Mark Levin on Glenn Beck
Well, here’s another conservative [besides me] determined not to go down with Beck’s ship:
LEVIN: How can you day after day and night after night correctly rail against Obama’s radicalism, how he’s undermining the Constitution, how he’s nationalizing our basic industries, how he has Marxists all around him, and then say in an interview with Katie Couric, I think John McCain would have been worse than Obama? Quote: “How about this? I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama. How’s that?”
That’s not good. McCain is no conservative, in fact in many respects he’s a progressive. Which is why I fought him. Day in and day out. Day in and day out behind this microphone. Not only fought him behind this microphone but wrote article after article — go ahead and Google it — rejecting his candidacy. But to say that he’d be worse than a president that’s a Marxist, who’s running around the country — I’m sorry, the world — apologizing for our nation, who’s slashing our defense budget, who’s nationalizing our health care system?
To say he would be worse is mindless, mindless, incoherent as a matter of fact. There’s our 5-PMer, on Fox … I don’t know who certain people are playing to, I don’t know why they are playing to certain people … I think there’s enormous confusion and positioning and pandering. It may be entertaining, but from my perspective, it’s not. It’s pathetic.”
Via the HuffPo.
I like Levin, a constitutional lawyer who’s said to have a face for radio but a voice for TV. He too has a shtick ["Now get off my phone, you big dummy!"], but he keeps it separate from his message— as opposed to Beck, whose sobbing populism is pure theater that appeals to the adolescent in us, not the adult.
Devil’s Advocate: might there be some professional jealousy in this? After all Levin does have a best selling book out there right now getting next-to-zero play in the MSM. Quite honestly, I don’t really see a terrible difference in kind between their two shticks if there is a difference in degree. His trademark line that you quote comes usually after a Beck-esque tirade.
I see your point about the personalities, but Levin has an excellent legal background and I think is far less likely do say something indefensible [like the McCain thing], or cross the line like Beck did in calling the president a racist.
Beck’s admirers let stuff like that go as “shtick,” but it’s nauseating to anyone else.
Well, as long as he’s a CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer, and not just one of those regular ones…
As David Frum seized on not long ago, Levin’s “shtick” includes telling female callers that their husbands should shoot themselves rather than continue to be married to a woman with whose politics Levin disagrees.
Seriously, I enjoy Rush quite a bit, because he’s obviously highly intelligent, has a sense of humor, and has a lot of insight about how politics actually works, regardless of one’s ideology. What I have heard of Levin’s show consists almost entirely of rants, shouting, and personal insults. He may have an impressive resume (although I don’t see any sign that he is some sort of scholar), but he made the perfectly logical decision that there was more money to be made in entertainment than in being a serious person. Cf. Laura Ingraham.
But wait! Isn’t David Frum the faux conservative who attacks Rush Limbaugh too?
Mark Steyn sez so:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzg0ODY4YTljODNmOWM1ZjQ0MmM2NmU1MWM2NWE1NDg=
Ugh, and go gettem, Mr. Steyn.
As for Levin, I’m only saying that his arguments are defensible [and unlike Beck sometimes, always coherent], and can be separated from his shtick.
Me, I think the husbands shooting themselves riff is pretty funny, and unlike Beck’s theater, you can distinguish the argument from the shtick.
Alberto:
Levin most definitely has some jealousy issues. He constantly refers to the “back-benchers” in talk radio. I love to listen to him but he does have quite an ego chip on his shoulder.
TVD:
“whose sobbing populism is pure theater that appeals to the adolescent in us, not the adult.”
Once again, I rise to the Mad Man’s defense. You are quite disgusted with him, aren’t you? And, once again, I’ll say that I’ll take Beck’s results w/Van Jones and ACORN over the chin-scratching do-nothing “intellectual” conservatives any day. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, criticize.
But those are small potatoes. The heavy lifting against Obamacare and the like is being done by others.
I’m not so much disgusted with Beck as I am wary. He says dumb stuff far too frequently, and this McCain thing’s just the latest. Tick…tick…tick…
But the comments on Levin are interesting. I’d certainly agree his charming self will be of no help swinging the undecideds.
I agree with Tom. As I alluded to in the comments on my own post, Levin’s “schtick” is of a different nature than Beck’s. Also, Levin offers far more substantively than Beck.
I would note that Levin’s criticism of Beck is far narrower than that of Wehner and Scarbarough. (Now there are some definite jealousy issues there with ole Joe.) Levin is calling Beck out for one particular comment, not declaring a generic anathema against the man as the others did. Levin was right, the other are lust off their rockers.
Errr, “just” off their rockers.
I heard the context of Beck’s comment on McCain. The point he was making, though one may disagree, is that McCain was the “let’s turn the heat up slowly on the frog in the pot” candidate. His win, so Beck argued, would not have awakened and galvanized the sleeping giant of conservative activism like Obama’s little show has. Obama has turned the burner wide open and the frog is hopping mad. Would Palin have pulled McCain right? Doubtful. Would McCain have been to Palin what Bush 1 was to Quale? Likely. But we can probably be sure that the conservative movement would have continued to wander in the wilderness like we did under Bush 2. Time will tell.
