An Answer From Mark Levin – Updated!

117 responses so far

• 1 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 7:51 pm

  David,

  Why not challenge Levin to a debate?

  BILL

• 2 RightNow09 // May 26, 2009 at 8:12 pm

  Excellently said, David.

  He wrote ‘Liberty and Tyranny’ thinking it was going to be the next ‘The Conservative Mind.’ He actually states on his program things like, “I’m just as much of an intellectual as X,Y, or Z.” And he’s on constant RINO watch, and though there can actually be such a thing (see: A. Specter), here’s Levin’s criteria for RINO/squish/phony status: Disagree with me (or Rush Limbaugh, of course). Think differently than the guy who’s new book makes a better door stop than reading delight and you’re not just a RINO, you’re “stupid” and probably “out to get him” as well.

  All in all, I think he’s better left ignored and laughed at from a distance, although I would love to read your review of his book. That ought to be interesting.

  To barker13: Frum already tried debating Levin. Unfortunately, Levin just got too friendly with the mute button in his studio and barely allowed Frum to speak– not by talking louder than him, but by actually muting him. To me, the debate was settled right there.

• 3 A. Wilson // May 26, 2009 at 9:45 pm

  Yawn. Here we go again with the mooching off others’ fame and success. When is it going to be time to cut the cord, David? We get it, you don’t like certain peoples’ style. I think what you fail to realize is how many don’t like yours.

  How long will the unflattering picture of Rush stay up? Can you go it alone here?

  You talk about others being bullies and of displaying bad behavior. But you’re the one throwing the wrenches. You’re the one going to Newsweek and MSNBC like some “Media Matters” tattle tale and pitting who might otherwise be friends against each other.

  To me that’s far worse than anything Mark or Rush ever said.

  One thing that always seems be missing from your tantrums about Levin is a link to his whole show in context. It’s free you know. How about if we let people listen if they choose to and make up their own minds, instead of relying on isolated extracts and acerbic hate-based spin from you in an attempt to turn people away preemptively? Wouldn’t that be the conservative, freedom-based thing to do? Gosh, guess what? That’s what the Democrat-voting media does. That’s why they like you so much all of a sudden.

  http://www.marklevinshow.com/rss/ilevin.xml

• 4 AlexK // May 26, 2009 at 9:54 pm

  His book has sold like, a billion copies.

  I don’t know why. It’s not particularly insightful.

• 5 mlindroo // May 26, 2009 at 10:17 pm

  > Why not challenge Levin to a debate?

  Memo to the White House: why not put The Decider himself on Levin’s show (and Limbaugh’s too, for that matter)?!

  After all, if there is something Obama does well, it is talking. His appearances on “hostile territory” such as Fox News during last fall’s campaign generally went well as he does a good job appearing calm, reasonable and respectful of dissent. So why not put himself *and* Limbaugh, Levin in the national spotlight by agreeing to two televised interviews?

  MARCU$

• 6 mlindroo // May 26, 2009 at 10:25 pm

  A.Wilson wrote;

  > You talk about others being bullies and of
  > displaying bad behavior. But you’re the one
  > throwing the wrenches. You’re the one going to
  > Newsweek and MSNBC like some “Media
  > Matters” tattle tale and pitting who might
  > otherwise be friends against each other.

  > To me that’s far worse than anything Mark or
  > Rush ever said.

  (Stunned silence)

  So…as far as personnal manners go, you really think David appearing on MSNBC to criticize Limbaugh, Levin for not being very helpful to conservatism somehow is worse than what Levin just said??

  MARCU$

• 7 AlexK // May 26, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  Nope, not allowed to go to MSNBC.

  Much better to stay in the echo chamber. It’s so nice and comfortable.

  What’s that? Yes, yes, we *do* just need to fire up the base! Exactly!

• 8 danbmil99 // May 26, 2009 at 11:10 pm

  I don’t know much about Levin, but I’ve occasionally tuned to Michael Savage’s show. He seems to have a similar bunker mentality. And the hate! He really, really hates yuppies, liberals, rich effete coastal snobs… he hates a whole swath of people. I can only assume he is appealing to a bunch that also hate “those people”.

  What was funny was that he complained about living in the ‘bay area’ (my turf — silicon valley — uber-liberal for the most part, and very ‘yuppie’) — so he is constantly seeing this class of people he despises.

  One show, he went on and on about the rich snobs taking free samples at the Farmer’s Market. WTF? They put the samples there so you can tell what you’re buying. The prices at these markets are pretty outrageous. Fruit isn’t always fresh. It seems very reasonable to take a sample — and, after all, the vendor puts them out. Savage went on and on about the rich fools who have no idea how hard the vendors work, who have the audacity to occasionally sample something and not buy it. I was really quite bewildered.

  There is some similar contempt on the left– Garofolo and Maher come to mind — but they really don’t have quite the flavor of these talk radio mavens.

• 9 A. Wilson // May 27, 2009 at 12:01 am

  mlindroo wrote:

  “So…as far as personnal manners go, you really think David appearing on MSNBC to criticize Limbaugh, Levin for not being very helpful to conservatism somehow is worse than what Levin just said??”

  You make it sound so utterly innocent, almost Boy Scout like.

  It’s not about one MSNBC appearance, it’s about numerous appearances all over the dial carrying the same tired bag of tricks, his ticket on these shows in effect. It’s about his willingness to be USED as a TOOL to tie as many as possible on the right to Rush or Mark or whoever’s next, so his new friends can bash the right collectively.

  “It’s the party of Rush.” “Anyone who likes Rush is a freak”.

  It’s one thing for James Carville to do it, but when someone supposedly from our side joins in, it makes Chris Matthew’s job a whole lot easier. It’s almost like he’s an ACTUAL MEMBER of the White House “use Rush to help us grow the government and empower unions” team.

  It’s about him bringing up Rush’s past prescription drug addiction and marriage difficulties. It’s about him being USED by the liberals at Newsweek AS COVER to lend legitimacy to a front page unflattering picture of Rush and a hit piece inside.

  It’s about him lying in wait for hours to obtain a few seconds of what might be viewed as inflammatory language by the masses, and using that to paint a distorted caricature of Mark Levin. It’s about him seeming to have some sick urge to poke a stick into the lions’ cages, just to see what chaos he can cause.

  Yes, these kinds of divisive, destructive shenanigans ARE far more troublesome than ANYTHING Rush or Mark has ever said.

  http://www.marklevinshow.com/rss/ilevin.xml

  You’ll find that the vast majority of Mark’s programs are devoted to informing people about what the left really intends for this country. If more people don’t understand this, there’s little chance of ever effectively countering it.

  That’s what David Frum needs to focus on, and stop HELPING the media tear down hard working members of his own supposed team:

  “Ms. Palin’s experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall…..

  ……If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a SMALL-TOWN MAYOR.” — David Frum 8/29/08

• 10 AlexK // May 27, 2009 at 12:11 am

  Well, I personally agree with Rush’s contention that I want Obama to fail. However, I don’t think it’s good PR. I certainly saw where Frum was coming from. And I don’t have a problem with him saying it on the cover of Newsweek. Newsweek is not the enemy, here. Minority status is the enemy. If Frum sees Rush as an obstacle, it’s his right — no, his duty — to oppose that.

  Something that’s gone horribly wrong in our movement is that we’ve out-and-out surrendered the mainstream media. We’ve chosen war, when we should be trying to sleep with the enemy. No — we’ve constructed a little echo chamber that creates a mindset that is not conducive to creating a majority party. Anyone who reads that transcript of Levin yelling at that caller and thinks — wow, I have to defend Mark here! — clearly has some reflecting to do.

• 11 Commie Stooge // May 27, 2009 at 4:17 am

  Ever since talk radio became the driver of the GOP I’ve wondered just who listens to them?

  After a mostly night time period in Data Processing; I began my current job working daytime in 1996.

  So when these guys are on; i’m at work.

  I strongly suspect that the people listening may be out of the mainstream; and harboring resentments against minorities; gov’t; etc.

  If this is what the GOP has sunk to; perhaps it’s time for a new WFB.

• 12 Bulldoglover100 // May 27, 2009 at 4:56 am

  And someone pays this guy to speak for our party? Really? Why do we allow that? Have we no say in this?
  I think the party should shun him as they are trying to do to Colin Powell..oh wait…it’s the same people who admire Levin who are trying to run off Powell!

• 13 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 5:32 am

  Levin writes “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. “

  David, what about this, “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.”

  Any response?

• 14 ottovbvs // May 27, 2009 at 5:55 am

  What this argument is about of course is the division between the “talk radio” dittohead faction (represented by Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity et al) that is increasingly dominating the Republican party and the more traditional, intellectual, nomenklatura wing represented by folks like David. The irony of all this is that it was the nomenklatura types who called the dittoheads into being as part of their strategy of polarizing the electorate by the use of wedge issues and mass hysteria. Now the nomenklatura are faced with the awful and unforseen consequences of their actions with the dittos seizing the steering wheel and are therefore attempting to get control again. In the short term I don’t think they have a hope in hell, it’s gone way too far as you can tell from the effusions of those like Franco. This is a fire that has to burn itself out and it is going to take a long time.

