focuses on whether our president has “Swagga” or not…(true story). The real entertainment is CNN, MSNBC, O’reilly, ABC, and CBS.
Rush, and Mark are the REAL Reporters, Truth tellers…Bottom Line…but let me guess, I’m in the racist corner of the tent, right?
Can you believe these guys Great One? What is it like to be such an ass kicker? We love you, truly. You ARE reaching the youth- I just graduated and the fact that our own are attacking you and ignoring the REAL threat (statists) exposes themselves, and they don’t even realize it. It’s a good thing though, all of this is necessary, here’s to standing for something and putting the backbone back into our party.
Please just give Mr. Levin a chance America, there is nobody more rich in substance and facts than him- I know this because I myself am brilliant. Be an adult and stop being swayed by emotion more than logic and reason. God Bless our veterans and our heroes on this day.
Whenever I hear Levin talk I honestly feel embarrassed for him. It makes me cringe. It’s like watching someone who engages in porn.
Rush Limbaugh is actually enjoyable to listen to. On the other hand, I wish Levin would just go away. Put on some elevator music instead.
Jeff, you probably shouldn’t listen to Levin, then, you limp wristed Pansie. Real men listen to Levin. Alpha male all the way.
THE DISGUSTING MARK LEVIN
This was the title of Dreher’s hit-piece on Levin. I just spent about 15 minutes doing some hard-nosed and in-depth googling and it seems that the only instance of Dreher using the word “disgusting” was in reference to Levin.
You see, that’s the problem we have with you weenie back-benchers(that’s right I said it!) – you save your harsh words for other conservatives while glad-handling those of the leftist cabal that just seized the White House.
Hey Dreher! Maybe if you and Conorsdorf put your heads together I’m sure you could write a book with a cool title like:
Rules For Radi-Cons: How to snipe at your allies on the Right in order to curry favor with the Liberal Elites
Now beat it, ya big dopes!
Mark Levin:
I have listened to you on my way home from work regularly for a long time. Rush is on during the workday unfortunately. You, Rush, and to a slightly lesser degree Lars Larson are so beloved for a reason. The left doesn’t care about people like this Conor fellow. They are nothing, not even worthy of Media Matters attention.
Please be careful getting caught up with these gadflies. Remember who you are and how much you are appreciated. Don’t come back to this thread. Just let them be. Thank you for the books and the show.
GOD, what a joke. the republican party loves to spit moronic nonsense at anyone criticizing idiots like levin, even their own – especially their own, in fact. “we don’t need you, anyway,” they love to say, as their numbers continue to plummet.
I think Conor summed up his essential intellectual deficiencies with his pithy remark admitted to in his article about Mr. Limbaugh.
“I don’t get it”
Nor is Conor ever likely to “get it”.
When you can’t even get Mr.Levin’s call straight(even with a transcript), there’s little hope one can engage in rational argument. This also alplies to several of the posters here, most notably, “bailey”.
Conor thought that Mr. Levin told the caller that, “their spouse would be better off committing suicide”.
bailey believes Mr. Levin advised the caller that, “her husband should commit suicide.”
Of course, even a cursory reading of the Mr. Levin’s conversation makes it plain that Mr. Levin said no such thing. If you can’t even get THAT basic information correct, how can one expect any kind of coherent speech from such individuals.
Conor, merely repeating your inane opinions over and over again does not constitute making substantive arguments.
Having bored most of us here to death with your non-arguments, it’s time to move on and publish another article and another book that no one will read.
Thoughtful readers should see from Peg’s comment why Mr. “Levin’s approach to discourse is so destructive to the right. As she states, “He has taught me how to go to battle against the enemy.” In other words, Mr. Levin has convinced Peg that Democrats are enemies of America — worthy of being lumped in with Islamofascists! — that they are best fought by vitriol as opposed to reason, and that anything a conservative does is beyond reproach so long as there is a liberal out there behaving badly.”
That is the most poorly reasoned post I might ever have seen on a BLOG. You took a lil quote and made it fit into your lil meme.
1. It goes without saying that Mark Levin reaches a lot more people than Rod and Conor do combined – 5.5 million plus, isn’t it? That’s without counting the book sales – which I imagine duplicates a lot of that audience…but still. Rod and Conor have a long way to go before seeing that kind of traffic.
But I’ll go further: If Rod or Conor magically got to host Mark’s show for a week or two to reach those 5-6 million listeners and whoever else might tune in, it would quickly become obvious who has the frequency of more of the conservative base. And I think even Rod and Conor would concede that (and lament it).
Conservatives now are in a very angry, frustrated place right now. And because of that, and because of where we are culturally now, a populist shock jock shtick plays far better than a more restrained conservative voice like Russell Kirk, Buckley, Burnham, or Chambers might have done yesteryear. It’s not 1980 or even 1994 any more (more’s the pity, most of us would say).
2. On top of that, Levin adds that he’s not in the business of persuading people. He’s there for his listeners, that very angry part of the conservative base. That’s candid. And accurate. Let’s be honest: if you had someone on the fence politically, you’d probably let them listen to (say) Rush long before Levin. And not just because Rush is the most talented guy on the radio right now.
3. But here’s the “but.” Does Levin’s vastly greater popularity, and his disinterest in persuading persuadable listeners negate Rod’s and Conor’s presumably genuine concerns about the kind of vulgarization this comment represents? For that matter, does the fact that Olbermann or the Kos Kids say even more vile things negate it? Or the fact that she was a seminar caller who sneaked through his call screener?
Well, yeah, we all know politics ain’t beanbag, and who’s to argue with Levin’s success? McLuhan would tell us radio is a hot medium. Obviously a h*** of a lot of righty listeners feel the same way. People like Peg up above want more of this warfare-by-other-means. But if I don’t quite share Rod’s organic diet yet, I can’t help but sympathize with his lament that civil discourse has been eroded to this level. If you can call it discourse. I hope in saying that I don’t get dumped in Colin Powell territory, because God knows that’s not a place I want to be.
Maybe it wouldn’t matter as much if there were conservative political figures out there to carry the flame the way Reagan or Kemp or even Buckley did int he 70′s. But since there aren’t, conservative talk radio seems to be carrying the flag by default. Unfortunately, by definition (indeed, by Mark’s own admission) they aren’t out there to build successful political coalitions – they’re there to fire up the existing base.
I realize Levin’s got his shtick and he doesn’t suffer fools gladly. I still thought the comment was over the top. I still hope Levin gives it a second thought.
1. It goes without saying that Mark Levin reaches a lot more people than Rod and Conor do combined – 5.5 million plus, isn’t it? That’s without counting the book sales – which I imagine duplicates a lot of that audience…but still. Rod and Conor have a long way to go before seeing that kind of traffic.
But I’ll go further: If Rod or Conor magically got to host Mark’s show for a week or two to reach those 5-6 million listeners and whoever else might tune in, it would quickly become obvious who has the frequency of more of the conservative base. And I think even Rod and Conor would concede that (and lament it).
Conservatives now are in a very angry, frustrated place right now. And because of that, and because of where we are culturally now, a populist shock jock shtick plays far better than a more restrained conservative voice like Russell Kirk, Buckley, Burnham, or Chambers might have done yesteryear. It’s not 1980 or even 1994 any more (more’s the pity, most of us would say).
2. On top of that, Levin adds that he’s not in the business of persuading people. He’s there for his listeners, that very angry part of the conservative base. That’s candid. And accurate. Let’s be honest: if you had someone on the fence politically, you’d probably let them listen to (say) Rush long before Levin. And not just because Rush is the most talented guy on the radio right now.
3. But here’s the “but.” Does Levin’s vastly greater popularity, and his disinterest in persuading persuadable listeners negate Rod’s and Conor’s presumably genuine concerns about the kind of vulgarization this comment represents? For that matter, does the fact that Olbermann or the Kos Kids say even more vile things negate it? Or the fact that she was a seminar caller who sneaked through his call screener?
Well, yeah, we all know politics ain’t beanbag, and who’s to argue with Levin’s success? McLuhan would tell us radio is a hot medium. Obviously a h*** of a lot of righty listeners feel the same way. People like Peg up above want more of this warfare-by-other-means. But if I don’t quite share Rod’s organic diet yet, I can’t help but sympathize with his lament that civil discourse has been eroded to this level. If you can call it discourse. I hope in saying that I don’t get dumped in Colin Powell territory, because God knows that’s not a place I want to be.
Maybe it wouldn’t matter as much if there were conservative political figures out there to carry the flame the way Reagan or Kemp or even Buckley did int he 70′s. But since there aren’t, conservative talk radio seems to be carrying the flag by default. Unfortunately, by definition (indeed, by Mark’s own admission) they aren’t out there to build successful political coalitions – they’re there to fire up the existing base.
I realize Levin’s got his shtick and he doesn’t suffer fools gladly. I still thought the comment was over the top. I still hope Levin gives it a second thought.
Oh snap….
Let me ask some of you folks who are upset with Mark Levin a few questions:
1. Are you familiar with the terms “concern troll”, “moby”, and “seminar caller?”
2. If so, how do you handle such people? Do you attempt to earnestly debate them with logic and facts and what you know from your own experience?
3. If so, how does that end up? Do you convince them, or do they devolve in wierder and wierder logical fallacies and slander? If the latter, how do you handle the next troll or moby or seminar caller? And the next one after that? And the next one? Do you not eventually develop a sense of who you can have a rational discussion with, and who you should simply dismiss? It would appear that Mark has done so.
Everyone here obviously comments on internet forums. What happens to such a forum when the trolls are allowed flood the site? What would happen to a radio show if the seminar callers were allowed to do likewise?
Finally, I am frankly tired of these strawman arguments from the handwringers who claim insulting the occasional random liberal dooms our cause to electoral oblivion. Anyone who can seriously put that argument (or something like it) forward has not been paying attention to the last eight years.
>>>Conor: “In other words, Mr. Levin has convinced Peg that Democrats are enemies of America — worthy of being lumped in with Islamofascists!…”
>>Michael in MI: Wrong. The Democrats and the Left have convinced most conservatives who have been paying attention the last decade that they (Democrats/Left/mass media) are the enemies of America.
–
Pretty much. Conor must’ve missed the part where my fellow Marines were being called murderers by sitting congressman John Murtha. He must’ve missed the part where Harry Reid & Co. declared the Surge and the war lost. He must’ve missed the part where they all supported the war to begin with and then backed out of it. He must’ve missed when the *&(*ING PRESIDENT said VETS SHOULD PAY MEDICAL COSTS FOR WAR WOUNDS. Maybe I’m just one of them disgruntled vet types, though.
Conor, you’re an imbecile. You’re not a conservative. If you want to say “Mr. Levin wasn’t nice to that caller”, feel free to do so. Listen to the show, listen to people come on and say the same stupid things over and over. Mr. Levin responds to faulty arguments he’s heard a thousand times harshly. So? It’s his show.
It’s really popular to claim to be conservative and betray them, just so you can bask in the light of leftists. I think that’s kinda what Andrew Sullivan did, as well as McCain and his daughter – they screw over the conservatives (and us libertarians) and suck up to the leftist/statists.
Braunlich – I’m going to guess your request will go unheeded. Mark Levin’s written several books. If you want to debate him substantively, you get to read what he’s already put forth. You take into account his recent book was #1 for weeks on NYT & Amazon. You take that contribution to conservatism first. You read it all. Then you listen to his show for a couple weeks at least – to get some kind of baseline to know who you’re talking to.
