Treating Levin With Kid Gloves

May 6th, 2010 at 2:00 pm | 35 Comments |

| Print

In this week’s Frum–Goldberg Bloggingheads, David Frum asked Goldberg whether anyone at The Corner had ever called out Mark Levin on “tone” as they called out their colleague Jim Manzi. Goldberg replied that he did not know. Frum said it would be interesting to find out. So we at FrumForum looked up the record.

The answer is “no.” Here’s a sample of NR comments on Levin’s tone:

Levin is sometimes silly, sometimes spiritual, but always spirited, and he calls it as he sees it. … Listening to Mark, though, you can’t help but worry about his vocal cords, especially if the topic is Democrats undermining the war effort. How does the man not lose his voice?

-“Jim Webb’s Favorite Constituent” by Kathryn Jean Lopez (July 18, 2007).

A very sharp contrast to accusing Jim Manzi of giving Mark Levin, “the Pearl Harbor treatment.”

(As of Wednesday May 5th though, Corner contributor Kevin D. Williamson said he was revising his opinion of Levin “just a little” after Levin attacked him and Ross Douthat for an article he wrote on Supply Slide economics.)

You might counter: Do liberal intellectual magazines ever call out liberal entertainers for extremism? A good question. So we looked that up too, and the answer this time is “yes.”

Both The New Republic and the even more liberal American Prospect were willing in their time to uphold intellectual standards against Michael Moore at the peak of his celebrity.

From The New Republic:

[F]or Michael Moore there is not much room to fall. Films such as Roger and Me and books such as Downsize This! marked him as egocentric and frivolous from the start. Still, he has tried his best to stoop even lower with Stupid White Men. A more irresponsible book on a more important topic would be impossible to write.

-“Idiot Time” by Alan Wolfe (July 8, 2002)

And:

But Moore is no Bob Dylan–or Dennis Hopper, or Francis Ford Coppola, or Allen Ginsberg, who all produced works that outlasted their political beliefs–and the July 1 screening at the Rex, while applauded, did not receive a 20-minute ovation. It was as though the audience felt cheated by the director–under the guise of making them laugh, he had treated them as idiots. It wasn’t simply that Moore uses blatant caricatures, dramatically oversimplifies, and makes a cheap play for tears. Rather, it is because, to draw voters away from Bush, he uses precisely the same weapons as those used by the Republican propaganda machine: disinformation, short cuts, omissions. To portray prewar Iraq as an idyllic country where people danced and had fun and got married, where children played and laughed, borders on the despicable. Even the left-leaning Le Monde Diplomatique would never have painted such an uncritical picture. This mimicking of conservative propaganda reduces Fahrenheit 9/11 to a simplistic militant manifesto. Truth becomes a matter of editing, to the detriment of any sense of complexity or objectivity. To watch a Moore film is to be told the world comprises only nasty plutocrats ready to divide the globe for maximum profit and the gentle victims of their greed.

-“Tour de Farce” by Pascal Buckner (July 19, 2004)

And from American Prospect:

Even though I probably share a good portion of Moore’s politics, I resent having to kowtow to such a sanctimonious bully. But it’s true, Fahrenheit 9/11 is certainly Moore’s best film — his most tightly focused, disciplined, and powerful one. And although he commandeers an ice-cream truck to harass lawmakers and ask them to send their kids to Iraq, there’s even less of Moore himself in the film pulling his usual tricks. This time, he largely focuses on the story at hand.

But then the film begins to, well, spread out a bit, like a fat man in a big chair. And here Moore gets into trouble. Contradictions run rampant: The war on Afghanistan was a deliberate distraction, but we didn’t send enough troops there; homeland-security policy tramples on our civil liberties but is then too lax; Bush is both a cowboy dummy and a master puppeteer of diversionary wars and a media-fueled culture of fear. Where there isn’t a contradiction, there’s a gaping hole: What, pray tell, are we to do about our very real problems? What should we do instead, in this infernal struggle against fundamentalism, in the mess of Iraq?

Moore would do well to remember the book from which he appropriated his title. Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 depicted the deliberate destruction of imagination and knowledge in a world where firemen set fires — they burned books. Moore probably sees his film as an antidote to the corporate censorship of the war on terrorism and the media spin of the war’s terrorism alerts. But in a way, Moore has a bit of authoritarianism in his filmmaking. He wants to tell us what to think, how to interpret his footage, what an Iraqi woman’s pain means in his grand theory. He lobs firebombs: The Bush administration is a conflagration, as are the companies and the corrupt Saudis.

-“Fahrenhaughty 9/11” Noy Thrupkaew (June 25, 2004)

And:

If you want about as clear a demonstration as you’re likely to find of the difference between truth and politics, go see Eminem’s 8 Mile, filmed on location in Detroit, and then go see Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, which, despite the title, is set largely in Flint, Mich., and the white American and Canadian counties that border Detroit. Though Moore claims to have made a documentary, his examination of American gun culture presents viewers with a more heavily edited fiction than producer Brian Grazer’s attempt to clean up Eminem. Whereas the rapper’s movie reaches for the sort of truth mere facts cannot convey, Moore’s film grabs viewers with the old demagogue’s trick of using just as much factual information as is necessary to lead people toward false conclusions.

-“Moore’s the Pity” by Garance Franke-Ruta (November 22, 2002)


Even The Nation’s enthusiastic review of Moore’s work contained numerous warnings about its defects:

The odd thing is, I found the movie immensely cheering and energizing, even though I don’t agree with its main thesis, drawn from Unger, that Bush’s oil-business interests, particularly his close financial and personal connections with the Saudis, drove his post-9/11 decisions to go easy on Saudi Arabia and invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I think President Gore might well have invaded Afghanistan too…

Like all Moore’s movies, Fahrenheit 9/11 is somewhat muddled and self-contradictory. Just as Bowling for Columbine excoriated the NRA while arguing that guns don’t kill people, Americans kill people, Fahrenheit 9/11 simultaneously argues that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong and unnecessary and that we need to send more troops; that the Bush Administration does too much and too little to protect the country from another terrorist attack; that Bush is an idiot and a lightweight and that he is a master of calculation. Actually, come to think of it, that’s not such a contradiction–but I wish Moore had acknowledged Bush’s obvious political skills. It’s not easy to fool 40 percent of the people 100 percent of the time.

Well, OK, so Moore isn’t Mark Twain, he’s a propagandist who can be funny and angry at the same time. He takes a lot of cheap shots–Paul Wolfowitz slicking back his hair with saliva, John Ashcroft crooning a patriotic anthem of his own composition, Bush smirking and looking shifty while waiting to go on air and announce the invasion of Iraq–but the point of these vignettes is not just to make us laugh and feel superior, it’s to undo the aura of assurance and invincibility with which this Administration cloaks itself while it spreads fear across the land.

