RSS Feed MenuConor Friedersdorf at the American Scene transcribes the following exchange from Mark Levin’s radio program yesterday afternoon:
CALLER: I just wanna say, Obama is a lot smarter than you folks give him credit for. You guys were on a roll, I have to admit, with all those tea parties. Everything was rolling along, the Republicans were gaining momentum. And he managed to change your entire conversational focus. And you let those three hundred thousand people —
LEVIN: My God. He’s so smart. His own party voted against him on Guantanamo Bay. How stupid was that, Cindy? His own party refused to fund the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
CALLER. Yeah but you know he can just move those people over here anyway. He’s already doing it with the one guy.
LEVIN: Yeah, sure, he can do whatever he wants. Let me ask you a question. Why do you hate this country?
CALLER: No, I love this country.
LEVIN: (angrily shouting) I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY?WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? You just said it. He can blow off Congress. He can do whatever he wants, right?
CALLER: Well, he seems to, he just moved (inaudible).
LEVIN: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?
CALLER: Yes.
LEVIN: Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.
Conor gamely offers an intellectual rebuttal to Levin:
The host is weirdly blind to the irony that he himself thinks a wartime president possesses the power to house detainees where he sees fit, at least if the President asserts that his chosen policy is needed to keep America safe. As we all know, President Obama thinks that Gitmo is a PR disaster that helps Al Qaeda recruit more terrorists, and therefore makes us less safe. So by the host’s own standard of executive power—not to mention Dick Cheney’s standard — President Obama possesses the inherent power to close Gitmo, what Congress says be damned.
I’d offer a less sophisticated comment:
Imagine some commuter – a nonpolitical person, a family man or woman, a taxpayer and billpayer – who happens to flip the dial on the radio on the way home and hears that exchange. What would such a person think? Wouldn’t it be something like, “I dont know what’s wrong with that horrible man, but I do know this: whatever side he’s on, any decent person would have to be on the opposite”?
ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:00 am
Because of the electoral college and other built-in rules, the USA will always be a two-party system. Also in multi party democracies it always boils down to two competing coalitions. Yin/Yang is everywhere.sinz,”…But that is NOT why the GOP lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. This urban myth has got to be refuted once and for all–the GOP can’t cure its ills by starting with a wrong diagnosis.When they walked into the voting booth, those disenchanted conservatives still held their noses and voted for Republican candidates. The exit polls show that over 80% of self-described conservatives voted Republican in 2006, and 78% in 2008.”But there is such a thing called TURNOUT. It worked very well for Obama and not-so-well for McCain. The 2006 election was a natural shift. The off-year election of any Presidents second term is historically won by the party that opposed the President. This was compounded by a couple of other factors, Republican scandals and the unpopular war along with the MSM actively salivating for Democrats.The 2008 election was between a charismatic young black man who was adored by the media and a bumbling old Senator who ran a lousy campaign, performed badly in debates and said the wrong things at the wrong times. One must be very careful when going by people calling themselves “independent”. I have often found them to be Democrats who hold the conceit that they think for themselves and look at both sides of the argument before choosing (to vote Democrat).
sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 9:21 am
krove sez: “Hispanics are one big reason however the youth vote is an even bigger problem. The Republicans have lost this demographic for generations.”Not necessarily.I remember when folks said the same thing about the “flower child” generation of the 1960s: They’re lefties and will remain that way forever.But when those young people suddenly lost their parents’ subsidies and had to fend for themselves, an astonishing thing happened: The children of the 1960s became the entrepreneurs and investors (“yuppies”) of the late 1970s and the 1980s. And in the 1980s, Reagan captured a majority of the youth vote.The GOP’s message of economic freedom and a strong America *can* resonate with today’s young people–again, as soon as they have to get real jobs and work for a living. It’s only the moral scolding of the social conservatives that has to stop. Each new generation is more sexually active and more tolerant of homosexuality than the previous. It’s the social conservatives who are losing the fight, and wrecking the GOP’s reputation with young people in the process.
sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 9:23 am
Franco: The exit polls showed that in the 2000 *and* 2004 elections, the Independent vote broke roughly evenly between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Independent vote has never swung strongly Democratic till 2006 and 2008.Write off the Independent vote as just a bunch of Democrats in sheep’s clothing, and you write off all future elections.
ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 10:00 am
sinz,There are factors that are impossible to control or understand when talking about self-identified independents and I take this into consideration when looking at these polls.Further there was reason independents went for Bush over Gore and Kerry. It is perfectly logical that self-identified independents would break in 2006 and why they would want to vote for Obama.As someone who has principles, do you ask yourself, “How can someone who has a choice between two opposite world-views fluctuate between the two election to election”?These people fall into two distinct categories. They are people who call themselves independents but vote the same way R or D every year, we can exclude those, because they don’t change. Then there are these oscillating independents being non-ideological, or ideologically ignorant, would be prone to vote for style over substance and/or be prone to voting on time-local issues. And wouldn’t these independent types be enamored of someone like Obama? There were many Democrats and independents who simply thought that Bush was better on terror (time-local issue re 9/11) and some who didn’t quite want to run away from Iraq with our tail between our legs. Both of those issues were for practical purposes gone by 2008. Bush was a better candidate than Kerry and Gore. In the case of 2000, that was a “change” election, and Gore was seen as more of the same. 2004 was about Iraq and terror.So this explains specifically why it may not be a trend and trying to use these elections as evidence of a trend is highly questionable. It is impossible to conclude this is a larger trend when you consider the very different candidates and surrounding current events.
ktward // May 26, 2009 at 12:12 pm
sinz54 5/23, 5:41 pm:I’m glad this thread continues and you’re still here. Holidays and all.First and foremost, please know you have my genuine, personal best wishes for your health recovery. Very often, the rhetorical dynamics on blog threads mimic the characteristics of driving in one’s car: both are insulated from personal connection, so we will ’say’ things we would never say to a person standing in front of us. I do my utmost to keep this in mind, which at times means, in my car, I must keep my one-finger salute to myself.Having said that, allow me a thoughtful but realistic response:Wanda Sykes is an actor/comedian. Unlike Rush, she’s not considered a spokesperson nor representative voice by ANY political Dem/Left entity. Her ‘I hope his kidneys fail/20th terrorist’ remarks at the WHCD re: Rush were, in fact, thought by many on the Left to be crudely over a decency line, including [gasp!], Olbermann:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnFtLRatiIYour quote:”I saw no conservatives taking pleasure in Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer, or Senator Ted Kennedy’s cancer.”But I saw leftists all over taking pleasure in the deaths of Milton Friedman (a gentle soul if there ever was one), William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and indeed just about anyone who was or is right of center.”There are perverse voices, gross minorities, within both L & R extremes–the very point I was originally making, I believe. I am personally unaware of joyful comments (as you characterize) from the credible Left regarding the deaths of these Conservative individuals. Please kindly back up your contention with links, if you would.With all due respect, the blanket demonization of either ideology is, ultimately, dehumanizing to a significant part or our population. And gets us nowhere. We are better served to stick to substantive issues, and ignore volatile partisan distractions the likes of Sykes and Prejean.
sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Franco: There you go again, contemptuously dismissing Independents who can vote either Dem or Repub because you claim it’s out of “ideological ignorance” or because they prefer “style over substance.” I’m going to continue to resist your blatant attempts to define us away as unprincipled, ignorant, and swayed by emotion. It’s flat WRONG.There are other factors besides ideology when choosing whom to vote for. One is basic command of the issues–does the candidate know what he’s talking about? Will he be able to hit the ground running on his first week in office? And there is basic character too.I would rather vote for a competent liberal than an incompetent conservative. I would rather vote for an honest liberal than a corrupt conservative.Of course McCain was closer to my views ideologically than Obama. After the GOP convention, he was actually ahead of Obama slightly in the polls. (Which is pretty good, given the public’s disgust with Bush at that point.)But when the financial markets seized up and the U.S. economy went south, McCain didn’t seem to know what to say or do. He bounced around aimlessly. Plus, we voters remembered that McCain had said for most of the 2008 primary campaign what a strong economy we had. So did his economics adviser, Phil Gramm. And that turned out to be false.Those things took precedence over ideology.
ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 3:27 pm
sinz54, I can’t define a group I don’t have that power. If you vote independent and are different than what I describe, so be it, you need not take my general observations personally. Independents are not a monolithic group by any means – no group is, and independents even less so (because they are ahem, independent?) I am merely talking about a subset of independents. How can you say I am trying to define you “away as unprincipled, ignorant, and swayed by emotion. It’s flat WRONG.”Are you saying there is no subset of independents who vote this way? Did you take a poll at your independents meeting ? Is it somehow in the charter rules that independents can’t act like normal human beings ? And I do contend they are more likely to vote for style over substance if they have such a shallow sense of the differences between candidates. I.E that competence trumps ideology. I agree with your assessment of McCain and I withheld my vote for reasons I wrote about in the Colin Powell thread, but in retrospect can you see how Obama’s plan comes from ideology and that competence in steering the ship in the wrong direction is even worse than floundering around?You are also revealing to me what I consider some political naivete or perhaps ignorance of the realities of political parties and ideological goals. If you knew more about leftism, socialism and communism you might be a little more reticent to vote for the competent “liberal” as you call them. (I don’t like to contribute to the destruction of language – leftists are anything but liberal. They are the opposite of liberal in the literal sense. They are for State control and State power.)
