"my guy" or not "my guy" but jeez, Joel, you're setting a pretty high bar aren't you? The exchange sounds pretty loutish to me, but for crying out loud, it's an ideological radio show.

Somebody needs some decaf, and it may not just be Levin.

There's a lot of yelling and some impolite exchanges, even a few originated by the host, on some political talk-radio shows.

Er... no. I'm not trying to make anybody look like a jerk. Except Mark Levin. Who appears to be a jerk.

It's just my temperament, I guess, but I don't quite understand the appeal. I don't watch Olbermann or listen to Air America or read Daily Kos, either, because I don't really enjoy shrill rhetoric. (Despite what you may think about my torture posts.) All that's the lefty equivalent -- as near as I can tell -- of Levin and his ilk.

And I'm pretty sure I know what your reaction would be if Olbermann told a conservative that her spouse should shoot himself in the head.

I don't know enough about Prejean to talk intelligently about her -- the whole pageant thing was a sideshow, and I didn't care to learn much about it. But I will say that being for gay marriage is not exactly the same thing as being against Carrie Jean Prejean (though, I suppose, there are probably some significant overlaps). But liking Mark Levin is exactly the same thing as liking Mark Levin.

I don't think you're a jerk, Jim. I *like* you, even if we manage to get each other's goat with some regularity. Proving you a jerk isn't on my wish list.

I know Mark Levin. I met him in 1996 and I've spoken and corresponded with him many times over the years, most recently in March. Although I've never met his kids or dined at his home or anything, I'm willing to vouch for his good character. And I dispute Joel's characterization, except for the rudeness, which may be uncouth at times but as far as I know it's not a mortal sin.

Mark Levin off the air wouldn't say what he said to that caller in the way that he said it. But I think he meant what he said, which boils down to the observation that the caller prefers her despotism with a Democratic rather than a Republican hue and, secondarily, he wouldn't want to be married to her. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Moreover, I think the caller got what she deserved. Why? Time, place and manner. The caller was a fool if she expected to have a genuine conversation. When you call a radio show like Levin's, prepare for combat. You will always lose to the guy with the dump-button. If you listen even for an hour, you'll learn that he even throws gentle jabs at friendly callers. That's the show. It's also why I would rather read Levin's books than listen to talk radio generally, but I'm still a fan.

Levin's latest book, Liberty and Tyranny, isn't a typical radio book. It isn't schtick on a page. It's a fairly tightly argued brief against what he sees as a rising tide of statism in America today. And if Levin gets worked up about the subject on the air and yells at some dumb callers, well, that's really no concern of mine. May not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's still a free country. More or less.

Aw, hell, I'll play.

Sexist: What does it matter to any substantive argument whether or not she's married? Put it another way: Would Levin ask a dude this question in this context?

Violent: Suggestions that somebody should shoot themself?

Out-of-nowhere: I'll outsource my response to your charge back to Conor Friedersdorf, who I believe is conservative (if idiosyncratically so):

The host is weirdly blind to the irony that he himself thinks a wartime president possesses the power to house detainees where he sees fit, at least if the President asserts that his chosen policy is needed to keep America safe. As we all know, President Obama thinks that Gitmo is a PR disaster that helps Al Qaeda recruit more terrorists, and therefore makes us less safe. So by the host’s own standard of executive power—not to mention Dick Cheney’s standard — President Obama possesses the inherent power to close Gitmo, what Congress says be damned. (That isn’t my position, mind you — because I reject the Cheney/Fox News/talk radio vision of the wartime executive, I think that Congress can thwart Obama’s plans.)

Not exactly how I'd put it, but close enough. As it happens, I have a number of problems with the Obama approach on national security that I'm trying to figure out how to address, but if conservatives are going to yell "WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY!" when a Democratic president overreaches and yell "WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY!" at Democrats who protest when a Republican president overreaches -- well, perhaps you can see why I think it more a non-substantive rhetorical tactic than anything else.

Why not? I tend to agree with 87.5% of what he has to say. I don't listen that regularly and I admit the phone segments are generally my least favorite, partly because of the preemptive caller blow-off feature exhibited by this topic.

In the first place he has to know that many of the calls are made strictly to bait him and waste time. Sometimes he is right to flush them. But other times it is not so obvious; sometimes I would like to hear a more reasoned reply; one that would at least plant a seed of doubt in the caller. He could have taken the statement "Yeah but you know he can just move those people over here anyway. He’s already doing it with the one guy", and really made some hay with it. He chose to go with Leftist methodology with no evidence that the caller hates his country. Tacking on the her husband should "shoot himself" actually was quite stupid. But, nobody is perfect; especially one who sees the country he loves going to hell in a hand-basket.

Mark is a good man. He is not a perfect man, which he admits to quite freely. His book is quite fine. If it comes to revolution, I'll fight on his side of the battle.

So ... one silly/dumb rant and we should all throw Levin overboard? Ah, the Left in full glory ... thought police in riot gear meanwhile the hate coming from its own side is ignored (Biden and Hillary's indian joke goofs exhibit A)

is the word you really want there, but by-the-numbers fits. I think you have made good points in the topic and comments. I think that the 'ego' becomes a problem with a lot of celebrities to the the point where they can no longer discern their innate self from their persona. How many "oh, thank you" or "you are a great American" can one take before getting a little off balanced.

If he really did suggest his critics are not famous enough to matter then he is the same as when Obama suggested "what tea parties" to which I am sure Levin would have ranted. Oy vey!