Point here is, he actually is doing this Conor guy a great favor – this Conor guy’s name wouldn’t be on the map were it not for his status as a turncoat accusing Levin. Why should he bother to respond? You’re asking the New York Yankees to come play against your nephew’s t-ball team because the t-ball team captain called them out and got noticed. Levin is a heavyweight, this Conor is a non-entity.
If his point was “you get more flies with honey than with vinegar”, this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s not. It’s a calculated attack designed to pull himself up by grabbing on someone else’s greatness.
If you want to argue the substance of the posts, it’s simple enough to look at the stylistic and substantive difference between Levin’s and this Conor guy’s. Levin did a few minutes of research on this no-name, did the courtesy of linking where he read what he read, and when he wrote about court cases, simply cited them. It’s the same way he does things on his show. He’s a very intelligent guy.
This Conor schmuck is whining like he’s on the comments at Daily Kos or something. Shut up and go home. Get Levin’s book, read it, and if you have anything substantive to say, do so after you’ve opened your mind.
Mark Levin, I am a great fan of the show and I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to show us how to deal with annoying leftists and their delusions. I am currently reading “Leftism Revisited” by Eric von Kuehnnelt-Leddihn. from a passage on page 67: “…principles of the Right… could only prevail in the wake of catastrophic default or collapse of leftism. Generally speaking, the Right cannot win by virtue of its goodness, its truth, or its values, because it cannot enthrall the masses. It may attract extraordinary and superior people but it will only occasionally win over the average man”. I would very much appreciate your comments on this thought within this discussion but also in light of what you have been fighting for all this time.
If Conor is such “little nerd” and all the rest of the names you folks have called him and he’s such a nobody that no one listens to him, why are you folks getting so worked up about him? If Mark Levin is a god of intellect the way you say he is, such a pipsqueak as Conor isn’t much of a threat, is he? Its rather amusing how Conor’s pointed criticism of Mark Levin’s radio style is described as some sort of vitriolic personal attack while Mark’s constant over-the-top slams on mr. mild Conor don’t even register.
To clear this up, in debate (and we are debating here as opposed to finding folks to tell us how right we are, right?) saying things like “you’re dumb and everyone knows it” is weaker than saying things like “I disagree with your point for these reasons.” Conor doesn’t like the fact that the loudest voices in conservativism today are doing the former, while he would rather more conservatives do the latter. But if there’s nothing to discuss and Mark Levin is the man with all the right answers, then by all means, enjoy your echo chamber.
Michael, you hit the nail on the head with your second comment at 11:04pm. Conor (with one n) and Dreher just got more fame among millions of conservatives than they ever deserve or would have earned but for attacking Levin. Of course, Conor (with one n) will return to this conversation as soon as he can: the longer it continues, the more fame he derives – not at Levin’s expense, not because of his own intellect but because the Maher’s and Jon Stewart’s (formerly known as Jon Liebowitz) will put him on their radar screen.
I’ve been listening to Levin since he was on WABC only, and download his podcast each day so as to hear every word (and miss all the commercials). He is by far the most brilliant and logical mind on the radio, a true Thomas Paine of our time. Frankly – and he would dispute this himself – he is far more brilliant than his good friends Rush or Hannity.
The reason he treats libs as he does is that he knows their mindset. He doesn’t try and change their minds because they’re hopeless, so he gives them the respect they deserve, which is none. He asked this woman caller why she hates his country and his Declaration of Independence because by proclaiming herself a lib at the beginning of the call, she had identified herself as such a hater.
Mark is exactly right when he tells us that we’re living through a soft tyranny that liberalism (in its modern-day iteration) amounts to, and it’s only gonna get worse. Conor (with one n), Dreher, Frum and the other Vichy Republicans facilitate the soft tyranny and attract NO ONE to their point of view. I lived in Dallas when Dreher moved there from Brooklyn, I believe, shortly after 9/11. I was happy that the Dallas Morning News had finally hired someone to write as a conservative. Or so I thought. Then all this Crunchy Con crap. I don’t know if he never had it in him to be an honest-to-God conservative or he did a David Brooks and conformed to his liberal environment at the DMN – which continues it’s death-spiral like all the other newspapers – but it didn’t take long to get sick of reading Dreher’s girly-crap. That is NOT the substance that is going to attract even one additional voter to whoever Dreher endorses.
I think it was Patton who said something like, “I’d rather have a whole company of Germans in front of me than an army of Frenchmen behind me.” I’d rather have a whole company of Levins in front of me than army of Conor (with one n) and Rod Drehers behind me. At least I’d know who it was that ran me over and didn’t get knifed in the back or abandoned as the Vichy Repubs ALWAYS do to true leaders. Running him over is what Levin has been doing to little Conor (with one n) on this site with each response. Little Conor (with one n) is just too self-absorbed to know it.
I was looking forward to read Levin’s book but based solely on this exchange, not sure I want to now. He comes across as an arrogant asshole who would rather engage in rhetorical tricks than address what his challenger is saying.
Also, in judging someone it’s useful to look at what that person’s followers think is acceptable behavior. Levin’s defenders on this thread are preening and belligerent, like their hero. They can’t tell the difference between holding the line on principle and insulting potential allies. The key is the personal angry insults. Any warrior will tell you that you fight better when you have a cool head, also when you focus on the real enemy and don’t spray bullets in all directions just to show how tough you are. If Levin was a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, his temperament would not be helpful to his comrades’ safety or their success. In fact, I bet after a week or two they would forcefully make it clear that his belligerence and self-aggrandizement was getting on their nerves.
More evidence that the attitude of Mark and his supporters here is not necessary is what is pointed out by other commenters: Rush, Hannity, etc seem to defend conservatism just fine without trashing people. In fact I bet they do a better job of both explaining their movement and winning converts. I’m going to be a happy warrior, and I suggest Mark & fans take some Peptobismol and do the same.
Yehudit said:
“I was looking forward to read Levin’s book but…
He comes across as an arrogant asshole who would rather engage in rhetorical tricks than address what his challenger is saying.”
Have you ever actually gotten into an argument with a book? Don’t get the CD version.
I would recommend that these bloggers go to the Mark Levin show website and listen to the complete podcast of the show.
Mark’s monologue on that day was great: “Is America so horrible that we have to remake it?” If the bloggers don’t like
Mark’s treatment of the lib callers, they could simply listen to Mark’s monologues every day. They could learn a lot! Mark
Levin is brilliant and highly entertaining.
Wow, bob, I really, really got under your skin. Like, you’re like totally obsessed with my comments.
You raise a pure strawman with that Memorial Day b.s. I was responding on Memorial Day to posts and comments put up on Memorial Day. You use the holiday as an excuse to tell those who challenge your dogma to shut up. Didn’t a few hundred thousand lefties for 7 years scream non-stop that “dissent is patriotic”?? I am sure they did. YOU are not a patriot because you want to shut up those of us who dissent from your views.
Mark’s show is HIS show to do with as he pleases. Funny how millions of us want to hear him say what we’re thinking, and do it articulately with wit and a hammer. I tune in for intellectual stimulation, education, fun and a good bloodletting. I don’t see the faux conservatives who like to play footsie (or worse) with the Left getting much in the way of audience or readership, do you? Who even buys Dreher’s and Frum’s books? My family owns at least 6 copies of “Liberty and Tyranny” in different formats and we all listen to Mark. Before you slam me as some trailer-park racist living in the inbred backwoods somewhere, I’ll tell you I am a college grad originally from SoCal who was a hardcore lefty for 26 years. When I talk about the Left and filthy, lying Democrats I know whereof I speak.
Part of what is going on is pure envy, jealousy and venom due to Mark Levin’s huge success. Some is envy of his superior intellect and communication skills. A lot is envy of his enormous radio audience and readership. Mark has huge talent and skill, and connects in an electrifying way with many, many people. His booksigning lines must have had a lot of MSM and “elite” writers just green and pickled with jealousy and animosity. It’s pretty obvious that his detractors will not debate him in the arena of ideas because they cannot – hence they do not review his book and they have taken their time figuring out how to attack him. Now we see it is about “vitriol.” This is rich coming from people who support some of the most venomous mouths on the planet.
It’s obvious Mark’s detractors really cannot deal with him in any substantive way so have gone after Rush, Sean and others while looking for a chink in Mark’s armor. They think they’ve found it. I can hardly wait to hear Mark this week dismember some more bodies. It’s actually kind of funny, the way MSNBC apparently cannot keep viewers unless they show, quote and attack Rush 15 times a day. Rush has challenged them to not mention his name for 30 days but of course they cannot do this or they sink into irrelevancy. They have to keep attacking him to keep their patron in the W.H. happy, as well. Similarly, as Michael says above, the so-called “elites” (whom I have zero respect for as you may surmise) are trying to stay relevant and get fame and fortune by attacking Mark Levin. I guess the theory is, if you’re not writing anything people want to read, then write about the people that the people are reading and listening to. This is the career plan of the Left in general: get money and success from leeching off those who actually ARE successful. These people do not have core conservative principles that speak to the base; Mark does. Mark doesn’t play to everyone because to do that you must abandon principle. Mark sees Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats destroying this country, aided and abetted by some really crappy so-called Republicans, and he’s shouting it from the rooftop. A great many of us are listening and rising up in revolt. You and your ilk can’t handle this. That is your problem.
Prior to 9/11/2001, I was a brain-dead liberal who used to ape whatever my peers in NYC theater aped, such as, ‘Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing nutcase out to destroy America’; I never even bothered to listen to the show as I was too busy listening to elevator music.
That largest attack on American soil in 2001 not only reduced the majestic World Trade Towers into ash, it also removed the veil which hid the lies of modern Liberalism; after that enlightening day I began my conversion from an uninformed drone who, out of the need to be liked and accepted by my peers, aped whatever brain-dead Liberalism contended was righteous intellectualism combined with superior emotionalism to a Liberty-loving Conservative who understands Western civilization’s unholy alliance between the rising tide of Islamic Jihadist tyranny and Liberal Statist misery.
Throughout my journey since 9/11/2001 I have come across many fine Americans who have help me removed the veil of lies and Mark Levin is one such fine American; if I were as knowledgeable and honest about Liberty, about America’s founding principles and about the Freedom which our Liberty brings as is Mark Levin then I would would be screaming louder than he.
From my perspective Dreher, Frum and Friedersdorf sound every much like I used to sound back when I was a brain-dead Liberal and I feel sorry for them since they are stuck in a provincial and myopic populist culture driven by a schizophrenic mentality which refuses to face what it has become, ie., Western civilization’s illiberal suicide brigade.
I am a 47 year female who lived the brain-dead Liberal life and I had a hint that something was terribly amiss in America when the National Organization of Women surrounded and defended a notorious Male Chauvinist Pig who was getting his balls sucked by an intern half his age, while at the office, and with his wife next door. Unfortunately, that event in the late 1990′s was not big enough to awaken me to the veil of Liberal lies, however the attack on 9/11/2001 was the memorable event I vowed to Never Forget.
I want to thank you Mr Levin for helping to teach me, a former brain-dead Liberal (just like David Mamet), the meaning of Liberty upon which our Nation was founded and the value in defending our great American treasure.