• 15 barker13 // May 27, 2009 at 5:56 am

  Re: RightNow09; 8:12 PM –

  “To barker13: Frum already tried debating Levin. Unfortunately, Levin just got too friendly with the mute button in his studio and barely allowed Frum to speak– not by talking louder than him, but by actually muting him. To me, the debate was settled right there.”

  I’m not talking about Frum going on Levin’s radio show, I’m talking neutral ground, perhaps in a formal setting (a college/university, perhaps something sponsored by one of the conservative magazines; a moderated debate).

  Re: AlexK; 9:54 PM –

  “[Levin's book is] not particularly insightful.”

  You’ve read it? Actually read it… word by word, page by page?

  I only ask because several regulars are in the habit of critiquing books they haven’t read; I just want to make sure you’re not doing so.

  For what it’s worth, assuming you’ve read the book, I’d like to hear your specific thoughts, get your informed critique.

  Re: Mlindroo; 10:17 PM –

  He’s the President, Marcus. Neither Limbaugh nor Levin is a journalist. Giving another interview to O’Reilly is a thought, though; O’Reilly interviewed candidate Obama and it was an excellent interview.

  Anyway… back to FRUM and LEVIN…

  I’d love to see these two go at it live, perhaps David Frum could look into holding a debate with Mark Levin at the 92nd St. Y in NYC?

  Re: A. Wilson; 12:01 AM –

  You’re making fair points and backing them up with quotes. Good work!

  Re: AlexK; 12:11 AM –

  “If Frum sees Rush as an obstacle…”

  Then that tells you quite a bit about where Frum’s coming from. (*SHRUG*) Right…?

  And I disagree with you about Newsweek. They certainly are “the enemy” in the sense that A. Wilson is portraying them and MSNBC context wise.

  “Anyone who reads that transcript of Levin yelling at that caller and thinks — wow, I have to defend Mark here! — clearly has some reflecting to do.”

  Hey… I’m with you in criticizing Levin’s rants, but I’m also with A. Wilson in disdaining Frum’s style and tactics in this matter and indeed overall when it comes to his critiques of conservatives from Limbaugh to Palin.

  BILL

• 16 barker13 // May 27, 2009 at 6:04 am

  Re: Franco; wrote 24 minutes ago –

  Yep. I’m basically with Levin.

  (Alex… you do acknowledge that Frum’s behavior hasn’t exactly been above reproach, right?)

  Hey… Franco… on that other thread (the older thread – now on webpage 2 of “older posts”) I finally got around to answering a few questions posed to me by you and a few other regulars.

  Jeez… something like 310 posts on that thread last time I checked!

  BILL

• 17 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 6:24 am

  (continued)
  Talk radio isn’t for them, it’s for us. It is not there for the Republican party, because no one would listen to it ( see Air America) Mark gets that. He has a loyal audience who listen to him for something new, something different and something intellectually stimulating. Debates with partisan drones like this woman are boring and they dumb down the conversation. On the internet they are called ‘trolls”. Levin uses these callers to show us how conservatives need to define some boundaries in debate and have a backbone. Not accept or ignore outright lies, smears and other deceptive practices the left commonly uses.

  Frum doesn’t understand this. He is perfectly willing to be unfairly attacked, willing to go along with the prevailing assumptions of the left pleading with them (quite futily) to understand his perspectives, while they walk all over him and confound the debate buy advancing their memes and false assumptions. Frum and his ilk will never convince them, nor will they convince most dispassionate observers, because leftists engage in a two-pronged arguments which Frum is apparently unaware. They are always slipping in false memes which serve them while pretending to debate other issues. Bill Maher does this all the time. He’ll make a nasty joke and then discuss the real issue (sort of), he may even make some concession to logic but then make another joke that advances his cause yet again and contradicts his concession at the same time. But the joke is what takes hold in drones’ minds and serves it’s purpose.

  Levin has 10 million in his “beloved audience”. To say that he is insulated or isolated because he lives in suburban VA and has his dogs and his wife there – he has money and fame and a HUGE audience and why should he, at his age be out glad-handing people?

• 18 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 6:25 am

  (continued)

  Mark Levin has made it. He is a huge success on the radio, has several bestselling books, ( his current book is #1 on the NYTimes and Amazon bestseller list) and has had a distinguished career. He’s gone to all the parties and perhaps he sees they are primarily for those who want to network, smooze and phoney-up to power.

  Some of us aren’t social gadflys like Frum and want no part of the artifice that most or all of these social gatherings entail. That to me is admirable and lends more credibility to Levin. He doesn’t need peoples approval as apparently Frum does.

  And Levin isn’t nearly as insulated or isolated as Frum suggests. Levin does interact with his producers and Levin DOES take calls from those with whom he disagrees. If they can present a reasoned case and answer his questions and are respectful, he is equally respectful. But if they start to make false statements, smears or spout dogma with no supporting facts, they are mis-treated. Personally I have come to appreciate this mistreatment. Usually he says “Get off the phone you big jerk” when they continue to either a)ignore his question(s) b) smear or make false statments or accusations c) demonstrate they are using his show to promote an agenda and are unwilling to engage in civil debate.

  Levin himself has said that ridicule is a very powerful device, and CERTAINLY the left uses it to FULL EFFECT. Levin respects logic and truth and has no respect for people who are drones and propagandists.

• 19 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 6:27 am

  Frum: “Here is a man who has literally isolated himself in a little box in his home. No social ties with anyone outside his family and pets. He does not interact even with the producers of his program. He has cut himself out of the feedback loop, and when something unwanted intrudes itself into his carefully sheltered experience, he reacts with rage.”

  Frum is exhibiting a social bigotry here that grew out of the feminist movement, or at least is a bias that comes from females who are voraciously social creatures. The idea is that if you (even as a man) aren’t engaging in social interactions at all times there is something wrong with you. Let me quote a very smart female, Celia Green, who gets it:

  Particular attention should be drawn to the phrase ‘running away from reality’ in which “reality” is almost always synonymous with “human beings and their affairs”. For example: “It isn’t right to spend so much time with those stuffy old astronomy books. It’s running away from reality. You ought to be getting out and meeting people.” (An interest in any aspect of reality requiring concentrated attention in solitude is considered a particularly dangerous symptom.) This usage leads to the interesting result that if anyone does take any interest in reality he is almost certain to be told that he is running away from it. – Celia Green, The Human Evasion

• 20 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 6:45 am

  Barker 13, I’m from Philly living in NJ. Mark Levin WABC 6-9pm weekdays.

• 21 nwahs // May 27, 2009 at 7:18 am

  The people like Levin and Limbaugh who are actively purging the Republican party impress me more as a cult than conservatives. They employ cult tactics which explains the similarity of the venom those followers spew when someone criticizes Levin or Limbaugh. The devoted followers impress me as programmed.

  After Limbaugh and Levin purge the Republican party of the infidels, who are they going to replace them with? They’ve sold their followers on the idea that shrinking the base is a good idea. If you look at it from a cult point of view, it makes sense. By shrinking the base, they condense their power ( remove all other dialects) and isolate their followers . Though there are fewer people, they have more power on those that remain.

  This isn’t political ideology at work, this is mind control. If one wants to see what these entertainers are up to, just do a little research into cult tactics.

• 22 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 8:07 am

  nwahs

  You are ignorant of both cultism and of conservatism. The fact that people defend ideas is not evidence of a cult. If they were, the entire Democrat party would also fall into that category. No one is trying to “purge” people from the Republican party or to shrink the base, nor are they trying to purify it. They are vying for ideological dominance of the party. Everyone recognizes that we need a “big tent” it is just a matter of who are the ringleaders.

  No one says Colin Powell is not allowed to vote for a Republican, should he deign to do so, we just object to his advice, given who he has recently voted for.

  Come back when you have some facts.

• 23 Cforchange // May 27, 2009 at 8:33 am

  No Franco you certainly do not want a big tent – you can’t open your mind to hear anything without you yourself hurling sharp insults. You have no idea how to develop a big tent. You want big membership who think exactly like you and that isn’t going to happen.

  It’s no surprise that you are not put off by the GOP radio blatters – look there “You are ignorant”. Namecalling is part of the creed.

  Keep it up David – the grade school mentality can not prevail. And no Franco, I’m not a Democrat.***Grin***

• 24 fromwi // May 27, 2009 at 8:57 am

  Hey Frum- nobody likes you- why don’t you get off this site. Of course Levin is angry- Obama is acting like a dictator and none of our representatives are doing anything about it! The anger against Obama in this country is immense. We want Levin to be loud and we want you to shut up. I have an idea- why don’t you send your kid in again to do the talking for you- so manly of you.

• 25 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 8:57 am

  Cforchange Say what you mean. You are calling me a liar and close-minded without “namecalling”. You are being disingenuous and hypocritical just like Frum.

  Ironically it would seem that Frum and you would like to drive myself and those who think like me out of the party, while you claim we are the ones who don’t want a “big tent”. Got projection?

  You guys are in effect telling us to “shut up”. We aren’t telling you to shut up.

  Frum said this of 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.”

  Please explain to me how this is better, or even more sophisticated than saying “Rush is a rich, fat, drug addicted, oaf, whose ex-wives hate him for good reason”

  Is it the word “oaf” that is over the top? You tell me.