What does it say that almost all conservative intellectuals pay obeisance to our clowns, while many liberal intellectuals are willing to challenge theirs?


Follow Noah Kristula-Green on Twitter: @noahkgreen

Recent Posts by Noah Kristula-Green



35 Comments so far ↓

  • sinz54

    There were a couple times when one of our “clowns” went too far over the line.

    Shortly after 9-11, when Ann Coulter wrote that the goal of U.S. foreign and military policy should be to convert all the Middle East Muslims to Christianity, National Review fired her.

    And before that, David Duke was expelled from the GOP.

    If one of our “clowns” writes or says something that is obviously bigoted or racist, he will most likely get kicked out.

    But beyond that, they’ve got pretty much a free hand. With no interference from the respectable conservative pundits of the GOP.

  • TerryF98

    Lockstep, Lockstep, Lockstep, Lockstep, Lockstep, Lockstep, Lockstep, Lockstep, Lockstep, Lockstep.

    All march to the same beat, stiff legs, swing high.

    No dissent, no criticism, no thought deeper that talking points and rhetoric filled lies.

    Lockstep, Lockstep.

  • franco 2

    “What does it say that almost all conservative intellectuals pay obeisance to our clowns, while many liberal intellectuals are willing to challenge theirs?”

    Noah you silly little dweeb, Mark Levin isn’t any Michael Moore. You are comparing a man who makes fraudulent claims and insinuations in his documentaries – so many, and so easily provable, that leftists feel a need to distance themselves from him to maintain some credibility, to a man who has never had to retract any statement he’s made in hundreds of hours of extemporaneous speech.

    Please try, if you can, to compare apples to apples.

  • franco 2

    Sinz,

    That’s not true according to NRO

    http://article.nationalreview.com/312558/laffaire-coulter/jonah-goldberg

    “In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She’s a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as “judgment.”

    Running this “piece” would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

    But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann’s first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn’t fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.

    Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.

    No response.

    Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were “censoring” her.

    By this point, it was clear she wasn’t interested in continuing the relationship.”

    Coulter is a comedian. She says things for effect. She’s sometimes says things that are utterly outrageous just to point out the ridiculousness of the other side. It’s called tongue-in-cheek. The other side takes her literally because it serves them – they are just trying to pretend she’s not being facetious. Really Sinz, do you think Ann was really advocating that we invade and Christianize?

  • WillyP

    Seeing as how Levin has more or less correctly predicted that Obama’s policies would lead to a double dip recession and the rise in gold prices, I think these absolutely inane, jealous screeds about his “tone” are a waste of everybody’s time.

    Vindication for Levin.

  • Slide

    franco 2 // May 6, 2010 at 2:40 pm “Noah you silly little dweeb, Mark Levin isn’t any Michael Moore. You are comparing a man who makes fraudulent claims and insinuations in his documentaries – so many, and so easily provable, that leftists feel a need to distance themselves from him to maintain some credibility, to a man who has never had to retract any statement he’s made in hundreds of hours of extemporaneous speech”

    I guess franco’s first sentence calling someone a name (“silly little dweeb”) kinda gives you the indication that he would be a Levin fan. But I do have to agree with him in that Levin isn’t any Michael Moore. He can’t hold a candle to Michael Moore. Michael has made a whole bunch of great documentaries that make people think. Levin screams and yells insults. He is a little little man that knows he is an entertainer so he entertains. He has his audience of not too critical thinkers that lap it up… just like Limbaugh’s audience laps up his drivel… and Ann Coulter’s… and Hannity’s…. etc. etc. Great entertainers but they just say what they know their audience wants to hear. How pathetic the right has become.

  • TerryF98

    Except that we don’t have a double dip recession, and it does not take a genius to foretell that gold will go up in price at a time of world financial instability.

  • WillyP

    oh terry, so dense…
    pray tell, what causes this mysterious “world financial instability” but out of control politicians?

  • Slide

    WillyP? double dip recession? What are you talking about? Better start listening to NRO’s Larry Kudlow and not the mental midget.

    “Conservatives shouldn’t fight the tale of the tape.

    Sometimes you have to take out your political lenses and look at the actual statistics to get a true picture of the health of the American economy. Right now, those statistics are saying a modest cyclical rebound following a very deep downturn could actually be turning into a full-fledged, V-shaped, recovery boom between now and year-end.

    I’m aiming this thought especially at many of my conservative friends who seem to be trashing the improving economic outlook — largely, it would appear, to discredit the Obama administration.

    Don’t do it folks. It’s a mistake. The numbers are the numbers. And prosperity is a welcome development for a nation that has suffered mightily.
    Credibility is at issue here.

    Conservative credibility.

    Capitalist credibility.
    Let’s begin with the March employment numbers recently released by the Labor Department. Those numbers were solid. People say small businesses are getting killed by taxes and regulations from Washington, but the reality is that the small-business household employment survey has produced 1.1 million new jobs in the first quarter of 2010, or 371,000 per month. If that continues, the unemployment rate will drop significantly.

    Additionally, the corporate payroll number for March increased by 224,000 — not 162,000 as some claim — with the prior two months being revised up by 62,000. And this is being led by private-sector job creation.

    And according to just-released data, retail chain-store sales for the year ending in March were up a blowout 10 percent. Ten percent. That’s a V-shaped recovery. And the real-time ISM purchasing-managers reports for manufacturing and services indicate that the economy in the next few quarters could be much, much stronger than the consensus expects — maybe 5 to 6 percent. Another V-shaped recovery.

    Commodity charts, meanwhile, are roaring. All manner of raw industrial materials have been booming — iron ore, steel, you name it. More V-shaped recovery. So with higher commodity prices running virtually across-the-board, there is every incentive for rapid inventory-rebuilding. (Inventory prices are going up as commodity prices go up.)”

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/36421625/A_V_Shaped_Boom_Is_Coming

  • Slide

    WillyP // May 6, 2010 at 3:58 pm “oh terry, so dense… pray tell, what causes this mysterious “world financial instability” but out of control politicians?”

    WillyP don’t be so harsh on the Bush administration. They were trying their best. But economics is hard work…. very very hard. Don’t fear though, we finally have someone in the White House that will get us out of the mess created by the Decider.

  • WillyP

    Slides, I do read Kudlow, although I’m not really sure what he’s been smoking lately.

