2009.06.19
Mark Levin: The most deranged talk show host on Roanoke radio
Mark Levin
Most Americans have never heard of Mark Levin, the bombastic and crazed right-wing radio show creep who recently called Vice President Joe Biden "the most unstable vice-president in the history of the United States, I think." (6.18.09)
Sure, Biden makes a gaff now and then. But unstable?
Perhaps Levin has never heard of Vice President Spiro Agnew, the fifth-rate grifter who resigned his post in the Nixon Administration when he was caught taking kickbacks, even after he got into the White House.
Or Aaron Burr, this nation's third vice-president (under Thomas Jefferson), who shot and mortally wounded Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton during a harebrained duel.
Or the slave-raping Vice President Richard Mentor Johnson, for goodness sake, who was such an embarrassment in office that President Martin Van Buren dumped him without bothering to name a replacement.
The question I have is, why does Roanoke news-talk station WFIR bother keeping someone as stupid as Levin on the air?
The man's influence is so small it's almost impossible to measure. Levin's radio show is carried on about 150 stations nationwide (out of thousands) and his weekly listenership is estimated at about 5.5 million, which translates into about 1.1 million nightly victims.
Which means that roughly 1/3 of 1 percent of the American population endures his crazy ranting on any regular basis, assuming they're not watching professional wrestling, or another very dumb TV show, or sleeping or getting drunk or some other more useful pastime.
Levin is a distant 4th in the country among conservative talkers, tied with the boring Laura Ingraham, whom WFIR kicked off the air months ago.
WFIR carries Levin every weeknight, except when they preempt him for the Salem Red Sox, or Salem High School football, basketball, lacrosse, ice- or field-hockey games, or swim meets, or matches of the school's chess club.
Which means Levin is on the air about one night a week, sometimes more, here in town.
The show comes in on a feed from a New York station. WFIR broadcasts it 3 hours out of sync, which means it's difficult at best for Roanokers to call in. And because Roanokers who do call in are responding to points raised before the show even airs in Roanoke, they sound like know-nothing jackasses when they get on the air.
(But that's OK - most of the rest of Levin's callers do, too.)
Levin postures himself as an arch conservative lawyer and author, knowledgeable about the law, conservative governance and the Bill of Rights. In reality he was third-rate patronage appointee in a second-rate administration (assistant director of White House personnel under Ronald Reagan), and later, the lapdog for Attorney General Ed Meese.
He is author of a bestselling book about his two dogs, who are named after soft drinks brands, and he ceaselessly flogs that book on his radio show. Obviously, he loves his dogs ... let's give him that. Other than that he's little more than a loudmouthed dope who OD'd on the "Reagan Revolution."
Levin is author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America" (Regnery, 2005). This largely culled-together (it would be incorrect to use the term "written") tome is stunning in its legal and historical ignorance and in its disrespect for the judiciary and the constitutional framework that keeps it independent. And the guy graduated from Temple University's law school!
As of this writing, Men in Black is unreviewed on Amazon.com, and ranked #251,713 in sales. Of the book, an editor at Slate.com wrote: "no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book."
Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, which is tax-exempt. The conservative legal group's most newsworthy accomplishment to date was its nomination in 2007 of Rush Limbaugh, who serves on the LLF board, for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Did you get that? It's most noteworthy action was a dumb joke -- just like Levin.
So help me out here folks: why does WFIR keep this jerk, who they preempt at every opportunity, on OUR airwaves?
And yet still has accomplished more than a Roanoke Times columnist and blogger. Get a life.
Comment by Grow Up — June 19, 2009 @ 7:34 am
They keep him on the air for the same reason the Roanoke Times keeps publishing your far left stupid columns - it's called freedom of speech. As for Mr. Levin being a "dumb jerk" - you should know. Pot calling the kettle black. If I were you, I wouldn't quit my day job - whatever that may be.
Comment by Dublin Dawg — June 19, 2009 @ 8:07 am
Both of Mark Levin's Roanoke listeners have responded; I reckon we can close this thread now!
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 8:28 am
Dan, do they still air Michael Savage, or has Mark Levin replaced him in the timeslots on WFIR? I don;t listen to 960 now since I don't live or work down there, but Savage was by far more inflamatory and angry than levin will ever be. I liken Levin to a toy poodle compared to Savage's pit bull tendencies. He's got a shrill high-pitched bark, but very little bite behind it. I still enjoy Neal Boortz, but only because he's more entertaining than the rest of the guys on the radio and he goes after people on both sides with equal gusto.
Comment by Other John — June 19, 2009 @ 8:33 am
WHOOAAA - Such a witty comeback, Dan........How long did it take you to think of that one? By the way, I will forward your column to Mr. Levin - Better yet, why don't you call in his show, and debate him? Show your Roanoke readers what a complete left wing idiot you are.
Comment by Dublin Dawg — June 19, 2009 @ 8:41 am
Dan, come on. You of all people should know its about ratings and selling advertising... The same reason blogs like this are posted (for hits and responses) and there is a Roanoke Times forums. It increases your web traffic which in turn helps sell advertising, which in turn keeps your job. You're better and smarter than that. He has a number one bestseller on the NY Times 11 out of 12 weeks, plus a highly listened to national radio show, so calling his influence small is in fact. Wrong. There is nothing wrong with WFIR running the Mark Levin Show. Having two sides of a debate is ok. We can't all take our orders from the administration.
For seemingly an intelligent person, these rants are a bit immature and undeveloped. How about some substance on his stances and positions? This just goes along with the liberal personal attacks that further no debate, but impart hate. This ranks with the likes of the Letterman personal attacks on Palin.
Comment by Uptheriver — June 19, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Dan,
They leave him on the air for the same reason the Roanoke times keeps you employed.