My narcissistic life prevented me from seeing Reagan’s Revolution and my biggest regret in life is that I did not listen to you or Rush or all the other fine Conservatives earlier, long before the events on 9/11/2001; perhaps if I had opened my mind to what you and your Conservative peers were saying, our Nation would not be as far down the path of Statist tyranny.
I am listening now and it is my responsibly to help you continue fighting against Statist tyranny while promoting the value of freedom-loving Liberty.
After reading the genius defenders of Conor and Rod, I have come to the conclusion that there isn’t anything in the world more annoying than male pussies.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go put a gun to my temple.
Mark was hyperbolially yet not totally unrealistically extrapolating a likely outcome of Obama’s bringing terrorists into the US Homeland… that some puke Judge would stick his nose where historically it never belonged until the Supreme Court empowered itself to rule in these areas, and that somehow the Terrorist would be set free from charges and allowed to remain in the US and probably be given welfare.
That right now as we speak there are pending bills in Congress to prohibit the President the authority to bring Gitmo prisoners to the US.
That therefore if these bills passed, Obama would be breaking the law to bring those people here.
That is what Levin meant by Obama going over Congress’ head.
It takes a little bit of awareness of current events to understand the short-hand
But if you’re a superficial ideologue and you’re looking to score points , then you can claim some hyperliteral pretense to reframe what Levin said to make him look like he’s saying what he did with no sound basis for doing so.
The terrorists are not considered to be strictly POWs. Being a POW is not an indictment therefore there’s no applicability of Halibuts Corpus., yet the courts are granting writs of HC to these guys so they are in some judicial gray area, which is why they’re being held off-shore to begin with… to avoid the courts claiming jurisdiction over every aspect of their detention.
If they were brought here as POWs and if the courts minded their own business,leaving no chance of their being set free by the courts, then I dont think there would be so much opposition to their being brought here (there would still be a lot of opposition).
But we know that is not how the reality is. If they are brought here, under any classification, Leftist lawyers are going to work nonstop to get them released. Which then leads back to Congress proposing bills to forbid these people from being sent here.
The caller is aware of all of this, so when she calls and basically immmediately starts taunting Mark that Obama is all powerful and signals she is happy that Obama might arrogantly bring these people into the US despite what Congress is doing, then she knowning and deliberately has provoked his reaction BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HIS SHOW DOES!
Are people so dumb as to not “get it”? Apparently.
“insulting potential allies”
Yehudit, am I too understand that I should be nice to those who say things such as “I will send my black brothers to rape Gov Palin if she should step one foot inside Manhattan”?
I know all too well that most progressive-thinkers in Manhattan would applaud such sentiment as ‘sending black brothers to rape a woman’; , however would you really want such potential allies in your circle of friends?
And who would want ‘potential allies’ such as those glorious Feminists who shoved the Feminist aside for the smooth-talking bad-boy who will beat, abuse and abort Liberty for the next four years?
Feminists, by the way, who in their pursuit of protecting and defending the smooth-talking bad-boy just had to trash, thrash, demonize, crucify, destroy, humiliate, and threaten with rape the one female left standing?
Are these the ‘potential allies’ of whom you grandise, protect and defend?
I used to vote Democratic. I was raised to be a Liberal. I am 34 years old now, and discovered what conservatism actually was only a few years ago. I am now a conservative, and have been my whole life without even knowing it.
I discovered Mark Levin’s radio show sometime last year by accident. I had never listened to talk radio before. I find Mark’s show to be very entertaining and informative.
Mark’s website has a list of recommended books that has led me to discover authors like Thomas Sowell and others. Sowell has led me to discover even more authors and thinkers. I have also discovered websites like Drudge, National Review, etc. because of Mark Levin.
My point is that Mark is informative and entertaining. The “entertaining” part is important. It keeps people like me listening and learning. In my opinion there need to be even more entertaining, outspoken conservatives on the radio and TV.
I heard the particular show being discussed. I thought it was funny, as it was meant to be. It was an obvious joke. I chuckled to myself. I think there are also many other convervative men married to Liberal women that also had a laugh.
Wow. Reading this thread is like watching a couple of little boys throwing sand at each other in the playground, while the other kids cheer them on. Mr. Levin is like the big, popular bully who pounds anyone that crosses him, while Mr. Freidersdorf is the skinny, nerdy kid intent on being precise and polite. I fully expect someone to bust out with, “I know you are, but what am I?” pretty soon. Could we all grow up a little, maybe?
I’m safely at my destination, and back to finish up responding to comments as promised.
One that keeps getting repeated is that I’m wrong to criticize Mr. Levin after listening to his show for just 15 minutes. I disagree. It would be unfair if I passed judgment about Mr. Levin’s whole career based on 15 minutes, but I am not doing that. I am passing judgment about those 15 minutes.
Mr. Levin criticizes all sorts of statements on his radio show. Does he research the entire career of everyone he criticizes? I think not, nor should he. Even people who have long, wonderful, productive careers make mistakes sometimes. In my blogging, I often critique a point made by one of my favorite writers, if I happen to think they are wrong in that instance.
In short, Mr, Levin’s body of work is irrelevant to weather he is right or wrong in this debate.
I am a concerned conservative, and all this infighting is bad for Republicans.
We must unite under a strong, conservative, Christian leader. That man is Neil Horsley. Please go vote for him at rebuildtheparty dott comm.
Mark Levin is less bombastic as a writer than he is a talker. the separation from radio voice to written word is possibly the biggest gap of any pundit. am i wrong on that?
I’m sure that Dreher and Conor what’s-his-name find Wanda Sykes very witty.
Mr Friederdorf
When I see such criticism towards those who threaten ‘to send her black brothers to rape Gov Palin’( which was met with applause) waged in the manner in which you are waging against Mark Levin then perhaps I will take your criticisms into consideration.
None in your camp of great thinkers from Frum to Dreher, to Powell, to Meghan McCain, to you Mr Friederdorf seem to criticize all the Feminists who threaten rape upon the female, who condemn the female as stupid and uneducated and backward, who label the female as ‘trailer-trash’, who mocks the female’s wardrobe and her manner of speech, who demonized her as a ‘killer of animals and the Earth’ just because the female went against the Feminist orthodox by not aborting her child yet you are criticizing one man who has criticized these very Feminists whom you seem content upon ignoring.
There’s two arguments that I reject
1 – A conservative media person was mean, therefore I had to reject conservative principles and vote Democrat.
Ha! How could anyone , ever, say this with a straight face? And why is it that the people who make this complaint never seem to mention the other side?
Now I’m not one of those “well the other guy did it so I could do it too”
What I’m saying is… if you say you’re so bothered because a very limited group of public speakers (who i could probably count on my two hands) from the right are mean…. how in the world could you go to the Left.. where there are scores more of people who are like that.. if not most of them?
And if you claim to be a conservative how in the world could you switch to voting for collectivist Anti-Constitutionalists becuase you dont liek the tone of some other person?
and secondly. theres that “if you were calm and polite, people would notice you more and take what you say seriously”
Really? Does anyone believe that if Ann Coulter wrote very politely that the issues of Democrats using Political Human Shields or the ill social effects of Single Motherhood would have been addressed in the media? It was only because Coulter wrote disparangingly about a few 9/11 widows and Hollywood single moms that these issues were brought into the media and discussed.
When Conservatives put things in nice little polite packaging they are ignored.
Coulter’s and Levin’s critics are basically asking for Conservatives to muzzle themselves.. meanwhile the entire world of the cultural and media Left are insulting and attacking this country 24/7. I never hear anyone calling for them (the Left) to shut up.
I’m not calling for them (the Left) to shut up either. sure I thikn what they’re saying is destructive, but they have the right to say it.
And that’s the difference… we’re not asking for anyone to shut up.. yet the only ones being told to shut up are Conservatives.
That’s for a reason… and the hand-wringers on the right who are so worried about “tone” are nothing other than the useless (not useful) idiots of the Left.
Whenever I hear Levin’s voice, i can only think of a 93-year-old man waving his cane in the air telling a bunch of kids to get off his lawn.
sorry, but that’s all I get from levin.
Conor, Dreher, and Frum are just trying to use Levin to elevate there status. Frum constantly runs to the liberal media to bash conservatives in order to validate his conservative-lite positions. I don’t agree with Republicans on a few things (I sit on the fence between Conservative and Libertarian) but I don’t go running to liberals for validation when conservatives don’t agree with me. Liberals just love to see conservative snipe at eachother… and Conor Friedersdorf and his ilk are always willing to do so for a few seconds in the limelight.
I listen to Levin because every time I feel beat down by the media or family for my political views… he reminds me not to apologize to anyone. If I want a more intellectual conservative, listen to Dennis Prager (if you want to ‘convert’ a liberal, try Prager). That is not the niche Mark Levin is in. The fact that Conor does not “get” that means he a. has no sense of humor or b. is starting a political cat fight to get himself noticed.
Mark Levin is guilty of breaking the rule of “Never argue with an idiot… people may not know the difference!”
Hey, here’s a thought:
Mark Levin is an asshole! Wow, look how easy that was. It’s beyond pointless arguing the merits if a given issue with conservatives, so why not save ourselves time and go straight to the personal attacks. Mark, protests to the contrary, seems to be a fairly stupid person. Insecure too, the sort that has to name drop books they’ve read and shore up their sense of intellectual self-worth with insufferable pomposity. So he’s dumb, and an chivalrous dick. There’s ways you speak to people and there’s ways you don’t. You don’t suggest a woman’s husband kill himself because she’s a liberal. It says a lot about a man’s character when he says something like that; it was even weirder to vent his rage against her by filtering through a prism of patriotism, of all things. So Mark is a misogynist who likely has difficulty keeping an erection unless he can stroke at a photo of President Bush in his (admittedly sexy) flight suit while in flagrante. Also, Mr. Levin’s defenders – every one of you – is a pathetic child whose deep existential cowardice has driven them to conservatism and its hysterical, childish sense of ethics.
…that feels better. Is this what it feels like to be a conservative: not thinking and charmlessly insulting your opponents to make yourself feel better? If so, awesome. I’m changing my registration today. Also, Mark Levin is a real asshole.
excuse the typos… I have to run to work…
Mark Levin did not address the substance of the critique. Why didn’t he just man up and say “sometimes I go over the line”.. end of story. No he begins his defense by calling his critic a “kook”….sigh…..
If that’s intelligent debate, then…. I don’t want it (and dreher was wrong in calling Levin a “cretin”.
Oh yeah… “lightening up” doesn’t mean ignoring comments like “your husband should put a gun to his temple”… sheesh!
Who the hell is Conor Friedersdorf? Is he supposed to be relevant? Like Dreher and Frum, is he just some irrelevant blogger looking to latch on to Levin and Rush in order to get some attention?
Just pathetic.
’08AMA
When you are forced to pick up the hefty tab for the lavish party your Dear Leader is throwing, I know for a fact that you will be wishing for the rest of your life that you had listened to the 93-year-old man waving his cane.
I’ll say this, the kiddies born after 1980 are in for one freaky surprise when the Tax Man Geithner comes knocking on their doors looking for the money; and unlike the Geithner the kiddies won’t be able to cheat on their taxes.
So look out ‘O8AMA’ you are about to get hit up side the head with some awesome pain which will leave you begging for Mark Levin to come a save your sorry derriere from the misery of Serfdom.