    You don’t paper over bankruptcy and expect things to just continue to hum along. Since we (yes, the United States) is adopting a Grecian model of dealing with recession, and since the Euro is certainly going to collapse in the medium-long term, I’d say we’re pretty screwed.

  • Slide

    The collected wit and wisdom of one, Mark Levin:

    Levin: Harry Reid is “the Mussolini of the Senate,” “one sick man”

    Levin calls health care policies “Hitler-esque”

    Levin calls Sen. Blanche Lincoln “a detestable menace who has no substance, no core”

    Levin: Al Gore is “the Jim Jones of the environmental movement”

    Mark Levin calls Bill Maher a “little dwarf moron”

    Levin to Judge Judy, “the biggest-mouthed yenta on the face of the Earth”: “Shut up, you idiot”

    Mark Levin to Palin: “You’re absolutely right about” “death panels”

    Levin “disgusted” with Holder — worse than Nixon AG John Mitchell — for “undermining our national security”

    Levin on FBN’s Imus: “[E]gomaniac” Obama went to China because he’s “visiting all the regimes that he admires”

    Levin fixates on Sen. Akaka’s name: “isn’t an Akaka one of the banned words? Maybe not, but it just sounds bad…not to be confused with Macaca”

    Levin rants against environmentalism: ” ‘Oh, we want clean air and clean water.’ And what does that mean? Poverty!”

    Levin: President Obama “has aggressively undertaken to destroy this society like no president in my lifetime”

    Levin attacks “Trotsky-like” CNN over Dobbs’ departure

    Oh I could go on and on but like I said, very entertaining. But if the conservative movement wants to be taken seriously he ain’t helping.

  • WillyP

    considering that Sinz is 50% of Frum’s audience, I wouldn’t say he’s much helping in the “taken seriously” department.

  • mpolito

    How often, I wonder, do these liberal magazines condemn Olbermann? And Ed Schultz? It is kind of silly to pick Michael Moore as an example and not look at other people too. We do not know if NR or similar magazines would condemn a conservative film, as you may know, such films are few and far between. We do not have nearly all of Hollywood lecturing the country about the virtues of our politics, the way liberals do.

    Slide: have you ever actually voted for a Republican? Do you plan to vote for Republicans in the fall? You do know what the point of this website is, right?

  • franco 2

    Slide,

    Thanks for all the Levin quotes. Are you saying he’s wrong? Just wondering…

    “I guess franco’s first sentence calling someone a name (“silly little dweeb”) kinda gives you the indication that he would be a Levin fan.”

    Not necessarily. If I had called Noah a clown and compared him to a fat-slob hypocrite liar like Michael Moore I might be getting my own column at Frum Forum….

  • LFC

    We do not know if NR or similar magazines would condemn a conservative film, as you may know, such films are few and far between.

    Here’s a favorable review at NRO for “Expelled”, an absolute joke of a film.

    I watched about half of it. It was obvious in the first 10 minutes I saw that the writers knew almost nothing about science and the scientific method. It was pure dreck that attempted to conflate science and belief. Pathetic.

  • LFC

    Slide, while there are a few Levin quotes there that show him to be factually challenged, most just prove him to be a maximum douche (for those of you who are fans of Robot Chicken).

  • Slide

    mpolito // May 6, 2010 at 4:31 pm “Slide: have you ever actually voted for a Republican? Do you plan to vote for Republicans in the fall? You do know what the point of this website is, right?”

    Yes
    No
    Yes

    The purpose of this website is “dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.”

    I am all for that. You see, I’m a firm believer in the two party system. I think our democracy works best when we have two opposing points of view. We don’t have that right now as far as I am concerned. The Republican party has, in my opinion, turned into something that I see as very dangerous. Any party that is unwilling to push back against the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannity’s and Levins of the world scares me. Any party which would select Sarah Palin to be it’s vice presidential nominee concerns me. We need a viable Republican party so we can once again be debating ideas and not whetherthere are death panels or if Obama is a socialist, or where Obama was born. The basic dishonesty of the GOP is startling. Oh, I know all politicians shade the truth from time to time, but this seems to be on an order of magnitude, quite different. For the sake of our democracy I want to see a revised GOP and conservative movement even though I am a liberal. It is not only Republicans or conservatives that should have an interest in that.

    So for all of these reasons I very much have an interest in seeing a healthy Republican party and conservative movement. I disagree with David Frum on many issues but I respect his honesty and the civility of his discourse. I therefore want to support him and engage him by participating in his website.

    As far as my every supporting Republicans, I come from a state (NY) that had many moderate Republicans that no longer could exist in the current Republican party. Nelson Rockefeller, Mayor John Lindsey

  • WillyP

    Slide,
    Well-meaning, but oh so, so, so misguided.

    We could have elected a 5th grader and been better off than we are now.

  • Noah Kristula-Green

    @LFC – had no idea about that NRO review of “expelled”! Fantastic find!

  • mlindroo

    Franco 2, on Mark Levin:

    > a man who has never had to retract any statement he’s made in hundreds of hours of
    > extemporaneous speech.

    What?

    Surely you must be aware of fellow conservative Jim Manzi’s devastating yet polite critique of Levin’s numerous global warming-related factual errors in “Liberty and Tyranny”? Levin never posted a detailed point-by-point response in NATIONAL REVIEW, but instead launched a tirade against Manzi.

    MARCU$

  • sparty

    William Palumbo:

    “We could have elected a 5th grader and been better off than we are now.”

    I know some 5th graders that might argue that a 348 point drop in the DOW is “bitter vindication” of their inane political “philosophy.”

    I think you might find a much more receptive audience (akin to that of a 5th grader, perhaps) to your well-thought out arguments at Townhall.com, redstate.com, or Imabitterignoranthick.com.

  • franco 2

    mlindroo // May 6, 2010 at 6:21 pm,

    Liberty, Tyranny, and the Globe [Mark Levin]

    I don’t know Jim Manzi, but given his out-of-nowhere rant, you’d think I ran over his dog or something. Feel free to read my book, and the chapter Manzi distorts and cherry-picks, yourself. You don’t need Manzi to interpret it. He’s no true expert on the subject, nor is he logical or coherent in his post. Indeed, he’s a very, very angry advocate of open and well-reasoned debate!

    His style of argument here reminds me of that of Andrew Sullivan, for whom Manzi has the highest regard. Which makes me wonder: Since Manzi has appointed himself the umpire around here, will he call out Sullivan for his continuing obsession with Trig Palin in equally harsh terms? Call it the lunacy it is, or even call it “wingnuttery”? At the very least, Manzi is guilty of “epistemic one-sidededness.”

