Debating Mark Levin With Conor Friedersdorf

Conor Friedersdorf invited me to a written debate of his and Rod Dreher's criticism of Mark Levin. His opening post is here, I encourage you to read it in full.

Conor first suggests that Levin's logic in one exchange is flawed:

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?”

Conor: 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.

Obviously Mark's rhetoric is hyperbolic. That's as much a part of his show as are his great many substantive, informative and insightful monologues on everything from our Courts and our government, to the Constitution. There is nothing outrageous in the above from Mark within the context of his show, which is part entertainment. Furthermore, by Obama moving enemy combatants to the US, it will end up affording them all the protections of our Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution, or any of our founding documents which even hints at a suggestion that the ACLU gets to represent America's foreign enemies, or that our Federal Court system has a role in their treatment, or that such an enemy is entitled to the full protections of our Constitution as are American citizens. I suspect that frames the basis for Mark's response and makes it quite logical, however it was expressed.

Moving on to Mark's humorous comment that a woman's husband put a pistol to his head, Conor shows himself as capable of extreme prudishness, as is Dreher.

As I wrote before, “That isn’t merely beneath a gentleman. It is the kind of thing that a decent man doesn’t say to a woman, under any circumstances. Awful as it is on the page, it came across even worse on the air, hearing the hateful, angry inflections. Forget the fact that this isn’t the way forward for the conservative movement — this just isn’t the way any person should behave.”

That Mark is somehow laying out the way forward for the conservative movement in this entertainment-based shtick, or portion of his show Conor references is an absurdity. That's especially so given that Mark has repeatedly offered so much substance and insight to the conservative movement going forward, both in the many substantive portions of his show, as well as in his books and other writings. It appears as though Conor is reduced to looking for a straw-man here to attack by suggesting it.

As to how a person should behave, especially in the context of entertainment today, I wonder if Conor doesn't need to get out a bit more, out of the salon, anyway. Recently Obama was caught cackling as a D-list comedienne joked about Rush Limbaugh's kidneys shutting down, also finding humor in Limbaugh's previous addiction issue, from which he has since recovered.

That event was hosted by the White House Press Corp. Conor might want to consider an occupation other than journalism given what association with such types of people might do to his reputation.

Anyone who has listened to Mark's show knows full well how he uses liberals as foils for humor when they call in. Given that the woman in question opted to call in of her own free will, there is absolutely no reason to cast her as a victim here. And one could go on endlessly citing similar types of humor in our culture today - humor that targets men, women and everything in between. If Conor wants to denounce the culture, fine. But singling out Levin in this instance strikes me as silly as it is unfair to Mark.

Again, Conor's entry is here.

 

Comments

[Paul A'Barge]

Not going there. Conor is a 'mo. End of story.

[bailey]

Two things:

1. The Supreme Court has already rejected the idea that what rights the detainees have turns on where they are held. So that's a non-starter.

2. Levin was criticizing the caller not for arguing that it was a good idea policy-wise for Obama to move them to the United States, but for claiming that he has the power to do so. I haven't seen any argument that Obama as commander in chief doesn't have the power to hold them in any military facility he sees fit. Indeed, in World War II, German POWs were routinely held on U.S. soil.

[lala]

The German spies who came ashore on Long Island were tried and shot. Very quickly too, I think.

[lala]

Oh, I misspoke, they were executed in the electric chair. Better than being shot.

[Bender]

I should read what Conor Friedersdorf says?

Why? Who is he that anyone should pay a moment's attention to him?

[Fritzilou]

Mark Levin articulates true Conservative principles better than anyone else and his show is a nightly lesson on the Constitution. He is gracious and patient with any liberal who wishes to learn, but ruthless with those who call to act like they are Bill Maher on speed.

G-d bless Mark Levin. May he stay in good health and live to be 125 years old.

fritzilou

[VinceP1974]

1 - 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 is 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 like baily , 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.

2 - 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-short 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.

[Steve J.]

his great many substantive, informative and insightful monologues

This is why movement conservatives are considered to be clinically insane.

