Regular readers know I am no fan of Mark Levin — mainly because he engaged in an attack campaign against me that included several falsehoods and a generally juvenile tone. However, he can be an effective communicator when he sticks to the facts, and that’s what he does in this well-organized and effective rant about Donald Trump.

Highlights include Trump’s donations to cretins like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton; his statements that Bush was evil and should have been impeached; his praise for Obama as someone with a chance to be thought of as one of the best presidents in history; and his support for universal health care.

It’s almost unbelievable that Levin would find this worth his time, but I guess when a poll (granted, one from PPP) puts Trump 9 points ahead of every other Republican candidate — and when he’s threatening to be a spoiler a la Ross Perot — you gotta take him out. Levin does so with facts — mainly by playing one clip of Trump after another.

No self-respecting Republican could possibly listen to this and continue to support Trump.

Stephen Hayes:

Mark Levin has posted some criticism of my Marco Rubio piece on his Facebook page. The story was a rather straightforward look at the Rubio campaign – from the inside. To the extent that his post is about anything at all, it seems to be a complaint that the piece fails to mention Levin’s endorsement of Rubio. It’s hard to understand why — in the face of trillion [dollar] deficits, growing national security threats and a president who seems ill-equipped to [deal] with either — Levin is focused on something so petty. But his distortions require a response.

Levin writes: “First, when did the Weekly Standard endorse Rubio? Second, the first nationally syndicated talk show to endorse Rubio was … mine.” First, for the few people other than Mark Levin who actually care about such things, Laura Ingraham endorsed Rubio before he did.

Hayes goes on to explain that the Weekly Standard doesn’t endorse candidates — but points to a host of favorable articles and statements about Rubio made by himself and others from the Weekly Standard.

I have a different question. I see commenters on sites like mine saying that we need to move past the whole O’Donnell/Castle controversy. And, it does seem to be getting a little old, huh? Yet there are demagogues like Levin, together with certain bloggers who are desperate to get Levin’s attention, who seem content to pick at this scab, with no signs of letting up. Do their readers and listeners tell them to move on? I see little evidence of that.

Why would they be focused on something so petty as who endorsed Rubio first? Because they’re playing the I’m a more authentic conservative than you game.

The second they tell you that it’s all about the issues and not about the personalities, that’s when you know it’s all about the personalities. Namely, about how they are better than Stephen Hayes, or John McCormack, or Jim Geraghty, or Ace of Spades, or me, or any of the other writers whom they have chosen to label inauthentic.

Conservatives ought to be able to disagree without being at each other’s throats. And it is possible. Michelle Malkin, for example, endorsed O’Donnell, but explicitly said that she was not throwing conservatives overboard for disagreeing with her. I felt the same way about Michelle: I thought the candidate she was endorsing was dishonest and highly unlikely to win, but I also know that Michelle is no dummy. She knew the flaws of her candidate going in, and chose to endorse her despite the fact that the candidate wasn’t perfect — because she thought there were sound reasons to do so. Michelle and I can emerge from something like that respecting each other. Someone like Mark Levin, who twists the facts and plays the authenticity game? Not so much.

By the way, the example of Michelle is a good example of why I get upset at people who declare that the Tea Party generally, or Sarah Palin specifically, exhibited poor judgment or somehow cost us seats. I think this is ludicrous. Regardless of the specific effect of “the Tea Party,” it is precisely the spirit of the Tea Party that swept Republicans into office at historic levels, and that is focused on the important things like controlling spending and rolling back government. Palin didn’t blindly endorse the most conservative candidate in every race (see: DeVore vs. Fiorina) — instead, she did precisely what I would do: she made a calculation about who was the best candidate who might win, and endorsed that candidate. The fact that she and I might come to different conclusions about different races doesn’t mean her judgment is fatally flawed, or that the Tea Party cost us seats. It just means that we disagreed. Republicans are allowed to do that. Conservatives are allowed to do that.

I’m sick of the “I’m a more authentic conservative than you” shtick. When will people start to tell those who play it to grow up? Nobody cares who endorsed Rubio first, Mark Levin. We care about controlling spending and returning to constitutional principles. If you disappeared from the airwaves tomorrow, we’d still manage to do that — even though some of us never wrote a book! This isn’t about you. It’s about doing what’s right for the country.

If you’re the sort of person who lets others lie without responding, this post is not for you. If you believe that people should be able to tell falsehoods without being corrected, you should skip to the next post. Right now. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Still here? Good. That means you believe in my right to stand up for the truth when someone says things that are false.