    Here are the facts: There is an enormous amount of fraud and politics involved in global-warming science, some of which I mention in the chapter, much of which I didn’t have room to, and none of which Manzi acknowledges. But the research and evidence are available and extensive. I touch on it as best one can in a book that is not focused exclusively on the subject.

    I would also encourage you to look at the petition Manzi disparages, having, I’m sure, carefully reviewed the qualifications of each and every expert listed, as he dismisses the entire lot of them. He mentions that 20,000 of the signatories don’t have doctorates. But more than 9,000 do.

    Even so, that alone is not the standard. Reading his post, one would think they’re all a bunch of kooks and frauds. He knows this because Scientific American did the hard work of taking a small sample of the group and contacting them. Now, how scientific is that? Global-warming bloggers have unfairly attacked this petition relentlessly. Manzi simply repeats the mantra. He even refers to the phony names on the list, which he hopes will degrade the effort, without realizing that global-warming zealots are responsible for inserting them. How embarrassing.

    The true believers used to cite Mann’s hockey-stick curve as conclusive evidence of man-made global warming. The graph has been demonstrated a fraud, as I point out in the chapter. They used to cite the U.N.’s IPCC findings. The panel is not scientific and its findings have become a joke, requiring the IPCC to try and save face by amending them. Manzi doesn’t talk about the temperature stations, of which there has been a great deal of research and criticism. What about Hansen’s models and recent “errors” in temperature reporting? Manzi ignores it, as he must.

    Manzi mocks some of the experts cited in my chapter, dismissing them as few and inconsequential. Actually, they are very serious and substantive experts. And I mention and cite more than three. There are many others available to anyone who wants to look, but I chose to mention them for space-limitation purposes. But notice the pattern: Manzi mocked the long list of experts as well. So, I reference too few experts? Too many experts? Not the right experts?

    Manzi provides us with his own list of authorities — a list of impressive-sounding and -seeming groups. As I began going through a “sample” of their findings, I noticed many of them were saying the same things and citing the same information. Could it be that Manzi, having lectured about basic research and mocked Google (Manzi’s good at mocking), actually came up with his list from Wikipedia?

    Well, that’s what he did. Check it out here. It states that there are 32 academies that conclude man-made global warming is a threat that requires international action, among them the academies of Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Uganda, all of which are undoubtedly top shelf. I can’t understand why Manzi excluded them from his authoritative list.

    Contrary to another of Manzi’s assertions, I make no references to conspiracies in the book, although, thanks to scores of news reports a few months back, we now know that some very notable global-warming authorities did, in fact, destroy raw data and manipulate other data to advance the global-warming argument — as Manzi might put it if he were intellectually honest, they “colluded across decades and continents to fool gullible” policymakers. Among them is Prof. Phil Jones (who, Manzi will be glad to know, has a doctorate), who had to step down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Jones now claims that there has been no global warming since 1995. What a fickle bunch. Manzi didn’t mention any of this in his post, although he cleverly implies that anyone who isn’t epistemically open to their hoax must be wearing a tin-foil hat and obsessing over the Queen of England and the Trilateral Commission. Very compelling stuff.

    In depicting global-warming doubters as lunatics, Manzi scoffs that they are at odds with the entire global scientific establishment. Manzi’s use of “entire global scientific establishment” is tellingly misleading. He uses that term to avoid saying what global-warming zealots used to say — “consensus.” The fact is that there is none. As I wrote in the chapter, “There is no consensus that man has influenced the earth’s temperature or that the earth’s temperature is warmer now than in past periods. And even if there were a consensus, science is not about majority rule.” So, where is this representation by the “entire global scientific establishment”?

    Moreover, as I wrote further, MIT professor Richard Lindzen, whom Manzi approves of, classified “scientific consensus” respecting global warming as “unscientific.” But it is the global-warming alarmists who seek to cut off debate, which, again, I explain in the chapter. It’s quite remarkable to be accused of “epistemic closure” when it is Manzi who clings to a list of academies and others who insist with certitude that the end is near and we must act now no matter the cost. (By the way, here’s Lindzen in today’s Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed entitled “Climate Science In Denial — Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day.”)

    Manzi also cannot comprehend why I would dare mention that in the 1970s, scientists were warning of global cooling and the coming Ice Age. Don’t I think that these scientists are also aware of what was said back then, he muses? Well, let’s see, could it be that the science remains as inexact or bogged down by politics today as it did then? And what if we as a society had acted on the bad information promulgated only three decades ago? That’s another debate Manzi doesn’t want to have.
    ________________________________________________________________

    I think that’s a pretty comprehensive rebuttal.

  • franco 2

    Slide,

    “So for all of these reasons I very much have an interest in seeing a healthy Republican party and conservative movement. I disagree with David Frum on many issues but I respect his honesty and the civility of his discourse. I therefore want to support him and engage him by participating in his website.

    As far as my every supporting Republicans, I come from a state (NY) that had many moderate Republicans that no longer could exist in the current Republican party. Nelson Rockefeller, Mayor John Lindsey”

    I have have heard all this before here, I want a viable debate blah blah. You just want to have all the debates on your terms, with your assumptions accepted at the outset. You are obviously a partisan. Noithing wrong with that. You are a faithful Democrat. Sure y’all like all the dead Republicans. They always get elevated once they are off the battlefield.

    Meanwhile there are PLENTY of moderate Republicans in NY Pataki? Bloomberg, (I want to puke but he IS a “Republican”, no?) ) Guilliani (pro abortion, pro gay marriage, dresses in drag) So your citing Rockefeller and Lindsay (did you vote for either of them?) and your nostalgia for the past is duly noted, but you are a Democrat and you will always vote D. What you want is to rig the game in such a way that the debate always falls in your pscological comfort zone, and for both candidates to be basically for what you want so when you lose from time to time, you don’t lose too much.

    Yeah, I want the same thing from Democrats. I want them to debate me on my terms and I want them to stop pushing their extreme and dangerous policies. If they would just give up on the Socialism push and stop trying to understand our enemies – (or actually try to REALLY understand our enemies) then the USA would be much better off. But is that going to happen? No. So they will be defeated at the polls in 2010 quite badly, I predict.

  • Slide

    franco 2: “You just want to have all the debates on your terms, with your assumptions accepted at the outset”

    guilty as charged. I do want my assumptions accepted. Some of my assumptions: that I love my country as much as anybody; that Obama loves his country and is doing what he thinks is best for it’s future; that while having differing approaches to terrorism, Obama is doing what he thinks best to protect our nation; that Obama is not a Marxist, Socialist or Nazi; that Obama is the legitimate President of the United States of America and not an illegal allien;

    Yeah I can go on and on as to the type of assumptions I expect for rational debate. Sorry to be so selfish but I really don’t think I’m asking for too much, do you?

