“Moron” “Idiot” “Lardass” “Fraud”: Mark Levin Replies

July 29th, 2009 at 8:34 am David Frum | 135 Comments |

| Print

My series on conservative despair mentions Mark Levin among others. Here the talk-show host responds with his familiar suavity of manner and elegance of language. One uncertainty however: Last time Levin criticized me, it was for going to too many cocktail parties. This time, I’m told I spend my life in my basement – that is, when I’m not prostituting myself by appearing “everywhere” on the detested media. May I suggest taking 5 minutes thought to devise a more consistent line of attack?

Recent Posts by David Frum



135 Comments so far ↓

  • ottovbvs

    100 franco-2 // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:37 am
    “All these “conservatives and moderates” rooting for Obama is just heartwarming.”

    ……….Unlike patriots like yourself Franco we’re just not invested in national failure……..we’ve just experienced 8 years of it

    “Oh, and lefties LOVE irony.”

    ……….Nothing to do with politics Franco and everything to do with your intelligence level and mental subtlety …….Check out Bill Buckley, G. K. Chesterton, Judge Richard Posner, Milton Friedman, Michael Oakshott, Robert Blake, who are just a few noted conservative ironists that spring immediately to mind……..with every sentence you write you prove my thesis Franco

  • Oneon1isto

    Franco: I don’t think a single person here is a cheerleader for Obama. I believe we all want success from our President, no matter his party, and we’re here to jabber about why or why not its successful. Beyond that, eh?

    The bile you spit might belong on Ace of Spades or maybe Hot Air, but doesn’t really work here. You’re fun to watch though, I’ll give you that.

  • franco 2

    Midcon

    Labels are always insufficient. I am a conservative but a libertarian leaning conservative. The problem though are leftists. They rarely label themselves such but they believe in collectivism, group rights as opposed to individual rights and they do not believe in capitalism, thinking it unfair and exploitative. Thus their inexorable march toward socialism. They do not want the USA to be a strong country militarily. So they try to undermine all those things through their arguments, laws, protests and editorials teachings and proclamations.

    All their ideas are to collectivize, to establish group rights (completely un-American) which impede on individual freedom. They have discovered that corporations are bad because they have nothing but the profit motive. I can sympathize with that, there is much negativity that results from the pure profit motive vs. the small businessman in the community who employs locally and gives back to the community. But their skepticism and principles stop there, because their SOLUTION to these problems is government. Government is not immune from corruption and it uses FORCE. They trust the government especially when their guys are in office Hmmm. This is madness. They see the drawbacks of corporations but won’t admit that government is worse or can be worse by the very fact that they can put you in jail and take your possessions. Corporations can’t do those things. Of course we need government to regulate businesses and corporations but not control them. No corporation can make you buy its product or service. In every case it is a trade that is initiated by you, not them. With government they can MAKE you give them money they can make you do anything – and they often do.

    In history every time a government got too much power a massive tragedy resulted. The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Hitlers Germany etc.

    Now the lefties like to pretend that those who are against them are their mirror image. That their opponents are tyrants intent on oppressing the masses. That their way is freedom, but it isn’t. If you look at what they want to do and have been doing they attack the freedom of the individual everytime. They lie and they lie very very well. They would have you believe that totalitarian dictators all come from the right and wonderful utopias (where are they?) come from the left-wing approach. The fact is that dictators and tyrants more often come from the left, people follow them because they promise government largesse among other things.

    You can see how thougoughly hypocritical they are every day. They were screaming about Bush having too much executive power, (and that may be a valid argument) but now Obama is doing the same things has not recinded any executive power and not a peep from these people. Examples of this are legion. So do you believe what they say or what they do?

    These people, these Democrats have not proposed a good idea in decades and everything they do is for political gain and that political gain comes at our expense. Likewise there are Republicans who have built their own little corrupt nest and are happy to have government grow (just in the direction that helps them and their friends) So I’m not saying these things are exclusive to party. No one is immune which is why this country with checks and balances needs to be maintained by individuals who vote. But we can pretty much rule out leftwing ideas because they are un-American that is anti-individual.

    So that extends to power. for example, let’s pretend this new health care initiative is near perfect for everyone. How long do you think it will stay that way if the government is the only provider and arbiter. From an ideological POV whether it looks good and seems like a good solution isn’t as relevant as the bigger issue: Is it prudent to put that much power in the hands of government from now till forever? Are you noticing that health is becoming politicized? If we are not paying for ourselves but paying for others, naturally animus ensues. “Why do I have to work to pay for the fat guys health problems, or the smokers hospitalization. With individual freedoms we hold no grudges. Fat guy can eat all he wants smoker can smoke all he wants doesn’t effect me. So these things have wider and longer term implications than first appear.