Listen, don’t look to Bill Maher or Jon Stewart to bail you out of your Serfdom because Maher and Stewart are members of the slavemaster class who acquired great wealth by conning you into believing they care about you; they care about getting your money which is why they want you to remain a Serf.
Now you can choose to remain enslaved to the con-artists however I personally prefer Liberty now that I have learned from Mark Levin the age-old wisdom that Serfdom sucks the life blood out of individual Freedom.
Nick
Defend Feminist Racist Sotomayor, I like to understand what you mean by “not thinking and charmlessly insulting your opponents to make yourself feel better”:
“So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.”
I commented on Drehers article on his site and told him that he sounded like the people who never listened to Rush but felt free to criticise him be cause it plays well at cocktail parties. I was neither obscene or rude but my post didn’t last more than 3 minutes before he took it down.
Yehudit
Is Feminist Racist Sotomayor a “potential ally’ and if so, how and why would this Feminist Racist possibly be an ally to Liberty?
Heh. I love this. Dreher’s been asking for this take-down for ages.
Confession time: I don’t listen to talk radio, basically because I can’t. I’m at work until six-ish / seven-ish every day, and the work I do requires sufficient concentration as to render it impossible for me to pay attention to talk shows. Mea culpa.
I also seldom check in on the Dreherrhea Blog, mainly because it turns my stomach every time I deign to slum there. Also, I have a life.
However, I have been on the receiving end of Dreher’s selective editing / censorship, vicious insults (he has a nerve accusing anyone else of insulting women!!), and playground-bully nastiness. That is why it gives me great pleasure to see someone of Mark Levin’s stature take the little squirt down a few pegs. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
More later, during lunch hour. Meanwhile, carry on, troops!
I was going to respond, but I see Mark took care of the real point here, so I’ll reiterate…
Conor,
Do you really not understand why conservatives would find it abhorrent to re-house the detainees in the US? Are you really so ignorant of the laws of this country? Did you not understand that by housing the detainees on a military base, as opposed to on US soil, that rights issues were circumvented? How beneficial to our society would it be to (a) have these detainees suddenly get the rights and protections of our country and (b) offer them the opportunity to be set loose without trial, (c) tie up our legislative and judicial systems with handling the issues related to the detainees, and lastly (d) tie up our legal system with this influx of cases that US attorneys would have to fight?
Perhaps you don’t agree with the detainment of the persons in Gitmo, but Mark’s position is perfectly *correct*, there is no need for knee-jerk reactionists to jump onto the move-the-detainees-to-US-soil bandwagon when it could be so harmful for our country and our laws. People like that aren’t thinking, they are just hearing a statement from their beloved leader and going, “Hey, that sounds fair and reasonable to me, we really ought to do that!” Then, they come on Mark’s show and parrot back that idiotic position like its something ‘smart’. (sigh)
I think your real problem here is the ‘loud voices’ and disagreeable manner in which Mark handled this guest. I listen to Mark frequently (since he archives his shows for free) and there is only so much a reasonable and learned person can handle from idiots, drones as Mark calls them, which don’t think about the ramifications of their positions or statements. Maybe if you heard as many morons and Obama-philes as Mark on a daily basis you’d be more understanding. Mark is passionate and brilliant and does not suffer fools well.
Conor, read his books, then comment. Until then, you’re just a little chirping bird harping on an insignificant event that was cherry picked out of 1000s of hours of material…congratulations on finding such juicy material and completely ignoring the real substance of Mark’s program.
BTW, Mark has the legal chops and conservative history to stake his claim without question. Go look at his wikipedia page about his work under AG Meese and Reagan as well as with Landmark Legal Foundation.
Whether you want to admit it or not, people listen to and respect Mark because he has consistently demonstrated his conservative principles, fought for them, written about them (very successfully) and confronts liberals about them.
You’ve gotten into a cage with a lion and you are very over-matched.
Coner’s losing battle with The Great One almost–ALMOST–makes me want to be a witless RINO, just so I could argue with The Great One. Anything, ANYTHING, to get his attention. But watching him get his brains verbally beat in is like watching a trainwreck. Facinating, but eventually decent people have to look away.
This is easily the best pillow fight by retards since the Pam Atlas-Charles Johnson dustup of ’08.
This is a lot of nonsense. Conner and his ilk have their arrows pointed in the wrong direction. Then again, they may have them pointed in the right direction. It is just that they have their arrows pointed at the backs of those fighting at the front lines, because they are believed to be taking all the glory.
If you want to attain the status of a champion, you must be willing to engage the enemy. You may say they are fellow Americans, therefore they are not the enemy. Yet they will enslave or imprison you via their ideology.
I honestly believe there is a bit of dishonesty in all of this. The person in particular heard this comment from a show he listened to for 15 minutes. Was there some cosmic force that drew Connor to listen to Mr. Levin at that moment? I can’t prove my belief, but understand if he is not your cup of tea, you may change the channel. If liberals have their way, you will have no real choice in what you listen too.
Mark, why are you bothering with this fool? Carry on doing what you’re doing, it’s the way to go. If they’re offended they can find another party, after all their hero is now dictating to everyone. These people are left leaning “conservatives” (and I’m being kind here) and therefore have to be ignored and left behind.
Dr. Levin your show isn’t even in the same zip code of vulgarity as a Bill Maher show and also is light years ahead of the Daily Show, Cobert Report, & Maher’s show combined for actual intelligent substance.
To cherry pick “The Great One’s” radio show is just like these drive by media personalities. When are one of these bozos going to call out the huffington post, daily kos, etc.?
You libs/drones are pathetic! Dr. Levin could enlighten you yard birds if you’d open your minds.
Keep up the great work Great One and don’t foret to “THANK HIM!!!”
Mr. Levin,
Huzzah!
“Conor, I neither know or care who the flip you are, and obviously neither does Mark.”
“The man is a saint on the right.”
So, the future for the Republican party is to become a theocracy, then? Where you have mullahs who rule by fiat and saints to venerate? Fascinating approach to politics, where namecalling and status games replace political discourse. Also fascinating is the intense manifestation of ego on Levin and his followers part, and their inability to separate arguments from person. The argument Conor, Frum et. al are making is that the Tea-party brand of Fox-conservatism, with its rabid sprinkling of terms such as “traitor”, “socialist”, “islamo-fascists”, “lying filthy democrats” is doing more damage than good to the republican party, leading it into becoming a gaggle of competing personality-cults. And the example from Levins show is just one out of hundreds of examples from far right pundits who are currently dominating the message of the republican party. Glen Beck, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh,m Michael Savage all seem to blend into one monolithic angry white fat man. And if thats the image the republican party wants to have, then it is in serious problems. Thats all, you can all go back to hating now.
PS: “The Democrats and the Left have convinced most conservatives who have been paying attention the last decade that they (Democrats/Left/mass media) are the enemies of America.”
This says it all. A majority of Americans are the enemies of America. Fascinating.
Mark Levin’s great sins in the eyes of the Fauxcons are that he adheres to conservative principles, will not grant the good intentions of our enemies, and will not take their bullying in gratitude for the attention.
His greatest sin is wanting to win.
Dreher and Frum spend all their misbegotten time trying to find that mythical “Third Way” between liberty and tyranny. How successful are they? Well, Dreher used to be a columnist with nationwide reach writing for National Review. He’s now stuck in Dallas watching newspapers die around him. Mark Levin got Frum to admit on his program that his latest book sold around 25,000 copies. This is from a former White House speechwriter beloved by the Left Wing Media as a candidate for the David Brock Growth In Journalism Award (aka the Backstabber).
Meanwhile, Levin’s got one of the top-rated talk shows in the nation and a #1 bestselling book.
The Frums, Drehers, Friederswhatsis, and Powells of the GOP were utterly discredited when the party ran their favored “moderate” maverick candidate and got shown the door.
You can’t beat something with nothing and you surely can’t beat liberal fascist with moderate quislings.
It is Mark Levin who rallies the troops for the battle we must wage to save this nation and its Constitution.
Let these clowns sulk in their tents.
(My apologies to Achilles for placing him in such poor company.)
“Thoughtful readers should see from Peg’s comment why Mr. Levin’s approach to discourse is so destructive to the right”
No, his discourse is brilliant. Your penny-ante BS is destructive to the party because you pretend you have something to offer to the conservative movement when all you are doing is harping about minutia and without any real experience (with Mark’s show) to give credibility to your screed. Mark defends the conservative viewpoint daily and leads the fight on why conservativism is pro-human, and why the modern liberal is anti-human. But, rather than take up arms and battle beside Mark, you’d rather shoot him in the back with your BB gun and distract him from his battles.
Mark dismisses this buffoon who has given more thought to what shampoo to use than her thoughts on the Gitmo detainees while also elaborating upon the correlation between the principles of the modern conservative and the US Constitution. You, meanwhile, cherry-pick a statement from 1000s of hours of program while ignoring the rubbish that Colin Powell speaks, hatred that comediennes like Garafalo (sp?) and Sykes spew, or the nonsense/hate that Keith Olbermann says nightly. You’d rather find a single flaw with a well established true conservative than to take up the battle with McCain, Specter, Snow, Collins, Grahamn, or Powell.
Conor, you’ve got a beef with Mark and his views beyond his statement to that caller, then argue the merits, otherwise ‘hush puppy’. Next on your list should be hounding parents when they lose their tempers with their teens and say something inappropriate or non-PC…I’m sure you’d find that a valuable expenditure of your time as well.
Mark Levin’s great sins in the eyes of the Fauxcons are that he adheres to conservative principles, will not grant the good intentions of our enemies, and will not take their bullying in gratitude for the attention.
His greatest sin is wanting to win.
Dreher and Frum spend all their misbegotten time trying to find that mythical “Third Way” between liberty and tyranny. How successful are they? Well, Dreher used to be a columnist with nationwide reach writing for National Review. He’s now stuck in Dallas watching newspapers die around him. Mark Levin got Frum to admit on his program that his latest book sold around 25,000 copies. This is from a former White House speechwriter beloved by the Left Wing Media as a candidate for the David Brock Growth In Journalism Award (aka the Backstabber).
Meanwhile, Levin’s got one of the top-rated talk shows in the nation and a #1 bestselling book.
The Frums, Drehers, Friederswhatsis, and Powells of the GOP were utterly discredited when the party ran their favored “moderate” maverick candidate and got shown the door.
You can’t beat something with nothing and you surely can’t beat liberal fascist with moderate quislings.
It is Mark Levin who rallies the troops for the battle we must wage to save this nation and its Constitution.
Let these clowns sulk in their tents.
(My apologies to Achilles for placing him in such poor company.)
Martin, stop nitpicking or we’ll know know you are just a nitwit. I’m commenting on a blog, not writing a thesis or article for peer review. You really need to get a life. The Right understands my terms.
We know who the haters are. Your ilk conflates Bush with Hitler and makes movies about Bush being assassinated. Clean your own house.
~7 hours ’til The Great One is on, all!
Conor: Yappy and sappy.
To sum up. Ignore ankle-biters. Lighten up.
BTW – Danimal – “Niedermeyer material”? Was that supposed to be a hockey reference? Missed it entirely.
Mr. Levin and others,
I’ve responded to your counterarguments here: http://theamericanscene.com/2009/05/26/mark-levin-part-ii-the-dispatcher-is-dispatched
This whole debate is idiotic.