Now, I have in the past participated in blogger wars with the best of them. I have grown tired of them. I have recently taken positive steps to get out of the cycle of attack and counterattack. I sent Jeff Goldstein a note seeking to bury the hatchet. I have directed people to his fundraising drive, as he has directed people to mine. I unbanned him and every other person I have ever banned, hoping to undo the grudges that often come with banning.

I’m not a perfect man and will never claim to be, but I’m sincerely weary of Internet spats that are personal and nasty. I’m still willing to debate ideas with vigor and passion, but I am not interested in bashing people personally.

I didn’t go looking for a nasty personal interchange with Mark Levin. I wrote a post that corrected several factual inaccuracies he had made about Paul Mirengoff. I hoped he would correct the inaccuracies with class. Instead, he has now written three separate Facebook entries about me, each one containing new falsehoods, and each calling me names such as “jackass,” “moron,” and “idiot.”

You are welcome to read my responses to determine whether you think I have responded in kind, or whether I have instead concentrated on the facts.

Levin has another Facebook post about me today, titled Patrick Frey’s infirmities, and it contains more falsehoods. Part of me just wants to ignore it, because I’m bored by the whole thing. But ultimately, I don’t think he should be able to say things that aren’t true and get away with it. The fact that you’re reading this should mean that you agree.

So let me correct the new falsehoods. I’ll try to keep it as short as I can. As before, I will refrain from calling him names.

Levin says:

On another matter, Frey has posted that I said Castle voted to impeach Bush.

False. My actual quote:

Dan Riehl was pushing this crap for much of the day. He now has updates to his posts, that pretty much negate the entire substance of his posts. . . . Riehl says it all may have started with Mark Levin: “I believe Mark Levin may have broken this on his show.”

I did not say Levin made the claim. I said that Dan Riehl had made the claim that the false accusation may have originated with Levin.

Indeed, if you listen to Levin’s original audio, you can see why Riehl believed that Levin had said Castle voted for impeachment. Levin’s presentation — in which he read the text of the resolution, noted Castle’s vote, and called it “stunning” — was designed, through half-truths, to suggest to his audience that Castle truly sought for Bush to be impeached. I will have more details in a separate page, for those who want to get into the weeds.

Levin continues:

I asked him to provide evidence for this stupid comment, since I never said it. He doesn’t [link] to any original source because he can’t.

False. In a September 15 update to this post, I linked to the audio. As with his attacks on Mirengoff, Levin is leveling charges that the facts don’t cash. Back to Levin:

The website that originally falsely stated my position has since retracted their statement and corrected it. Frey refuses to correct himself and blames it on Dan Riehl. Like I said, he’s a jackass.

False. I did “correct” Riehl’s mistake the very moment I learned that Levin denied it (even though the audio tends to undercut his denial). Here are my updates:

Riehl says it all may have started with Mark Levin: “I believe Mark Levin may have broken this on his show.”

Levin? Engaged in falsehoods? I refuse to believe it! (But then, I am a jackass and a moron, according to Mark Levin. So why listen to me?)

[UPDATE 9-15-10: Levin, in his trademark sneering style, implicitly denies Riehl’s charge. Hence, I am correcting Riehl’s mistake here. This is how it’s done, Mr. Levin: you correct the error in the original place where it was made.]

[UPDATE 9-16-10: Here is the audio where Levin talked about Castle voting to allow the impeachment resolution to go to the committee. Levin calls the vote “stunning.”]

As you can see, Levin accuses me of failing to make a correction. But he didn’t go back to check to see if I had — because I did, two days before he made the false accusation this morning.

You want to see a refusal to correct? We’ve had a long interchange, and each and every time I have pointed out that Levin said Lindsey Graham is Mirengoff’s “brand of Republican” when Mirengoff has said Graham is his least favorite Republican senator. Levin has not acknowledged this error, once, in any post he has written during this exchange.

You want to see a refusal to correct? Here is a screenshot I have taken of Levin’s original post about Mirengoff:

The circled parts are false. They are still there, uncorrected, ready for anyone to stumble across on Google.

You know, I have been correcting people on errors for years, and have made a virtual second career out of obtaining corrections at the Los Angeles Times, where I have obtained over 40 printed corrections on matters both large and small. I don’t think I have ever had the target of my posts respond in the way Levin has. Imagine if someone from the L.A. Times were to get caught with their pants down, in several successive pieces, on numerous different points . . . and responded to the criticism by doubling down on the falsehoods and labeling their critic a “jackass” and a “moron.”