• 26 Jewels // May 27, 2009 at 8:58 am

  Franco
  6:24 AM

  Interesting. I’m suddenly reminded of Pauline Kael, who reportedly said that she didn’t know how Nixon could have won, she didn’t know a single person who voted for him.

  Don’t you think it’s a little contradictory to at once, praise Levin for not advancing out of his own “beloved audience” and private social circle, and accuse Frum of needing “people’s approval”?

  It seems to me, that if a person were to thrive off of “approval” his actions might more closely resemble those of Levin’s, who admittedly doesn’t interact well with people who disagree with him and resorts to ridicule when logic and sense fail him.

• 27 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 9:08 am

  fromwi, Yes the kid ploy was pretty pathetic. That was very revealing. Not that Frum put his son up to it, which he probably didn’t, but that Frum used the fact that Levin chose not to debate his son as evidence of cowardice on Levin’s part. Pretty despicable insinuation, Frum, when the alternate explanation and the one Levin gave publicly while praising your son for wishing to come to the defense of his father, was and is far more plausible.

• 28 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 9:15 am

  Jewels,

  The Pauline Keal anecdote, which I have heard before and used myself, doesn’t apply here. Unlike Kael, Levin knows full-well what he is up against. He knows how many committed leftists and mind-numbed drones are out there and he knows exactly what they think and believe and why. So do I. Levin also knows what moderates believe and has nailed theis thinking with the term “statist”.

  “Levin…who admittedly doesn’t interact well with people who disagree with him and resorts to ridicule when logic and sense fail him.”

  False statement. If it was “when logic and sense fail THEM” Then the statement may be true.

• 29 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 9:27 am

  Cforchange,

  I am not someone who recoils from namecalling, it is true; but saying “You are ignorant of conservatism and cultism.” Is not namecalling.

  You are ignorant of the definition of the word “namecalling”.

  .”..no Franco, I’m not a Democrat.***Grin***”

  Are you a Colin Powell Republican? They are the ones who voted for the most left-wing Democrat in the history of presidential nominees, Obama.

• 30 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 9:54 am

  “Then when some does undertake the task of familiarizing himself with the large body of Levin’s work, Levin explodes that this too is unacceptable. From Levin’s point of view, apparently, the work others call “research” is some kind of dirty trick. That must explain why he himself so seldom engages in it.”

  I fail to see where Frum has bothered to make reference to any of the substance that Levin spends 95% of his 3 hours of radio, which he has claimed of late to have listened to, or anything from the book ‘Liberty and Tyranny” which he claims to have perused. Therefore to criticize Levin’s behavior with one caller or his overall style without addressing his message at all smacks of antagonistic bias. Levin is justified to say that Frum “hunts and pecks around the Internet, looking for audio clips and transcripts…” That is all I’ve seen here regarding Mark Levin.

  Perhaps Frum is unable to counter Levin’s arguments for liberty and against the rising tide of statism, which is why he seems obsessed with style over substance.

  Levin isn’t on the radio to convert people. This is NOT his mission, he isn’t that naive. Frum on the other hand may believe he can convert people with his moderate tones, but he is failing and will continue to fail. Then looking around for why it seems so hard to convert Democrats to vote for moderate Republicans he finds the boogeymen Rush and Levin. It’s their fault independents don’t vote Republican because these big-mouths are seen as the spokesmen for Republicans. So they have to shut up for Frum to be heard. Nevermind there are those on the left equally or more incendiary who Frum gives a pass to, both on this site (oh there was something about Wanda Sykes – one exception) But more importantly in his argument that Rush and Levin drive moderates and independents away. Why don’t Jennine Garafalo Sean Penn Keith Obermann the list is endless seem to have the same effect on moderates driving them away from Democrats?

  Even on this site there are few who agree with Frum. There are dissenters like me and leftwingers eager to gloat and sneer.

  Levin with his Liberty and Tyranny book has drawn the new fault-line in American politics, and hiding behind “Republicanism” to advance the statist agenda isn’t going to wash anymore with those of us who have the sense to see what is happening to our country.

• 31 Cforchange // May 27, 2009 at 10:00 am

  Franco – even though I agree with many of your stands, I’ve never exchanged an non endorsed base idea here that you didn’t respond with a tennis ball served right down my throat.

  The common public impression of our party has become those of folks like you Levine or a RL. But to even think that that communicating our party platform with no new ideas in this fashion will expand the cause – you all couldn’t be further from reality.

  Effective salesman that move a mountain or make a company by selling something new in vast quantities never succeed by employing the slap down method. They do so by the educational sale where you must be able to listen, comphrehend and then talk. Screaming and name calling insults just are not in the process so I bet you all are scared.

• 32 Jewels // May 27, 2009 at 10:06 am

  Franco- Levin’s response to Frum on the Riehl site perfectly illustrates my point. At no time does he address any points made here. He simply blusters his very low opinion of Frum, declares him a “troubled individual” and then leaves off. At no point does it even appear that he intends to address the points made.

  Agree or disagree with Frum, if Levin wanted to convince people that his arguments were legitimate, he would have made them instead of resorting to such hysterics.

• 33 nwahs // May 27, 2009 at 10:10 am

  No, Franco, conservatism is pretty simple. Conservatism as nuanced by Levin and Limbaugh is perverted, and its perverted in a way to isolate their followers.

  Conservatism means small government, personal responsibility, and strong defense.

  I don’t know where calling a Republican war hero a traitor fits into that, unless its perverted into something else. I don’t know where “family values” (whatever that is – is there a list?) fits into that. I don’t know where disdain for education fits into that.

  Its very much like a cult. Of course people aren’t held against their will ( and if you think most cults hold people against their will, then YOU are ignorant of cults), but there is indoctrination. The world’s problems are summed up in one simple explanation – liberals. There is unconditional love if you swear on Limbaugh (Levin etc.) and a scarlet letter if you question them ( an I’ve seen veiled threats if you challenge them). There’s a degree of isolationism going on as evident in Levin’s radio from a bunker story. I guess he’s there so he can continue broadcasting in the event of Armageddon?

  Its very much like a cult.

• 34 Cforchange // May 27, 2009 at 10:11 am

  No I did not vote for a Democrat, I will switch to Independent before I do that. I run a business – long term too, that means sometimes I do not get paid but I keep my business going. I do what is expected of me, I think I speak for alot of Americans who are trustworthy and dependable and I sacrafice plenty for my employees and family.

  I am not happy with my political party, that’s why I’m investing time expressing my unhappiness before I switch. Wake up 22% could be “big”. There needs to be an infusion of new ideas to satisfy existing non base party members and attract new.

• 35 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 10:20 am

  nwahs

  A pretty incomplete definition of conservatism. You might want to do a bit more opposition research if you want to pretend to be conservative.

  “I don’t know where calling a Republican war hero a traitor fits into that, unless its perverted into something else. “

  Who said this? Give me a quote please.

  You have only a tiny inkling of what you are talking about whether it be Rush, Levin conservatism or cults.

  Nothing but empty assertions.

• 36 Cforchange // May 27, 2009 at 10:29 am

  Franco, so when do you get your radio show?

• 37 nwahs // May 27, 2009 at 10:30 am

  Franco, I said conservatism is small government, strong defense and personal responsibility. You said its incomplete.

  What would you add to it? The only thing I could possible think to add is bold type on “personal responsibility.”

  What would you put in that definition, Franco, are you in fact the one pretending?

• 38 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 10:55 am

  Cforchange”….communicating our party platform with no new ideas in this fashion will expand the cause – you all couldn’t be further from reality.”

  First, I hope you are sitting down for this. There are no new ideas. The world presents itself as it is and there are only a few things we can do about it. What we choose to do varies greatly according to our world view. What we even believe can be done varies greatly according to our world view.

  We are stuck in a Yin/Yang world whether we like it or not. Also another rule via science “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”.

  Do you believe that problems can be solved by the central planning approach, or do you believe that they are better solved by the people closest to them and most affected by them? There may be some compromises and/or some exceptions. National defense requires a heavy dose of central planning. Huge undertakings highway systems and such benefit from central planning too. But if you have too much central planning you lose freedom. Democrats seem to want to solve all the ills of society (and many of the ills they themselves created trying to solve the ills before) . Conservative like me are saying that is a recipe for disaster, that we must be very cautious in using the heavy hand of government to pursue the quest of Utopia. We (still) have the best country on the planet. Why? Because of our geography our resources our people? No. We have the best country because of our system of government which has unleashed individual creativity and allowed it to flourish in the free market. These fundamentals are being undermined as we speak, by BOTH parties.

  There are a lot of people who believe that we have way too much central planning in this country; too much social and market interference and planning that oppresses both individual action and responsibility, and affects individual freedom.

  Statist Republicans often talk of “new ideas” but they all occur within the central planning realm. The debate seems to ping-pong between Democrats central planning ideas and Republican central planning ideas. Ok, the Republicans tone down the central planning more but they are operating in the same realms essentially. The entire debate is allowed to take place in this statist mode, which Rush, Levin and others are trying to shake Republicans out of.