  • franco 2

    Slide,

    Are you trying to say that the argument lies between calling Obama names like nazi and claiming he wasn’t born in the USA or that he isn’t trying to do what he thinks is right for the country (whatever that means) and that you personally are not a patriot, and one of general policies? Because it’s not.

    Perhaps that is what you would like it to be. In fact it probably is, considering I’ve said nothing like this, and you are making this stuff up. It’s actually the reverse of what you are accusing Republicans of, isn’t it? You are saying they are, in effect, all birthers and irresponsible name-callers and bigots of the patriotic sort. Are you not simply calling US names by this pathetic posturing? Yes, I think you are.

    Your position, as stated here is narrow, arrogant and snide.

    No the assumptions are fundamentally how much power do we want to give to the state. What about property rights and the rights of individuals. What really is, or lies behind “social justice “theories and where does “social justice” start and end.

    As to socialism. Obama claims he is not one (I think). He also said a lot of other things that he is, and is not, and would and wouldn’t do. But I really don’t know WHAT he is at this point.He doesn’t seem to be a vigorous free-market capitalist that’s for sure. His policies and the people he surrounds himself with DO clearly wish to move this country even farther toward a Socialist Democracy which I believe is quite dangerous.

    But back to you Slide. You come to this moderate site. I mean, this post is a full-on bash of the National Review Magazine and a smear of Mark Levin, and there’s plenty else more here, and you STILL trot out the most stark caricatures of your opponents, lamenting the days of Rockefeller and John Lindsay and pretending today’s GOPers are all apoplectic fear-mongers. (BTW what were their positions on gay marriage? my guess is that they were against it)

    So how do I know you are being disingenuous? Because you and others don’t say anything like, “Gee, there are lots of reasonable Republicans writing on this site” And let it end there. You say, “too bad the majority of your party are all birthers making irresponsible charges about Obama and calling him and me unpatriotic, heh,heh, but we need a two-party system, blah blah and so blah blah.” It’s quite old here.

    So what kind of person does this? Is this some kind of open-to- debate Democrat who may be willing to someday vote for a Republican candidate? No. A partisan hack who likes to demonize his opponents = pretty much exactly what you are accusing the fringe elements of the Republican party of doing.

    And this is why the moderate wing of the GOP is wrong. They are wrong to court these voters like “slide”. First they are not who they say they are, and second, it’s like trying to put on more Old Spice to get that pretty lesbian chick to notice you…

  • Slide

    franco 2, wow, what a complete inability to understand what I am saying. Is that just a comprehension problem on your part or are you willfully trying to misrepresent my positions?

    I am not going to rehash this over and over again. Anyone that can read, without the truly partisan glasses that you apparently wear, can understand what I am saying. I was not accusing YOU of saying that Obama was a Nazi or that I was not patriotic, but that one cannot civilly debate “policies” if that baseline of respect is non-existent. Mark Levin is a perfect example. Do you listen to his radio program? The vile invective he hurls at ANYONE that disagrees with him is truly amazing. And his insults have nothing to do with the correctness or fallacy of any “policy” arguments, it has to do with the opposition’s basic patriotism. You see, in Levin’s eyes, Obama and Liberals hate American and want to see her fail. As absurd as that sounds, it is what is said, in many different ways, over and over again.

    How can anyone debate that? How can anyone even sit down to discuss the issues if that is how the opposition feels. Now you ask do I think ALL Republican and/or conservatives behave that way? Of course not but the whole point of this thread, and much much discussion ON THE RIGHT currently revolves around the failure of the right to denounce and distance themselves from this garbage.

    David Frum is a perfect example of that. He is rather ostracized because he dares criticize Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. The attacks on Manzi, the unwillingness of nearly ANY supposed mainstream Republican to push back against Limbaugh’s crazy utterances again tells me that the Republican party has moved to a place where dialogue and debate is no longer worth the effort. They are currently all about power and the way the see getting power is to make sure Obama fails, no matter what that means for the country.

    You say I am disingenuous because, “don’t say anything like, “Gee, there are lots of reasonable Republicans writing on this site” And let it end there. You say, “too bad the majority of your party are all birthers making irresponsible charges about Obama and calling him and me unpatriotic, heh,heh, but we need a two-party system, blah blah and so blah blah.”

    But I did say that there are reasonable Republicans. I mentioned David by name but in doing so I am talking about a whole lot of Republicans that are as frustrated as I am about where the GOP is right now. There may be many Republicans that are moderate and reasonable but at this point in time they are being intimidated by the rest of you all. How many apologies can I recount of Republicans grovelling to Limbaugh after they many have mildly criticized him? Why is that? Why is it that John McCain has flip flopped on everything he once believed in because he has to fit in with the extreme right wing crowd or lose a primary in Arizona. Repeat, YOUR presidential nominee is in a life and death struggle in his state against a right wing birther talk show host. If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know what is wrong with your party now I don’t know what does.

    And you are wrong when you say, “And this is why the moderate wing of the GOP is wrong. They are wrong to court these voters like “slide”. First they are not who they say they are, and second, it’s like trying to put on more Old Spice to get that pretty lesbian chick to notice you…”

    David is NOT trying to “court” voters like me. I am an admitted liberal. It is unlikely that we would be on the same side of many policy positions. What David is trying to court are the Republicans that are disgusted with the Levin type discourse, which was once considered “fringe” entertainment, but now is what passes for conservative mainstream thinking as evidenced by the support he received from NRO when he was rebuked by one of their own. That is the whole point of this thread if you hadn’t caught it?

    Viva Revolution franco 2. Good luck to you and your tea-bagging brothers.

  • jquintana

    franco 2: “Is this some kind of open-to- debate Democrat who may be willing to someday vote for a Republican candidate? No. A partisan hack who likes to demonize his opponents = pretty much exactly what you are accusing the fringe elements of the Republican party of doing.

    And this is why the moderate wing of the GOP is wrong. They are wrong to court these voters like “slide”. First they are not who they say they are, and second, it’s like trying to put on more Old Spice to get that pretty lesbian chick to notice you…”

    Right on target, franco…this intention of this site is about the debate between moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans, and the battle for the soul of the party and what it should look like in the future. Unfortunately, we waste way too much time on this site arguing with leftist nut cases (who migrated over from the Daily Kos or Moveon.org) with whom we already KNOW we disagree. People like slide are nothing more than pain-in-the-ass distractions, and they’re here to do just that, but the temptation to expose them for the idiots they are is too great.

    slide: “David is NOT trying to “court” voters like me. I am an admitted liberal.”