[lala]

Vince, I love your post But what is Halibuts Corpus? A dead fish?

[RP]

"I am passing judgment about those 15 minutes." - Conor

In that case, so?

Whoopty-frickin'-doo, you have an issue with a single 30 second snipe. Wow, get the NYT back on the case because this is so newsworthy.

1. You don't listen to the show regularly, yet you decide to take a small snippet of the radio to pass judgment on regardless of the content of the other 3 hours per day, 5 days a week.

2. You propose that Levin is what's wrong with the conservative movement (via Peg), and yet you haven't even read his books or listened to his shows to know what his positions are. That might work on mindless libs, but for educated and principled people you're going to have to come to the table with something substantial. You're not going to be able to dismiss Mark's contributions by bringing up an insignificant event where he grows short tempered with an idiot.

3. You're a lightweight. You attack this snippet but will not address his political viewpoints. If this is really all about Mark's handling of this incident, why are you devoting *any* time to it? Its juvenile.

My basic understanding of this dust-up was that the duo (Dreher and Freidersdorf) had issues with Mark Levin primarily based upon his comments to the caller and a 15 minute segment of his show. If you are addressing Levin's radio style, that is one thing and its really trivial (who gives a flying crap?), do a review page. However, if you are confronting Levin's conservative viewpoints, than let's hear it, what is it you have a problem with? Levin's stance on topics is laid out daily and in his books (which you haven't read), so you should have plenty of material to work with. However, I don't think that's what this is about, this is about something different. Mark doesn't have to prove himself, he's already done that. The onus is upon you (Dreher & Freidersdorf) to expound upon your problem(s) with Levin. Just saying, "... I cannot imagine why anybody pays attention to him." seems to indicate you mean you wonder why people don't listen to YOU.

Essentially, you want to make a huge generalization about Mark's listeners, and thus about all principled conservatives, that this single incident (or 15 minutes of air) is evidence of our; hate, exclusivity, blind following, etc. Liberal, class warfare, claptrap. You seek to show how 'superior' you (moderates? liberals?) are by denigrating conservatives based upon a extremely small sub-sample.

Ex-Liberal says, "Get off the blog, you big dope!"

[RP]

"1. The Supreme Court has already rejected the idea that what rights the detainees have turns on where they are held. So that's a non-starter."

Habeas Corpus is not a right, its a privilege (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2), and their detention was backed by historical precedent. The SCotUS did this even though the legislative and executive bodies passed the Military Commissions Act to keep the SCotUS's nose out of where it didn't belong. So, this is a starter. Its an example of legislating from the bench and is counter to the US Constitution and separation of powers.

"2. Levin was criticizing the caller not for arguing that it was a good idea policy-wise for Obama to move them to the United States, but for claiming that he has the power to do so. I haven't seen any argument that Obama as commander in chief doesn't have the power to hold them in any military facility he sees fit. Indeed, in World War II, German POWs were routinely held on U.S. soil. "

You're wrong, that's not what Levin was criticizing her for. Have you listened to the show before? Do you know Levin's stance on this topic? Do you understand how the Court has been abusive in its undertaking of this issue? The SCotUS dared the Congress and Executive to write a law that prevented them from ruling on this issue and when the Congress/President did in 2006, the SCotUS went forward anyway. Anywho, I love how you try to use history/precedent in the second sentence while ignoring it in the first. Yes, the President can put them where he wants, just like he can detain them as long as he wants when they aren't on US soil. Bringing them to US soil guarantees them much more than habeas corpus, so understand that.

I think that you should volunteer to have the detainees housed in your city and tried in your state's courts. Hopefully, you'll get them some great ACLU lawyers that will get them freed without supervision into your area. Wouldn't that be swell? Throw in some free health care, some recompense for the 'unlawful' imprisonment and maybe transportation to the destination of their choice. That just sounds so freakin' awesome Bailey! I can't wait to see the outcome in this best of all possible worlds where dimbulbs, such as yourself, have so little understanding of the enemy. Just keep going little lemming, that cliff edge is just an illusion, you'll be fine.