  Obama uses the straw man argument ” Republicans want to do nothing while our nation faces this crisis” or something like that. First there are Republicans who have an alternate plan and second often doing nothing is EXACTLY what is required!!

  The free market is not something that reacts well to government interference even when it is trying to “help”.

  Social structures don’t change overnight as progressive planners expect and often there are horrible unintended consequences, so doing nothing can be the appropriate course.

  Not introducing new central planning ideas, and getting rid of some of the old ones that most agree are failures would seem to be a prudent and conservative course.

• 39 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 11:06 am

  nwahs

  You might try ‘equality before the law’. That is something that many (in both parties) seem to have a bit of trouble with.

  But in the name calling of conservatism that you indulge in, you prove the point.

  How is it that conservatives can hold the attention of people across the country for long periods of time everyday? You say it is because conservatives are stupid, members of a cult, etc. It is because they explain, in great detail, how conservatism is applied to various situations in our reality.

• 40 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 11:13 am

  nwahs ,I would add FREEDOM of the individual. Respect for human beings as they are, not for what some of us want them to be. Respect for existing social structures that have been around for millenia. Respect for the right to privacy, religion, freedom of expression, movement, assembly. One could also call these liberal ideas. They came from our great Liberal founders and I am a conservative in the time-local sense that believe in the classic liberal values of our founders, not of the leftwing tainted ideals of recent Democrat politicans. We are moving away from these tenets and I want to keep them here. Democrats, driven away from these important concepts by leftism, espouse these ideas and give them lip-service, even ride on their coattails, but they are passing law after law that undermines that which they purport to protect. Republicans , the statist ones, are perfectly content to hold power themselves if they are akllowed to play in the sandbox of central planning for the masses. They can have a tendency to be elites and corrupt just like Democrats.

  The understanding that humans a have limited wisdom and that we haven’t “arrived” as though nothing has come before us. We still don’t have all the answers and that it is prudent to go slowly and not try to force change too rapidly, even when it is desirable. The understanding that government is a vehicle for force and should be used sparingly. also see below

• 41 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 11:18 am

  But really the digression is taking place here. The discussion has been hijacked, as usual, and conservatives are having to defend themselves. How about some liberals try to defend against…

  The fact that welfare is a failure, and has done more to destroy the futures of entire families, especially those of minorities.

  The fact that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are also a failure and have destroyed the wealth that many, mostly poor and middle class, could use for their own medical and retirement needs. Instead they are dependent on the government for even basic needs.

  The fact that higher taxes, especially on the rich, stifle economic growth and keep business economically static (or worse) preventing the growth of both itself, and more importantly the growth of its employees.

  …just to name a few. Liberalism/statism/leftism SUCKS. It’s only goal is the enslavement of the many for the luxury of the few, it’s chosen government leaders. Just like Cuba, Russia, Zimbabwe, etc.

• 42 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 11:35 am

  But then the hijacking has served its purpose, I suppose. The detail in which talk radio hosts explain the concepts that made this country great, the liberals have to throw wild accusations and insults out there to change the subject so that the discussion cannot take place, because they cannot effectively participate. That is also why liberal talk radio fails miserably.

  A funny bit of projection there actually. All liberal talk radio does is insult conservatives and its own audience with a pathetic lack of depth in its discussions, exactly that which they accuse conservative talk radio of being. When the discussion comes down to the liberal philosophy brings to the table in terms of answers to our problems, the liberal invariably says, ‘Why, a government program, of course!’. That kind of a copout generally turns people off after about 5 minutes (2-3 seconds, if you have half a brain). If the ending is always the same, why pay attention to what comes before?

• 43 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 11:37 am

  I have already identified myself as an outsider (politically for one, also I have lived large parts of my life in Europe), but for what it’s worth I will proffer view:

  Let me begin by saying that I have not listened to Mark Levin, so I’ll have to go with the example given of him in this discussion. I have spent some time listening to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. (By the way, I am not a fan of Sean Hannity, but I don’t see him belonging in the same category. I disagree with Hannity, I am repulsed by Limbaugh and Savage.)

  The debating style and tone of the “conservative” radio personalities we are talking about are not acceptable in a civilized political debate. The aggression, the vilification of opponents, and the general disrespect of other human beings (Limbaugh versus Michael J. Fox) is rude and primitive. I’m pretty thick-skinned, and I am honestly interested in the conservative point of view (I’ll listen to George Will any day), but those guys represent something ugly and ultimately undemocratic. They regularly play on fear, anger, and hatred, repeatedly and forcefully.

  Transplant Limbaugh or Savage to Europe or democratic Asia and they would be considered fascists, not so much for their opinions as for their methods of intimidation and demaguogery.

  Anyone who thinks that Americans in the middle aren’t paying attention, aren’t paying attention.

  The only conclusion I can come to is that these guys are toxic to the public debate, and to the Republican Party.

  As they are independently successful radio personalities the only thing the Republican Party can do, and should do, is to distance itself from their methods.

• 44 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 11:42 am

  BADROTO, I find plenty to disagree with in your statements, but I think this thread would benefit greatly by staying on topic: the methods of certain conservative talk show hosts, and how it affects the Republican Party.

  Even if they were right half the time or more, their SOP does not serve public debate. The sooner conservative Republicans come to terms with this, the better off we will all be.

  I’ll say it again: this country needs an effective and viable Republican Party. Those guys are not helping.

• 45 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 12:14 pm

  Limbaugh and Levin serve the public debate just fine. They represent the part of the debate intentionally left out by the self-anointed ‘masters’ of the debate. It just so happens to be the part that the average joe who has to live with all of the garbage coming out of the ‘debate’ (it really isn’t a debate when the other side is intentionally excluded, is it?) seems to most agree with. The ones whose opinions never do matter when it comes down to the central planning that the statists indulge themselves in.

  And I just proved it. You found plenty to disagree with me on? You don’t want to debate it here, fine. But what do you disagree with me on? Any of those points I brought up can be easily proven. Welfare, SS, etc. are not only failures, but catastrophic ones.

  You want to talk about the ‘aggression, the vilification of opponents, and the general disrespect of other human beings’ look to the left. Entire books have been written on it, and other books have been written about the pass given to those leftists by the prime movers in the major media or, if you will, those who control the ‘debate’.

• 46 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  …a continuation of the previous post, please forgive the awkwardness.

  You seem to be advocating, for conservatives, that they need to ignore conservatism to participate in the debate. To be willing to compromise and even abandon their beliefs to get along with others, yet no one asks the same of liberals, and they are not big enough people to hold themselves to the same standard. How very thoughtful of you.

  The simple fact of the matter is that Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (I dont really care for Hannity, and Savage is a douchebag, for the record) have had the bad manners to participate in the debate despite being excluded from it. And this makes the masters of the debate as well as the politicians who profit from it very angry as they have had to answer questions that they are not very comfortable answering. Questions that those who try to control the debate aren’t smart enough to think to ask, even if the will to ask them is pathetically lacking.

  You claim, ‘They regularly play on fear, anger, and hatred, repeatedly and forcefully.’

  Sir, this is a lie. It is a distraction that you commonly use to directly avoid the debate. It is the sort of ‘aggression, the vilification of opponents, and the general disrespect of other human beings’ that you claim to find so objectionable. After all, if one can smear another and get enough of his groupthinking friends to agree with it, one is off the hook for the ‘debate’, aren’t they? One would one elevate the smeared person by debating them, after all, and now that the smear has taken hold, we can’t ruin all that good work! Name calling before the debate has even begun in earnest is the cowards way out, and you are fully partaking in it, to great disappointment, I must say.

• 47 nwahs // May 27, 2009 at 12:17 pm

  I’m not name calling or bad mouthing conservatism. I badmouthing the perversion of conservatism as “articulated by [Rush Limbaugh]. There’s a difference. Rush didn’t vote for Reagan. He didn’t vote for anyone until he was almost 40.

  That’s all fine, but I don’t see how the sets him up as a political prodigy able to divine the “true conservatives” from the “phony conservatives.” What great epiphany got him up to vote, and when did this great political understanding descend on him?

  Our founding fathers had a masonic respect for law, reason, and unity. That’s been bastardized into puritanical witch burning and divisiveness. You suggest adding Utopian abstracts to the definition of conservatism and try to pass that off as argument. Perhaps if you yell real loud, “FREEDOM” and insult me a little more, it will sound more like substantive argument. Your Utopian abstracts pervert conservatism as conservatism should be explained as briefly as possible. Conservatism is only the bare necessity of government, not lofty sounding abstracts to be used as loopholes.

• 48 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  BADROTO, for interest’s sake, please name the commentators on the left that you consider to use the same aggressive methods as Limbaugh and Savage. To be good examples I suppose they need to have something of a standing within, and influence on the Democratic Party.

• 49 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 12:24 pm

  BADROTO, I think a critical element in an effective spokesperson is to be able to appeal to the other side. That may sound limp and effete to you, but the art of persuasion is a key element in effective party politics. The talk show personalities we are talking about have no idea what that means.

  If all someone can do is alienate, they are counterproductive. You have people from your own party who are making it very clear that someone like Limbaugh is doing just that.

• 50 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  BADROTO, I believe you said that I think conservatives have to abandon their positions to satisfy my criteria.