    So, what the fuck ARE you doing here?

  • Slide

    Don’t make the mistake that because I am a liberal I am a partisan Democrat. I have tremendous problems with the Democratic party but right now, because if where the GOP is, I have no other options. I want to be able to support a Republican candidate (and yes I have voted for Republicans in the past) if he or she is the better candidate. You are also making the mistake about this just being about moderate and conservative Republicans. It about honesty (death panels, Obama wanted the oil spill, FEMA concentration camps, Obama’s birth, finance reform being a “bail out bill”, Obama is a Muslim, etc. etc.). This is not about ideology but about honesty.

  • franco 2

    “Any party that is unwilling to push back against the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannity’s and Levins of the world scares me. Any party which would select Sarah Palin to be it’s vice presidential nominee concerns me. We need a viable Republican party so we can once again be debating ideas and not whetherthere are death panels or if Obama is a socialist, or where Obama was born. The basic dishonesty of the GOP is startling. ”

    ” …that Obama loves his country and is doing what he thinks is best for it’s future; that while having differing approaches to terrorism, Obama is doing what he thinks best to protect our nation; that Obama is not a Marxist, Socialist or Nazi; that Obama is the legitimate President of the United States of America and not an illegal allien;

    Not one of these talk show hosts has claimed Obama is not a citizen, Coulter may have joked about it , I don’t know or care…don’t make me go find quotes comedians have made about Bush…

    Palin claimed the Health Care Plan could lead to the existence of “Death Panels” Funny, there was a provision that Democrats struck out because of that. And by the way, mental midget…that’s what you call Levin which is really funny since he’s a genius…your Democratic Party would never name their “Death Panel” a death panel. They are very good at calling things what they are not. You mental midget Democrats can’t see how once you’ve given over your money/power to someone, especially if they have weapons like the government, that they can do whatever they PLEASE with you and your money. They would name it a “Life Commission” or a “Life Quality Panel” and you idiots would say “See there are no death panels, move along”. I’m not a huge fan of Palin, she’s not the kind of conservative that is rooted in abstractions but she has good instincts, and she’s smarter than you Democrats in that she UNDERSTANDS basic economics and how bureaucracies operate over time.

    As to the charge of socialism. It really depends on your definition of that term. The way I define “socialist” he is. And socialists aren’t nazis or marxists and they aren’t necessarily totalitarians or mean-spirited, there are plenty in Europe who have the same goals as Obama and proudly call themselves socialists. Obama hasn’t defended himself from this charge one iota. He just wants to pretend it’s a bad word his enemies are hurling at him and tell them to stop.

    But seriously dude. Do you not know the goals of ACORN? Are you unaware of today’s union bosses and what they want to bring about. Why does Bernie Sanders, admitted Socialist vote and caucus with Democrats? If socialist is such a bad word why does no one renounce him? They all seem to agree quite a lot, I have to say.

    Do you not realize that the bailout of GM and Chrysler was a very “socialistic” reaction. Obama did that because the UAW and nearly each and every union in the country are his die-hard supporters and give him money. Well, the UAW has a Health Care package and a pension package that the idiots in the boardrooms of those automakers agreed to, and when their profits went south because they negotiated into territory they could not sustain over time they were about to fail. Obama steps in, uses US taxpayer funds to prop them up so the union guys still have jobs and pensions and health care. That’s socialism dude. Then they have the temerity to claim that GM “paid back” the money when really they borrowed that money from the stimulus funds! It is unbelievable! But you whistle merrily along and pretend “socialism” is some kind of bad word and everything is hunky-dory because Democrats are in office. But you don’t really know what socialism is, you are going to run to a dictionary or wikipedia and give me some kind of antiquated rigid definition…whatever dude…if it isn’t “socialism” it is something wrong, unfair and dangerous call it “Obamanism” I don’t care. Regulating salaries of private industry, what do you call that? Making statements like “At some point you have enough money..”

    So you argue by throwing a lot of false charges at people and then smear them all together, conflate “birther” “socialist” “nazi” ” illegal alien” and pretend like you are willing to have a rational debate.

    “Why is it that John McCain has flip flopped on everything he once believed in because he has to fit in with the extreme right wing crowd or lose a primary in Arizona. Repeat, YOUR presidential nominee is in a life and death struggle in his state against a right wing birther talk show host. If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know what is wrong with your party now I don’t know what does.”

    How do you know what John McCain believed in? I certainly don’t know what the man has ever believed in save for a few basic concepts…
    Oh, and slide, don’t call myself a Republican, I’m a conservative/libertarian, a classical liberal fits somewhat. I didn’t vote for McCain and I say that proudly. I don’t particularly like him and I don’t like how the GOP nominated him. I am a free-market capitalist that welcomes government regulations and laws – but not too many. In fact the market must be fair, so it is essential that markets and industry be regulated and laws enforced. Do you know that fully half of today’s problems stem from LACK of ENFORCEMENT from the US government? The SEC didn’t do proper oversight, these people think making laws solves problems…well, they are doing a really bad job of it because they are creating problems almost faster than they can solve them, and perversely this empoweres them especially statists in both parties. There is plenty of blame to go around at Republicans too. They aren’t a party that is in any way immune from corruption, but at this point it’s like the Democrats are the mob running a whole network of crime, while Republicans get caught here and there doing petty crimes and occasionally holding up a bank (while the mob controls the bank) I’m fully aware that the situation can reverse itself, which is why I’m against electing certain Republicans, because they can be as bad as Democrats. I actually could favor a Democrat over a Republican in some circumstances.

    The birther argument is another strawman. It is used way too much by YOUR side as a reason to dismiss ANY charge. The fact is there are very few on the right who really care at this point. But funny, why is it such a problem? Well it really isn’t but Democrats use it to protect their fragile psycologies from confronting other more apropriate debates. They dismiss arguments exactly the way you do attack words, label those people who use the words and smear it all together and smugly walk away.

    This is why your comments deserve my contempt.

  • franco 2

    Don’t make the mistake that because I am a liberal I am a partisan Democrat. I have tremendous problems with the Democratic party but right now, because if where the GOP is, I have no other options. I want to be able to support a Republican candidate (and yes I have voted for Republicans in the past) if he or she is the better candidate. You are also making the mistake about this just being about moderate and conservative Republicans. It about honesty (death panels, Obama wanted the oil spill, FEMA concentration camps, Obama’s birth, finance reform being a “bail out bill”, Obama is a Muslim, etc. etc.). This is not about ideology but about honesty.