echarles1 // May 26, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Mark Levin cannot at heart be happy about his own behavior in this exchange. He does not mount a defense of it, but only call attention to liberals whose behavior is worse. He’s surely right that there are horribly behaved liberals out there but his behavior is his own. I can’t listen to the guy, as much as I agree with him.
barker13 // May 27, 2009 at 5:13 am
Wow… I’m a couple hundred posts behind!(*CHUCKLE*)Allow me to address a few comments that were addressed to me the other day:Re: Sinz; 5/23/2009 10:24 AM –”barker13: The Dem base would reject me…”They’d try. That’s besides the point, though. I’m talking about what I’d like to see and I’d like to see more folks like you active in the Democratic Party. (You do realize that’s not an insult to you; it’s actually a compliment; your presence would make the Democratic Party a more conservative Party and thus from my perspective a better Party.Re: Chekote; 5/23/2009 10:32 AM –Thanks for the link to the transcript. The way I read Limbaugh’s comments, he wasn’t so much pooh-poohing evolution as he was making the case that evolutionary theory still has lots of holes and this latest find doesn’t fill each and every “hole” to the point where were understand evolutionary science any more perfectly than we understand all facets of climate change. Perhaps Rush doesn’t believe in evolution, but I’ve never heard him say that in so many words. If Rush was asked directly “Do you believe God created Adam out of nothing and then Eve from Adam’s rib and then out of their union the entire world was populated?” my guess is that he’d say no, that he’d basically make the case for “intelligent design.” I could be wrong. Still, until something that direct is brought to my attention where Rush flat out denies evolution… I’m sticking with my doubt that he denies it.Re: Chekote; 5/23/2009 10:34 AM –Fair enough. Basically we agree. (*SHRUG*)* To be continued…BILL
barker13 // May 27, 2009 at 5:15 am
* Still addressing old commentsRe: Midcon; 5/23/2009 10:58 AM –”…I’ll enjoy the majority position of being able to swing elections whichever way we independents decide… ‘But that’s just my point, Midcon – YOU don’t speak for “we” independents anymore than I do. (*SHRUG*) Re: Sinz54; 5/23/2009 11:57 AM –Quoting Rush: “Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that.”Well…??? Have they…??? Serious question… I last took biology in 10th grade. In any case, if you’re reading this you’ve already read my response to Chekote posting the link in the first place. Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:18 PM”…do tell, why are you registered as a Dem?”It was the most powerful protest gesture I could think of to demonstrate my disgust with the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006 (I actually filed the paperwork in early ‘06, months and months before the elections) and post-re-election Bush. I went so far as to vote for Democrat “Leftist” John Hall in ‘06 in order to fire Sue Kelly (the incumbent RINO congresswoman).Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:25 PM –GOOD CATCH! Thanks for posting that link.* To be contined…BILL
barker13 // May 27, 2009 at 5:17 am
* Finishing up addressing old commentsRe: Midcon; 5/23/2009 12:39 PM –”…my write in vote gets me just about as far as your vote for Bob Barr…”Which doesn’t deflect from my earlier point. (*SHRUG*)Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:46 PM –”See? midcon demonstrates that I’m not the only one annoyed by your, uhm, ’style’.”Never! (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 1:46 PM –”I admit barker’s style makes his posts a little more difficult but if he can’t snort then I won’t be able to!”Ah-ha! (*WINK*) (*STICKING MY TONGUE OUT AT Ktward*)Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 2:00 PM –”…he does maintain a degree of civility which is sorely lacking from so many other posters.”(*NOD*) (*BOW*)”Although my one wish would be eliminate some of the spacing between snorts and sentences. That affects the readability more than anything.”Midcon. Think of my posts as speeches. Read them as such. (Seriously… try it… try reading aloud.)Re: Franco; 5/23/2009 2:23 PM –”The only thing I don’t understand is the SNORT reference.”Really…?!?! Hmm… perhaps it’s a regional thing. I’m a New Yorker, how’bout the rest of you. We snort. (*SNORT*) = “…you dumb bastard…” but in a rueful sort of way – amused rather than angered.BILL
johnconnor // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:52 pm
The conversation above is completely and without a doubt, proof that this country is in the toilet and being flushed. It’s amazing that none of you liberal socialist who have spouses are not widows or widowers. I have no idea how YOUR spouses have not killed themselves. Mark Levin is a great man and he had every right to say whatever he wanted to this worthless lady. Have any of you idiots heard of “freedom of speech” ???? I hope she thinks about her country before she votes again or opens her stupid mouth. If you don’t have anything important to say then don’t call and waste our time…..you dopes!