    Like it or not those are the forces bigger than you and I and you must take sides sometimes against both parties when they impede and erode our constitutional freedoms. This is a great country because it advances the freedom of the individual. But believe me, todays Democratic party is filled with leftists who want power over people. They believe wholeheartedly they are for the “little guy” but they are using them for power. Isn’t it obvious? Do you really think Charlie Rangel or Nancy Pelosi really are anything more than self-important tyrants who try to pad their power with empty promised to poor people?

  • barker13

    My fellow libertarian leaning constitutionalist conservatives… again… I submit to you that Franco is more right than wrong – FAR more right than wrong.

    He has his own unique style just as we all tend to have to one extent or another. And yes, obviously one can quibble or even downright disagree with one or more of his contentions here and there…

    (*TAKING A BREATH*)

    …but all in all… harkening back to the whole “right track/wrong track” polling mentality… Franco is definitely on the right track.

    (Just my two cents worth…)

    BILL

  • ottovbvs

    franco-2 // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:33 am
    “These people, these Democrats have not proposed a good idea in decades and everything they do is for political gain and that political gain comes at our expense.”

    ……………As I said…..completely impervious to the facts……..we’ve just ended what is by almost universal consent one of the worst presidencies in US history when most conservative theories from international unilateralism to supply side and de-regulatory economics were tested to destruction……a time when the real incomes of 80% of the country actually fell and the meager job creation that occurred was completely erased in the financial and economic meltdown that started in December 2007…….I suppose it’s possible Franco is in the top 10% of income earners but I doubt it………and in Franco’s mind absolutely none of this happened because basically you inhabit an alternate reality that has been created for you by a bunch of Republican spinmeisters……..you make me laugh but you’re basically a dupe

  • franco 2

    ottobvs

    misses the point completely as usual. Also he takes a only few words out of posts to better obfuscate and attack. His average quote of my writings is about 5 words. he can’t take any more context because he wouldn’t then be able to mischaracterize my arguments.

    And here he also misrepresents me : “…according to Franco we can elect anyone president because he doesn’t do anything so no job skills are required…” This is a complete misrepresentation – a lie actually. Why do you need to LIE and misrepresent me and take my words in tiny snippets? Because you can’t win a debate any other way?

  • ottovbvs

    franco-2 // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:01 am

    “His average quote of my writings is about 5 words.”

    ……….Well he’re’s 21 for you

    “A dumb conservative is still better than a smart leftist…by far. So Bush is/was better than Gore and Kerry. ”

    ………..Your numerous, very numerous, words tell us how in touch with reality you are Franco……no need for me to replay them…..One of the most disastrous presidents in US history but he’s better than any democrat……reality Franco style

  • palomino

    Franco: “In history every time a government got too much power a massive tragedy resulted. The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Hitlers Germany etc.”

    You forgot the horrors visited on the Canadians and Norwegians as a result of universal health care.

    The “too much power” we’re talking about is the current health care proposal, another Medicare-type expansion of the social welfare state. Some would suggest this will make us more like Canada or Norway or Sweden.

    Others, with simple minds who see only stark contrasts and argue only in hyperbole, would suggest it moves us toward a holocaust with killing fields and gulags. This is the classic bait-and-switch wherein something banal (the govt power to raise taxes) is conflated with something evil (the govt power to commit atrocites, like genocide).

    Logic doesn’t dictate the above connection. The ideologue posits it nonetheless, because his religion/ideology tells him it is so.

  • Oneon1isto

    Gentlemen! Relax!

    God I wish I could sit around all day (Instead of, you know, working.) and write long responses on blogs. I would totally do that with Franco’s last big’un, because there are few good points in there. You gotta sift, but they’re there, smooshed in between chunks of mental sediment like little flecks of gold.

    I will say this Franco. Your “labels are insufficient” line strikes me as “head explodingly ironic”, because you proceed to blame the liberal label (to your credit, you throw conservatives out there occasionally too) but the rest of your diatribe, while having moments of lucidity, is just one long anti-liberal rant.

  • Why Moderates/RINOS are flaming dorks « Blog de 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 [...]