That person would be the laughingstock of the blogosphere.

I wonder what makes Levin think he can get away with distorting the truth in such a serial fashion? Has he gotten too “big for his britches” (as they say in Texas)? What makes him think he can bully a relatively minor blogger, by mobilizing his army of 200,000+ Facebook fans to swarm said blogger? Why does he think that people won’t notice his numerous errors . . . or that they will give him a pass when he refuses to correct them, and instead attacks the messenger?

It’s a rhetorical question, but bat it around anyway. When you come up with the answer, you might just see some irony in Mr. Levin’s pose as a common man who rejects the Ruling Class.

P.S. Thanks to Foo Bar for the link to the audio and the Mirengoff quote showing his contempt for Graham.

UPDATE: Levin has written a fourth Facebook entry attacking me, mostly consisting of what psychologists call “projection.” I think someone has taken him aside and told him how this is all making him look. Details here.

Mark Levin shows us UNITY!!! again on Facebook:

This idiot is a prosecutor?

God save the good citizens of California who pays [sic] his salary.

Well, Mr. Prosecutor, you say you’re concerned about facts. Show us where I said Castle voted for impeachment – not where someone said I did but where I said I said it. See, this is why you’re a moron. And a dissembler to boot.

As for Mirengoff and Harriet Miers, I know we’re moving fast but try and keep up. Mirengoff argued for her nomination up until the day before she withdrew. And Hinderaker trashed George Will for daring to criticize her. You’re concerned about facts? You’re a jackass, but I repeat myself.

And no need to feel inferior for not having written a book. I don’t know why you brought that up, but that’s for you and your shrink. I just hope you can read them.

Boy I would have loved to kick your ass in court.

https://patterico.com/2010/09/13/september-surprise-castle-voted-to-impeach-bush-uh-not-really/

Let’s address these “points” one by one:

Well, Mr. Prosecutor, you say you’re concerned about facts. Show us where I said Castle voted for impeachment – not where someone said I did but where I said I said it. See, this is why you’re a moron. And a dissembler to boot.

Show you where you said it?

How about you show me where I said you did?

Because I didn’t. What I said was that your pal Dan Riehl claimed it may have started with you. Here is what I said:

Dan Riehl was pushing this crap for much of the day. He now has updates to his posts, that pretty much negate the entire substance of his posts. . . . Riehl says it all may have started with Mark Levin: “I believe Mark Levin may have broken this on his show.”

You falsely imply I was the one who made the claim. I was not. It was your pal Dan Riehl.

Now that you appear to deny it, I am happy to correct it — even though it wasn’t my claim. Pay attention, Mr. Levin. This is how it’s done. I went back to the original post and made the correction — something you never bothered to do with your numerous mistakes regarding Mirengoff.

Levin continues:

As for Mirengoff and Harriet Miers, I know we’re moving fast but try and keep up. Mirengoff argued for her nomination up until the day before she withdrew. And Hinderaker trashed George Will for daring to criticize her. You’re concerned about facts? You’re a jackass, but I repeat myself.

As before, I will refrain from descending to your childish level of name-calling and address the facts. I noted at least three separate factual errors in my original post criticizing you.

We’ve covered the Harriet Miers issue already; you initially failed to acknowledge Mirengoff’s ultimate position against her; you have now done so, making your original uncorrected charge a half-truth. If you’re proud of a half-truth, that’s your business. You should still correct the error in your original post. You have not done so.

You admitted you were wrong about Toomey. You should correct the error in your original post. You have not done so.

Facebook allows you to update posts; hell, you included one of your false charges in an update.

What’s more, you still haven’t addressed the fact that you said Lindsey Graham is Mirengoff’s “brand of Republican” when Mirengoff has said Graham is his least favorite Republican senator.

In short, you spouted off about Mirengoff without knowing a damned thing about him. Then you derided my posts noting your factual misstatements — because you’ve written a book and I haven’t. Which leads us to the end of your latest screed:

And no need to feel inferior for not having written a book. I don’t know why you brought that up, but that’s for you and your shrink. I just hope you can read them.

Boy I would have loved to kick your ass in court.

Oh, I’m the one who brought up not having written a book?? This new false charge of yours makes it clear who the true dissembler is: you. You are the one who brought up having written a book, in your original diatribe about me:

I look forward to reading his book one day, where he lays out with some coherence his philosophy on governance and politics. In the meantime, he appears to be just another loser with a keyboard . . .