[El Gordo]

Conor wrote: "...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."

What Levin does is called "cutting through the bs". His style is not my style, but I can live with it because he does that extremely well.

[bailey]

First, I'd be happy to have them detained in my city. We have a federal detention facility that has housed a lot of high profile detainees without incident.

Second, you say that "bringing them to US soil guarantees them much more than habeas corpus." Would you spell that out -- how do you think that moving them to US soil would change their legal status?

Third, I get that you're mad about the Supreme Court's ruling, but what does that have to do with this discussion? It's not like Obama can make it go away by keeping them in Cuba.

[Thomas Jackson]

Conoro wrote "it is perfectly possible to believe", well indeed one can believe Obamanazis love America. That's why they established and fund Rev. Wright's Church, fund Bill Ayers and the ACLU, because each of these groups might possibley love the USA.

And horses might be a subspecies of unicorns too, possibly.

[Jim Caldwell]

Moderates claim that people like Levin and Rush are divisive and not inclusive. I have two comments, first off they are talk show hosts, very good ones but even so they're not speaking on behalf of the Republican party. Pulling up certain quotes from the thousands of hours of their broadcasts and citing it as something hurting the Republicans is absurd.

Secondly, if your position is that the so-called divisiveness or lack of inclusiveness of these talk show hosts has driven people to vote democratic, I have to follow-up and ask why is it that those same people are at ease with the truly divisive talking heads on the left? Do you consider these liberal media folk to be open-minded, inclusive, uniters? John Stewart, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Jack Cafferty, etc, etc? Are you really saying that the viewpoint of the left is MORE inclusive when there is a virtual ban on dissent amongst most of the mainstream media?

I believe the Republican party does have issues with defining its core message and how it presents itself to the public, there is work to be done for sure,but all this silly handwringing over Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin is counterproductive.

Try some real leadership like Dick and Liz Cheney, like Mark and Rush, who are unapolegetically directly taking on the Obama administration, and having a real impact. Not everyone is going to have the exact same tone to their message, and maybe all you moderates would craft your message in a different way, but let's keep our focus on the common enemy. Become a leader! If you have a better way to fight, a better message, GO FOR IT! Show us the way and maybe you will win over some converts. But if all you have to offer is friendly fire against popular figures on the right, you're not demonstrating any leadership. In all sincerity however, by definition I really don't think the moderates are where we will ever find the truly good leaders. Obama certainly has fooled many into believing he is a moderate, but he is most definitely not a moderate.

[RP]

"First, I'd be happy to have them detained in my city. We have a federal detention facility that has housed a lot of high profile detainees without incident."

You mean prisoners, not detainees. People tried for crimes and found guilty. I think you should do a little research and find out if your local federal facility is trained and prepared for the detainees, which I guarantee they are not. I'm wondering, have you've given any thought to the possibility of a large terrorist organization taking any kind of action in an area with a large civilian population where some of their members might be being held? I'll call your bluff on this one, go ahead and house them in your city.

"...how do you think that moving them to US soil would change their legal status?"

They gain rights by being held on US soil, the whole reason for housing them at Gitmo in the first place. The fact that the SCotUS overturned the Military Commission Act (instating habeas corpus on detainees, counter to historical precedent) doesn't give them 6th Amendment rights in Gitmo. Give them a speedy trial (or free them based on time served), let them confront their accusers, present them with the evidence against them...hey, its all good, Bailey said it was the way to go! You must be extremely short-sighted and slightly suicidal if you really want to go down this road. You probably want to put Bush and Cheney on trial for war crimes too, don't you? Terrorist = good/freedom fighter, Bush = evil...makes complete (non)sense.

"Third, I get that you're mad about the Supreme Court's ruling, but what does that have to do with this discussion? It's not like Obama can make it go away by keeping them in Cuba."

It has to do with Levin's comments about the caller hating the Constitution, the country, etc. Did you have a mental hiccup? To recap; you said Levin was mad at her for saying Obama could move the detainees at will, I said no that's wrong he's mad at her for thinking its OK for Obama to move the detainees to US soil...