Money.
They hope to sell advertising. If what you say is accurate then WFIR will not sell advertising and he will be taken off the air and replaced with someone or something ( baseball ) that will bring in ad revenue.
If there were a liberal voice out there ( which I'm sure you would appreciate ) who could generate substantial revenue for WFIR in the Roanoke valley, I'm sure they would put them on.
WFIR is not in the business of pushing political agendas ( unlike some other forms of media ), they are in the business of making a profit.
Sincerely,
M. Fried Man
Comment by M. Fried Man — June 19, 2009 @ 8:59 am
Dan - Why don't you comment on this?
Mark Levin has become one of the hottest properties in Talk radio, his top-rated show on WABC New York is now syndicated nationally by Citadel Media Networks. He is also one of the top new authors in the conservative political arena. Mark's radio show on WABC in New York City skyrocketed to Number 1 on the AM dial in his first 18 months on the air in the competitive 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM time slot. Mark's book Men in Black was released February 7, 2005 and quickly climbed to Number 3 in the nation on the New York Times Best-Seller list. When your book is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you know you have a winner on your hands. In a short period of time, Mark has become one of the most listened to local radio Talk show hosts in the nation.
Mark Levin took over the WABC 6:00 PM slot on September 2, 2003. Before that, he hosted a popular Sunday afternoon program. "He's smart, witty, and fast on the draw," according to WABC Program Director Phil Boyce. "He has this sharp sarcastic wit that can easily stun his opponents. I know I would not want to debate him." Mark's show follows the ever popular Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on WABC, but everyday he manages to come up with a new twist on the day's top news events, as well as his own unique information. His passion and intellect have made him a favorite of tens of thousands of radio listeners in the New York City area.
Mark has been a frequent guest and substitute host on The Sean Hannity Show, and has also been an advisor to Limbaugh, who frequently refers to him on the air with the nickname "F. Lee Levin." He is perhaps more well-known for his nickname, "The Great One," coined by his friend Hannity.
Mark Levin is one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He's in great demand as a political and legal commentator, and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. Levin is also a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for other publications. Levin has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet - including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.
Comment by Dublin Dawg — June 19, 2009 @ 9:04 am
WOW! Take a look at the Dan's header picture. And then take a look at the picture of Levin. The Twilight Zone theme is for some reason singing in my head.
Are we sure they aren't twins separated at birth that had completely different extreme political up bringings? This should be sent into a "looks like a celebrity" contest.
Comment by Uptheriver — June 19, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Uptheriver, Alas, the resemblance is hard not to notice. That shouting radio nincompoop looks like my evil twin.
Other John, WFIR dumped Mike Savage a long time ago. If he was still on the he would be the most deranged talk radio show host on the Roanoke airwaves.
Dublin Dawg, Did you write that, or did you copy and paste it off of ML's Web site? BTW, Men in Black is a dreadful book. It sold only while Rush and Hannity and ML flogged it on their shows then it quickly sunk off bestseller lists and into obscurity. These three guys have a club where they boost each others books so they can all make money at the expense of their listeners. Also noteworthy is that after MIB was published, the Levin-headed Landmark Legal Foundation nominated Limbaugh for (laugh track begins here) a Nobel Peace Prize. A payback for Rush's help with the book? Or just a stupid stunt so Rush could brag about it on his show? That remains unclear to me.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 10:00 am
Stupid? Crazed? Creep?
Name calling is typically a sign of the beaten party in any argument, but to start it right out of the gate is...amazing. Another in a long line of pathetic attempts on your part to stir the pot and generate some sort of traffic to your blog...which is usually nothing but a plug for your column...two empty parking lots in the internet. Nothing new from you.
Maybe one day the Times Staff will realize the emptiness behind the clicks to your blog, and replace it with something more worthwhile with more readers...I'm thinking Gil Thorpe would be a suitable replacement...it had at least 3 readers in The Times comic polls.
Keep trying. We'll keep laughing.
Comment by Rick — June 19, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Tell me, Dan - What books have you written and published, and where did they place on the NY Time's list? (Comic books don't count!)
Comment by Dublin Dawg — June 19, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Dan:
What about Daniel Tompkins? He deserves to make your list of errant Vice Presidents.
Mike Showalter
Comment by Mike Showalter — June 19, 2009 @ 10:22 am
I thought they had dumped him, but wasn't for sure since I'm not down in the lower valley too often in the evening now. We get Dennis Miller in the evenings here, but by the time he's on air, I'm home working in the yard or having dinner, or something other than listening to the radio. I gave up political talk for music and sports before the election, and haven't missed it since. I will try and catch Boortz when I can, but when WFNR dropped him for Dave Ramsey, I pretty much lost all interest in any AM talk that isn't on ESPN.
Comment by Other John — June 19, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Dan,
I assume (since you do not address it)you are a believer in Keynesian economic theory?
Do you not trust the market(people)to get rid of this "deranged" man?
Sincerely,
M. Fried Man
Comment by M. Fried Man — June 19, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Mike Showalter, Good point. Daniel Tompkins was a former New York governor who served two-terms as vice-president under President James Monroe. From Wikipedia: "His financial problems took a toll on his health, with Tompkins falling into alcoholism, and as vice president he at times presided over the Senate while drunk."
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Rick,
A fair point about the name-calling -- do you agree Mark Levin is "beaten"? Most of his act is name calling (Biden, "unstable"). Did you miss that?
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 10:46 am
M. Friedman, I reject being categorized as a believer of Keynesian economic theory (or any other, for that matter). Keynes was right on some things. Milton Friedman was right on some things, too. But neither was always right.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 10:54 am
I did not miss that at all...he's not the one calling names right now though is he? Anybody of his targets have the ability to engage him via calling in, correct? I'll bet few, if any do. Would you be willing to call in to his show and voice your opinions? Let us know when you'll call in. I may actually tune in for that, if the Reds aren't breaking through the distance on 700 WLW.