For Dreher to lambast Levin about his comments to the caller just shows his ignorance—apparently Dreher has never listened to Levins show on a regular basis.
Anyone who listens regularly knows that Levin uses hyperbole and irony in his rants, and that’s all that this particular comment was.
I was listening to the show when the comment was made and thought nothing of it, as a regular Levin listener.
As a matter of fact, conservatives NEED more Levin-like hyperbole. He’s one of the few conservative voices out there that recognizes the dire situation our country is in under the current administration.
for museum curator:
Jabbering:
intransitive verb : to talk rapidly, indistinctly, or unintelligibly
Jackass:
Pronunciation:
\ˈjak-ˌas\
Function:
noun
definition: a stupid person : fool
Mark Levin:
Pronunciation:
\mark lev-in\
Function:
an entertaining and comforting affirmation to progressive thinkers that conservatism (a’la right wing style) is about to die in the gutter.
definition: a jabberin’ jackass
apologies if i wasn’t clearer before.
this is part of the reason Republicans are in trouble, we have stopped articulating cogent and substantive arguments and reduced public discourse to name calling and rudderless spin. That is how things like this happen: http://www.newsy.com/videos/gop_soul_search
Stop letting the party get hijacked by ideologues who do little more than spout palaver while pimping their own brand. It is bad for the party and bad for the country.
“This is easily the best pillow fight by retards since the Pam Atlas-Charles Johnson dustup of ’08.”
You need a bigger bag of tricks, genius.
“So, the future for the Republican party is to become a theocracy”
Hmm…Democrats elected the Messiah who came in the grandeur of Kingdom Hollywood’s columns campaigning on the promise of making the oceans rise and fall while giving everyone on the planet free health care, world peace and free mortgage payments.
The Republican Party cannot become what the Democrat Party already is., a theocracy led by The One whom Democrats have been waiting for all their lives; apparently He has Risen and is occupying the White House.
What all of you, unfortunately including Mr. Levin, fail to understand is that it is entirely possible to agree with Mr. Levin on most issues of substance, to admire his more thoughtful written works (Men in Black is one of the best books on the Supreme Court I have ever read) and yet still find the way he carries himself on his radio program off putting and counter productive.
Perhaps it is entirely possible that there are some conservatives that don’t agree with Mr. Levin on every single issue – then again I guess we’re not conservatives?
God, I don’t know why my mother didn’t slit her wrists when I was born. I’m such a terrible conservative.
(Full Disclosure: I am a personal friend of Conor’s and former Co-Blogger. That said I don’t agree with him on all issues)
So Conor, when did you stop beating your wife?
…which just about sums up the pseudo-philosophical basis of your argumentum.
Got logic much?
What all of you, unfortunately including Mr. Levin, fail to understand is that it is entirely possible to agree with Mr. Levin on most issues of substance, to admire his more thoughtful written works (Men in Black is one of the best books on the Supreme Court I have ever read) and yet still find the way he carries himself on his radio program off putting and counter productive.
Perhaps it is entirely possible that there are some conservatives that don’t agree with Mr. Levin on every single issue – then again I guess we’re not conservatives?
God, I don’t know why my mother didn’t slit her wrists when I was born. I’m such a terrible conservaitve.
(Full Disclosure: I am a personal friend of Conor’s and former Co-Blogger. That said I don’t agree with him on all issues)
First off, the comments saying that Mark is “rude” to “anyone who doesn’t agree with him” are well off base. I have been a long time listener to Mark’s show and what you perceive to be “rude” is the fact that Mark has zero patience for drones who just want to spew out leftist talking points and will not answer his questions with any substance and will not learn or consider his viewpoint when they are proven wrong and they have no interest in learning anything. They do not care about truth. They do not care about facts. They do not care about substance. They are ideologically set in stone and intellectually D.O.A. Mark doesn’t have the time nor the patience to deal with these people nor should he. They are a lost cause.
Secondly, I won’t say that “Democrats” in the strict sense of the word are “the enemy”, because there are many blue collar, working-class, “Reagan Democrats” who are out there who do care about this country, they don’t want larger government, they do support the military, and love this country, etc. However, those running the Democrat Party are indeed the enemy. They are the enemies of liberty,freedom, and prosperity and because of that fact, they are indeed our enemy. We are engaged in a war. This is as Mark says, a “counter-revolution to the American Revolution”. If you think otherwise, I would suggest you wake up and take notice at what is going on around you. We have the most radical ideologue to ever become President running the show…a pure bred Marxist with contempt for this country….and he is being backed by the most radically leftist Congress ever. Together they have nationalized most of the housing industry, are in the process of nationalizing the banking and automotive industry, and will soon be on their way to nationalizing aka Socializing the health care and oil industry. They are infringing on state’s rights, unconstitutionally interfering with the private sector, and spending our children and grand-children’s wealth away and mortgaging their futures, and they are marching right along at a frenzied pace and shredding the Constitution along the way.
So YES. They ARE the enemy and we have no time to sit and play “nice” with authoritarian, collecitivist…otherwise known as “Statists”. Some people on here and other places seem focused on Mark’s “abrasiveness” or “rudeness” yet they never seem to notice how “abrasive”, “rude”, or “bully-like” the people on the left are. People such as Keith Olbermann are never called out. How about the people at “The Daily Kos”? How about Media Matters? How about Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Janene Gorafolo? We have a President whose administration makes threats to private enterprise companies in order to strong-arm them into giving their company up to the U.A.W. Where is the outrage over that? I never hear people like Conor and other pseudo-conservatives and pseudo-Republicans speak out against that. No. Instead, their contempt and criticism is reserved for and aimed at champions of the conservative cause such as Rush, Mark, and Sean. This is because politically they are cowards. They don’t have the stomach to stand up to the left wing that is dragging this country down. It is so much easier to join in with the choir on the left so that they won’t be subject to their attacks and vitriol. If you people do not have the stomach for the fight, then stand aside. You are a detriment to the cause of saving this country and unless you have an understanding of principled conservatism and the enemy we are up against, then you truly are serving no purpose other than to undermine the conservative cause and the fight for our liberty.
You have people like Powell, saying the “people want larger government and higher taxes” which is absurd. Polls have shown otherwise and it counter to the American belief system. These people are elitists who are trapped in their own little bubble and they do not have the pulse of the American people. There truly is “two Americas”. There is one with the false perception that Socialism and more government and more liberlism is the “mainstream”…..and then there is the TRUE mainstream…the American people, who want less government, less taxes, and no Socialism. Yet you have these Party hacks, who in all their self-absorbed “intellectual superiority”, feel that they know better than the people and they continue to pull the Republican Party further left so that we are ultimately left with two choices: Left and extreme left. So we are essentially being forced to vote for liberals. We CANNOT be a Party of “opposition” when we are not opposing what the left is doing but rather selling out our principles and agreeing with them and advancing the liberal agenda.
This is what we have been reduced to and this is EXACTLY why the Republican Party has lost it’s footing and appeal. It is because the Republican Party has lost the pulse of the American people. They have lost their principled approach and moral compass. They keep listening to their political opponents across the aisle when they tell them “you have to move further left or you will never win again”. Are you so naive to believe them? They are trying to DEFEAT us. Do you honestly believe they are so concerned with us ever winning again that they are trying to offer “helpful advice”? They are telling us this for the PRECISE reason that they KNOW it will cause us to LOSE. That is exactly why they want the Party to move further left. They will keep encouraging this until eventually we will have one-Party rule in this country. They want LESS opposition and not MORE. I can’t believe there are so many supposedly “smart people” in the Republican Party that have fallen for this trick. It is truly pathetic.
We need LEADERSHIP in office and if you cannot stand up to the bullies on the left and go nose to nose with them…if you cannot stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law…if you cannot stand up for liberty and freedom…if you cannot stand by the side of those who are doing just that, then you are of NO use to us and you need to step aside. In the words of the great General Patton: “Lead, follow, or get out of my way”.
MARK: Thank you for everything you do. You are a true patriot and I am a dedicated listener and fan. You have deeply inspired me and many others. I listen to you and you articulate the truth and you speak and give voice to the things that I believe as well as many others. I truly appreciate what you do for this country and i only wish that we had leaders like you and Rush in the Republican Party. People that aren’t scared to fight those on the left and aren’t afraid to stand up for the principles, morals, and values in which we believe. Keep fighting the good fight!
Brian
Wow I take a couple of days off to work around the house and tune out to return to this?
Nicely done Dan! The “Great One” graces us with his visit!
To all of those RINO’s out there like this whiny little Coner guy I can simply say “you need to get a life”.
This guy couldn’t spend two minutes with the “Great One” debating the constitution!
I can’t believe that this troll lover is even being given the time of day by Mark!
I haven’t seen a thread this long since the last time you called out Andrew!
I love it when asshole conservatives fight with one another.
Keep it up! Good entertainment for us liberals!
I’ll say one thing for Mark Levin: He’s walking testament that, in some circumstances, abortion is a necessary evil. Would you really wish it upon anybody, even a prostitute as it so happened, to carry such a creature to term?
Unbelievable.
That sums up this whole debate.
Mark Levin has been writing and speaking his mind for years to an audience of millions. His style and his passion are the hallmark of the Mark Levin show. He goes bonkers when confronted with fools and he berates them, usually pretty harshly. There’s nothing new there.
Enter Conor, who has apparently had his head under a rock for the past few years. He listens for fifteen minutes, hears Mark blow his top on a particularly witless caller (I remember the call) and decides that he is dialed in to the problem. Next he unleashes his own vitriol on Mark Levin to denounce the tone employed on his show.
In one paragraph he refers to Mark as a “cretin” a “creep” and a “trashmouth.” That is not exactly the way to prove your point that vitriol is not a helpful tool for conservatives in public debate. That essential problem number one with you, Conor, you are a hypocrite. That one paragraph proves that you can name-call with the best of them, and if you don’t like Mark Levin’s name calling, it should not justify you calling him names.
Problem number two: It is clear that you are using the fame and popularity of Mark Levin’s show to make a name for yourself. Shame on you, and I hope that Mark leaves it to us, his nameless, fameless fans to dissect you and send you back to the irrelevance that you so richly deserve. You have had enough of his time and attention.
Problem number three is your whole underlying philosophy. You appear to believe that the way for conservatives to regain political power is to modify their principles to become more like liberals. And above all, I guess, to be nice. The problem is that the other side is not nice, and takes advantage of “nice” guys like you every chance they get. You are probably on the list of “token” republicans who is allowed to make appearances on MSNBC to get evicerated by Olbermann and Maddow. I wouldn’t know, as I don’t watch that channel, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
As Andrew Wilkow says, the problem isn’t that the country is too divided, it’s that the country isn’t divided enough. Bipartisan solutions result by taking a good idea, and mixing it with a bad idea and getting a solution that is somewhere between “pretty bad” and “total disaster.” If we believe in the principles that got this country to greatness, and we believe that the current problems were caused by and are being aggravated by statism, why would we want to make friends with and compromise with the Statist? Answer: we wouldn’t. That would be stupid.
I would rather listen to someone who understands that, and is occasionally ruder to a caller than I might be in his place. Conor, I can only imagine how ineffective you would be if you were to try and be a standard bearer of Mark Levin’s stature.
Your fifteen minutes of borrowed fame are now over. Dismissed.
