Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Or his total lack of either of those things, to be more precise. Here's the transcript of a conversation Levin had with a caller on his show last week. It starts out fairly pointlessly, but not obnoxiously:
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 --HOST: 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.
And here's where the stupidity, hypocrisy and self-righteousness begins:
HOST: 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.
HOST: (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).
Bear in mind that Levin was a staunch supporter of the Bush administration's policy of housing inmates at Guantanamo Bay and a staunch opponent of every court ruling that allowed those inmates to have any rights whatsoever. He supported the authority of the president to capture people and hold them forever without ever charging them with anything. Yet he goes into cries of self-righteous indignation when someone suggests that the president also has the authority, then, not to do so and to grant them trials and due process. That's the kind of mental gymnastics that takes a real talent for cognitive dissonance to pull off.
But he didn't stop there. To make it even worse, he decided to wrap it all up in a vile personal attack:
HOST: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?CALLER: Yes.
HOST: Well I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.
And this is a guy who gets to write for the National Review. My, how far that publication has fallen.
Politics
Comments
Wow, this is even dumberer than that rant about how to pronounce foreign names. But then, what else did you expect from an organization founded by a guy who made a career of trying to be both pseudo-intellectual and anti-intellectual at the same time?
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 29, 2009 9:26 AM
HOST: (angrily shouting) I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY!
Is the answer "because it contains people like you"?
Posted by: Matty | May 29, 2009 9:29 AM
Levin reminds me of Stephen Fry's portrayal of the Duke of Wellington in Blackadder part III.
Blackadder: "Tell me, do you ever stop bullying and shouting at the lower orders?"
Wellington: "Never! There's only one way to win a campaign: shout, shout and shout again!"
Blackadder: "You don't think then that inspired leadership and tactical ability have anything to do with it?"
Wellington: "Nope! It's all down to shouting! BAAAH!"
Posted by: Imrryr | May 29, 2009 10:03 AM
That parting comment is unacceptable. Why does he still have a job?!?!? OMFG...
The "why do you hate my country" thing is retarded, but it seems to be par for the course for Angry Talk Radio. The "your husband should kill himself" thing is just... wrong. Wow.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 29, 2009 10:12 AM
I once spent a few hours driving to an off-site work meeting with little but rightwing talk radio on the airwaves, and there was this escapee from the asylum ranting and raving about - well, anything that crossed his mind apparently. No rhyme, no reason, just disconnected rant after disconnected rant, like opposing torture made you a traitor, and other gems. I caught the name and asked around at the meeting who this Mark Levin was, only to hear to my astonishment that he was a nationally syndicated talk show host. He's moronic, unprofessional, and aesthetically displeasing. How anyone can listen to him for any length of time boggles the mind.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 29, 2009 10:40 AM
Groups of people should tail him everywhere he goes and shout that constantly.
Posted by: rpsms | May 29, 2009 10:42 AM
This is not the behavior of a rational human being, and not the behavior of someone who belongs in a civilized society. He goes well past stupidity and into some other, darker territory.
Posted by: Raven | May 29, 2009 10:43 AM
I think the much more important question is, why does Mark Levin hate America? Why does he hate this country and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Why does he hate freedom and national security?
Posted by: catgirl | May 29, 2009 10:51 AM
You're surprised by this? The talk station I used to listen to added Levin to its lineup a couple of years ago, replacing the show I usually listened to. For a while, out of inertia and curiosity, I listened. This is how Levin is and what he does on the radio. I eventually got fed up when it was clear that his outbursts were not anomalies.
In any case, whenever a guest starts to score points against him, he pulls the "liberal" or "why do you hate America?" schtick. If that doesn't work, then the ad hominems appear.
Posted by: Orac | May 29, 2009 10:59 AM
Oh, and the "If I were your husband (wife) I'd shoot myself" bit is vintage Levin, one of his favorite ad hominem dismissals of a caller.
Posted by: Orac | May 29, 2009 11:15 AM
This reminds me of the spotlight put on Michael Savage a few years ago when he said to a caller, a gay man:
"You should only get AIDS and die you pig."
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3054136.stm
Check out the link to refresh your memory of his non-apology, which was so vapid it leaves your mind as soon as you read it. Savage was, of course, fired. Will Levin's bosses do the same?