I don't even listen to Levin, to me, he's an author, and he's no better than Olbermann (sp?). Another partisan mouthpiece who knows how to get revenue and get people's panties in wads. Its easier to not tune into something than it is to tune in only to grasp at straws to generate hits to a oft-neglected blog.
Thanks for more laughs.
Comment by Rick — June 19, 2009 @ 11:01 am
1) You may wish to mention that his current book, "liberty and Tyranny," is currently ranked #2 in Amazon sales. (Sometimes bias isn't in what you say, but what you leave out.)
2) You may wish to to buy a radio with a tuner so you can turn off or tune out shows which you don't like.
3) Call Sandi and tell her you need some more comments, to get over here and and echo your "thoughts."
Comment by Rauchen — June 19, 2009 @ 11:16 am
I asked you if you agreed the market will take care of Levin.
Do you believe if ad revenue does not facilitate WFIR making a profit in that time slot WFIR will drop him, or do you think they are just propping up some right wing nut job because of their political beliefs?
P.S.
No economist is ever 100% correct, but I go with the ones who believe economic freedom without government intervention is the best way to go.
Comment by M. Fried Man — June 19, 2009 @ 11:20 am
Rick, you're welcome!
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 11:54 am
MFM, I think the market will take care of Levin after WFIR comes to its senses. Already, they preempt him for Salem High School football and basketball!
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 11:56 am
The market is taking care of the RT. Can you say low sales, low circulation. When's the going out of business signs going to be put up?
Poor pitiful RT got to pick on somebody!
Comment by Frank — June 19, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Dan,
Why are you reluctant to label yourself based on your beliefs?
I label myself a conservative and a libertarian. Do I believe every tenet of what these philosophies espouse? No. But I agree with about 95% of them.
Do I agree with everything Friedman believed? Of course not, but I believe in that a lot more than other economic theory.
People who consider themselves moderates ( afraid to label themselves ) never lead because they wait for popular opinion to dictate what they support.
I believe based on your writings you believe some forms of speech are harmful and should be regulated. Sort of the you can't yell fire in a crowded theater argument.
This is a very slippery slope in my opinion.
Do you support the Fairness Doctrine?
Sincerely,
M. Fried Man
Comment by M. Fried Man — June 19, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
I love these comments...grow up and dublin dawg are right on...this is too funny...i love it....lol....lol
Comment by Lisa in Hollins — June 19, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
and M. Fried man, love your stuff too...I think you need a column
Comment by Lisa in Hollins — June 19, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Yet another use of conservative talk radio to try and get ratings for your column and posts to your Blog. Last time it was Limbaugh, now Levin.
Dan, Levin is deranged because you say so? I would hardly consider you an impartial source.
Maybe WFIR wants to stay in business and that is why it airs Levin? Apparently the RT does not based on the articles you write. Including about 3 or so on the SAME subject not long ago and now just a rant about Levin.
Desperate times lead to desperate acts, I guess you need something to boost your readership. Now even more people will be listening than ever did before in Roanoke because you have labeled it so.
Look in the mirror....
Comment by BobH — June 19, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I concur with Lisa in Hollins. Rick also makes some very valid points. And yes, I'd read a column by M. Fried. Man every day!
He's very thoughtful and insightful; not a lot of lame name calling and snarky whining and trying to up the comment count by linking to atheist sites or trying to gin up interest by silly either/or questions about Darwin or Jesus.... That's the kind of thing you'd see... well, where do we see weak attempts at attracting attention like that?
On the other hand, this blog/column is good every few weeks for bringing up something about men's rooms and highway rest stops and such ....
Comment by Rauchen — June 19, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
As "Liberty and Tyranny" is still #1 on the NY Times bestseller list, it's hard to believe that "Most Americans have never heard of Mark Levin" and probably a valid reason why "WFIR bothers keeping someone as stupid as Levin on the air."
Comment by Roanoke RnR — June 19, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Rick, if Dan did call in to Levin,do you think he'd be engaged in intellectual debate like the woman in this exchange:
Levin: "Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?"
CALLER: "Yes."
Levin: "Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here."
Mark Levin is to debate like Michael Vick is to a dog show.
Comment by __Nathan — June 19, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
BobH, I don't know if you've been watching the direction of WFIR, but here it is: They dropped Michael Savage (aka Wiener) and replaced him with Dave Ramsey. Then they cut Laura Ingraham and replaced her with Clark Howard.
In other words, the station is batting 1,000 in terms of shedding right-wing talkers and replacing them with informative, nonpartisan talk shows.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
I kind of hate to drag facts onto a Roanoke Times website (because once they get there they feel so out of place), but here goes:
Dave Ramsey and Clark Howard have been on WFIR for years, but often on weekend slots. The lineup with Savage and Ingraham have on during the day was one they went with last year -- an election year -- and most people would tell you that that much political talk of any stripe was more than the market really needed. Now with the economic downturn (and with both Ramsey and Clark Howard on cable TV) WFIR went back to more consumer/economic talk during the week. And Ingraham has only moved slightly further over on the dial, to a station whose call letters I don't know off the top of my head, although it too runs political talk.
And an aside: Limbaugh and Hannity are the anchors (kind of like the big popular retailer which draws shoppers, giving all the fast food and ice cream shops traffic), and these are probably the only shows mentioned which WFIR has to pay for. The others, like Boortz on down, give the programming away to radio stations in order to get commercial slots (Boortz occasionally gives an overview of his business model on the air).
Again, I apologize for dragging facts, thought, and information into this site.