    Dude…. these are really fringe charges mixed in with legitimate charges. There is some wild speculation, some reports of this or that, but these things (FEMA camps, Obama being muslim…birther…they keep coming)…why do you insist on smearing the whole GOP with these things? Are you just getting your news from Kieth Olberman and the Nation magazine? Really….

  • sinz54

    jquintana: So, what the fuck ARE you doing here?
    If we can’t defend our ideas before Democrats here on this NG,

    how can we expect to defend our ideas before Democrats in political campaigns and political debates before elections?

    And if our ideas are flawed, then how can we hope to achieve effective governance?

    One of the problems I see with the conservative movement today is that it doesn’t bother to see if its ideas can withstand scrutiny and criticism. It doesn’t seem to care, believing that sound-bites and base turnout are all you need to win elections. And it doesn’t seem to care if it knows how to govern either.

    It’s better to find out that Dems have an effective line of attack against our ideas here on this NG, then wait for them to spring that line of attack in October just one month before the election.

    The same thing is true on the Left. The Internet has become balkanized–you’ve got political blogs as echo chambers, each for a specific point of view. Anyone else is not welcome. I’ve been banned from several, just because I tried to honorably dissent from the moderator’s point of view. The only competition in ideas on such blogs is to see who can post the most extreme positions.

    That’s why Frum welcomes all points of view as long as they’re not outright trolls–and I agree with him.

    I know I’ve learned a lot from tangling with “balconesfault” and other liberals here on this NG.

  • franco 2

    http://www.slate.com/id/2102723

    For a real critique of Moore from a leftist and intellectually honest man , Christopher Hitchens in Slate.

    Moore is in his own league and completely different animal than Limbaugh and Levin. If you vehemently disagree with them that’s fine, if you object to their “tone” their jokes their politics…fine, but to say Levin is anything like Michael Moore is absolutely imbecilic. Someone like “Slide” here can make these kind of feeble conflations but for someone who is supposed to be writing for David Frum on his blog…not acceptable…not at all.

  • LFC

    Posted Lovingly by Franco2… Liberty, Tyranny, and the Globe [Mark Levin]

    Oh, where to begin…

    I don’t know Jim Manzi, but given his out-of-nowhere rant…

    Oh, not even a full sentence and it’s a swing and a miss! It was not a rant. It was well written and the tone was one of frustration with the factually challenged Mark Levin.

    You don’t need Manzi to interpret it. He’s no true expert on the subject, nor is he logical or coherent in his post. Indeed, he’s a very, very angry advocate of open and well-reasoned debate!

    Snort, chortle. Manzi, who has been follow AGW for years and in detail is no expert, but Levin, who doesn’t seem to be up on anything other than discredited rumors IS apparently an expert in his own mind. And Manzi wasn’t angry, he was effectively destructive of Levin.

    His style of argument here reminds me of that of Andrew Sullivan, for whom Manzi has the highest regard.

    You know, those damnable facts and reason people.

    Which makes me wonder: Since Manzi has appointed himself the umpire around here, will he call out Sullivan for his continuing obsession with Trig Palin in equally harsh terms? Call it the lunacy it is, or even call it “wingnuttery”? At the very least, Manzi is guilty of “epistemic one-sidededness.”

    While Sullivan is certainly consistent on that topic, he has not said anything false about it … unlike Levin and AGW. He said that the whole thing looks awfully odd, and he’s right. She flew to Texas when she was 8 months pregnant with a known Down’s Syndrome child, which are known to experience a higher risk of birth problems. Her water broke and she gave her speech, flew on two planes to AK, rode in a car from Anchorage to Wasilla, and then gave birth. What mother who gave a s*** about her unborn child would would do that?

    And for consistency sake, she made totally unsourced charges when running for mayor and demanded the marriage certificate of her opponent. Why won’t she now show us Trig’s birth certificate? I guess it’s a case of “do as I say…”

    Here are the facts: There is an enormous amount of fraud and politics involved in global-warming science…

    Much of it from the skeptic side and repeated by the likes of Levin.

    I would also encourage you to look at the petition Manzi disparages, having, I’m sure, carefully reviewed the qualifications of each and every expert listed, as he dismisses the entire lot of them. He mentions that 20,000 of the signatories don’t have doctorates. But more than 9,000 do.

    Sooooooo, what does that mean? A doctorate in English Lit or Theology is meaningless. An honest person (not Levin) would want to know how many climate scientists were skeptics. You know, people (unlike himself) who can actually understand the peer reviewed literature.

    Reading his post, one would think they’re all a bunch of kooks and frauds.

    Another lie. He said there were about 200 climate scientists on the list.

    He knows this because Scientific American did the hard work of taking a small sample of the group and contacting them. Now, how scientific is that?

    Sampling is highly scientific, something Levin can’t understand because he obviously has no understanding of science. Levin’s idea of being scientific is that he simply accepts the signatures on the petition completely unchecked and cites the number. How scientific is that? Not at all. Levin falls flat on his face again.

    Global-warming bloggers have unfairly attacked this petition relentlessly. Manzi simply repeats the mantra. He even refers to the phony names on the list, which he hopes will degrade the effort, without realizing that global-warming zealots are responsible for inserting them. How embarrassing.

    Manzi cites real attempts to verify the list and Levin calls that a “mantra”? Pathetic. He said Manzi refers to the phony names and then blames them (without evidence) on “global-warming zealots” and follows up with the tut-tut of “how embarrassing”. Hey, jackass! You cited the ENTIRE LIST, including the false names, without any caveats. If you had any scruples, you’d be completely embarrassed. Once again, Levin looks like a fool as he tries to hold his total lack of standards up against Manzi’s use of evidence.

    The true believers used to cite Mann’s hockey-stick curve as conclusive evidence of man-made global warming. The graph has been demonstrated a fraud, as I point out in the chapter.

    This is an out and out lie by Levin. Plus the same pattern has been repeated by multiple other scientists using different techniques. Any skeptic bring up the old hockey stick controversy needs to leave the discussion immediately. Mark, you are simply a liar when you repeat this junk.

    They used to cite the U.N.’s IPCC findings. The panel is not scientific and its findings have become a joke, requiring the IPCC to try and save face by amending them.

    First, he’s lying. The IPCC is still viewed as one of the top sources of information on this topic by scientists. Only political hacks like Levin call them a joke because they are incapable of scientifically rebutting them.