  • barker13

    Re: Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:57 am –

    “God I wish I could sit around all day (Instead of, you know, working.) and write long responses on blogs.”

    (*THUNDER*) (*LIGHTNING*)

    THIS…

    IS…

    GOD…!!!

    Oneon1isto, My creation… send your wife out to work – that’s what Barker does!

    Signed,

    GOD

  • sinz54

    ottovbvs asks: “And when was the last time you voted for a Democratic presidential candidate?”

    I voted for Bill Clinton, in 1992 and 1996.

  • sinz54

    dragonlady: “let’s face it: one thing he did not do was throw our military and country under the bus in the realm of national security for the sake of popularity.”

    I agree. And I supported the surge. I told “ottovbvs” this.

    But let’s not lose sight of the fact that before the November 2006 election, even Republicans like John McCain and Bill Kristol were warning Bush that Iraq was being lost–yet Bush stuck to his original plan of “When Iraq stands up, we’ll stand down.” Bush stuck with General Casey as senior coalition commander, even though Casey opposed surges and believed that the lighter the footprint, the better. And that plan was failing. Bush was stubborn when he needed to be flexible.

    I believe that it was the shock of the November 2006 election loss that finally galvanized Bush into changing course. Notice that he fired Rumsfeld less than one week afterward.

    There could have been such a surge back in 2005. (And if Petraeus had been on the job instead of Casey, there probably would have been.) Had that happened, we could have saved thousands of lives.

    One of Bush’s flaws was that he didn’t see any difference between being brave vs. being stubborn. To use an analogy from one of Bush’s favorite games, he kept doubling down on the cards he had in his hand, rather than drawing new cards.

  • sinz54

    moderate sez: “I see the John Birch Society is alive and well.”

    Ideas that used to be considered extreme (and were dropped by the successful GOP campaigns of 1980, 1984, and 1988) are now back in full force. And then some.

    If you want to see what a successful GOP platform looks like, read the 1980 GOP Platform, the one that got Reagan elected:

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1980

    It’s a conservative platform. BUT you won’t find insularity, bitterness, anger, nativism or paranoia in there:

    “Neither Hispanics nor any other American citizens should be barred from education or employment opportunities because English is not their first language.”

    Instead, you will find a calm confidence about the future, and an inclusiveness inviting all to consider voting Republican.

    Compare that general tone with the stuff that “franco-2″, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs, etc., have been spewing out these days.

  • sinz54

    franco-2 sez: “The problem though are leftists. They rarely label themselves such but they believe in collectivism, group rights as opposed to individual rights”

    But such a left-wing platform could never have won the election in a center-right country like America–unless the GOP had screwed up badly. Then the voters, disgusted, decided they would rather take a chance with a leftist who at least seemed bright (Obama), then continue on the same GOP path with a candidate (McCain) who could never explain what he would do differently than had been done in the last 8 years.

    Bush got Obama elected.

    Just like Carter got Reagan elected in 1980.

    Americans have always been more pragmantic than ideological. And in both 1980 and 2008, the voters told the incumbent party “You guys screwed up; so we’re going to take a chance on the other guys. They could hardly do worse than you guys did.”

    You must admit, that’s a reasonable attitude.

  • barker13

    Re: Sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm –

    “I voted for Bill Clinton, in 1992 and 1996.”

    So… you voted against moderate Pappy Bush in ’92 and against moderate Dole (and KEMP who you laud over at the other thread) in ’96.

    (*SNORT*)

    Thanks for being honest, Sinz.

    (*SHRUG*)

    BILL

  • ottovbvs

    “dragonlady: “let’s face it: one thing he did not do was throw our military and country under the bus in the realm of national security for the sake of popularity.”

    ………I suppose killing and maiming about 21,000 of our military doesn’t qualify as throwing them under a bus in your mind…..it does in mine……Bush lied us into a war in Iraq for no reason whatever……apart from our casualties which were still taking btw it’s cost over 100,000 Iraqi lives and displaced millions of them, cost $800 billion and been totally counterproductive at containing terrorism

  • barker13

    Re: Sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm –

    “Neither Hispanics nor any other American citizens should be barred from education or employment opportunities because English is not their first language.”

    What’s your point…???

    The above in NO WAY conflicts with a belief that our citizens should and must (for all intents and purposes) speak, read, and write using ENGLISH as OUR common language.

    Hey… I’m all in favor of teaching foreign languages starting in elementary school as part of basic education, but first and foremost comes teaching and learning ENGLISH.