  Not at all. I am talking how you present your ideas, and the tools of persuasion you use in your discourse. Limbaugh et al use divisiveness, fear, anger, and hatred in generous amounts. That’s demagoguery. That’s a fascist approach.

• 51 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  “Limbaugh et al use divisiveness, fear, anger, and hatred in generous amounts. That’s demagoguery. That’s a fascist approach.”

  Ummmm, no. You obviously do not listen to Limbaugh. And fascism is when the government takes total control of capital to control economies for their own ends, but leaves ownership (as well as responsibility for) in the hands of private citizens who fare little better than slaves as a result. But knowing what fascism means is unnecessary when you are simply calling someone a fascist to end debate against their ideas, isnt it?

  More name calling SFTor? You prove my point yet again. As far as the rest of it, care to prove it? Also…

  ‘I think a critical element in an effective spokesperson is to be able to appeal to the other side. That may sound limp and effete to you, but the art of persuasion is a key element in effective party politics. The talk show personalities we are talking about have no idea what that means.”

  Yet they command audiences that liberals in the media can only dream about. Therefore the only way that they can do that is that their audiences are stupid and cult-like. Again, name calling and the dehumanization of those you do not agree with. It is getting tiresome, and even the most strong willed human beings have to exercise massive self control to keep from lampooning your hypocrisy. But they lampoon you anyhow. And that deserved lampooning leads to cries of ‘Hatred!’ and ‘Divisiveness!’ to defend your hurt feelings. It is still no substitute for a discussion or debate, but it aptly illustrates your inability to participate in one. Just a tip: You cannot say that people are hate filled just because you disagree with them. You will gain more respect if you try to debate them and fail. When you hide behind name calling, you get name called back. And deservedly so. If Limbaugh has called names, it is because he is participating in the way that has been used against him. Be fair in assigning impure motives when judging those who name call, as I am doing with you, sir.

• 52 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 12:59 pm

  BADROTO

  Great posts. I happen to agree with every word ,including your take on the talk show hosts you like and dislike.

  May I add this bit of trivia to the general discussion.

  What soon-to-be Senator of the Democratic variety wrote this book, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot” ?

• 53 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  ?

• 54 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 1:13 pm

  nwahs

  You are way out of your league, I haven’t insulted you till now, you pathetic drone. You don’t even know enough about conservatism to know that liberty and FREEDOM are fundamentals. Go vote for every Democrat you can. I don’t care. You idiots who are so fragile and self-conscious about your fellow Republicans – if you even are Republicans. You need to get a thicker skin and a sence of reason.

  I suspect most of you are females and you are not ready for adult debate that we men have been engaging in for centuries, and play like adults. You females are so affected by presentation. That may be locked into your DNA about choosing your mate, but that is not politics. Politics is war by a slightly nicer method and slightly less destructive than war. It isn’t pretty, never has been and never will be. Go away and watch Days of Our Lives, or the View or Oprah, if you can’t take it.

  What utter nonsensical drivel your last post was!

• 55 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 1:22 pm

  “Our founding fathers had a masonic respect for law, reason, and unity. That’s been bastardized into puritanical witch burning and divisiveness.”

  I’m laughing at this. Go read a history book. Any fourth or fitth grade level will do.

  “…conservatism should be explained as briefly as possible” Oh yeah? Sez who? You?

• 56 Realist // May 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm

  Ha ha ha ha. I can hardly make out why I find this guy so amusing. Is it his willful ignorance? Is it his unsubstatiated arrogance? A combination of both? Hard to say. I know he is a clown, but a potentially dangerous clown. His level of hyperbole is stoking the populist fires of dissatisfaction, in a way can only lead to negative consequences for any truly rational political figure who stands against him (ie. Rush). Just another albatross I guess. Seems like we got a lot of those around these days.

• 57 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm

  “Rush didn’t vote for Reagan. He didn’t vote for anyone until he was almost 40.

  Irrelevant. Are you trying to call him a bad citizen for not participating? Naughty naughty this is devastating information!
  Are you aware Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican? Should we hold that against him and try to impugn his validity because of his past?

  “That’s all fine, but I don’t see how the sets him up as a political prodigy able to divine the “true conservatives” from the “phony conservatives.” What great epiphany got him up to vote, and when did this great political understanding descend on him?”

  Er, I don’t know. He has 20 million weekly listeners and obviously you aren’t one of them.

  And David Frum, what are his credentials for doing this?

  How does anyone become a pundit? Does EVERYONE need Harvard credentials from the Kennedy School of Government to be allowed to express themselves in public?

  I would think that simply following the events and watching what politicians say, and comparing that to what they do for years, while talking everyday to ordinary Americans might account for his “epiphany” as you choose to characterize it.

  The word epiphany means sudden realization, by the way. Rush has been a pundit advocating the same logical thread for 20 years, so maybe that isn’t a very accurate word choice in this case.

• 58 BarbD // May 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm

  “It’s not the content — it’s the process.”

  What does that mean? That sometimes, what people say is less important than their response process. Say I’m the target of someone’s vile and angry words. I feel less awful when I understand this is how they **always** respond. In other words, it’s about them — not me.

  At that point, I can choose how to engage — including not engaging at all.

  Since it appears that the commentators who play this baiting game keep the ball in play by poking their stick in all the dependable sore spots, and aren’t open to or interested in others’ viewpoints, I have to wonder what David gets out of engaging with them. If I were him, I’d save my breath for the normally rational, reasonable people who disagree vociferously with me.

• 59 BarbD // May 27, 2009 at 1:41 pm

  “It’s not the content — it’s the process.”

  What does that mean? That sometimes, what people say is less important than their response process. Say I’m the target of someone’s vile and angry words. I feel less awful when I understand this is how they **always** respond. In other words, it’s about them — not me.

  At that point, I can choose how to engage — including not engaging at all.

  Since it appears that the commentators who play this baiting game keep the ball in play by poking their stick in all the dependable sore spots, and aren’t open to or interested in others’ viewpoints, I have to wonder what David gets out of engaging with them. If I were him, I’d save my breath for the normally rational, reasonable people who disagree vociferously with me.

• 60 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  BADROTO, I was not attempting to give you a lexical definition of fascism. (I don’t know where you have your definition of fascism from, but it’s not accurate, just so you know.) I am using the term loosely to describe a particularly strident and divisive approach to discussing political issues.

  I have been careful to not voice my disagreements with conservative views. They do not belong in this discussion. I am trying to give my fair assessment of how the methods I hear used by people like Limbaugh and Savage impact public discourse and the Republican Party.

  You are right that Limbaugh has a large and loyal audience. 61% of Republicans believe he should have little or no influence on the Republican Party however. Right now he is seen as the main Republican standard bearer, and because of it the Republican Party has a problem.

  You may pay some attention to the fact that the Republican Party has lost two elections in a row. You seem to think it’s because you have too little Rush and Savage, I think part of the reason is because you have too much.

• 61 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  Franco says: “You females are so affected by presentation. That may be locked into your DNA about choosing your mate, but that is not politics. Politics is war by a slightly nicer method and slightly less destructive than war. It isn’t pretty, never has been and never will be. Go away and watch Days of Our Lives, or the View or Oprah, if you can’t take it.”

  Nice going on the misogyny, Franco. Your attitudes towards women would be offensive to most thinking people.

• 62 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 2:06 pm

  BADROTO: For your information both Italy and Germany did better economically under fascism than under the democracies that preceded them. What is also worth remembering is that in both countries it was the non-military sectors that drove the rebound and bought legitimacy for Hitler and Mussolini. Italians and Germans were in general very satisfied with economic progress in the prewar periods in each country.

  History is confounding, I know.

• 63 Cforchange // May 27, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  Calling commenters “females” to insult now perhaps we’re getting down to the real issue that the
  “entertainers” appeal to mostly men. Most likely men who can’t successfully relate to women. So there you have it – even without listening to a single session an observer can conclude because of the reported popularity of all these GOP connected personalities that the GOP is not women friendly. Then when conversations such as the above are revealed, it’s all but confirmed.

  Once again, is the GOP’s tight connection with these entertainers good for the party? Women can and do vote, they may cast the majority of total votes.

• 64 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 2:19 pm

  Franco, I also think you believe you may be quoting Clausewitz, who said “war is the continuation of politics with other means.” The quote is first and foremost only a part of his statement. The full statement says that war is neither a merely a continuation of politics, nor just a large-scale wrestling match, but a massive, unpredictable, and unwieldy enterprise.

  Second, politics is not war. That is a complete misunderstanding. It may be better to put this into the context of a democracy, which is what we presumably live under. In a democracy the role of politics is to test, validate, and implement ideas of governance according to the will of the people, and for the United States you would have to add the notion, “while protecting the rights of the political and other minorities.”

  You may want it to be war, but most people don’t. We tried it back in 1861, and it was all that Clausewitz said it would be, and more.

• 65 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm

  Transcript of Limbaugh radio show, April 23 2008:

  “It’s called Operation Chaos! The dream end… I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery (sic), the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

  That seems a little aggressive and divisive to me. I could even go so far as to call it a fascist political technique.

• 66 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm

  “You may pay some attention to the fact that the Republican Party has lost two elections in a row. You seem to think it’s because you have too little Rush and Savage, I think part of the reason is because you have too much.”