Comment by Rauchen — June 19, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Please read "Butt Scratching and Bass Fishing" by Dave Ramsey and expalin to me why you think he is non-partisan.
http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/butt_scratching_and_bass_fishing_10192.htmlc
Sincerely,
M. Fried Man
Comment by M. Fried Man — June 19, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
They replaced Limbaugh and Hannity?
No, they didn't shed right wing talkers, they shed programs that weren't getting them any ratings. There is a difference.
When is the RT going to shed some left wing columnists? Or is that redundant?
Comment by BobH — June 19, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
and if WFIR continues its ratings will take a down turn like the other stations and newspapers (CNN CBS NBC and so on) that make bad business decisions.
Comment by Lisa in Hollins — June 19, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
BTW, if you listen to Dave Ramsay you will find that he is anything but a fan of the BHO administration....
Comment by BobH — June 19, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
M. Fried. Man,
I linked to the Dave Ramsey column you referenced, and that is a fabulous column! I think every one should read it, and think about it.
I especially appreciated it because I live in Roanoke, Virginia, and we rarely see any thoughtful editorials around here.
Also, I clicked on Roanoke RnR, and was directed to that blog. Again, some very useful and thought-provoking comments from one of our neighbors!
Comment by Rauchen — June 19, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Dan, your silence is a little deafening......
Comment by BobH — June 19, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Rauchen, we agree on one thing: RnR is an interesting blog!
My point about Dave Ramsey is that his show that airs on WFIR is a far, far cry from political, no matter what DR personally believes or has written. It's very interesting and educational and darn it, I don't hear him twisting stuff like I do on the others.
All of you who say that WFIR will never drop Rush and Sean are mostly likely correct. BUT, one of things life has taught me is that EVERYTHING has its cycle. That goes from the solar system, to the seasons, to day and night, to our own bodies and many many other elements of life.
One of many examples is fashion. Bell bottoms come and go, men's ties get narrow then wide, etc. Another is politics and popular thought. And that tells me that though Sean and Rush may be riding high now, that will not always continue.
I predict the station will add a liberal voice before it adds one more conservative one.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Bob H,
I'm trying to man this blog and answer phone calls and respond to emails while working on Sunday's, Tuesday's (and future) sage and thought-provoking columns. It's pretty hard to juggle all those balls when the blog heats up heats up!
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Rauchen, it must be fun to live in your world where other people are being snarky, but you aren't when you do deride other people's points of view. Please understand that just because you don't agree with somebody's point of view, doesn't mean that that point of view isn't "thoughtful".
Comment by __Nathan — June 19, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
M. Fried Man,
The last thing the right wing in this country wants is a "free market". The leaders on the right rely on wingnut welfare and their families to maintain their positions and media megaphones. From magazines to radio to books to Fox "News", the messages of the right have needed constant influxes of money from billionaires to keep going. From Kristol to Podhoretz to Goldberg to Carlson to Bush, and more, wingnuts are given positions and voices because of their last name through their system of privilege and patronage, or books being bought in bulk by right wing foundations such as Olin and Scaife, or radio programs being given to stations for free so that other programs will be broadcast. The message from the right would have died out long ago were it not for the welfare given to it by billionaires and their think-tanks and welfare media outlets. And then you have the policy messages, such as the "Death Tax" propaganda funded by billionaire families like the Waltons, flat out lying to the public that an Estate Tax that effects only the top will keep them from giving money to their children. If left to the "free market" of ideas, the right wing messages would be, and have gone, bankrupt. Without the support of right wing billionaires, the rightist media and influence would have ceased to exist. Some "free market".
Comment by SteveA — June 19, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Dan,
You are absolutely correct. Everything does have a life cycle. I believe print media is on the down side of it's curve.
WFIR will drop Hannity and Rush when a better product comes along.
I will applaud WFIR if it makes the business decision to add a liberal host and that decision makes them a lot of money.
I love it when small businesses in a America make money, and create jobs.
The American dream.
Sincerely,
M. Fried Man
Comment by M. Fried Man — June 19, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
And on the flip side of that right wing "free market" argument, we have media outlets such as MSNBC. In the run up to the illegal and immoral Iraq war, Phil Donahue hosted MSNBC's highest rated show. "Free market", right? Not so fast. MSNBC told Donahue to put on two to three pro-war voices for every anti-war voice (he was one of the very few media members who actually had any anti-war voices - "liberal media"). He complied. They still canceled his show. MSNBC canceled their highest rated show because it was not parroting a pro-war message. But, hey, why mess up the narrative about "liberal media" or "free market". Lies are so much more comfortable, aren't they?
Comment by SteveA — June 19, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Dan,
Ever heard of Alan Combs? He is a liberal. WFIR tried his show. Nope, no ratings. They have tried the "balance" you suggest. No ratings. The hypocrisy of liberalism was too evident on the airwaves for successful ratings.
Ever wonder why Hillary and other liberals don't try to go onto those shows to discredit them? I certainly do. Instead they go on a liberal friendly show like Larry King (talk about sagging ratings, there is one for you) and attack from there. Why? Why the fear?
You better hope that Hannity and Limbaugh stay on the air. Otherwise you would have to come up with real material for a column. You already milked the one with the cop arresting the sidewalk "artist" for all the ink (and more) you could get out of it.
Comment by BobH — June 19, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
And before the wingunts start shouting "SOROS!!!", they should ask themselves why is it that George Soros is the only name ever mentioned when it comes to a powerful person trying to influence the political dialogue in this country? Why do we never hear the names Scaife or Olin or Bradley or Walton or Coors or Sembler or Richardson? Where is the media narrative discussing their influence? It must be because of that "liberal media", right?
Comment by SteveA — June 19, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Bob, I liked the Alan Colmes show. It would be a huge improvement if they brought him back.