Mark Levin’s voice is alkie unto an apoplectic Schnauzer. He has a voice for print, a face for radio and a talent for nothing. Please, please keep elevating this no-talent hack into positions of prominence, and never stop sticking shivs in those who are ideologically impure.
The Two-Faced Republicans, Dreher, Conor, Brooks, Frum, Powell, McCain, Dole, etc., spew their crap against a principled and strong Conservative like Levin because he makes them look like the vichy traitors they are…these little piss ants have never stood against the tyranny of the left and hide out as stooges that will not be useful in this battle so just forget them and their little minions, Maher, Stewart and Mancow.
Settle this Conor, call his show and debate. The opportunity is there, I know Mark will invite you. Please don’t just hide behind your computer and shoot cowardly into the arena from the stands…come down to the middle and address him, DEBATE.
I will bet anything that you are too spineless to do so. We all know you won’t. You’ve picked the wrong one to mess with here – Levin will systematically destroy you and deliver you from your political ignorance, so I ask you to answer this one question… WILL YOU OR WILL YOU NOT CALL MARK’S SHOW? PLEASE REPLY TO THIS QUESTION CONOR.
The debate is over when these people talking against Levin are only left to say things like “I don’t like your tone, you’re delivery is too abrasive, You’re mean.” This is the same thing that the ladies on the THE VIEW are left to say when Coulter carves them up. “Oh yeah, Oh yeah…we’ll, you didn’t have to say it like that.”…Give us a break please.
HELLO PEOPLE, LEVIN DIDN’T MEAN IT LITERALLY, OK? LIGHTEN UP. IT WAS MEANT TO BE FUNNY, and it worked, I remember laughing out loud.
But we understand. Go ahead and hang on to the “You’re mean” argument and keep ignoring substance. If you are guided by emotion and feeling over substance and reason, you truly belong on The Chosen One’s side.
I’m not too impressed with Levin’s statement, but I assume there is more to his show than this, or it wouldn’t be popular. I expect that Levin probably wishes he chose his words better now too. He does sound a bit whiny in his defense, but we’re all human, and getting blasted sometimes makes us weak. Elijah ran from Jezebel after vaporizing the altar with fire.
The point about getting down in the dirt with the dems is a valid point.
I’m glad someone mentioned Men In Black because that put Levin more into context for me. I tried to read the book, couldn’t finish it. It was useful, but quite dull.
Dreher? Eh, he says some good things, and some not so good things. And he wants to be Da Leader which is not going to happen, and he needs to reconcile himself to reality.
Bottom line: I hope Levin learns to occasionally check his mouth, and Dreher goes back to writing something of a conservative bent that is not about attacking other conservatives, and we can Move On.
I’m told that the TBogg/Sadly, No crowd cannot think of any new jokes.
I am a ML fan. I think he is one of the most articulate defenders of conservatism. I do agree that I would prefer it if Mr. Levin engaged the leftists who call into his show rather than yell at them and cut them off. Some of the best moments on other talk shows are when the host is dismantling the arguments of a lefty. ML with his legal background is so well equipped to do this that he would have a better show if he did.
That said, I wouldn’t be so shallow to base my opinion on 15 minutes of listening. And I sure wouldn’t be so dumb as to write about it. Put your efforts into battling the real enemies out there, foreign and domestic before swiveling your pop gun at a conservative warrior.
“You would have thought I had spent the last 25 years befriending the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, or had driven the car that ended Mary Jo Kopechne’s life. But no, those are the leaders of the Democratic Party.”
It’s the old “everyone else is doing it” defense.
Hi Mark,
I am a huge fan, a “stalker” even, and to make this fun, and to dismiss these ignorant, arrogant fools, here are their suggested “pet names” similar to the ones that you gave Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi and Harry “the body” Reid.
Conor Fridersdorf = Conor Friedersthedork
David Frum = David Frump
Rod Dreher = Rod Dreary
I noticed that one of the respondants here referenced you as “Mark Levine”. Is that some sort of attempted slap at him?
Honestly, Mark, in all seriousness, you have much better things to do than respond to these irrelevant metro-sexual wannabes Soggy Faux conservatives, such as spending time with your wonderful family and pets. I suggest not wasting your time and not giving these needy losers any attention at all, and let them go back to their complete obscurity. After all, if a blogger blogs in the woods, and no one is there to link to his blogs, is he really blogging at all?
In all seriousness, the so-called Vichy Republicans like these three and Colon Powell make me ill. Instead of attacking the policies of our president and the Marxist Democrapic party, they are shooting those of you on the front lines(Levin, Limbaugh) in the back. I have not heard Gen. Powell criticize Pres. Obama one time.
Thank you very much, Mark! Keep up the good fight.
“”You would have thought I had spent the last 25 years befriending the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, or had driven the car that ended Mary Jo Kopechne’s life. But no, those are the leaders of the Democratic Party.”
It’s the old “everyone else is doing it” defense.
Posted by: ignatov | Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 04:59 PM”
Um hmm, being rude on the phone is exactly like killing another person.
Being rude on the phone is exactly like befriending domestic terrorists like Ayers.
I believe Mark’s point is: These critics are more worried about his rudeness than about real treachery by Leftists.
Speaking as a proud liberal, I’ve greatly enjoyed this episode of “kill and eat the sensible conservatives.’ No wonder you’re 24% and falling. I especially enjoyed the idiocy of repeated snarky remarks of the “Conor with one ‘n’” variety, suggesting that someone who spells his name, well, correctly, is putting on airs. Unlike that “Mark with one ‘k’” guy, who apparently is the cat’s meow.
Got to run now. Have fun. See you at the Sotomayor confirmation.
I am from the Chicago area and I see how Obama, Emmanuel and their ilk operate-and it disgusts me. You can throw Daley, Blago, etc. in with that crew too. If you think that being nice with these people will defeat them, you are sadly mistaken and you have an overly optimistic view of the political situation.
The Republican Party, including us Conservatives, IS the party of the “big tent”. For years we tolerated Specter, Chafee, Collins, and Snow, and their liberal views on issues. You saw what happened to Specter when he left our party-he has to fall in line with the Marxist agenda or his seniority, committee positions, etc. will get stripped from him, and they will even support another candidate running against him. Does that sound like a “big tent” party? Conor and Mr. Dreher, you simply have no where to go. You have to truly evaluate which party is more in line with your views and go there-or stay here. I guarantee you though, if you join the Dems you will be expected to tow the Marxist line or be left out.
What Mark Levin says goes for me. He is a brilliant attorney and a great man. Oh, and he is also hilarious.
WJP
Mark Levin, in my opinion, is cut from the same cloth as the great Bob Grant….
For those of us who had the privilege to listen to him in hgis day… understand what talk radio is supposed to be!
As Bob would say…”Get off my phone…..”
Upon the nomination of the likely unstoppable Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who may as well be the most left-leaning member of congress in terms of how she’ll vote, I find myself especially angry with those supposedly on our side for their more recent history of obtuse behavior. I’m not sure if John McCain and Sarah Palin would have won regardless, but it certainly didn’t help for people like Frum, Parker, Noonan, Powell, etc. to have whined and moaned about Palin’s supposed lack of intellect/experience, and in the case of Powell, come right out and denied support for his own supposed party and supposed friend.
Frum, for instance, wrote this back after the introduction by McCain of Sarah Palin:
“Ms. Palin’s experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She served two terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000. She served two terms as mayor. In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues……
…….If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a small-town mayor.
Mr. McCain’s supporters argue that he is more serious about national security than Barack Obama. But the selection of Sarah Palin invites the question: How serious can he be if he would place such a neophyte second in line to the presidency? Barack Obama at least balanced his inexperience with Mr. Biden’s experience. What is Mr. McCain doing?…….
…….So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It’s not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=756704
This kind of arrogant, elitist (and inaccurate) public pronouncement by Frum and his fellow travelers was like throwing red meat to the den of lions known as the Democrat-voting media, which was already engaged in a blatant and dishonest smear campaign of their own.
What better argument against Palin and thereby the ticket than a parade of supposed “smart” conservatives being against her? Suddenly these guys/gals were respected conservative voices, with lots of impressive credentials and unquestionable sound judgement.
And now we have Sonia Sotomayor, someone Palin and I think even McCain would no more nominate than they would SpongeBob Squarepants. (and I’m finding it odd that those words didn’t come up misspelled according to my word processor. Apparently so a part of our culture they’ve become.)
So what was all this about experience and intellect? Do they really think that Joe “Let’s freeze our nukes and split up Iraq” Biden is preferable on foreign policy? What do they think now about Barack “George C. Marshall” Obama? Why in the world do we give these folks any credence on things like election strategy after they knee-capped their own party with columns and TV appearances? Why do we listen to them regarding demeanor when their insidious behavior was so arrogant, destructive and asinine?
If George H.W. Bush and our guys and gals in congress had listened to the likes of Rush and Mark regarding Ms. Sotomayor, we wouldn’t be faced with her on the court for the next several decades.
If Frum, Parker etc. and the whole country for that matter had listened to them, we wouldn’t have gotten George C. Marshall Obama in the first place in a position to nominate her.
Like millions of others, I converted from left to right because of Rush Limbaugh. At first I thought wow, I can’t believe he’s saying that. I was smugly offended, thinking he was an idiot. But unlike most people on radio or TV, he was engaging and entertaining. I couldn’t wait to tune in again. It didn’t take long to come around, and there’s no going back.
I suspect it’s much the same with Mark Levin. People are somewhat taken aback at first — and I’ve gotta admit I cringe on rare occasions including the subject reference — but anyone you could depend on to actually go out and vote probably keeps listening, precisely because he IS entertaining and provocative, and talks about issues in depth. Just like with Rush, it doesn’t take long for people to realize the unassailable correctness of the real core of the show, and even come to listen vicariously to his periods of brutish passion and harsh treatment of some calling in with ridiculous arguments. It’s the kinds of things lots of us would probably like to say to certain people.
There’s so much more to Rush and Mark than the occasional un-PC remark or outburst. I believe they do way more good than harm to the conservative/GOP cause, even though their real intent is not necessarily to sway votes. And I think those who are attempting to mooch off their notoriety with selective nit-picking are doing serious damage to that cause, as they become extremely useful idiots to the other side — which doesn’t care a WIT about civil discourse.
Mark,
Keep it up, and ignore the ignorant. They may get trumpeted in the media because they whine about conservatives, but no one really takes them seriously, or knows their names, for that matter.
Drohat, Frum and that creep Dreher have no effect at all on the debate outside of roaches like Christopher Buckley, Jonah Goldberg and the liberal media. Sexual penetration to them and sexual penetration to their families. They are garbage. Plain and simple.
Conor,
It’s ‘whether’. It’s not ‘weather’.
You come across as poorly educated.
Thoughts Conor? Are you there?
http://www.firstthings.com/blog_entry.php?blog_id=1&year=2009&month=01&title_link=obituaries
Mark Levin is brilliant.
Freederdoof, dude, you are in way, way over your head. But keep flailing away. It makes for good entertainment.
Raptavio
I find it hilarious to watch the right goose-step its way farther and farther away from main-stream America. The anti-intellectualism that made me furious for so many Bush years now fills me with glee as it tears the right apart.
But the real beauty here is that the prophets are so transparently false.
