Levin Takes Down Frum

A second guest post from Mark Levin. Update: A disclaimer of my own for the hand wringing crowd. If you read Frum's post on ML, linked below - he got very personal and very nasty. In my opinion, Mark is responding in kind, though perhaps not as nastily, or bizarrely and based on facts, not suppositions. It is precisely how I handle such things. You slap me, I slap you. Kick me, I kick you. And if you come at me with a knife, I'll shoot your ass. So spare me the Mark is mean crap. Thank you.

________________________

David Frum was never much of a thinker.  Try as he might, he just can't seem to attract interest, let alone a following, even when stabbing his old boss, President George W. Bush, in the back with a rambling screed.  Profiting from a confidential relationship with a president is about as low as it gets.  But Frum, the ex-speech-writer turned self-hating blogger, isn't done descending.  Now he spends his lonely days and nights at his keyboard trying to settle personal scores and demonizing those who dare to dismiss his ramblings as the work of an emotional wreck.
 
My interactions with Frum have been minimal, despite his past suggestions that they were something more.  As best I recall, I met him first on an Amtrak train.  He was sitting near the restroom feverishly working his lap top's keyboard.  We exchanged pleasantries, and that was about it.  I believe the next time I met him was at the Ledeen's home.  He seemed harmless enough.  The next thing I knew, he had a blog at NRO.  I rarely read it, but when I did, I noticed he displayed a quirkiness and psuedo-intellectualism which suggested to me that something was a little off with the guy.  But I didn't give it much thought.  I became reacquainted with Frum after he viciously attacked Rush Limbaugh, after having attempted to spar with Rush over a period of months.  And it was this unhinged, emotional outburst that caught my attention.  I then realized, as did others, that Frum was a truly pathetic character subject to wild personality lurches and obsessed with drawing attention to himself.
 
In one truly bizarre incident, after I responded to another of Frum's hate-Rush outbursts, Frum had his own 15 year old son call my talk show.  Realizing Frum had become emotionally uncontrollable, I told my producer to tell his son that it would not be appropriate for him to come on the air.  If his father called in, I would put him on the show.  Within minutes, Frum called, and he proceeded to make a fool of himself by interrupting, name-calling, etc.  He could not gather his thoughts or make coherent, reasoned points.  So, as the host, with a responsibility to my audience, I had to repeatedly lower the noise-level on his rantings.  Frum made a fool of himself.  Of course, Frum, as I predicted during the show, would accuse me of cutting him off.  (The audio has been widely distributed and played.  I recommend folks listen for themselves.)  I don't know what kind of family or private life Frum has, and unlike him, I won't presume to know and use it to punish him here.  But I do know from what I have seen and heard that he is a very troubled individual.  He knows it and I know it.
 
I have found that it is a complete waste of time to engage Frum in a debate.  He is psychologically and emotionally incapable of it.  His latest post is a perfect example.  He hunts and pecks around the Internet, looking for audio clips and transcripts, hoping to piece together another smear against me or Rush or his favorite target of the day.  That's what people like Frum do.  That's why he is exploited by Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, and Newsweek.  They so wish he was the face of conservatism.  But, alas, he can barely speak for himself.  And apart from this response to Frum's latest ramblings, today will be like all other days.  I will go on the air and talk with millions of listeners and Frum will write to himself on his own website.

-- Mark Levin

Comments

[epobirs]

Llama, quoting from the nutball Huffington Post is not exactly drawing from an unimpeachable source. That article is grotesquely tilted to make Yoo look bad by forcing him to discuss issues that had no place in reality in their hypothetical legal context. That is utterly meaningless in terms of what was really discussed in determining what could and could not be done. Please show me the slightest shred of evidence that the US ever inflicted harm on the family of a prisoner, or even threatened to do so in a believable fashion.

[PCP Smoker]

What an as& kicking...yet again! This monkey-looking creep has a pennant for large-audience humiliation. I would hate to be him - desperate, lonely, looking to get attention, and knowing deep down that all these leftists inviting him to their shows are using him as a tool to bash the right.

God bless Levin, Limpaw, and Hannity.

[D]

Frum is dumb, but Levin is just as bad. I can't tell you how many times I've heard him respond to criticism with "X criticized me on his show/blog today. I don't know who X is and never read his blog or watch/listen to his show." Inevtiably Levin will respond with a put down that because he doesn't read the person, he must be worthless.