The pendulum is going to continue to swing, just watch.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
SteveA,
Here are a few of my beliefs:
1. Tax reform - Tax code is currently being used for social manipulation. Social manipulation means you are not free.
2. Border reform - We already have laws on the books that provide for a legal means of becoming a citizen of this country. This issue is being used as a political tool by both parties to get votes. That's sick. Remember 911.
3. Global Warming - Yes. It exists. It's caused by the sun. Who are we to say the temperature today is the perfect temperature. How vain of humans to think we can control the weather. This issue exists solely for the purpose of getting votes and making money off people's fears.
4. Gun Control - How convenient for the Iranian government that those protestors are unarmed.
I want to be free. Free from a government that takes from those who produce and gives it to those who do not.
It does not take a vast right wing conspiracy and propaganda machine to prop up these principles. It is the natural human condition.
Freedom.
P.S.
Bush did some good things. Reduced taxes and pursued the war on terror with a vengeance. For that I am grateful. Other than that I was not happy him.
Do you believe this makes me a right wing nut job?
Sincerely,
M. Fried Man
Comment by M. Fried Man — June 19, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
MFM, seeing that you mentioned gun control:
The Second Amendment never mentions guns, it mentions "the right to bear arms." And certainly guns would be included in "arms," but the term encompasses a much broader universe of weapons than mere rifles, handguns and shotguns.
My questions to you are:
1) Where do you think the line should be drawn between "arms" an individual should be permitted to possess, and those he/she shouldn't be permitted to possess?
2) Or, should there be no line drawn whatsoever?
3) In the context of the amendment, how do you interpret the verb "bear?"
This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and I'm interested in your thoughts on this subject. Seriously.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
M.F.M.
You rate freedom too highly. The natural human condition is naked, homeless, and usually hungry to the point of starvation (unless living in an exceptional environment). The clothes, homes and communities we have go towards a much more comfortable life.
The price of this comfortable living is community, and the cooperation that goes with it. You sound like you want the benefits, but think the price is too high. Think about piped water, roads, electricity and medical services, education and so forth. These are all possible in a community structure allows individuals to specialise, and then trade for food, shelter and so on. The tax system is part of the trade.
As for global warming, sea levels are measurably rising, faster than anticipated. Measurements and data, not ideology.
And I suppose you want to use your gun against the US military? Get real.
Comment by echidna — June 19, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Dan, I'm sure you're quite unhappy in SW Virginia> I will graciously refund you're moving expenses to this area. I expect you've been here too long & need to leave. No, I will not adjust for inflation. I must insist you move to the Northeastern US, or southern Ca. You must leave the RT Monday & leave town within 30 days.
Comment by glynn — June 19, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
I'm interested in seeing the response to #50.
And just to interject the smallest bit of substance in my post, the use of terms is very interesting and relevant. Meaning, would one be "permitted" to possess certain guns, or just "restricted" from possessing certain guns.
Not as significant in normal conversation, but very significant in legal debate.
Comment by Ed S. — June 19, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
Ed S, & MFM a fair point -- "be permitted" was an unfortunate way to phrase it, given the context handgun permits, concealed-carry permits, etc.
Please allow me to rephrase:
1) What if any "arms" (not merely guns) fall under the "arms" in the Second Amendment. Does it apply to all weapons, from the most destructive thermonuclear bomb down to the cheapest .22-cal. pistol or switchblade -- and everything in between?
2) And if it doesn't apply to all of the above, which ones are the ones it doesn't apply to, and on what do you base that reasoning?
3) In the context of the amendment, how do you interpret the verb "bear?"
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
I was just busting your chops, Dan. A little fun, and just to put some meat in my reply rather than just saying "getting popcorn for the show".
That kind of discussion (terms) usually comes later in the debate.
Not sure what my answer is yet, but it take the form of "much looser than the current".
Comment by Ed S. — June 19, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
M. Fried Man,
1.Social Manipulation - you mean the Iraq war? Pentagon shills on every major tv network? "Fair and Balanced"? The right wingers on every station and in every major newspaper complaining about the "liberal media"? The color-coded terror "alerts"? Jessica Lynch? Pat Tillman? Mushroom cloud? Duct tape? Jeff Gannon? "We'll be hit again if you vote democratic"? THAT manipulation? Or the fact that we have the world's largest wealth gap? That taxes have become de facto flat after decades of this government catering to the wealthy and corporations? Or maybe it's the fact that over 60% of corporations paid NO taxes last year. I do agree that we need tax reform - we need to restore a progressive tax system.
2.Yes, it is being used as a political tool. 9/11 had nothing to do with the borders.
3. Global warming. You and the rest of the right wing completely ignore science. Perhaps you should get some background on how the right has tried to destroy science for decades, beginning with Reagan and the "Star Wars" program. And on and on and on - on behalf of corporate interests and profit.
4.Guns. The 2nd Amendment in no way protects people from the US government and it will not. In New Orleans after Katrina, guns were confiscated. The NRA was livid. They sued. The second amendment was useless. It can't even protect itself, nevermind any other rights. For all of the false bravado of the gun nuts, when it comes down to it, they all just watched as Bush ran roughshod over the Constitution. Did guns prevent spying? No. Did guns prevent "National Security Letters"? No. Did guns prevent unlawful imprisonment? No. The Patriot Act? No. I support our right to own firearms but don't for a second think that anyone owning a firearm will prevent the US government from doing whatever the hell it wants. In all the talk of "protecting rights" emanating from the gun nuts, why doesn't anyone ever realize that the US will not "invade" neighborhoods? They will do whatever they want, and have, by taking away rights, and people, one at a time. They only remedy is the first amendment. The free press and speech and assembly. But no. The wingers would rather stroke their guns and support tyrants because they have an R after their name. Or they say "Jesus" every third word.