    Second, if Levin knew anything about science he’d understand that amendments are a good thing. They are corrections, addition of new information, etc. Do these amendments throw away all the information the IPCC presented? No, but a liar would never tell you that. In Levin’s world, if something is created and later improved, it’s invalid.

    I wonder if Levin repeated the Himalayan glacier lie in his book too.

    Manzi doesn’t talk about the temperature stations, of which there has been a great deal of research and criticism. What about Hansen’s models and recent “errors” in temperature reporting? Manzi ignores it, as he must.

    Do these “errors”, corrections, and improved data turn all of the science on it’s head? NO! Again, political hackery instead of understand how science works.

    Manzi mocks some of the experts cited in my chapter, dismissing them as few and inconsequential.

    And he was brutally effective at that.

    Actually, they are very serious and substantive experts. And I mention and cite more than three. There are many others available to anyone who wants to look, but I chose to mention them for space-limitation purposes.

    If there are so many “experts” to choose from, why the f*** did you choose “an associate professor of astrophysics, a geologist, and an astronaut” rather than, you know, a CLIMATE SCIENTIST? Well, probably because you couldn’t find one that said what you wanted to them to say.

    But notice the pattern: Manzi mocked the long list of experts as well. So, I reference too few experts? Too many experts? Not the right experts?

    Of the “long list”, most are not experts. You referenced zero actual experts, so definitely too few. “Not the right experts?”. No. You cited no experts. Zero. None. Nada. Am I gettin’ through that concrete block you call a head, Mark?

    Manzi provides us with his own list of authorities — a list of impressive-sounding and -seeming groups.

    “Impressive-sounding and -seeming?” Really? You mean like the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins are “impressive-sounding and -seeming” medical research facilities? The hackery blossoms. As has been posted at FF multiple times, the list is actually very impressive, if you believe in science. If you believe in your preconceived notions as Levin obviously does, then the actual accomplishments and knowledge of these organizations means nothing.

    As I began going through a “sample” of their findings, I noticed many of them were saying the same things and citing the same information.

    I’m sure he read a scientific sampling of the IPCC report and all of the other literature that has been produced in the past decade. And I’m sure he’s qualified to quantify the research done. Snort. Chortle.

    Well, that’s what he did. Check it out here. It states that there are 32 academies that conclude man-made global warming is a threat that requires international action, among them the academies of Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Uganda, all of which are undoubtedly top shelf.

    Soooooo, if the scientific academies of Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Uganda agree with the top scientific bodies of the largest industrialized nations of the world, that somehow negates the research? Dude, WTF??? Are you a moron? This argument is beyond stupid and has crossed well over the line into nonsensical.

    I can’t understand why Manzi excluded them from his authoritative list.

    Because you are stupid, or you are such a hack that you actually think that your moronic equivalence is “clever” … which of course brings us back to you being stupid.

    Hey, Markie Mark. Do ya’ think that maybe … just maybe … Manzi didn’t cite those examples because he had a vastly better set to choose from. Unlike you, Mark, he picked the best of the best to make his list. When you made a list of “experts”, you picked three people with no apparent qualifications whatsoever. Of course, you may have actually done exactly what Manzi did, and those three were simply your cream of your crop.

    Contrary to another of Manzi’s assertions, I make no references to conspiracies in the book, although, thanks to scores of news reports a few months back, we now know that some very notable global-warming authorities did, in fact, destroy raw data and manipulate other data to advance the global-warming argument — as Manzi might put it if he were intellectually honest, they “colluded across decades and continents to fool gullible” policymakers.

    No raw data was “destroyed” because the “global-warming authorities” (ooooooh, scary stuff) didn’t own the data to begin with. Again, an outright lie by Levin. The data is still available from the original sources who actually own it though, in some (many?) cases, it has to be paid for if you want to access it (just like CRU did, and they have no right to redistribute it). Nothing has been “destroyed”. It’s a flat out lie.

    Among them is Prof. Phil Jones (who, Manzi will be glad to know, has a doctorate), who had to step down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

    And has now been cleared of the political witchhunt.

    Jones now claims that there has been no global warming since 1995.

    Another outright lie by Levin.

    This is a perfect illustration of why scientists don’t want to talk to global warming skeptics. It’s not it’s some vast worldwide conspiracy to hide some supposed secret information (that they all have) that doesn’t make their case. It’s because political hacks take their scientific statements, twist them into something they aren’t, and then repeat the LIES ad nauseum. How many times do these scientists have to watch their peers get misquoted, misinterpreted, lied about, cherry-picked, and dishonestly handled in general by the agenda-driven right wingnuts before they decide not to talk to them? The stream of lies created and then repeated by the likes of Levin have turned into a raging torrent.

    [OK, I've had enough of shooting fish in a barrel.]

    I think that’s a pretty comprehensive rebuttal.

    That’s because you believe anything Mark Levin tells you without checking the facts. It was a wretched rebuttal filled with lies and discredited rumors.

  • Slide

    franco 2 // May 7, 2010 at 10:05 am “Not one of these talk show hosts has claimed Obama is not a citizen, Coulter may have joked about it , I don’t know or care…don’t make me go find quotes comedians have made about Bush…”

    Ok, we’re making progress. So you equate the Coulter’s, Hannity’s, Limbaugh’s and Beck’s of the world to comedians? That is my point. Your political movement seems to have a hell of a lot of “comedians” that are leading you lemming like over the cliff.

    franco 2 // May 7, 2010 at 10:05 am “your Democratic Party would never name their “Death Panel” a death panel. They are very good at calling things what they are not.”

    Thanks franco for making my point. franco here believe that the democratic bill on HCR had “death panels” which would sit in judgment as to whether grandma or your handicapped child should live or die. What moronic stupidity. Thanks again franco, luv ya.

    franco 2 // May 7, 2010 at 10:05 am “How do you know what John McCain believed in? I certainly don’t know what the man has ever believed in save for a few basic concepts…”

    You’re right. Just because McCain supported campaign finance reform and a comprehensive immigration reform doesn’t mean necessarily that he actually believed in those things. We should know better than to take a Republican at their word. I am duly corrected.

    franco 2 // May 7, 2010 at 10:05 am “Regulating salaries of private industry, what do you call that? ”

    So Nixon was a socialist. He implemented Wage and Price controls. Just trying to understand your definitions. Obama supported and signed HCR that mandated that people purchase insurance from profit making corporations. Wow, if that is socialism I would hate to see what capitalism is.

    franco 2 // May 7, 2010 at 10:05 am “This is why your comments deserve my contempt.”

    Coming from you, that is a badge of honor.