I generally don't listen to talk radio, but I don't mind Rush - he can be entertaining. Same with some of the others. I can't stand Levin though. I once listened to him rant for 20 minutes at least about his trip to Disney. On second thought, that's all he ever does when I hear him - rant. He seems like a perpetually unhappy person.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

El Gordo,

You write: "The one thing that I cannot forgive him for is that he repeatedly goes out of his way to attack conservatives in public instead of simply expressing his disagreements in a more constructive manner."

Speaking generally, rather than about the particular case of David Frum, I fail to understand why conservatives who disagree with one another should try to hide that fact. Surely the right should be confident enough to engage one another's ideas in public forms. What harm does that actually cause? It isn't as if Americans are scouring political blogs for signs that people under the conservative tent disagree with one another -- it's obvious that every ideological movement contains disagreement.

The process of taking it over in public acts as a crucible, testing ideas, destroying the worst, and strengthening the best. In other words, it makes for a leaner, stronger, more agile conservative movement, whereas stifling dissent and papering over disagreements leads to -- well, to a Democratic president and a Senate ready to pass his agenda.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Levinite,

You seem to be asserting that the caller that Levin excoriated was a hard left type. What is your evidence for that? She hardly even said anything on the air. And what on earth did she say that threatens our country? Mark Levin agrees with the caller's stated position -- that President Obama possesses the power to transfer Gitmo detainees to the United States.

[Reagan Punk]

Cornhole Friedersdork,

in your words,

"Destroying the worst" - You and your ilk
"Strengthening the best" - People who believe in fighting and not conceding to Statist agenda.

[happyfeet]

Personal attacks on Frum are cause of he's such a flaky annoying phony person, Mr. Gordo. It goes with the territory he's staked out. It's like Meghan McCain or David Brooth or Peggy Noonan or that Kathleen somebody what the Washington Post likes to rub our noses in. Tools. I wish misfortune upon them.

[Jim Treacher]

"He seems like a perpetually unhappy person."

Whereas you're a regular font of joy.

"I fail to understand why conservatives who disagree with one another should try to hide that fact."

It's sometimes interesting to get the perspective of a complete outsider. That is, when the complete outsider is somewhat less tedious than Conor Friedersdorf.

"You seem to be asserting that the caller that Levin excoriated was a hard left type. What is your evidence for that?"

She was crowing that Obama is going to be able to do whatever he wants, no matter the effect on the country, and there's nothing Levin can do about it. Do you imagine she has a Reagan poster over her bed, genius?

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Levinite,

The fact that someone explains their style doesn't make it defensible -- just openly wrongheaded, as opposes to surreptitiously so.

The quality of the logic in the arguments employed by Mr. Levin's listeners really is a testament to the low bar he sets.

[Steve J.]

And it was this unhinged, emotional outburst that caught my attention.

This is what Levin does for a living.

[Levinite]

Conor,

"The quality of the logic in the arguments employed by Mr. Levin's listeners really is a testament to the low bar he sets."

I think that comment is quite revealing. My point was only to parallel another person's point on Dreher's blog:

"If 15 minutes is all it takes to take the full measure of a man then we would have a better president."

Now you're slinging mud at Levin's millions of listeners? Your superiority complex knows no bounds. Please, tell me how many times your buddies have called (___pick_a_nutroot___) disgusting? Aside from Dreher's hard-hitting posts like "Pity Rachel Maddow" and "2 Girls, 1 Cup, 0 Boundaries", I am having a hard time finding where any of you have titled a post "The Disgusting Keith Olbermann" or "The minor tragedy of Chris Matthews". Levin has been syndicated since 2003 (I think). I have been listening to him since 2006. Let's suppose I grant you the premise that it was a disgusting comment. I cannot think of any other comments of his that really came close to that. Only until recently, when Levin finally took on Frum, did I hear anyone from the supposed right-wing blogosphere complain about him or really even mention him. Why is that? Becuase he came to the defense of his dear friend, Rush Limbaugh? Rush, by the way, was quite personally and nastily attacked by Frum. Why have you not admonished Frum's comment about Limbaugh? I'm guessing because you agree.

"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."

Regardless of your opinion, Mark is clearly a brilliant legal mind. He served in the upper-echelons of the Reagan administration and he resonates with more people in one night than you will probably be read by in your entire life. I am not trying to diminish you with that tidbit, because the same statement applies to me. I am just trying to illustrate that there may be more to the man than you are taking into account. It may be your opinion that Mark Levin should not be a standard bearer for conservatives. You are entitled to that opinion. You are even welcome to hate the man if it suits you. The point Mark attempted to make to Frum during their debate and the point that any of us quasi-logical pitbulls agree upon, is that you folks are taking aim at the wrong team and too often.