  The Republicans lost because they aren’t promoting a viable alternative to statism. They are just promising a slower pace of the creeping economic takeover. When given power, they acted like Democrats, THAT’S why they have lost. And they deserved it too.

  Once the GOP realizes that being me-too!-moderates in response to statist democrats is a losing strategy and that providing a viable alternative to nanny state proposals from those same democrats and actually start to fight against their enemies (in the press and democratic party) then they will win elections again. Or they will die. And that is the whole idea behind liberals wanting milquetoast republicans being given the mic as opposed to those who offer real alternatives to a massive welfare state.

  And that is why the debate-killing name calling and insulting will continue from the left to a fever pitch and beyond. That is why they will extend fake olive branches to wishy-washy moderates whose only real concern is staying in office.

  The simple fact of the matter is that Limbaugh and Levin explain, straight up, the difference between a conservative society and a Stalinist, socialist nanny-state, and it enrages liberals who for too long, have had the megaphone to themselves and cannot win that debate.

  Oh yeah, and fascism worked out really well for Italy and Germany. Riiiiiiight. Well, once you have a war machine to feed, pretty much any economy can roll along. I know a little history myself.

• 67 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm

• 68 nwahs // May 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm

  Franco, oh you haven’t begun to insult me? I guess I should be thanking you for sparing me your scathing insults?
  My deep thanks. You feel a little bigger now? Esteem back up to full?

  You are the perfect dittohead. You are the perfect Levin fan. See I compliment you

  Let me give you another fact for you to scoff at. From 13-33% of the signers of the Constitution were Freemasons.
  33-46% of Generals in the Continental Army were Freemasons.

  But what are facts than something to be shouted down, right? You are the perfect bastardized conservative. But you’re tough!

• 69 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  BADROTO: You misunderstood my point about fascism in Italy and Germany.

  You seem to be more than able to discuss political issues, I have no doubt about that. As I have mentioned such a discussion would derail the current one.

  What you seem to be saying is that what Americans want from the Republican is a more uncompromising attitude. I think that flies in the face of political reality in the United States. I believe stability, relative economic prosperity, and freedom (to go to Cuba?) is what Americans want, and that seems to require a more pragmatic approach.

  Do you care to comment on the quote from Limbaugh I posted by the way?

• 70 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  SFTor

  “Second, politics is not war.”

  Really, tell that to all of the people who have had their characters assassinated because of their conservative beliefs. People like..

  Carrie Prejean, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Robert Bork, Fredriech Hayek, Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, George Bush (both of em), Reagan, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Limbaugh and Levin, the list is endless.

  The left finds an enemy, screams at the top of their lungs how evil, hate filled, and mean spirited they are until their credibility is damaged, their lapdogs in the press report this as news doing NO fact checking and no analysis through any lens but their own groupthink editorial boards and then it becomes fact.

  The simple fact is that conservatives and conservative views (especially economic views) ARE NOT WELCOME in the press and mass media, and have not been welcome for decades. Conservatives have proven that by using a so-called dead media (AM radio) and turning it into a power house of news and information. Real news and information, a genuine alternative to the parrots who think that they should be the arbiters of what is important for people to know, and who actually gets to speak, which is usually limited to people who agree with them, and are therefore smart.

  It would be nice if liberals could actually tolerate all the diversity they claim to long for.

• 71 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  BADROTO: Please explain to me what Republicans were doing for the last 14 years (94 to 06), when they held both Houses of Congress, and had the White House for 8.

  Are you saying they were not running true Republican policies?

  Are you a Ron Paul Republican, by the way?

• 72 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 2:55 pm

  “It’s called Operation Chaos! The dream end… I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery (sic), the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

  The larger context of Operation Chaos was to do to the democrats what they did to the GOP. Crossover as primary voters, and attempt to affect the dynamics of the Dem primary in a negative fashion.

  The call for riots was made by a leftist organization, and Limbaugh was simply parroting them for absurd and humorous effect. Which he did brilliantly.

  See my previous posts concerning deserved lampooning.

• 73 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm

  BADROTO: I feel sorry for all the poor conservatives who have been so terribly vilified, especially Ann Coulter. She certainly is a gentle soul. But you seem so thin-skinned and sensitive, BADROTO. Are you sure you are not a woman?

  Can’t these guys take the heat? I guess they should all go and watch Oprah, then.

• 74 nwahs // May 27, 2009 at 3:01 pm

  One question. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a dittohead say “Rush was brilliant!” at this and brilliant at that. Does Rush ever fall flat? I’m a pretty big Tom Petty fan but he can turn out a clunker every now and then. I never hear “that wasn’t Rush’s finest moment” or “Rush was off base there.”

  Rush is always “brilliant!”
  That’s a little weird.

• 75 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm

  BADROTO:

  Your statements about the Limbaugh quote are flatly untrue. I have read the entire transcript. These are his opinions and recommendations.

  Are you misinformed, or are you lying? It’s one of the two.

• 76 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm

  SFTor

  Ok, this is the part that you do not seem to get. Limbaugh is not a spokesperson for the GOP. He is a spokesperson for something that he likes to call (and accurately, I might add) movement conservatism.

  The GOP, in many ways, did not implement CONSERVATIVE policies. Whether they were GOP policies or not remains a mystery, as the GOP currently doesnt seem to believe in anything (hence the ‘me-too!-moderates’ crack in a previous post).

  As far as me being a Ron Paul Republican, well, kinda. I can agree with a good bit of the libertarian philosophy, but the party line is kinda kooky in some places.

  If you want to classify me, I take from the conservative (Russell Kirk type stuff) slash libertarian (the individual is sacred) slash objectivist (the fruit of my labors is MINE, but Rand swung and missed on religion, IMHO) and mix it up into a philosophy that above all else values liberty and equality under the law.

  I really cannot, with any honesty, call myself a Republican, although I find views that most closely agree with my philosophy within the GOP. The Dem’s have, in all ways that matter, become everything that I detest in human nature, and I find it sad really.

• 77 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 3:05 pm

  SFTor

  I was not talking about a particular transcript, but you know that. What I said stands. You said nothing to rebut it. I was talking about the totality of Operation Chaos, and the little blurb about the riots was inserted after the left wing ‘Recreate ‘68′ folks started threatening riots in Denver.

  Nice try though!

• 78 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 3:07 pm

  BADROTO: It would also be nice if you could produce a quote from a Democrat that calls for disrupting Republican primaries by disruptive means. I’m waiting.

• 79 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  SFTor

  Hahahahahaha! You leftists always throw out the worst insults at conservatives and pretend to be such tragic victims whenever anyone gives you a taste of your own medicine. Decrying the lack of civility, the mean spiritedness, blah blah blah.

  I am not thin skinned or sensitive. I just despise the hypocrisy that you and your kind show on a consistent basis. You engage in name calling then say that it is only the other side that has ever called names. Then when you are called a hypocrite, you bleed all over the place for sympathy and start whining all over again. Trust me, Limbaugh has made millions lampooning your antics. And liberals do not like to be mocked.

  The repeated actions of liberals are a disservice to the debate that we should all have. Without people being excluded.

  All we want is for liberals to make an honest attempt at abiding by the rules they always whine about others for breaking. And we won’t be seeing that anytime soon.

• 80 mpolito // May 27, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  STFor- the DailyKos urged its readers to vote for Romney in the Michigan GOP primary to keep the thing going. You can look that one up.

• 81 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  SFTor

  In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the states Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkians lawyer quack Geoffrey Feiger win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governors mansion that year.

  With a history of meddling in our primaries, why dont we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win.

  …from the Daily Kos

• 82 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  SFTor

  The wait is over, my friend.

• 83 balconesfault // May 27, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  “STFor- the DailyKos urged its readers to vote for Romney in the Michigan GOP primary to keep the thing going. You can look that one up.”

  In fact, they did.

  The irony of “operation chaos”, if it really did work to prolong the nomination process, was that it also worked to allow the Democratic Primary to suck the air out of the room for an extra month or so. It probably caused tens of thousands of voters who never bother with primaries or caucuses to show up and vote – and getting someone to vote in your primary is a great way to lock in their participation not only to vote in the general election, but to canvas and phone bank and generally get involved in politics.

  And an awful lot of those new participants were younger voters, who had been largely apathetic during the previous two Presidential cycles.

  Add that the Ayers/Wright attacks coming out in April/May not only didn’t damage Obama significantly … but they largely innoculated much of the general voting population against any charges against Obama. Thinking was if the she-devil Hillary could have come up with worse, she would have used it … and since she didn’t come up with anything worse, then there probably wasn’t anything worse.

  I’m sure that Operation Chaos was great for Limbaugh from the self-promotion standpoint. But there’s a lot of reason to conclude that it was disasterous for the Republican Party.

• 84 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  balconesfault

  Excellent observation. And a true one, although ‘the air sucked out of the room’ was stagnant anyway. The media was not about to do any sort of substantive vetting of Obama, period.

• 85 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm

  SFTor

  The simple fact of the matter is that people are getting real news and analysis of current events from talk radio that the mainstream press is too lazy to do, and besides, the mainstream press thinks that we are all to stupid to understand it anyway.