And, Obama _can_ make it go away by leaving them in Cuba. Presidents (*cough* Lincoln *cough*) have ignored the SCotUS in the past, and they can do it now. If the Executive and Legislative branches are in agreement (about the SCotUS stepping outside of its purview), there is pretty much nothing the SCotUS can do about it, it doesn't control any enforcement branch and it can't persuade the Executive in any fashion other than to disbar him (as they did to Clinton for committing perjury). Right now, Obama is trying to force the issue by halting funding for Gitmo as a way to make the detainees be relocated. However, you'll note that the Democratically controlled Congress is not allowing the defunding. YOU may want these detainees relocated to your city, but wiser heads (even Democrats) know better than to move them to US soil and no other country wants them either....so, we lament...what to do, what to do.

[Brad]

I am amazed... you think that hoping a woman's husband puts a gun to his temple is humorous. I must be stuck in the salon or something. It's sad that some can never say they're wrong.

[Roy Jacobsen]

Brad,

You need to get out of your salon. From http://www.bizbag.com/Churchill/poison.htm:

Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife, I’d put poison in your coffee."
Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband, I’d drink it."

Is there a substantive difference between what Churchill said and what Levin said to that caller?

[Jim Treacher]

"I am amazed... you think that hoping a woman's husband puts a gun to his temple is humorous."

Don't worry, you're self-righteous enough for the rest of us.

[Brandon]

Mark Levin... He comes off as real douchebag. Does nothing to help the ailing conservative movement, but an awful to piss off moderates, not to mention the occasional lefties who call in...

And of course he eviscerates the liberals who make it through the call screener - only the real idiots are allowed through! Interrupts and belittles anyone beginning to make a point.

It's a tiring shtick. Deeper political insight can be found via Opie & Anthony and 'lil Yimmy Norton.

I consider myself a moderate with conservative leanings, but find myself listening more and more to the Thom Hartman show on AmericaLeft, same timeslot (on satellite radio). It's more laid-back, no less intelligent, and he (Hartman) is usually much more respectful towards the listeners.

[B. Nix]

Mark just likes to slap the stupid out of the progressive drones for a little sport. It is less violent than 99% of the comments they make about him. Also listeners for any length of time hear democrats call and apologize for voting as they did. He converts thinking democrats to Conservatism every day.

[Brandon]

Actually, he does just the opposite. Okay, I'll grant he can convert a few "drones" now and again, as shouters/intimidators often have that effect on the weak-willed. Let me put it this way, other than David Frum (who was given somewhat of a forum, though he had to shoe-horn 10 minutes of content into 30 seconds to dodge Levin's repeated mic cuts)... if you have a cogent argument to make, you're not going to be heard.

Here's a fun game to play: Next time you hear a self-described democrat caller with a point to make; if the caller is beginning to sound reasonable, count how many seconds it takes for Levin to IMMEDITATELY interrupt with an insult or a rhetorical straw-man:
"Do you live with your parents?"
"Are you on drugs?"
"Do you hate America?"

Bizarro World

Caller: "I have a point to make and would appreciate the courtesy of 30-45 seconds to make it, then you can cut me off, call me names, and rant about statists - you self-righteous jackass!"

Caller makes intellectual case for some issue most Americans are on the fence over: legalizing pot - pros/cons, corporate tax shelters in the Bahamas - good/bad, "lobbying" reform, creationism taught alongside evolution, etc.. (issues that reasonable folks can disagree on)

Levin: I understand that point, but I disagree with it. Here's why...

But I guess it's fun radio.. As long as it is not taken any more seriously than Rush Limbaugh or Keith Obermann.

[Brandon]

Oops - in my 'Bizarro World' Levin show call-in sceanario, remove "self righteous jackass!" (that was part of another post, left in by mistake).

Obviously for my point to have any merit, the imaginary Caller wouldn't name-call right out of the gate (and would never make it past the tape-delay if he did).