If you want to marginalize Levin, you would be better off doing so by attracting a larger audience with your style than crapping on his entire body of work over a single lowsy comment he made in the heat of the moment. Maybe you would prefer to not measure success by audience size? Convenient, but okay. So then still consider keeping your gun pointed down or towards the enemy when you're debating the battle plan amongst your supposed teammates. Many of us feel that your faction's method of being passive-aggressive and openly introspective ala candidates like McCain is why we are off the rails. Many are of the opinion that someone willing to fiercly battle our opponents is better suited to lead us back to the forefront. Many of us feel that, as power is being expeditiously usurped and the constitution is being trampled upon, the ends justify the means and it is okay to occasionally mis-speak. What you think is wrong-headed seems to be quite effective on many fronts. That would make your assertion subjective. Until we adopt some of the enemies current and fruitful tactics, how are we to do battle? You really need to read Alinsky to grasp what we are up against. Have you? Doubtful.

Bottom-line: agree or disagree with the methods of a fellow conservative, but consider stopping short when your disagreement turns to loud vocal opposition that serves as nothing but more of the same hate Rush, hate Bush, and, suddenly, hate Levin fodder that the left craves.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

"If you want to marginalize Levin, you would be better off doing so by attracting a larger audience with your style than crapping on his entire body of work over a single lowsy comment he made in the heat of the moment."

But I haven't crapped on his entire body of work.

I've criticized one fifteen minute segment.

I concede that it doesn't necessarily reflect Mr. Levin's larger body of work -- but I maintain that it is nevertheless wrongheaded, and it is weird that so many are so determined to defend it, as if a man who they normally find correct must ALWAYS be correct.

[Levinite]

I don't see anyone here claiming that he is always correct. I am simply attempting to convey my stated "bottom-line". I think that we all would like to stop the in-fighting and redirect our efforts elsewhere.

[dfp21]

Frum occasionally shows up on liberal "news" programs sitting in the chair reserved for the reasonable conservative puppet. He attracted my attention by insulting Sarah Palin, thereby giving himself away as an emotionally weak dirt bag, and gaining a liberal fan club.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Levinite,

Commenters here are acting as though Mr. Levin's general track record refutes my specific criticism of him.

[Rich K]

Well I guess that its easy to single out one comment of millions the man has made to justify your holier than thou attitude Conor. If you had to listen to all the insipid,ignorant,brain dead comments and arguments Mark has had to endure all these years you yourself might go off once in a while. But being the superior mind that you claim to be I guess thats just not concievable ,,Asshat
PS: Way to draw a crowd to the comments Dan. Usually its 10 and out around here.

[Don in Atlanta]

To most everyone on here except Conor: I suggest we officially designate Conor as a troll. He and his Vichy Repubs have now achieved the attention they crave, none of which is deserved. The guy is dying to keep this discussion going to feed his ego and superiority complex. Don't feed the trolls! Let Conor starve in his little echo-chamber and room of mirrors. What a putz.

[Levinite]

Conor,

Why would it be strange that fans of the man and his body of work/efforts for conservatism over decades are coming to his defense? Again, no one said he is infallible. We're just reacting in accordance with the fairly normal practice of defending someone we know and trust against someone we don't know so well. I don't know how many ways there are to iterate my point. I think that any addiitonal astonishment with the defense of Levin's one comment is either designed to draw silly/angry defenses to further substantiate your smear of the man's audience or because you just like to fuel conflict. At this point, we're just going in circles. As I see it, you may either choose to let this pass and refocus on the people really destroying our country or further alienate yourself from a group of staunch conservatives that are sitting up and listening now. Just think, if you choose the former, the latter may actually consider your thoughts and writings over the long-term. I would also consider listening to Levin more. You may not agree with him or his methods, but I think you will find that he has an overwhelmingly positive message and that he also has a well earned place in the big tent that Reagan envisioned.

[obi eleven]

Levinite hit it right on the head. If Conor and Frum et al expect to gain any legitimacy with the base on the right, they ought to spend at least as much time (if not MUCH more time) criticizing the opposition as they do the standardbearers of those with which they claim to be on the same side.

See, Conor, that sort of makes it obvious to us all what your real intentions are. It's not all that complicated.