If you want to be free then you will support a progressive system of taxation. A functioning democratic republic cannot exist in a nation that has such a huge gap of wealth as ours. Giving even mnore power to the powerful results in tyranny. The media and all avenues of power are controlled by the wealthy. The fiction of the investor class being the producers in this country is ridiculous. They are parasites who make more money when things get worse for working people. A tax code and policies that favor the wealthy have resulted in "free trade" deals that remove sovereignty from US citizens and give it to corporate institutions such as the WTO and their hidden tribunals, which can overrule local laws. Or did you not know that? That is what happens when the tax code and government policies favor the wealthy investor class. People end up losing rights and control over their politics and lives. To suggest that our tax system is unfair towards the wealthy is absurd. And yes, it does take a propaganda system to get people to believe something that ridiculous. A wealthy investor who sits on his ass all day is taxed less than someone who works for a living and tries to raise a family.
As far as your comments concerning bush - giving more power to the already too powerful is hardly a "good thing". And as far as "pursu[ing] the war on terror with a vengeance" goes, if you truly believe that, then you are so far removed from reality that no amount of deprogramming can possibly help you. And yes, being for reduced taxes in our current system and saying such an absurd thing about the "war on terror" does make you a right wing nut job.
Sincerely,
SteveA
Comment by SteveA — June 19, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
SteveA is absolutely right that a functioning democratic republic cannot exist in a nation that has a huge gap of wealth.
I might quibble with him over whether ours, at the present, falls into that category. Certainly at the least it has been heading in that direction (with a brief respite during the Clinton administration).
Comment by Dan Casey — June 19, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
SteveA touched on a point that many forget. The entire Constitution, including all amendments, is two things. Physically, it's a piece of paper (well, several) with words on it. You can wave it in front of a gun, the government, or the King of England, and at best you may give them a papercut.
It's also an idea. The idea is where the strength is. Until people embrace and enforce this idea, it's just a piece of paper. First, Second, Third, or Tenth Amendment...just words unless they are enforced by the people.
Comment by Ed S. — June 19, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Dan
How many million more listeners does Levine have than the highest ranking liberal talk show host?
That pendulum is swinging awfully slowly.
Comment by terps suck — June 19, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
terps suck:
How many listeners does Levine have?
Whom would you classify as a liberal talk show host?
What would there numbers be?
Without answers to these questions, your question just casts aspersions.
Comment by echidna — June 20, 2009 @ 12:53 am
echidna, Levin has about 5.5 million listeners. That is in the post. Ed Schultz has about 3 million listeners. He is considered the highest rated "liberal" radio show host. The source for both numbers is Talkers Magazine.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 20, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Whatever will Levin's acolytes do when his book is replaced at #1 by Melissa Gilbert's tale of love,lust, and drugs on the Prairie.
I guess that means she can have his radio show. Which, from what I read, should by all rights go to J.K. Rowling. Who actually happens to be an "author".
Comment by Kristen — June 20, 2009 @ 7:38 am
Angry, paranoid people need heroes. Fortunately for them, there are many on radio; Levin, Rust Limburger, Hannity, Boortz, Liddy, Savage, etc. To call them entertainers is misleading. These characters reinforce the beliefs of others and an argument could be made that they also influence behavior otherwise, there would have been no need for Goebbels.
Why the huge difference in the success of "conservative" talk show hosts versus "liberal" talk show hosts. My conclusion is that liberals don't need constant reinforcement and affirmation of their beliefs.
Comment by Another Don — June 20, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Sorry about that. It was a little confusing, since I live out of town and really don't have a feel for the relativities of talk-show listener numbers.
Comment by echidna — June 20, 2009 @ 8:20 am
Dan,
1. I may not own a tank (that can fire projectiles)
2. I may not own a surface to air missile
3. I may not own a nuclear bomb.
I hope this short list conveys my point of view.
Why may I not posses these things? Because one nut with a working tank could wreak havoc. Yes, I know, one nut with a pistol can too, but it is easier to take him out.
Same with all military weapons. We do not want people running around with SAM missiles.
Small arms up to and including 50 caliber should not be regulated at all. Military weapons, including all fully auto, should.
What do I believe "bear arms" means?
I believe you shouldn't get tied up in interpreting language written over 200 years ago. Go to Wiki and there are 5 or 6 interpretations on what "bear arms" means.
You should focus on purpose.
What was the purpose of the Constitution? It strengthened the Power of the Federal government. That must have been scary for the members of the original 13 colonies that declared Independence from an oppressive government.
I believe the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from an oppressive government, therefore, I believe the 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights to protect the people from an oppressive government.
Do I believe a citizenry armed with small arms could defeat the government military on the battlefield. No. But, I do believe an armed citizenry is a tremendous political deterrent.
Comment by M. Fried Man — June 20, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Dan
Thanks for your affirmation that Levine(the 4th highest conserative) is trouncing the highest rated liberal. After 15 years of searching for the "liberal Rush Limbaugh", this is a pitiful result for the left.
Goverment dependency, group rights, moral relatvism, and"soaking the rich" is just not what many consider riviting entertainment.
Comment by terps suck — June 20, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Fir is a right wing station down to the fox news..But you can see why..most of SW Va are Republicans..ya know traitors to the South..in fact carpetbaggers or descendants of carpetbaggers..I mean when a City like Lynchburg honors a man who tried to kill its own people..its not loyal southerners running things..
Comment by Tony — June 20, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Very interesting.
Comment by Roanoke Ron — June 20, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
God Bless Mark Levin!!
The best sign that any person is doing good for the country is when the liberals come out to blast him/her.
Keep up the articles libs! It just points out who the good guys are....
