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

Comments

[Jana]

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.

[Dan Riehl]

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.

[symeon]

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.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

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?

[Kat]

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..

[lala]

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.”

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Actually, Kat, he did not address my criticisms, as you'll see if you take the time to read my post.

[John J.Vecchone]

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.

[Stephen Braunlich]

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.

[Bob]

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.

[Peg C.]

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).

[Bob]

"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."

[Craig]

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.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

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.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

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?

[baldilocks]

There are a few things worse than a "man" who whines, but not many.

[Stephen Braunlich]

But Conor, that doesn't matter... it's all entertainment, after all.

[Vince]

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.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

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.

[Mark Levin]

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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Quit now Conor, before the Great One completely reduces you to mincemeat.

Just some friendly advice...

[Bob]

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?

[Jim]

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.

[Michael in MI]

"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.

[Brent]

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.

[Mark Levin]

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.

[Mark Levin]

(Correction - make that opposition to enhanced interrogation.)

[Vince]

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.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

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.

[Danimal]

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".

[bailey]

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.

[Rebuzz]

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!

[Robert]

Conor, you smell.

I'll interpret your unwillingness to address my point as an inability to do so.

[Michael in MI]

"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.

[Kensington]

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.

[Cynthia V]

"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.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

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.

[Mark Levin]

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.

[Steve B]

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.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

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.

[bailey]

So, once you have earned the respect of (some) people, it's perfectly fine to tear people down on a personal level? Got it.

[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.

[Kensington]

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.

[Kensington]

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.

[kakypat]

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.

[Rebuzz]

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

[Dantes]

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.

[reliapundit]

nark levin is great.

dreher and coner pipsqueeks who should stop squeeking.

[Stephen Braunlich]

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?

[Michael in MI]

"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.