[Jamie Lockett]

Levinite,

It is interesting how you site Reagan's big tent when the vast majority of commenter's here, Dan and Mark Levin himself have been doing everything possible to drive people away that aren't in lock step with every single thing they believe.

That big tent is getting smaller each and every day, and that only empowers people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid to make the changes that will slowly be the death of America.

Well done.

[Levinite]

Jamie,

I dunno. It kind of feels like you are nit picking. I can't speak for Dan, but I can say that Mark Levin by no means "does everything possible to drive people aware that aren't in lock step with his every belief". That's painting with a pretty broad brush and it tends to expose you as having not listened to Levin for any reasonable length of time. If you had, you would notice that when a liberal caller has any common ground with Mark, Mark tends to ease up and reason with them. Also, Mark was extremely neutral during the primary process and he did back McCain in the end; albeit begrudgingly.

I'm really uncertain which part of Levin's philosophy deviates from that of our founders but, even if there are a few, you would find that the conservative principles Mark excoriates other self-proclaimed conservatives for lacking are absolutely required for one to call themself a conservative. I think he gives people a pretty fair shake and he all but refuses to call people out until he is up against a wall.

I'm sorry, but I do not see how playing identity politics, moderating our positions/tone, and playing with the language is going to bring us back to life. I don't think by big tent, Reagan meant that we should sell-out to capture the fairweather states in the North East. If we were to have a strategic "big tent", I think the responsibility lies in representing the majority of the Republican electorate. Maybe your definition of "big tent" does not mean excluding anyone, but I am certain that we need to return to a candidate like Reagan. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I have a sneaking suspiscion that Frum and Noonan would be doing the same thing to Reagan that they did to Palin would he be resurrected.

[Thomas Jackson]

Isn't David Frum Drehner's pool boy?

[Levinite]

Grrr...my last comment to Jamie was lost.

[Kat]

Who the hell is this federalistpaupers and her strawman arguments? There is no one trying to "drive people away that aren't in lock step with every single thing they believe" Every single thing? No. Weeding out you RINO's yes. Consider yourself driven away.

Palin 2012

[Kat]

So Jamie is a dude. Congrats on having balls, now pull them out and direct your snark at the other side. The Dhimmmicrats. And James, "site Reagan" should be 'cite' Reagan. Details, details.

[J.D.M.]

IslamoLlama,

""-- On December 1, 2005, Yoo notoriously contended in a public debate that the legality of crushing a child's testicles "depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." Yesterday John Conyers tried to ask Yoo point-blank about that claim in that 2005 debate, namely whether Yoo still believes "that the President can order that a suspect's child be tortured in gruesome fashion." --"

I won't bore you with the details of the John Yoo, Dick Cheney link. Needless to say, Cheney is a hard and fast supporter of the torture first, torture last, and torture always school of foreign policy. And it was John Yoo's torture doctrine that Cheney was defending."

Here's the complete quote, not your "Frum-unda" style cherry picking.
"In several public fora heretofore, Yoo has insisted that no law -- neither domestic nor international -- prevents the president from authorizing the crushing of a child's testicles or the raping of an infant as a way of exerting pressure upon a terrorist suspect.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo notoriously contended in a public debate that the legality of crushing a child's testicles "depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." Yesterday John Conyers tried to ask Yoo point-blank about that claim in that 2005 debate, namely whether Yoo still believes "that the President can order that a suspect's child be tortured in gruesome fashion."

So as you can see Yoo was arguing to the legality of the point not the morality. Some would say they are intrinsically linked and yet the courts would disagree. Bringing into the debate a hypothetical makes you seem disingenuous and invalidates that whole line of argument. BUT for arguments sake if Big Bad Cheney was the "hard and fast supporter of the torture first, torture last, and torture always school of foreign policy", you'd have a hard time convincing many people other than the most retarded(that was my obama shout out)of that. If he were in fact as you claim, we'd have over 5000 individuals that would be claiming such tactics happened to them.
Thousands of detainees have merely been questioned and released. Others subjected to.... more flowery(?) versions of interrogation and the 3 (yup you can count em on one hand) who had been thru the harsher interrogations. If you wanna call it torture go for it, I don't give a damn. I've been thru waterboarding and it's a motherf*cker. I wouldn't wish it on any of my friends or family.... but the *sshole that's trying to kill me on the battlefield.... eh, let him sit thru it a cpl times. He can behead me when I get caught and we'll call it even... will you?