Comment by Right Wing Extremist — June 21, 2009 @ 9:20 am
The Roanoke Times and most other liberal newspapers are going broke. Conservative talk shows are doing well. The people are voting with their dollars and that is what should happen. Unfortunately, it doesn't get to happen often enough.
Guys like Casey, Donahue, Letterman are a dime a dozen. They don't think, they repeat. Men like Limbaugh are thinkers and are appreciated by others who think. That is why they are prospering while newspapers are becoming extinct.
Comment by Arlo — June 21, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
This is exactly the sort of thing people would read.
Comment by Globalwarmer — June 21, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Arlo,
Ha ha ha. Limbaugh thinks. Yeah, he thinks all right. He thinks what a bunch of malcontented sheep hang on his every word, living in their shotgun shacks and double wides, while he lives in his multi-million dollar mansion in Florida. It's just a good thing his mama had a radio station for him to work in, because he'd never been successful in anything else in his life, and that includes his failed marriages and drug addictions. But you keep listening, and those prominent national sponsors will keep on paying him. Oh, wait a minute. Rush has no nationally known sponsors, they won't go near him with a ten foot pole. I guess its because of his not so thinly veiled homophobic, misogynistic (woman hating), racist leanings.
Comment by Barnes — June 21, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
Barnes, Limbaugh is doing well, he makes plenty of money and he doesn't need the sponsors who suck up to the left wing. If you don't like his show, just continue to read TRT, and watch the 6:30 news. You'll stay just as uninformed as you are.
The Dems have 100% of the uninformed vote!
Comment by Arlo — June 22, 2009 @ 12:33 am
Arlo, Arlo.....
Rush and Sean are not thinkers. Sure, they make money. But not by thinking. They do it by conning comparatively small proportion of the American populace, with simple-to-understand distortions and twisted truths.
So ... all of those victims (listeners) voted for McCain in the last election, and some others (the uninfluenced) did, too, for their own reasons. Guess what?
McCain, the candidate they hated most, WON on the nomination. Then, McCain LOST the general election. He lost BIG. Sean and Rush waged a full-court press on fear mongering about what would happen if a liberal black guy became president ... and he DID.
Influence-wise, they are 0-for-2 and that record is going to continue. They're watching the numbers. They know their rating are going down. This is inevitable.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 22, 2009 @ 1:19 am
....and yet Rush controls the republican party. Mr. Bouncy Bounce controls the second or is it third most influential political party in the United States. Not a lot of justification there for turning our noses up at other unstable countries.
Comment by Notagod — June 22, 2009 @ 9:42 am
I guess it's true what they say:
The best commentators talk about ideas.
Average commentators talk about events.
Below average commentators talk about other commentators.
Comment by Brehmstralung — June 22, 2009 @ 9:46 am
It probably shouldn't have taken me so long -- not that I am anything of a regular listener to begin with -- but after Limbaugh blamed the Holocaust Museum shooting on the Left, I wrote WFIR and told them I would never listen to them again and would boycott all of their advertisers until his hateful, lying fat arse was removed from their airwaves.
Levin is completely hysterically insane and by saying that I have given him more credibility than he deserves.
WFIR, well, if they want to be a vessel to carry the water of hate and division, fine. I will not contribute to their well-being by listening and will not patronize their sponsors. If, however, they want to contribute to a civil dialogue about events and issues facing America, then I am all for it.
Comment by Saintbridge — June 22, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Saintbridge, after you did that I called WFIR and I pledged to double my patronage of sponsors, so it cancelled out.
Comment by Neroortcp — June 22, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
So, Nero, you're gonna go out and get TWO bottles of Rogaine and subscribe to TWO debt-help programs? I doubt it.
Support for hate speech, denigration of women and minorities, and whipping up divisiveness among the populace is your choice, but you will never ever triumph over truth and equality.
The thing about the Limbaughs and Hannity's of the world is that they may indeed speak the truth, but it is not the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth.
Those hucksters and fearmongers skew, distort and fabricate the facts and if you want to redouble your support for that vision of America, that's your choice, but don't look for there to be much of a line for tickets to that show.
Comment by Saintbridge — June 22, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
"...Those hucksters and fearmongers skew, distort and fabricate the facts..."
Are you sure you're not talking about journalists?
Comment by Patrick — June 22, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Barnes, you are the typical left winger. Mad and bitter because you think Limbaugh was a child of priviledge, but also an elitist who looks down on those who live in trailer parks. Don't worry, you are like the rest of your left wing friends. You pretend like you care about others while you look down your nose at those below you and envy those above.
Your vote is there for anyone who promises to soak the achievers. The real greedy are the left wing, non thinkers like yourself. You want more, you just don't want to have to think and work to get it.
Do the country a favor, don't vote again until you learn to think.
Comment by Arlo — June 22, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Arlo,
Rush, Sean and Levin "think" about as much as a macaw.
Seriously -- don't you realize they're little more than loud parrots?
Comment by Dan Casey — June 22, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Patrick,
You must not confuse "journalists" with commentators, analysts and or pundits. A sloppy or one-sided journalist does not last long in his/her field; that is a place where the "market" polices itself extremely well. To paraphrase Harry Truman, if Rush, Hannity and Levin, etc., are journalists "then I'm a Hottentot!"
Comment by Saintbridge — June 22, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Indeed, they bend over backwards to claim they're NOT journalists.
But there are people, perhaps Patrick, perhaps Arlo and some others, who use that crew as their primary source of information (except for Fox News)
Comment by Dan Casey — June 22, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
And exposing corruption, stupidity, unfairness, greed, etc., etc., makes those who do the exposing talking parrots?