Posted by: Tyler | May 29, 2009 11:39 AM
The difference- and, duh, an important one I see after already posting- is that Levin did not use threatening language directed at the caller. Sneaky.
Posted by: Tyler | May 29, 2009 11:43 AM
Probably the reason to be most concerned: there are people out there absolutely eating this stuff up, pumping their fists and yelling "booyah" or some such while listening to this on the radio...
Posted by: Michael Day | May 29, 2009 12:07 PM
Every time I run across Mark Levin on the radio, I am puzzled why anyone would give a talk program to someone whose voice is so nasal and grating. It's a terrible voice. And one can hardly argue that the clarity of his reasoning or the brilliance of his intellect offset the fingernail-on-blackboard quality of his voice.
One possible explanation is that Mark Levin is Sean Hannity's faithful lackey and the radio program is his reward for quietly ghosting Hannity's books. Has anyone else heard this? Radio stations who want to broadcast Hannity are told that Levin is part of the package deal, so his presence on the airwaves is due to Hannity's clout, not Levin's appeal.
This is just gossip-mongering. I wish I knew if it's true.
Posted by: Zeno | May 29, 2009 12:36 PM
Then we have to explain how Sean Hannity got that kind of cloud and it starts to resemble an infinite loop(iness).
Posted by: Scott Hanley | May 29, 2009 12:51 PM
That's easy. Sean Hannity was Rush Limbaugh's protege. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Hannity was Limbaugh's usual substitute host when he was away. Also, on WABC radio in New York (Rush's home station and the place where he got his start as a nationally syndicated broadcaster), Hannity's radio show immediately followed Limbaugh's every day, making a solid block of right wing talk between noon and 6 PM. Consequently, when Hannity dipped his toe into the syndication pond, lots of stations that carried Limbaugh started found it attractive to carry Hannity right after him.
I'm still rather puzzled why Hannity is so popular, though, second only to Rush Limbaugh. He's really nothing more than Rush Limbaugh without any of Limbaugh's wit and humor. Say what you will about Rush's idiotic politics, he knows how to entertain and hold an audience for three hours, and he can at times be very funny, no matter how infuriating he often is. By comparison, Hannity comes off as Limbaugh's dimmer brother. In any case, these days there's a bit of a rivalry between the two, as Hannity clearly wants to knock Limbaugh off his throne and take over the spot of number one talk radio host in the country.
As for Levin, I agree. His voice is about as grating as it can be. It's irritating to listen to. Add to that his utter lack of anything interesting or insightful to say to make up for his nasal voice and his tendency to rant and insult callers who challenge him, and, far more than the case of Hannity, I just can't figure out how Levin has become so popular as a radio host.
Posted by: Orac | May 29, 2009 1:28 PM
Zeno #14 wrote:
Levin's voice is the audio equivalent of a sneer.
Posted by: James F | May 29, 2009 1:58 PM
This brings to mind a movie I read about, where a Canadian town is subjected to a plague that's spread by talking. Most the the film takes place in the soundbooth of the local talk-radio jerk. Technically it's a zombie film, but it's really about how talk radio melts your brain.
The husband of that caller should sue for threatening language at him.
Posted by: JustaTech | May 29, 2009 2:08 PM
Posted by: Turcano | May 29, 2009 4:05 PM
"I once spent a few hours driving to an off-site work meeting with little but rightwing talk radio on the airwaves..."
This is why I starting burning podcasts to CD and listening to those on my commute. If you have a newer CD player, it'll probably play MP3s on data CDs - which gives you about 20 hours per disc. A great way to listen to Declaring Independence, among other things.
Posted by: BobApril | May 29, 2009 8:06 PM
I'm having trouble believing all these vicar and potato excuses: the radio just happened to be there and my hand slipped...
C'mon, people. Surely you have better things to do. Try hitting yourself on the head with a tea-tray or something.
It's the audience. Them's the real morons. That woman was sorely insulted but by choice.
Posted by: eddie | May 29, 2009 9:30 PM
I think the much more important question is, why does Mark Levin hate America? Why does he hate this country and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Why does he hate freedom and national security?