"Haha. Sure thing, ace. The bill lined up before Congress funding the closing of the Gitmo prison had absolutely nothing to do with the President's speech. He just heard Cheney was yapping his yap and had to get out in front of it. Or something. Cause and effect were never friends of conservative logic. :-p"

Since we've apparently developed enough of a relationship to have pet names for each other.... Hahhah. Sure thing, chief. The President has been "yapping" his yap for over a year talking up his closing gitmo. He sprinted with his staff to preempt Cheney and EVERYONE knows it. When is the last time Obama had a speech that we didn't know about for three or four days in advance? How's this for cause and effect? Cheney starts making a sh*t ton of headway in the debate and blamo! Obama has a close gitmo/"torture bad" speech. How's that illogic logic working out for you?

"And nothing says "Limited Government" like extra-legal wiretapping, trillions in tax dollars spent on invading a third world country, cooking up Unitary Executive Theories, and opening prisons in Communist island nations to evade Constitutional boundaries.

Maybe that Pursuit of Happiness just doesn't kick in until you're smashing some kid's nuts while screaming, "I'm Jack Bauer bitch!" So I'll spot you that. Or maybe all that bullshit about how much you love America boils down to another round of Tea Bagger tax protests. How many civil rights would you give up for another 5% of the capital gains rate?"

And there you go again cherry picking one phrase from one sentence to argue... maybe that's all your libtard brain could handle.

"Extra legal wiretapping"? Yeah, wiretapping incoming transmissions from suspected foreign terrorists is bad idea(like i said, MORON)
Spending trillions to "invade".... 10 years of ignoring your o so magnificent UN, harboring terrorists and murding 10's of thousands of civilians. You're right we shoulda just let him be. (PS get this, they did have WMD's!! Just not to the extent that we believed.)
"cooking up Unitary Executive Theories". I think if you look at it the theories already existed and the Bush admin just utilized it like no one had before and because the new democratic congress didn't agree with it they flew off the handle claiming "usurpatory executive branch" mumbo jumbo.
"Opening prisons in communist....." Well we have occupied(rented) that land for over 100 years(it's ours forever if we want) so in as much as you may not like how the president did what he did, it falls under your previous argument of a unitary executive.

And then there's your ignorant statement about my personal politics. You have no idea where I stand when it comes to civil liberties and govermental constitutional authority. But since you cant formulate a coherent thougt lemme help you. Government has grown exponentially in the last 30 years and continues to do so. I believe the founders would have started (or at least approved of) a new revolution. I believe that dems and repubs of late have been remiss in their duties to the PEOPLE of these United States. I think the government is here to make sure that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is available to all. I dont think we need half the gov't we've got. We could and should make do with a strong military, solid police and first responder services, and a SMALL allocation for education and infrastructure. I could go on and on with my "neocon manifesto" (that'll be how you portray me anyway). But alas it's friday and i'm gonna go crush me some testicles!

I AM Jack Bauer!!!! *SMASH*

[John Lofton, Recovering Republican]

Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.

[F.P.]

If you've never heard of Frum, it explains why you are acting like such mouth breathers.

Mark Levin does a high-pitched whine, with the words "Marxist" and "Constitution" thrown in sporadically, and makes zero arguments in half an hour, and you wonder why we're losing. Levin adds nothing, and this is a weak attempt to defend him.

Want to debate Frum? He's extremely well-read and well-versed, so I'd love to see that.

[ApolloSpeaks]

LEVIN VS FRUM: RIGHT VS WRONG

David Frum's problem is that he has an unfounded confidence in Barack Obama and the Democrats. He foolishly believes that this man and his left leaning party are going to endure in power like FDR and the Democrats of his time. Frum is 1000% wrong! Before he even took office Obama had tragedy, misfortune and failure written all over him. From the day Obama was born, 67 days into JFK's 44th year, he was doomed to lead our country into peril and suffer a disastrous fall*. The Magical Mystery Tour of the 08 campaign is now the Great Democratic Train Wreck of 2012. Obama is LBJ and Jimmy Carter combined with a little JFK thrown in. Stick to your principles! Don't despair! God and history are on our side! Google ApolloSpeaks and read, The Death of Madelyn Durham and Barack Obama: Transformational President or Fortune's Tragic Fool, for inspiration and insight.

*Obama and the Kennedy Clan will be the subject of an upcoming work: Barack Obama, the Kennedy Curse and the Fatal Star of Socialism