All I did was note the distinct whiff of the “Ruling Class” in your haughty statement.

I don’t feel inferior to you at all, Mr. Levin. In fact, as you pile on the childish invective and continue publishing falsehoods, it’s becoming quite clear why I say that.

Kick my ass in court? Really?

If you conducted yourself in court the way you have conducted yourself the past several days, I would be shocked if you ever actually tried a case to a successful conclusion. I say that in all sincerity. No trial lawyer convinces 12 people with transparent lies and juvenile name-calling.

Always nice to hear from you.

“Bloggers have no checks and balances . . . [it’s] a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.” — Jonathan Klein, September 10, 2004, referring to bloggers.

“I look forward to reading his book one day, where he lays out with some coherence his philosophy on governance and politics. In the meantime, he appears to be just another loser with a keyboard . . .” — Mark Levin, September 13, 2010, referring to me.

Mark Levin’s dismissal of me as a “jackass,” a “moron,” an “ass,” and an “idiot” doesn’t bother me much. He’s not the first person to call me childish names on the Internet, and he won’t be the last.

But calling a blogger who corrected him on numerous factual misstatements as a “loser with a keyboard” strikes me as very . . . Ruling Class.

And it’s not just an attack on me or PowerLine’s Paul Mirengoff. It’s an attack on any mere blogger who dares correct a Very Important Radio Host on the facts. And, in fact, his characterization of me as a “loser with a keyboard” because I haven’t Written a Book is, fundamentally, a dismissal of anyone who has the temerity to express their opinions on the Internet without having Written a Book.

It’s an attack, in short, on you.

Raise your hand if you have written a book. If your hand isn’t up, Mark Levin doesn’t need to hear from you. You’re just a “loser with a keyboard.”

Remember: my criticism of Levin had nothing whatsoever to do with his position on the Delaware Senate primary. I have my opinion about that, and others have theirs. Reasonable people can disagree about this election. But facts are not opinions — and Levin botched the facts badly in his post about Paul Mirengoff. And that was my beef with Levin.

I criticized Levin because he said that Paul Mirengoff supported Specter over Toomey, when Mirengoff actually supported Toomey over Specter. Because Levin said Lindsey Graham is Mirengoff’s “brand of Republican” when Mirengoff has said Graham is his least favorite Republican senator. Because he said Mirengoff supported “Harriet Meyers” (he means “Miers”) when Mirengoff ultimately opposed her.

I criticized Levin because he misrepresented Mirengoff’s post so badly it was as if he hadn’t bothered to read it — and Levin seemed to think he had the right to engage in such distortions because Levin is famous and Mirengoff is not (“I don’t know Paul Mirengoff and I suspect virtually none of you do”).

Where have we heard this sort of elitist and arrogant attitude before? Why, yes: in Big Media.

We have heard it from New York Times reporter James Risen, who said that his blogger critics were ““jerking off in their pajamas” and added: “Do you even know anything about me? Maybe you were still in school when I broke the NSA story, I don’t know. It was back when you were in kindergarten, I think.”

We have heard it from Helen Thomas, who said of bloggers: “[T]hey certainly don’t have our standards. They don’t have our ethics . . .”

We have heard it from Big Media columnists who decried the way that blogs “continue sprouting like crab grass throughout the electronic ether”; or called bloggers “hobby hacks, the Internet version of the sad loners who used to listen to police radios in their bachelor apartments and think they were involved in the world”; or declared that “blogs are largely the habitat of unemployed writers, enraged misanthropes, retired teachers, aging journalists and people who normally pass their time doodling or making obscene telephone calls.”

We’ve listened to the catcalls through the years — even as we point out error after error after error . . . resulting in correction after correction after correction.

And now we’re hearing the same arrogant attitude from Mark Levin, who thinks your opinion is worthless if you haven’t Written a Book. In his latest response to Mirengoff, he admits he was wrong about Toomey, defends his half-truth about Mirengoff’s support for Harriet Miers as a “full truth,” (Bill Clinton would be proud!) — and doesn’t even bother to address the utter misrepresentation about Mirengoff being a fan of Lindsey Graham.

He’s a Big-Time Radio Host, you see. He doesn’t have to respond to criticism.

And his original post? Still utterly uncorrected. Just like Big Media!