Comment by AMAC — June 22, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
AMAC,
Please tell me 1 thing that Rush, Sean or Levin have "exposed." You can't. At the most, they got it from some news source that got picked up by the Drudge Report, then twisted it a way that fits their agenda.
They don't expose ... they repeat what they hear. They parrot it.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 22, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
It is really so simple, a child could explain this, but it still has apparently alluded some folks: If you hate, you seek out the loudest haters to listen to. If you feel threatened, you listen to the one feeding that fear and helping you "arm" yourself for the battle to come. If you feel comforted by the inglorious past that you have conjured you want to find someone else who will constantly polish the brass to keep it from turning. If you feel stingy, put upon or ill served you look for the voice that confirms what you feel as valid and gives you the talking points to make it a conversation or at least a rant you can use. If you do not like, or even hate "them", you look for the voice that also hates and helps you feel justified in it. Vitriol and insult serve those who use them and hurt those who do not. It ain't pretty, but it is the American way;"the right' does it, 'the left' does it. Two wrongs do not make it correct. That there is a voice perceived as hate on the air is one thing, that people listen to it and agree with it is the problem.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 22, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
Yes I can tell you one thing Dan: the two incidents involving the military soldier killed by that fanatical person in Oklahoma, and the issue about the abortion doctor killed in Kansas City.
1) The left-wing media went crazy over the abortion doctor being killed and spent days and days harping over what was going to happen to the women who use abortion as birth control.
2) They barely said anything, if anything, at all about that soldier who served his country and then came home to be killed by a hateful, outrageous bigot who lives by a religion of pure hatred.
As a matter of fact, the Roanoke Times and you hardly said anything about the soldier being slain.
Tell me something please: if you had a daughter who was pregnant and she decided she did not want the baby and wanted an abortion, would you help her get one? Would you help her get an abortion if she was 7 or 8 months along? Just how would you feel about that?
And if you had a son in the military serving our country, came home and was beaten to a pulp or killed by one such as who killed that soldier in Oklahoma City - how would you feel about that? Would that not bother you?
I will answer these questions for you - you would be absolutely devastated!
Comment by AMAC — June 22, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
AMAC,
I have 4 kids -- three girls, 21, 18 and 15, and one boy, 10.
Of course, I would feel horrible if any of them were killed (for any reason). It seems hard to imagine that I would feel better or worse depending on the circumstances of their untimely death.
And I would feel horrible for any of the girls if one of them was ever was personally confronted with the question of whether or not to have an abortion. Or, in the case of my son, if he was in relationship with a woman who had decided to have an abortion.
Whether you favor abortion rights or are opposed to them, few if any people take abortion lightly.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 22, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
AMAC, your characterization of what the "left wing media" did and said after the abortion doctor's murder and the recruiter's murder was very telling. I watched Rachel Maddow do a show explaining the similarities in the two terrorists and the fact that the FBI was very much aware of the doctor's murderer's previous criminal acts that should have had him in jail and that the recruiter murderer had literally been the subject of an FBI task force and still managed to be riding around free with that kind of fire-power. There is much that can be laid at the feet of the media and a failure to ask the hard questions is not always an unfair one, including the silence on the fiery rhetoric Bill O'Reilly in particular aimed at Dr. Tiller but you have been unfair on this issue and have chosen to see it through your own prism, as many on the left do as well. Where that gets us should be obvious. There are no innocents here, there are hate mongers and hate filled rhetoric that does not serve the platform of any party or ideology except hate and the sooner both sides admit that, the sooner we can change the view on those prisms.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 22, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
I thoroughly enjoy Mark Levin's radio show. It's carried on XM radio but comes on too early in the west. I download the show each night to my ipod. I also purchased his book Liberty and Tyranny and it was so thought provoking I purchased another copy for my son. I am now on a second reading of the book as all the information is hard to absorb in one pass. It is reported to have sold over 800,000 copies so far. Needless to say, I totally disagree with your assessment of Mark Levin.
Comment by A Levin Fan — July 9, 2009 @ 12:03 am
Dan while I respect your right to have an opinion as we all have that right. Im also disturbed by your stating that somehow people who listen to Mark Levin are 5th grade dropouts or "Professional Wrestling Fans" The left always accuses the Right of being Elistist when in fact its comments like yours which come of so much more so. The NE liberal core seems to think unless you graduated from the IVY League that you are somehow stupid and inferior and dont know whats good for us just down right pisses us off. Levin has one valid point most of us want Uncle Sam the hell out of our Wallets, Our Bedrooms and our lives in general and that instead it should be worried about our border security and national safety. I dont agree with all that Levin says by any means because as a rule Im generally Libertarian in my views so honestly I think the FandPradio show on FIR is much more thought provoking in the long run.
Comment by DJ — July 9, 2009 @ 1:35 am
Bravo. I share one sentiment with Mark Levin who says frequently that he fears the direction in which America is going. Yes, he' correct. But it is he and his ilk of demogogic conservative radio hosts who engender my fears. They foster dissent and intimidate many congressional representatives who seem threatened by the power of personalities like Levin, Limbaugh and the truly demented Michael Savage. I wish there were more people like you.
Comment by vicky campbell — September 8, 2009 @ 10:47 am
FYI; Most of the calls to Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are scripted. Listen at about 28 past the hour and then 52 past the hour and you will usually hear a plant caller reading from a script. Do you really think the calls Levin or Hannity get from young mothers, college kids, African Americans, and medical doctors, all aggreeing with them, are legitimate?
Comment by Air Rights — September 15, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Dumb dumb Dan Casey, are you afraid to call in and have a debate with Levin. I see you have refused to answer those who asked you to do so. Of course you can't debate him based on your fear of being exposed as the idiot you are to more people. You chicken.
Comment by Mike — November 9, 2009 @ 7:49 am