  The megaphone does not belong to your side exclusively any longer. Deal with it.

• 86 Dustin Ferrell // May 27, 2009 at 3:52 pm

  Thanks for writing this, David, it’s no small thing. His treatment of callers is revolting. I’m glad you call him out on it, ditto Conor and Rod.

• 87 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 4:03 pm

  BADROTO: My comments about your femininity was a take-off on Franco’s comments, and yours—but you knew that, right?

  I’ll state this very simply: any party or affiliated group that does not try to actively bring out the general vote, Democrat or Republican, needs to be taken outside and shot. Voter turnout in the U.S. is anemic, we don’t need political parties or activists making it worse. I don’t care whether it’s the Daily Kos or Rush Limbaugh.

  People may be getting real facts from talk radio. It doesn’t change the fact that people like Rush and Savage are corrosive to the public debate.

  There is nothing in the transcript from that day that doesn’t qualify Limbaugh’s comments as incitement to riot, and he is the lesser for it.

• 88 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 4:13 pm

  BADROTO: I will only countenance allegations of bias in the press with regards to global warming. They are doing a pretty poor job on that one, with some occasional indications of improvement.

  From the political point of view it cannot be fairly said that the American press is “liberal.” It is commercial, as a matter of fact.

• 89 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm

  SFTor

  “I’ll state this very simply: any party or affiliated group that does not try to actively bring out the general vote, Democrat or Republican, needs to be taken outside and shot. Voter turnout in the U.S. is anemic, we don’t need political parties or activists making it worse. I don’t care whether it’s the Daily Kos or Rush Limbaugh.”

  Wow! You really do not get it! Did it ever occur to you that the reason that voter turnout in the USA is anemic is that the USA has a pretty damn good system in place and that many people feel that the liberties and freedoms that are supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution serve them well. I would say that it is a testament to the superiority of this experiment that voter turnout is so anemic. And then we get the Dems who want to ‘change’ and ‘fundamentally transform’ it. You want more voter turnout? Let Obama continue to trample on the business community, forcing people out of work, and flat out stealing large corporations and small from under those who make them work. You will get some voter turnout alright! Be careful what you wish for…

  And Limbaugh is hardly corrosive to the public debate. The desire to paint him as such is nothing more than the pathetic whining of people who are scared to share the debate with him or any effective conservative.

  Apparently the full context of the quote you posted will continue to be lost on you. And you all say that we aren’t capable of understanding complexity….

• 90 ChristianMiller // May 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm

  SFTor ,

  “any party or affiliated group that does not try to actively bring out the general vote, Democrat or Republican, needs to be taken outside and shot.”

  I wonder if Levin said this, and Frum dutifully posted , what your reaction would be.

• 91 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 4:31 pm

• 92 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 4:31 pm

  SFTor

  “From the political point of view it cannot be fairly said that the American press is “liberal.” It is commercial, as a matter of fact.”

  Really. If it is commercial, why are they doing so poorly? Fox News is thriving, talk radio is thriving, average joes have turned blogging into a legitimate profitable occupation with practially NOTHING. All of this while liberal networks hemorrage viewers and liberal newspapers stock prices are lower than their Sunday issue cover prices. And you are under the delusion that these are actually COMMERCIAL operations?!? LOL!

  I will tell you why they are doing so poorly.

  Because they are full of a bunch of groupthinking twits who do not tolerate other points of view. They are actively discriminating against roughly half of their customers. How could any business survive with a slogan like ‘Half of you we really don’t give a damn about!’? In the mainstream media the standard opinion is that the customer is always WRONG. If these people are running a ‘commercial’ organization with the massive market share that they have and are failing, they are doing something very very wrong, don’t you think?

  What if McDonald’s decided that they despised women, and made no secret about it in the way that they treated the public at large? And also, what if they screwed up the quality of their product so badly that it doesn’t pass the smell test? Well, people would avoid McDonald’s in droves and they would go out of business, like many mainstream media outlets that are incapable of delivering the news with any integrity are right now.

  I would use the word ‘commercial’ to describe the mainstream press about as often as I would use the word ‘humanitarian’ to describe Kim Jong Il.

• 93 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 4:37 pm

  BADROTO: It is you who does not get it. People in this country participate in government by voting. This is an essential part of your civic duty when living in a democracy. A complacent electorate will be taken advantage of, as we see today in the U.S.

  Ever heard of K Street?

  Your contention that the Obama Administration is stealing businesses from “the people that make them work” demonstrates that your memory needs a little refreshment. This is a bailout, and it started in full force under the Bush Administration. You may disagree with bailing out industries, just remember who started it.

  Franco: I would agree.

• 94 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  BADROTO: U.S. media are commercial enterprises. I don’t know what else to tell you.

  The rest of your post is mostly distinguished by anger and loathing. I’m sorry you feel so bad.

• 95 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 4:49 pm

  SFTor

  ‘Your contention that the Obama Administration is stealing businesses from “the people that make them work” demonstrates that your memory needs a little refreshment. This is a bailout, and it started in full force under the Bush Administration. You may disagree with bailing out industries, just remember who started it.’

  The Obama admin initiated a 100:1 reverse stock split, screwing thousands of American citizens out of their share of Chrysler and then handed the controlling share over to the UAW and destroyed contract law as we know it. Then, they proceeded to pick and choose which franchise owners would lose their franchises with no compensation whatsoever. Is that fresh enough for you?

  Bush started it? Bush didn’t step in and start firing people, screwing investors, and robbing small business owners. Bush didn’t seize companies and give them to political allies like Obama did with the UAW.

  The Big 3 ran their businesses poorly. Bush screwed up. He refused to let the natural course of the markets fix this. But that doesn’t mean that our government gets to ignore contract law and seize private property to hand over to their cronies. This is the kind of garbage that takes place in Venezuela or Africa when power changes hands.

  Also, this isn’t a democracy. It is a representative republic. Part of that means that there are certain rights that people have (like contract law) that the government isn’t allowed to infringe on. You will get your voters soon enough. You will not like the way that they are voting either.

• 96 jsinger008 // May 27, 2009 at 4:56 pm

  All,

  I’ve been away from this site for awhile, but I’m glad I came back right in the middle of this *mishigas*. Everyone participating in this debate should check out Conor’s latest response to Levin:

  http://theamericanscene.com/2009/05/26/mark-levin-part-ii-the-dispatcher-is-dispatched

  And if you are reading “The American Scene” regularly (after you check out “New Majority”, of course) you should bookmark it right now and start reading!

• 97 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 4:56 pm

  SFTor

  Hah! There it is again! I knew that if I just started stating some conservative points of view on current events that you would fall into exactly that which I stated that you were hopelessly prone to. Observe…

  “The rest of your post is mostly distinguished by anger and loathing. I’m sorry you feel so bad.”

  LOL! You just did it. Right there. You do not agree with my points, so instead of debating them you accuse me of ‘anger’ and ‘loathing’.

  That’s it! It’s over and you just lost. You have proven my point in a less than succinct fashion, but proven it nonetheless.

  I am not angry or full of loathing. That is just the smear you decided to use against me when you cannot use reason or logic to advance your point, just as I said earlier. And I couldn’t be HAPPIER about it.

  I have yardwork to do now. Thank you so much, SFTor! You have made my day!

  BYE!

• 98 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  BADROTO: You mean Chrysler would have made it just fine without the bailout?

  Or would you like to pause and reflect for a moment? Chrysler was broke, hence the stock was worth, let’s see, $0.00. Zero.

  Maybe that wasn’t Obama’s fault?

• 99 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 5:43 pm

  BADROTO: Let me get this straight: A company is broke and is unable to pay its creditors. It asks the govenrment to bail it out. The government sets its terms. The company accepts.

  So how many laws has the government broken at that point?

• 100 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm

  SFTor

  Would you like my answer, or do you just want to dismiss me for being ‘angry’ or ‘loathing’? I get the feeling that it is the latter…

• 101 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 5:56 pm

  SFTor

  Ironic isn’t it? Before it was you who wanted to stay on subject concerning Limbaugh and Levin and the viability of the helpfulness of their message to the GOP. It was my contention that regardless of anything that they say, you and yours would call them all sorts of names in an effort to turn people away from what they had to say, thereby ending the debate without having to participate in it.

  Now that I have proven it, the subject isn’t so gripping anymore. Perhaps you could tell me why that is?

• 102 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:00 pm

  BADROTO: And when the original investment from shareholders is depleted, and a new investor comes in, and that investor lets the original shareholders keep some of their position in the company, that’s a pretty good deal for the original shareholders, right? Considering that they were already wiped out?

• 103 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:03 pm

  I guess I just had to answer you on this stock business. I hope you see by now that the stockholders were wiped out already, before the government bailed the companies out.

  I still think the original issue is important, and I am saddened that you do not believe that commentators on both sides should maintain minimum standards of civility.

• 104 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  I’m having some issues getting this page to reload to show new comments. Any suggestions?

• 105 BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm

  SFTor

  But I am not the one that dismissed your argument by insulting your motives, am I? Did I insult your personality? Nope. Once I called you delusional, that was as far as I dared to go. But if you believe that these mainstream news divisions behave in the manner of a commercial endeavor, then you are either delusional or inexperienced in matters of commerce. Especially customer service, as they openly despise half of their customers.