I worked for fifteen years in talk radio as a technician for a right-wing host. I was there for hundreds of broadcasts, thousands of phone calls, and countless of-air dinners and conversations. One thing all hosts have in common: they despise their listeners, and especially the rabid ones, for falling for the act.
I know the business. And the business is doing whatever it takes to keep the listeners between commercials: Talk radio sells commercial time, not ideas. People like Levin live and die by ratings, because ratings set ad prices. This is not a new idea, I know, but I feel the need to mention it as I look on with wonder at listeners taking radio personalities like Levin seriously – and, more puzzling, watching credible thinkers like Friedersdorf taking Levin at his word.
The host is a fabrication – a fictionalized version of the real talker’s personality. The host dominates because, and only because, the host controls, literally, the conversation: the host can cut off the caller. This is the host’s power, not the host’s intellect. When Friedersdorf criticized Levin’s call-handling, he hit Levin right at the root of his power. Levin could not respond to the argument. Instead, he shouted loudly, “Ignore the man behind the curtain!” and moved the exchange onto more familiar and productive ground; the territory of pure controversy, always escalated.
What Levin wants is exactly the above: a long series of inflammatory exchanges designed to maximize exposure. For Levin. So he can sell more commercials. He is the intellectual equivalent of the guys in those “Jackass” movies, ramming his car into passersby just to get the rubberneckers to watch. Concern for the damage done – to the conservative movement, to the party, to other professionals, to his own intellectual reputation – comes a distant second to the concern for ratings.
It is, in fact, no coincidence that this (again, gut-bustingly funny) crack-up of the right is happening as advertising dollars are scarcer and scarcer. The right-wing hosts had it easy during the Bush years. Not because of the administration’s wing-nut lunacy, but because of prosperity under the housing bubble (and the bubbles prior). Ad dollars flowed fast and easy. Now, not so much. So the chase for the dollar requires a steady ratcheting up of rhetoric in order to convince the advertisers to spend with Levin (and Limbaugh, Hannity, etc). They need press outside of their own shows. Limbaugh on Huffpo calling for the President’s failure: solid gold! (I bet Levin wishes he’d thought of it first.) Advertisers see this, hear about it, and spend with those shows. Hey folks – don’t knock Huffpo, DKos, Sullivan. The more Levin gets press in those places, the longer he’ll stay on the air.
What we are seeing is a fracture on the right between thoughtful intellectuals and the blubbering circus acts. I’d feel sorry for the reasonable conservatives if it weren’t for the fact that so many stood by silent for so many years in the face of the hate and hypocrisy of the radio bloviators. And nearly destroyed this country in the process.
Please, more tea parties, more Limbaugh, more Levin, more Hannity (and his angry gorilla), more commentors like Peg C and Craig. More hate, more bile, more anti-intellectual flag-waving. Please, respond to this comment by questioning my patriotism, my ethnicity, my family, my honesty, my morality, my religion. Please, call me names, dismiss me, flame me, insult me.
Anything but a sincere and substantial engagement with my argument.
And I will stand by and watch the right self-destruct.
Mark Levin believes that anyone who advocates for the closing of Gitmo is “mindless” and “unpatriotic”
General David Petraeus advocates closing Gitmo and ending torture. (See: Testimony before US Senate and interview with Radio Free Europe)
Mark Levin believes General David Petraeus is mindless and unpatriotic.
Indisputable facts. And the kind of substance that will so frighten and confound Levin that he’ll just pretend it doesn’t exist.
Funny that you mention “Jackass.”
Yes! He shoots, he scores!
Come on Raptavio, you can do better than that. You didn’t make fun of my name.
“The balance of your post is mostly ad hominem attacks against Mr. Dreher.”
Yes, wouldn’t want make use of personal attacks such as “cretin,” “creep,” or “trashmouth,” would we?
Oh, and Dantes… Rush and Mark are different. Just so you know.
B. Colb says:
this is part of the reason Republicans are in trouble, we have stopped articulating cogent and substantive arguments and reduced public discourse to name calling and rudderless spin.
I’m told that Mark Levin blows goats.
Posted by: mickey kaus | Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 03:29 PM
I’ll say one thing for Mark Levin: He’s walking testament that, in some circumstances, abortion is a necessary evil. Would you really wish it upon anybody, even a prostitute as it so happened, to carry such a creature to term?
Posted by: Daniel | Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Yes…so it is really the conservatives who have dropped the level of civil discourse….no. I think it is more the other way around. It is the liberal who make contemptible attacks and then accuse Republicans of making “vicious attacks” and tell them to “quiet down” and of course the leftist Republicans go right along with it, agreeing as always, never questioning the premises. Liberal Republicans are weak and have no stomach to stand up to the liberals which is why they LOVE you guys. Because you are so easy to beat and present no threat to them. They know if they yell loud enough, you’ll apologize, agree with them, and curl up into a fetal position.
This is just a few comments from this forum. I can go to the Daily Kos and other leftist sites and get plenty more. Something I notice about you people who are always talking about how “uncivil” the discourse is from conservatives…You never speak out against the discourse on the other side of the aisle. Did you speak up when: the viciously attacked Nancy Reagan when she fell down and hurt herself? When Tony Snow became ill with his cancer and they wished death upon him? When Dick Cheney became ill with his heart problems and they wished death upon him? I can go down the list. I doubt you spoke up about it. You are too busy agreeing with them.
I love it when asshole conservatives fight with one another.
Keep it up! Good entertainment for us liberals!
Posted by: Oscar Hilliard | Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 02:45 PM
No Oscar. Actually we are fighting with liberals. We are cleaning house and getting your liberal buddies who are posing as Republicans out of our Party. These crypto-liberals have tainted the Party long enough.
“Come on Raptavio, you can do better than that. You didn’t make fun of my name.”
You have that covered.
First rule of Conservative Fight Club is never tell anyone about Conservative Fight Club.
(oops)
Michael in MI, I don’t think anyone is asking you to help them. We’re all just dense morons. Or moronically dense. Or something. Really, if one writer is offended by a radio host’s vulgarity, there is nothing wrong with talking about it. That you are so riled up about it suggests that perhaps you need to … er … get a life?
If Coner or Rod are interested in exploring the wonderful breadth of the Great One they should log onto MarkLevinShow.com and listen to the Audio Rewind. All of Mark’s shows are generously offered free for listening any time or can be downloaded on their ipods. Rush suggests 6 weeks for his show and I perscribe the same Rx (6 weeks of Levin) for what ails Coner and Rod.
Well no Sh-t Ram Kelvin as 9:52 pm.
If talk radio wold lose ratings it’s just the same as a business not making profit. Of course radio hosts do what they can to keep their ratings up just as businesses like the own you work for keep their profits going so you may have a job.
Better thank those right-wing radio hosts because it sounds as if your job security relies on their success. I wonder how much business or I should say “job security” Air America provides?
Levin unlike your assertion has achieved much in his time. He was Ed Meese’s Chief of staff in the Reagan administration. Started landmark Legal foundation and has won eight cases in front of the Supreme court. Has two best sellers and radio is just secondary to his primary profession. Guess you left out a few details about him.
Do us all a favor and quit interpreting “cleaning house” as Republican crack up. If you studied your history, the Republican party was in worst shape in the 1970′s after Nixon’s impeachment. The rest is history when Reagan came along. Were cleaning house, getting rid of burdensome load that is drawing sown the party. And were gladly sending them to the Democrat party where they belong.
What I see is the crack up in the democrat party. Yes, even they have the majorities now they are proving themselves to be in-confident boobs when it comes to governing.
They are single handily bypassing the Constitution to ram through their socialist agenda. While the economy tanks further and further while we pile up more debt imaginable the democrats are hell bent of on turning this nation into a socialist one and Americans are not happy with it.
I don’t know how much of a follower you are, but it sounds to me that you are a loyal Proletarian to the end and will always be a committed peasant/factory worker to the counter revolution in this country.
You, and your democrat party reminds me of the saddened gulag prisoners when they heard of Stalin’s death.
Mark, you are right everybody see’s you are dealing w/ a rather sensitive and super easily offended little man. Pretty funny how little Coner had a quick flight to catch as soon as you summed him up and hit a sore spot, pretty evident that he has some quite obvious issues and insecurities.
Mark Levin, Rush and Hannity are just a few examples of ideologues who promote Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You don’t hear moderates ever promoting those basic ideals…they sound like democrats.
When moderates come into play is when they attack fellow conservatives and yet “fiddle” as the country goes down.
My opinion is this, moderates are useless to the cause of conservatism. They never promote it, they are in it for themselves. They never challenge the democrats but aim their guns at fellow republicans.
Well it’s time you all high tale it out of the Republican party because were for a “BIG TENT”. A big tent that is focused on freedom not dividing Americans into ethnic, social, economic classes. That was Carl Marx’s ideal. No, we focus on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is the our big tent but only we can achieve it when the moderated go back to where they belong…the democrat party.
C-ya’
Reading this through I can only come to the same conclusion I always have about Mark Levin.
Levin is first and formost extremely knowledgable about the subjects he talks about. Only a complete idiot could deny or challenge that.
Second, Mark has become a great entertainer, which is necessary for a good radio show. True, he’s mostly preaching to the choir, as the type of people who are “on the fence” and would become genuinely interested in trying to figure out what Mark is talking about after listening to him are probably quite rare.
Third, those of us in the choir really get a charge out of it! Speaking for myself at least, the thing I like most about Levin is the way he treats liberals and other assorted moonbats with the complete and total lack of respect they so richly deserve. Leftists are in the process of now very quickly wrecking the greatest country Humanity has ever known, either deliberately in the case of Obama, or out of ignortance and stupidity, as his followers are, much the way our own leftists up here (now about 75% of the population) in Canada have also done and continue to do.
Nevertheless, I do relish the time if/when Mark may actually get into a substantive debate with his detractors rather than those hit-and-run calls most libs make. Unfortunately, none of them seem to have the gonads to call him on his show. A pity, really. I’d pay serious money to see/hear Mark swab the deck with those chuckleheads!
EjIMBo.
Ram Kelvin, thanks for the advice and the warnings. You obviously have the conservative movement’s best interests at heart. Your altruism is astounding.
If I have one disagreement with Mr Levin, it´s lumping together Ross Douthat with Frum and Dreher. As far as I know, Douthat is moderate but not unprincipled. Most importantly, I don´t remember him going out of his way to throw bricks at other conservatives. Frum made his choice to attack conservatives and his tactics will do more damage than good, but Douthat? Maybe there is something I don´t know but he seems like an acceptable kind of moderate to me.
“ME: If you don’t find my humor in that case humorous, big whoopie. I have trouble taking you seriously.”
I tell you, if I was Levin’s wife and had to listen to his nasally whine day in day out, not sure whom I would shoot first, him or myself. No wonder Sprite lost his will to live.
OBAMA ISN’T EVEN A REAL PRESIDENT!!!!! hE’S NOTHING BUT A KENYAN USURPR!!!! MARK LEVIN IS THE ONLY ONE WITH THE GUTS TO SAY SO!!!! THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDS TO GRAP IT’S BALLS AND START LOOKING OUT FOR CHRISTIAN AMERICANS AGAIN!!! DOWN WITH TRAITORS!!! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
That’s so good! But it’s so sad!