    Do you favor election ballots printed in Spanish? (I do… in SPAIN! In other nations where SPANISH is the national language. Not here though. English… that’s OUR language.)

    How many years of ESL do we offer our “first language being Spanish” students? One year…? Two years? Three years…? More…???

    Let me tell you something, Sinz; my best friend adopted a little Russian girl who didn’t speak a lick of English. She’s nine. The adoption cleared and she came to this country last year. Within three months her English was good enough to get along; she’s now fluent.

    There’s a difference between truly HELPING people and ENABLING FAILURE.

    BILL

  • Oneon1isto

    Re: barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:32 pm (I’m stealing your header format)

    Sinz’s point had nothing to do with English speaking. It had everything to do with the big tent, non-corrosive non-fearful message of the Republican platform of the 80s. That rhetoric would be considered horrific by current GOP standards.

  • barker13

    Re: Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm –

    “Sinz’s point had nothing to do with English speaking.”

    It didn’t…??? (*SNORT*) So why did he pick that particular statement to highlight?

    (Hey… I’ve got an idea… let’s let SINZ answer for SINZ.) (*SHRUG*)

    “It had everything to do with the big tent…”

    Yeah… you mean big enough to include Bill Clinton in ’92 and ’96?

    (*SNORT*) (Oneon… I’m not making this stuff up… every quote I take is right from Sinz’s own posts.)

    “…non-fearful message of the Republican platform of the 80s.”

    Again, Oneon (and I’m not sure what the problem is here with regard to acknowledging reality), it ain’t 1980 anymore.

    I’m all about “hope.” I hope we survive two years of an Obama presidency with Pelosi and Reid running Congress and Eric Holder serving as Attorney General.

    I’m all about “change” also. I hope the current political ascendancy of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is brought to a close sooner rather than later.

    (*GRIN*) (*SHRUG*)

    “That rhetoric would be considered horrific by current GOP standards.”

    What is it with “you people” (*CHUCKLE*) and your inability to provide specifics?

    To give Sinz credit, he actually offered a specific with the “ESL” example (the one you say he didn’t really offer!), but you… you throw out undefined words like “rhetoric” without providing actual examples.

    (*SIGH*)

    I really try with “you people” (*GUFFAW*), but it’s one tough road to hoe; WORK WITH ME HERE, Oneon!

    (*SMILE*)

    BILL

  • dragonlady

    sinz, I don’t disagree with you on the mistakes we made in Iraq. But as far as Bush sticking with Casey, I don’t interpret that as being stubborn, but more that Bush was trying to listening to his military commanders, and giving them time to see if their plans would work. Remember at the time, there was no consensus within the military whether a surge would work or not. Eventually Bush saw that Casey was more interested in withdrawal versus victory, and replaced him with Petraus, someone who thought we could salvage Iraq. To me, the democratic process worked for once. There was a robust debate on the strategy in Iraq and eventually, the commander in chief chose the right one.

  • Oneon1isto

    Re: barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    No! It didn’t. Dude. How can you read your English response as a rebuttal to this:

    “Sinz: It’s a conservative platform. BUT you won’t find insularity, bitterness, anger, nativism or paranoia in there: “Neither Hispanics nor any other American citizens should be barred from education or employment opportunities because English is not their first language.” Instead, you will find a calm confidence about the future, and an inclusiveness inviting all to consider voting Republican.”

    He pinched a quote emphasizing ESL as a chunk of a big-tent republican platform. He’s referencing the entire platform as step towards getting a majority reelected. How is that not blatantly obvious?

    And you want me to provide specifics of GOP rhetoric? You really want me to go hunting down examples of current party faithful remarks concerning Hispanics? African Americans? Certain Supreme Court nominees? Immigrants? I would have figured this point in our discussion (at least) to be self-evident.

    But you are correct on one thing: I shouldn’t be putting words in Sinz’s mouth. :)

  • ottovbvs

    ……Good news for David Frum on one front……the good ship Palin runs aground

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/29/wsjnbc-poll-would-you-like-to-see-palin-as-president-someday/

    ……Sorry Baarking

  • GT

    Thank God for sane, rational thinking conservatives like Frum, and John Batchelor: http://tinyurl.com/nd7g3n

    and Mark McKinnon: http://tinyurl.com/kpbwqj

  • ottovbvs

    gt // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    ……….This was inevitable……I never thought she had any chance of serious political career but she’ll make a nice living milking the goats……..there’s enough of them to provide a market for her as well as Limbaugh and co

  • dragonlady

    Franco2, you’ve discovered Ottovbvs’s modus operandi. Clearly he feels superior when he twists other people’s words into strawmen arguments or false innuendo, or just flat out insults people by calling them stupid or whatever. I say let him post. I don’t bother responding to him because I believe his remarks reveal what kind of person he is.