That's an ironic statement. Levin is kind of a punk on the radio to people, which I do not like, but he understands the Constitution and the Declaration well. His views are by far closer to the Founders vision for America than the garbage our Congressional stooges are pulling.
Posted by: mroberts | May 29, 2009 11:04 PM
Posted by: llewelly | May 30, 2009 5:16 AM
mroberts ignorantly states:
mroberts continues to provide evidence of how easy it is to convince conservatives by way of propaganda when its directed at their preconceived biases.
Here's a review I did of Levin's book where I used conservative jurisprudence methods to destroy the obviously flawed premises of Levin's arguments on the Constitution. Obvious to those that than can think and learn that is.
Levin's grasp of history is on par with David Barton, Pat Boone, and Chuck Norris. I read this book four years ago because at that time I couldn't quite figure out the allure of dysfunctional thinking that was destroying the GOP and I thought at the time damaging our republic (which has since been obviously validated). Levin's book was strongly indicative that mere ignorance was the factor defining Levin's brand of conservatism, but instead outright fraud coupled to the delusion of his audience was in play.
In case you haven't noticed mroberts, the "stooges" in Congress are trying to clean up a mess created by conservatives using conservative ideology to get us to this point, coupled to the sins of past Democrats by their not having the balls to stand up to Republicans on matters where their principles happened to be correct, e.g., regulation of finance, the rule of law, progressive on items such as energy and education - where they procrastinated as well.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 30, 2009 8:07 AM
Michael Heath,
Well written review. I have been reading "The Nine" which really goes into the complexities of interpreting our Founding documents. My 9th graders have been going through all four founding documents to look for the purpose of each. I made them read the documents themselves before they were allowed to employ secondary sources so that idiots like this guy do not use propaganda on them in the guise of Education.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 30, 2009 8:42 AM
This is just more proof that it is impossible to parody right wingers. Stephen Coblert has been rhetorically asking 'why do you hate my country?' for years but I never thought I'd hear someone say it so seriously and with such vitriol.
Posted by: random guy | May 30, 2009 8:44 AM
Here is my review of The Nine. The best two books for the general reader I believe one could read to move beyond mere personalities and jurisprudence of certain justices and move into the actual meaning of the Constitution and its strengths and flaws are Randy Barnett's "Restoring the Lost Constitution" and Sanford Levinson's "Our Undemocratic Constitution"
I didn't link to Barnett's book because we get a max of two links per post without having to go through moderation and Barnett needs no perspective from me to sell his thoughts. The Levinson book is less well-known and really a great book given the author argues in a manner that allows one to disagree with him, which I do often, while still helping one develop their own position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 30, 2009 9:53 AM
I want to conditionally concede one point mroberts made. If mroberts were describing his "stooges of Congress" as merely the Republicans, then I accept his description.
Evidence?
1) Sen. Inhofe denies representative access to scientific theory in the Energy Commitee hearings he chaired in order to describe Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) not as a peer-accepted scientific theory but instead a creation by liberals and foisted on us by Hollywood. A "stooge"? Yes.
2) The House Republicans present an alternative budget which neither had any development from actual economists and no actual numbers in their budget. Seems the people that can do the math have all left the party, leaving them only with talking points which have previously proven to fail. "Stooges"? Yes.
3) The GOP Leader in the House, who is so ignorant on the theory of AGW he believes that science opposes increases in atmospheric CO2 not because it's a greenhouse gas, but according to Boehner, because they describe it as a carcinogen. Boehner also infers that scientists are not aware that CO2 is what we expel when we breathe out while inferring that cows primarily fart CO2 (instead of mostly methane). A "stooge"? Again, yes.
I could go and on, and for every stooge-type action by a Democrat that formally leads their party, I can find three more examples of far worse behavior by Republican leaders.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 30, 2009 10:08 AM
Would that the caller had had the presence of mind to say:
"If I was your wife I'd put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger myself."
-------------------
mroberts:
I often wonder if your time away from this blog is spent having more layers of tinfoil put over your squash or if it's the time that your spending in a locked ward, under psychiatric observation.