As a French liberal, I must say I can watch and enjoy this kind of catfight with a much more relaxed mood now that Bush is no longer in the White House. But enough schadenfreude. I’m sure Mark Levin can be a nice and interesting guy. Well, maybe. I’m sure some of the authors of the coms here would be perfectly nice people, if I knew them. But really, if you want to have any chance to influence the future of your country, you may consider trying to become convincing, and not just insulting and dumb. For anybody outside your bubble, this kind of rhetoric is evidently self-defeating. We on the left know that. We have the same thing here.
It’s not even that. I’d be perfectly happy with a permanent democratic majority. But I value democratic debate. Everybody would be better off if people like Levin were not busy spewing hatred under the cover of humor, and people like Conor were not busy teaching them politeness instead of talking about important matters.
See, I’m a atheist, left-wing, effeminate European. And still, I think we can live in the same world. Do you ?
“In other words, Mr. Levin has convinced Peg that Democrats are enemies of America…”
They’re not? They worked against the US during the Iraq War, openly siding with our enemies and promoting some of the most blatantly stupid and false propaganda ever created by an American enemy.
They’ve expressed open contempt for the Constitution, they do not see their powers to be limited by what it says, but only what they can get away with.
Have you been paying attention to the way the Obama administration has been “handling” the auto companies? Is THAT the kind of nation we want to have?
This is why Mark Levin is rightly dubbed “The Great One.”
Mark took note of Frum and Dreher. Indeed, Mark proves them to be but walking shadows, poor players who strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then are heard no more. They tell tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
===I am not asking Mr. Levin to give up his principles. I am asking him to stop berating callers with hateful rhetoric, employing flawed arguments, and resorting to ad hominem attacks against those who criticize him for the first two sins.
Posted by: Conor Friedersdorf | Monday, May 25, 2009 at 10:45 PM ===
Why on earth would he do anything you ask of him? He would lose his audience were he to change to suit you. Now GET OFF MY PHONE YOU BIG JERK! ::grin::
Mark Levin ROCKS!
Hateful rhetoric? Really? Lighten up people.
Dear god. If Mark Levin has “trouble taking [Conor] seriously,” then why does he respond again and again. The blogosphere is filled with amateur political commentators whose ideas aren’t particularly well formulated, so you simply IGNORE those people. But if you’re going to engage someone, do it respectfully. Don’t repeatedly be like: who is this nobody? If Conor really is so insignificant, than media-super-star Mark Levin is just being a bully. If Conor is significant enough that his ideas are worth engaging with, than Mark is being condescending and writing in bad faith.
I also love this from Mark Levin: “When you return from your flight, please do answer the questions I put to you Conor. I may not be around to read them, but others here might be. If you do not, I will have to conclude you fear revealing yourself to the readers here and your inability to engage in thoughtful debate. Night.”
I.e. If you don’t respond, I win. But I don’t have to respond to you, of course. In fact, I might not even read your response. Your criticisms of me are invalid because you’re not familiar enough with my work. My criticisms of you are valid because I am totally unfamiliar with your work, which just proves it’s worthless.
Conservatism is being destroyed by school-yard bullies like Mark Levin.
“Con”nor…
Why dont you do what Levin told the hags old man to do ???? It would make you feel better…
“Con”nor
Why dont you do what Levin told the hags old man to do ?? It might make you feel better… putz
I’m confused. If we can judge George Bush entirely on the basis of “sixteen words” can’t we judge Mark Levin by “fifteen minutes” on exactly the same basis?
“Speaking as a proud liberal, I’ve greatly enjoyed this episode of ‘kill and eat the sensible conservatives.’”
Speaking as a proud conservative, I’ve greatly enjoyed witnessing the absolute limits of liberal wit. You just about busted through your protective helmet there, Copernicus.
“Ram Kelvin”! Oh my goodness, truly this must be the work of a superior intellect. Please grace us with some of your other clever pseudonyms, like “Lush Rimbaugh.”
Michael in MI,
I am not judging Mark’s entire career based on 15 minutes.
I am judging those 15 minutes.
Mark criticizes all sorts of things that people say on his radio show. He doesn’t research their entire life — he instead finds statements he disagrees with, and comments on them.
Apparently Mr. Levin and his fans are thin skinned about criticism. I am sorry that they lack the intellectual security to defend themselves on substance, and instead launch ad hominem attacks on their critics.
I am embarrassed by the tone of this debate, which is not very conservative, to say the least. And although I love Mark Levin and certainly agree with him more than I do Dreher, Frum and possibly Friedersdorf, I must admit that Mark is more to blame for the poor tone than anyone else. What would Edmund Burke think?
Connor:
You write to Mr. Levin: “As far as I can tell, I’m making a rather narrow case against hateful rhetoric.”
Interesting. In reading your “critique” of Rush Limbaugh, your abhorance of “hateful rhetoric” is so plain to see. Comments about Limbaugh’s audience such as:
“but to rile his critics and make himself seem daring to an adolescent segment of his listeners.”
and
One unhappy consequence is that, insofar as he is a teacher, his pupils are prone to regurgitating monologues whose idiocy is laid bare when they are delivered by less talented communicators”
Gee. Looks like a “regurgitation” of the typical hateful rhetoric used by the left in describing Rush’s audience. Or, is “hateful rhetoric” a transitorily applicable term?
Oh, and one more thing. You might want to do a little fact checking in the future. You say: ” It seems to me that as these figures rose to prominence, the conservative movement declined to its lowest ebb since Barry Goldwater, and the nomination of John McCain,…”
Limbaugh became syndicated on August 1, 1988 …and his show was drawing five million listeners after two years of syndication. I do think Ronald Reagan was president in 1988. Therefore Rush’s “rise to prominence” was coincidental with the greatest Conservative president of our lifetime. You also conveniently miss the very important fact that until the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated there WAS no forum for conservatives. (DOH!)
How on earth do you arrive at the conclusion that talk radio is responsible for a decline in conservative political values? That is absolute sophistry. This “assessment” and your apparent view that a large segment of Rush’s audience are adolescent, regurgitating idiots sounds too much like thinly veiled jealousy. Sorry, but that is how it sounds to me.
My only contribution is to remind those that seem to have forgotten and enlighten those ignorant: Inflammatory rhetoric and mud slinging and name calling are perennial staples of politics for as long as I can find documented history. The significant difference I see is the ubiquity of discourse and the ability provided to join the conversation for so many. The language and the positions vary only slightly from observations in print throughout all the history I can recall. Wasn’t the first newspaper something about politics and religion? No time to wiki it. Other than the voyeuristic aspect of observing the debate there is little of value to derive.
I must add that the line with which the Great One dismissed that female caller was more Henny Youngman and less anger than is portrayed by his detractor.
After having read Conor’s remarks and having actually heard the segment he refers to… please allow me to weigh in on this issue:
Conor: SHUT UP. Go catch your flight and have a nice flight. When you come back to here to do your “utmost” to address Mark’s points…please — just DON’T bother. You’ve tried and failed. You’re not going to be able to do any better, and you utterly failed at that attempt. Grow up, listen and learn; you might be correctable.
BTW — whoever coined the term “Vichy Republicans” deserves an award!! Love it!
Mark Levin is awesome. I listen to him everyday because he is different. He tells it like it is. Keep it up Mark. You are doing a great job.
Mr. Levin,
Name-calling, ad-hominem attacks and wildly flawed logic are the purview of four year-olds, not “respected” conservative voices.
It just makes you look like a four year-old.
What I’ve noticed most during the years that I’ve read commentary by prominent conservatives such as Levin, Kristol, Krauthammer, et al., is that they lack abstract reasoning ability, or they cripple themselves by being unwilling to countenance ideas that violate their guiding principles. They don’t consider counterarguments when they address issues, speak only to loyalists, and seem to consider taking an angry or enraged tone a way of intimidating or shutting up opponents. Trying to marginalize Brooks, Frum, Douthat, and others who think though arguments on issues only amplifies the impression that they can’t deal with intellectual opposition. They’re like a high school dropout who ridicules high school graduates for wanting to be educated. Do they all think that “real men” are bullies? I’d be interested in seeing Levin try to justify the use of torture. Can he think his way past the “ticking time bomb” fantasy? I doubt it.
SRS
Mr. Levin and his friends, (Rush, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, etc.) and the people that support them here are of a like mind. And their views or values, (whatever they call the narrow, mean-spirited, junk they spew) seems to be appeal to them all. They are very protective and with a violent bent…how they can a call a fellow American an “enemy” just because they belong to a different mind set then them is disconcerting. Words of civil war, succession, whatever…
What they are not is Republicans. There are Republicans and they are the ones that started this argument. What they want is thoughtful, meaningful, conservative debate and dissent to present to the American people.
Mr. Levin and his ilk need to start a new party since they have decided to isolate themselves from mainstream Republicans.
I suggest the MeFirsters? or wait, how about the UsFirsters? That’s a good one! Maybe they can even use USFirsters! You know US? Us? get it?
Anyway, then they can revel in their “me first” attitude. Kick our any unbelievers, shout themselves hoarse, spew their racial crap…and sink into obscurity and disapperar from the American scene as they will and should.
Good luck with your book sales Mr. Levin. I know that is the only thing you are really concerned with. Your followers can’t see that. Or refuse to admit it.
Remember, ME FIRST!
Hey Sanity or “me first”
Are you a “Useful idiot” to the left like Frum, Dreher and Friedersdorf? You and your ilk attack conservatives who are directly taking on the liberal-Socialist push against our country eventually upon us.
I never here You, Frum, Friedersdorf and Dreher criticized Obama and his lapdog congress over these UN-Constitutional legislative campaigns that is set to transform our nation. No, you and your ilk just attack fellow Republicans, trying to redefine them as “out of the Mainstream” when it is your moderate bunch of a minority that has taken the party out of the Mainstream.
Moderates have squandered the gains made by Conservatives over the years, they compromise every principle we stand for in the name of getting along with liberals while you back stab the rest of us in the back.
If you don’t like Conservatives in the Republican party let alone them leading it which they are not at the moment then leave and go to the Libertarian party the 2% party which is what they can garner during an election. Take the rest of the moderates with you that’s the only way you all an make history.
Steven R. Stahl,
If you think that Levin and others you listed don’t provide counter arguments, you care gravely mistaken.
If you want to here Mark levin’s arguments, philosophy and monologues that states his positions then go to his website MarkLevinshow.com and you can download his show for free and listen to it anytime you may wish.
Levin provides intellectual firepower that not even moderates and liberals can come near. He’s short with liberals callers but who cares, liberals by and large are drones and don’t think independently. The liberals that mark converses with are ones who are more open minded and rational most of which regret their vote Obama.
How about you all quit focusing on what mark Levin said that may have been offensive and take on the liberals who a out to transform this nation for the worst. WARNING! You wil be singled out by the mainstream media!
Do you have the guts???
Unlike you Conor Friedersdorf, Rod Dreher, or David Frum; Mark Levin understands how effective Saul Alinsky tactics are when it comes to persuading human audiences. Saul Alinsky tactics takes advantage of the flawed limbic system of mammals like humans. The Leftists have successfully used these tactics to achieve power. The problem for the Left is that those same tactics can be used against Leftists. That’s why Saul Alinsky was also hated by his fellow leftists. Mark Levin knows this, but Conor Friedersdorf and David Frum are ignoramuses on this issue.
Here is a summary of Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals:
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
This was fun. Let’s do it again.
Read the entire thread, learned more here than I have in 12 years of public schooling.. then again, that’s not saying much.