  • ottovbvs

    dragonlady // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    …….cut the bluster sweetheart…..you don’t have the intellectual capacity to go head to head with me…..probably because you’re a woman

  • barker13

    Re: Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 4:16 pm –

    (*YAWN*)

    Sorry, Oneon… (*SMILE*)… but I’ll stick with my Jul 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm post.

    (*WINK*)

    Nice try though…!

    BILL

  • SFTor1

    I see Reagan is much revered here. Isn’t he the President who really got deficit spending going in the first place?

    Let me check: let’s see, here is a recent comment from Dick Cheney (to Paul O’Neill): “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

    Is this still the gospel in the GOP, or has it changed its position on deficits?

    I would also like some assistance in verifying my spelling of the word “hypocrisy.” Looks good?

  • palomino

    sftor1 // Jul 31, 2009 at 2:28 am
    “Let me check: let’s see, here is a recent comment from Dick Cheney (to Paul O’Neill): “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Is this still the gospel in the GOP, or has it changed its position on deficits?”

    Good point, sftor. Frum and other moderates would likely admit the inconsistency and are working toward reforming the GOP.

    The W apologists have a different take: Cheney and Bush must be forgiven for all domestic/economic sins because they were so busy “keeping us safe” for 8 years.

    As for themselves, the sheep claim that they were too busy cheerleading the war to notice

  • palomino

    otto: “cut the bluster sweetheart…..you don’t have the intellectual capacity to go head to head with me…..probably because you’re a woman”

    Otto, man, I’m disappointed in you. This is the kind of sexist tripe I’d expect from Franco or the recently departed DrTesla (may God have mercy on his soul.)

  • barker13

    Re: Sftor1 // Jul 31, 2009 at 2:28 am –

    “I see Reagan is much revered here.”

    By most of us I would assume… I would hope. (*SMILE*)

    “Isn’t he the President who really got deficit spending going in the first place?”

    There’s a time, place, and circumstance for everything, Sftor1. (*SMILE*) (Again… cost/benefit…)

    (Oh… and by the way… CONGRESS controls the purse strings.)

    “Let me check: let’s see, here is a recent comment from Dick Cheney (to Paul O’Neill): “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.””

    You wanna provide a link to the actual statement in context?

    Hey… and while you’re doing that… what’s YOUR view? Do deficits matter? (My view? Yes. Yes indeed!)

    “Is this still the gospel in the GOP, or has it changed its position on deficits?”

    Well, granted, some misguided folks within the GOP drank the Kool Aid on that topic… HOWEVER… what’s the contrast – the Democrats…??? (*SNICKER*) I think not… (*SMILE*)

    But, again, Sftor1… what’s YOUR position?

    BILL

  • barker13

    Palomino // Jul 31, 2009 at 3:14 am –

    WOW…!!!

    THANK YOU, my pretty pony! Thank you so much!

    (Since I skip over Otto’s comments I never would have caught that one without help.)

    Hmm… not much of a slap down. Hell… you actually come across as attacking Franco and Tes more so than Otto. (“Disappointed,” huh?) (*SNORT*)

    BILL

  • rohall

    I joined this forum about a week ago. Didn’t know it was run by a majority of liberals (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
    Mr. Frum, Mark Levin seems to to have articulated a very pointed (and colorful) response to your review of his most recent best-selling book. You should have taken “5 minutes of thought” to write your review.

  • DFL

    I have read two of David Frum’s books and found them good reads, “Dead Right” and “What’s Right”, even though I disagreed with some of his thnking. Moreover, his NR article of 2003 “Unpatriotic Conservatives” was despicable. Let’s get that straight. As for Mark Levin, he is about the only talk show host who doesn’t bore me to tears. His caustic chats can be funny in small stretches. But I have no interest in reading his book no matter how well it has done in sales. Tomes by talk show hosts like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tend to be as banal as their broadcasts and that deters me from buying Levin’s book. I’d rather read Frum than Levin. He’s more analytical and less cheerleader.