  This is exactly the same thing that the left has done to people like Limbaugh, Ashcroft, etc. etc. ad nauseum for decades. I for one am happy that Levin and Limbaugh and many others lampoon the left for their hypocrisy and call them out on their blatant hatred. No one in the mainstream press dares apply any sort of scrutiny towards them. And they ALL deserve it, Dem and GOP. The function of the free press is to protect the people from the trespasses of government. All any of them seem to approve of anymore is the constant expansion of the feds no matter what the problem, be it toilet capacity, how much gas our cars use, whether we decide to use tobacco, and how much salt we eat to name just a few areas of our lives that they interfere with while having absolutely NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do so.

  Limbaugh and Levin speak up for people concerning these trespasses, while people like you continue to attack simply because you cannot form a rational endorsement of your own policies.

  It is a disgusting practice that exists exclusively on the left. Sorry, but that’s just how it is.

• 106 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:18 pm

  BADROTO: I found this definition of democracy for you on Wikipedia: “Even though there is no universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’,[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.”

  The United States is considered a capitalist republic, which is considered one of many forms of democracy.

  I hope this clears up any confusion on this matter.

• 107 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:24 pm

  BADROTO: I have not attacked Limbaugh’s and Savage’s opinions. I have criticized them for their form and their methods.

  Mainstream media in the United States are commercial enterprises. The fact that they don’t seem to know how to make money is a different issue.

  I agree that the mainstream media have lost some of their ability to provide fair and complete information to American citizens.

  I agree that American politics have become overly contentious. I do not agree that the Democrats have a monopoly on spewing blatant hatred.

  I believe Rush Limbaugh and others like him are hurting the Republican Party. I do not see anyone on the left who are hurting the Democratic Party in a similar fashion.

  If you have examples, I would be happy to consider what I think about them.

• 108 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  BADROTO: You can call me delusional if that makes you happy. We probably all have a few delusions.

• 109 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  still having problems with refresh.

• 110 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 7:02 pm

  BADROTO: Why do you think media outlets despise half their customers?

• 111 SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm

  Do the media outlets despise half their customers?

• 112 jojabliss // May 27, 2009 at 8:22 pm

  To paraphrase ‘Rick’ from Casablana:

  “I would not bring up [Rod Dreher]; it is bad salesmanship.”

  Dreher is not a conservative. He is mildly to the right of McCain {btw, that is not a compliment}. Mr. Crunchy Con is an also-ran. And before anyone waves “National Review” this way; yeah, Chris Buckley’s tenure was super-splendid.

  Personally prefer to be at home with family and pets, but to each his own.

  MODERATE ALERT!
  Friedersdorf, Dreher & Frum: the new MOD Squad ?

• 113 ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 8:04 am

  From last night’s show. This is not at all out of character for Levin.

  ML: Rachel, New York City, WABC ,a Democrat, Go!:

  Caller: How do you do Mr. Levin, I just wanted to tell you that you and I grew up in the same city so I have a certain affinity for you. Personally I disagree with everything that you believe in but I’m very glad you are on the radio because every so often I listen to you and I learn things that I think I should know. (ML: really?) and that’s all I called to say.

  ML: Well aren’t you a sweet lady. Now you grew up in Philadelphia?

  Caller: Yes, you grew up in Elkins Park and I grew up in Wynnefield. My sister went to the same University that you did .

  ML: Temple University

  Caller: Absolutely

  ML: And she survived.

  Caller: Well, not as long as I would have liked

  ML: Oh really, I’m sorry…

  Caller: Me too

  ML: Oh my gosh…well, you sound like a lovely lady and I appreciate your kind words even though you disagree with me

  Caller: Absolutely 100 percent, but I’m glad you’re there…

  ML: I’ll tell you what…

  Caller: I’m glad you’re there because that’s what democracy is all about…

  ML: I want to send you a book will you read it if I send it to you?

  Caller: You’re going to send me Liberty and Tyranny?

  ML: Yes, can I send you that?

  Caller: Yes you can. I have to tell you I wouldn’t pay for it. I was going to get it out of the library but if you want to send it to me I’ll take it.

  ML: I want you to read it and then I want you to call me

  Caller: OK, you got it.

  ML: Fair Enough?

  Caller: Fair..

  ML: Alright…and I’m sorry about your sister. Now don’t hang up, we’ll get your address. Send her a signed copy..
  Now a lot of you conservatives out there, (raises voice) Why are you giving her a freebie?!… Ladies and Gentlemen, we are going to see if we can’t have a decent discussion with Rachel after she reads the book, she sounds like a very lovely lady, we’ll be right back.

• 114 ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 8:47 am

  (continued) ML: Where the Federal constitution speaks those differences will not exist, or are not supposed to exist, but where it is silent – of course they are going to exist. And if somebody doesn’t like the vote that just took place in California and they want to marry somebody of the same sex, they can go into an airplane and travel to Massachusetts and get married and live there. That’s the great thing about federalism. If you don’t like the death penalty, then move to New Jersey. If you support the death penalty then live in Texas. If you like to be taxed at a confiscatory rate then live in Michigan, if you don’t want to pay State income tax then live in Florida The diversity among and between the states is what makes this nation harmonious. So people with fundamentally different viewpoints can still live in a civil society. It’s not a straitjacket. To say that your issue, you being the generic you, is so important that it must be recognized by the Federal Constitution doesn’t make it so. So States have historically been free to define marriage, and we have 5000 years of human history that has defined it as marriage between a man and a woman. And so, no, a court should not be able to twist the 14th Amendment, which was meant after the Civil War to once and for all treat blacks as human beings. To take that out of context and twist it to accomplish a quote/unquote right that does not exist in the 14th amendment. Have I helped you?

  Caller: I’m not speaking of the 14th Amendment I guess I’m thinking, does it affect certain citizens freedom of movement from state to state and if that does…

  ML: Hold on now, does what affect their movement? Does what?

  Caller: A difference in equal treatment under the law…

  ML: There isn’t a different treatment , hold on now. There isn’t a different treatment under the law . In California a man and a woman who choose to get married are treated one way, and a man and a man are not free to get married. Ah, so, what you’re asking, you’re asking about whether two different circumstances being recognized by the State legislature and now by the court there, is fair or unfair. Well if you think it’s unfair – if it really bothers you to the point where you want to leave, then you get up and leave.

• 115 ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 8:50 am

  Another Democrat caller from last night’s show:

  ML:James in NJ, a Democrat, Go!

  Caller :Hi Mark, thank you very much for taking my call

  ML: Yes sir

  Caller: I have a question, even though I don’t agree with you about a lot of things I feel like if I have to ask an expert on Federalism something I feel that you are as close to an expert on Federalism as I can find (ML: alright).. And I, I guess I’m wondering if you have these States in the country that have, you know, different, providing benefits to certain citizens with regards to taxation or inheritance and things like that, like say, Maine and Vermont, they have same-sex marriage and other states don’t provide those benefits, isn’t there an inequality of treatment under the law, and does it become and issue of Federalism, is it incumbent upon the Federal Government to provide a basis for equality?

  ML:You know, some states have different criminal statutes that punish things differently than other States. Some States allow marriage at younger ages than other States. Some States allow you to marry distant relatives, some States don’t. There are all kinds of differences between the States because the States were at one point actually colonies and the colonies came together and they decided to create a Federal government – not a national government, a Federal government, where they would confer some authority on it as a, you know, a collective, but not enough authority to trump the States in all respects. So they set out a federal government with specific enumerated powers, and they tried to divide up that federal government so it wouldn’t become too powerful. Federalism, the 10th Amendment, is a recognition that the States as a collective would be more powerful and have more authority in those areas where there is not specific delineated authority with the Federal Government. So of course there’s going to be differences in the States.

• 116 ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 8:53 am

  (This goes at the end, I didn’t catch it all when I cut the selection) James from NJ continued

  Caller: So its not a Federalism issue it doesn’t impede their movement..

  ML: It is a Federalism issue in the sense that Federalism means that the States have certain broad authority. It is not a Federal Constitutional issue.

  Caller: OK (crosstalk) Thanks for answering my question

  ML: Alright, take care

  ML” Because ladies and gentlemen, if we live in a central government that can make all these decisions, then you are not going to have harmony in this country. We have diverse backgrounds, diverse experiences, diverse interests. We are a big country with a lot of people who come from a lot of different places with different ancestries, different religions -or no religion, so if you’re going to impose…the one thing, the glue that holds us together is the rule of law and the Declaration of Independence and the transcendent moral order. But there are certain governing decisions that cannot be made by the Federal Government, and to simply say “I want equal rights and the federal government is going to make those decisions”, means that ALL decisions are going to be made by the Federal government because what people are really talking about are equal outcomes, not equal rights. Make sense? If it doesn’t, it doesn’t, but that’s my position.

• 117 Why Moderates/RINOS are flaming dorks « Blog de KingShamus // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07 am

  [...] by KingShamus on July 30, 2009 The Mark Levin/David Frum Dust-Up of 2009 (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) has made for some theater over the past few [...]

You must log in to post a comment.