And let’s not forget McCain’s record. He was for open borders and amnesty, McCain-Feingold (an utter debacle), and helped torpedo some of Bush’s more conservative judicial nominees. Then, after he lost, he dumped on Palin.
Not someone we want leading conservatives.
Oh yeah, McCain was also a cap and trader. As bad as Obama? No, but still a disaster at the head of the Republican party. If he’d been elected and passed some of the same crap Obama is attempting, then where would the Republican party (and conservatives) be? That was Beck’s point.
I think Davy hit the mark. We wouldn’t see conservatives waking up and smelling the marxism if McCain had been elected.
Yeah, I think Frum overdid it with his criticism of Limbaugh (although, I think it’s a little silly to call someone with Frum’s background a “faux conservative”). At the same time, though, I can see how someone who wasn’t especially imbued with a sense of humor/the absurd would get pretty fed up with Rush, and Frum has never impressed me as having those qualities in abundance.
I guess what I get from the RLS (I’m not saying I’m the only one who listens for this reason, but I think I’m outnumbered by the pure lovers/haters) is just that sense of the absurd–I mean, Rush is clearly more than a bit of a hedonist in his personal life, and I doubt he really cares that much about what gay people do or whether people get high on their own time. But he’s witty and spontaneous in a way Sean Hannity could never approach. Really, I think the most impressive part of his success is the loyalty he inspires in social/religious conservatives who think he’s genuinely one of them; this has always seemed odd to me.
For me, though, it comes down to finding Rush to be an entertaining person with whom I agree about 60% of the time, while Levin seems like an permanently angry and unpleasant person with whom I also might well agree 60% of the time.
One of the best ways to spot a TRUE liberal is to notice whether or not they have a real sense of humor. Though not always a reliable indicator, most leftists have very little joy in their lives and can’t laugh at anything, thus their sneering at the likes of Limbaugh and Beck – both incredibly funny men.
Frum is one of the chin-scratching class of conservatives. All hat and no cattle.
BTW, its quiz time. Who was the first national personality to bring up the notion of Sarah Palin as McCain’s VP?
I do not care for Levin’s radio style at all. I think New Yorkers and New Jerseyians find it abbrasive.
But Levin is a committed conservative. So is Rush. This is not about ego. I am not saying Glenn Beck is not a conservative. I think he really wants to promote a more small government populist conservatism (in the sense of smaller limited government answerable to the people). I think Beck is sincere.
But I mean, come on. Sometimes Beck is not that deep. I fought lots of conservatives during the election who kept arguing Obama was better than McCain. No. Not at all. McCain has his faults, God does he have his faults, but McCain is a patriot. And I sadly wonder if Barack Obama has the best interests of this country at heart. Sorry, but I say so based on things he has said. I hope he proves me wrong, but so far it has been the opposite.
McCain would have picked a better justice than Sotomayor. Granted he would have had to pick a moderate to get him or her through the Senate, but a moderate is better than a leftist. McCain would have done better on foreign policy. McCain would have done better on spending. McCain would have done better on taxes.
The only argument that makes sense is if McCain was president the bad economy would have been blamed on him. Perhaps. But that is not a sufficient reason to pick the lesser candidate. We either lead, follow or get out of the way. I truly believe McCain would have stopped with TARP and that alone is grounds for electing him. More than a trillion dollars in debt since then, incurred in a matter of months, with no real benefit for it. It is insanity.
“McCain would have picked a better justice than Sotomayor.”
Maybe. Bush 1 gave us Souter. But don’t get me wrong, I would have much rather had McCain than Obama, but sometimes we need a cold shower to wake us up when a warm one would be so much more comfortable. That was Beck’s point.
[...] issue was debated in an earlier post. Read the rest of the AE piece [...]
Just one talk-radio junkie’s opinions:
Intellectual/Academic firepower? Levin has it over Beck, sure. That said, Beck has grown over the past few years, and I for one really appreciate Beck talking about the roots and political ramifications of the Progressive movement, from the early 20th century to today.
Both Levin and Beck strike me as being sincere in their beliefs.
Some of Levin’s remarks come across as not-so-disguised comtempt for Beck and the success of Beck’s book(s), thus making Levin appear petty, and Levin’s abrasive nature, particularly when directed at polite-if-clueless callers, is off-putting to those who prefer a more civil tone. Also, Beck’s sense of humor (including his self-deprecating nature) is far more entertaining than what passes for humor from Levin. Different strokes . . .
Bottom line: I’m glad they’re both in the rhtetorical fight against the current administration. Beck is more likely to reach the recently-awakened “everyman,” and that’s fine, we need rabble-rousers. Levin probably inspires and informs folks who don’t care for Beck; fine, just as long as fans of either host end up fighting for smaller government, more freedom and accountability, and against expanded governmental power.