In any event; since you delight in raising the same ridiculous arguments every time you visit--despite the repeated refutations and deconstructions of truly intelligent and concerned individuals on these threads (hint: that would not be me)--all I can really do is reply in kind.
STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU.STFU, you willfully ignorant bastard.
Posted by: democommie | May 30, 2009 10:56 AM
The Nine was a fun book, but it is really more about the personalities on the Supreme Court and how they interact with one another than it is a serious book about constitutional law. If you like that kind of book (and I do), even better is Jan Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict. But for serious constitutional law discussion, there are two books I recommend above all others. One has already been mentioned by Michael Heath, Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution. The other is Akhil Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography.
I've not read the Sanford Levinson book that Michael mentioned, though I have communicated with him in the past. He's a top notch scholar. I would imagine anything he writes would be well worth reading.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 30, 2009 11:23 AM
Michael Heath,
I will take a look at the review. I have actually read Levinson book. I blogged about at www.theking25.blogspot.com. I thought he was crazy at first but he actually changed my mind on some things for sure. I will check out the other two when I finish a similar book called "A More Perfect Constitution" by some guy name Sabato.
Ed,
I really enjoy these kind of posts. I have learned more from guys like you and Jon Rowe in a year than I did in all of college. Beats sitting in church listening to some asshole repeat a bunch of shit that someone taught him and he never questioned. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 30, 2009 3:01 PM
I could go and on, and for every stooge-type action by a Democrat that formally leads their party, I can find three more examples of far worse behavior by Republican leaders.
That's great Heath, but you still haven't figured out that I find most Republicans about as distasteful as the Democrats? Do you honestly think that I somehow defend the Republicans? Get a clue Heath, I think the Republicans are as scummy as the Democrats. Stop drinking the Koolaid. Haven't you noticed that you largely get the same thing no matter what party is in power? Largely the only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is who they pander to. So, in short, "stooges in Congress" includes members of BOTH parties.
Posted by: mroberts | May 30, 2009 3:06 PM
The House Republicans present an alternative budget which neither had any development from actual economists and no actual numbers in their budget. Seems the people that can do the math have all left the party, leaving them only with talking points which have previously proven to fail. "Stooges"? Yes.
This is a great comment from Heath. Speaking on unrealistic numbers, didn't you see that Obama's budget numbers depend on absurdly rosy economic growth? From Forbes:
The budget forecasters assumed that the economy would grow at a 3% annual rate starting in April and that real GDP would fall just 1.2% in 2009 from 2008. Then, from 2010 through 2013, the administration assumes that real GDP will grow at a 4% annual rate.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/budget-deficit-obama-opinions-columnists-spending.html
Oops, GDP already is shrinking at an annualized rate of 5.7%.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/29/news/economy/gdp_revision/index.htm?postversion=2009052911
Looks like we have some catching up to for the rest of the year to meet Obama's -1.2% estimate for 2009 GDP growth, despite the fact that more dislocations are coming (commercial lending is blowing up, more Alt-A loans are blowing up, the stock markets are gearing for another drop, geopolitical issues, dollar is collapsing, etc).
As for the 4% growth in coming years? ABSURD. It will take a long time for the economy to recover from the current mess, inflation is rising, and the administration wants to heap on more taxes, and he thinks that GDP growth will be at 4% in just a few years? RIDICULOUS. If you want to talk about BS numbers, Obama's budget is filled with them. Already the estimates for this year's deficits have gone from around $1.2 trillion to around $1.8 trillion. When it's all said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if this year's deficit ended up being $2.5 trillion. Bash Republicans for their stupidity if you wish, but at least be intellectually honest enough to see the BS in your own party.
Posted by: mroberts | May 30, 2009 3:18 PM
"If you were my husband I sure wouldn't stop you!"
Posted by: Gretchen | May 30, 2009 4:59 PM
Levin should be prosecuted (and convicted) of, if nothing else, piss-poor plagiarism of Nancy Astor/Winston Churchill:
Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea.
Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.
Dingo. ☺
Posted by: DingoJack | May 30, 2009 5:19 PM
Ah, once again, mroberts with the economics education of a drive-thru clerk at McDonalds is schooling others. How soon before you bring up the "Gold Standard", yet again?
Posted by: democommie | May 30, 2009 5:29 PM