Levin likes to drape himself in the mantle of the Little Guy, but his behavior towards Mirengoff and myself is the behavior of a man who thinks he is above such petty matters as fairness and accuracy — and only the Anointed have the right to call him on it. He thinks he can say what he likes, ignore your corrections of his falsehoods, and generally turn up his nose at you because you aren’t as famous as he is.

If his radio show ever goes bust, I think he has a great future in Big Media. I hear they have some openings at the L.A. Times.

Public Policy Polling:

It looks like there’s a real possibility of a major upset in the Delaware Senate primary on Tuesday night, with insurgent conservative Christine O’Donnell leading longtime Congressman and Governor Mike Castle 47-44. That 3 point lead is well within the poll’s margin of error.

Meanwhile, Dan Riehl is raising questions about Mike Castle’s record. I’m happy to pass along those concerns . . . for what they’re worth.

Dan also jumps into a dispute between the PowerLine guys and Mark Levin. It looks like a full-on war between the “real conservatives” and anyone with the temerity to question them.

Count me out of the war (for now) — but I will say this. There are people who have devoted themselves to the conservative cause for years. I count the PowerLine guys in that group. I sure as hell would not casually place them in the “traitor” category — and I don’t really care what Dan Riehl or Mark Levin say. People with years of solid conservative blogging deserve some credit for their years of solid conservative blogging.

Some conservatives apparently don’t want to put our reputations behind someone who appears to be a liar. I’m sure as shootin’ not going to jump down their throats for that.

Again: I’m not eager to jump into this fight. Then again, if someone wants to drag me into it, I know how to fight back. Fairly warned be thee, say I.

UPDATE: You know, I finally read through Levin’s Facebook post, and Paul Mirengoff’s post that Levin distorts. I am ready to jump into the war.

Levin’s post is packed with mischaracterizations. Just chock full of them. Expressed with the dripping arrogance of someone who apparently feels that, because he is better known than Mirengoff, he is entitled to say whatever he feels like about him — and the facts be damned.

I suppose caring about the facts probably makes me an inauthentic conservative in Mark Levin’s eyes. I don’t care. I’ll go with the facts, every time.

Every time.

UPDATE: I see Levin just called me an “idiot.” I won’t descend to Levin’s namecalling. Again, I will stick with the facts:

PowerLine supported Toomey, contrary to Levin’s original assertion. In the end, they did not support Harriet Miers, contrary to Levin’s original assertion. Levin said Graham is Mirengoff’s “brand of Republican.” That was flatly false. Mirengoff criticizes Graham constantly. Levin said “Mirengoff starts from the proposition that long-time Republican officials deserve re-election.” That assertion is unsupported and false.

Note well: my focus was the facts, and the way Levin distorted them — and now he is coming after me personally. This is reflective of the tactics of the left that Matt Lewis notes are being used against anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

Levin says he has written about these issues since. That’s nice. However, his original piece — the one with all the distortions — remains uncorrected.

I will note only that my concern was, and always will be, with the facts. If that makes me an “idiot” in Mark Levin’s eyes, I don’t want to be “smart.”

UPDATE: Levin calls me other names too, of course, such as “jackass” and the like.  The one I find most interesting is “just another loser with a keyboard.” Levin claims superiority to me because he has written a book and I haven’t, and he is on the radio while I am not.  Apparently bloggers who hold famous radio guys accountable for their distortions are just losers in pajamas.

Where have I heard this line of argument before?  Oh, that’s right: from our betters in Big Media.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

UPDATE: I have more on the way that Levin’s arrogant disregard for the facts reminds one of Big Media elitism, here.

Mark Levin and Glenn Beck got into it concerning whether this is charming or creepy. Beck says creepy, Levin says charming:

I’m with Levin. I thought it was charming. The look on the one daughter’s face is priceless.

He was having a little fun with his daughters, teasing them. It’s clear they were embarrassed, but in a good-humored way.

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post is running pictures of the daughters in bikinis. Taken from Facebook, and now considered fair game to spread throughout the Internet, I guess. Sorry, no picture and no link. As Allahpundit says, the pictures were

taken at her grandmother’s birthday party, according to Ayla Brown — so if you’ve got any information that might even potentially embarrass this kid, I guess you’ll want to shoot that along to them. Her pop’s a Republican. She’s got it coming.

Yup, that’s pretty much the thinking, isn’t it?

[posted by Justin Levine]

I tend to echo much of DRJ’s sentiments on this issue. Now that the government has effectively nationalized the mortgage industry and is doing the same with various banking and insurance pillars of the economy, it is time for free market advocates to go on record to state if they would prefer the economic consequences of doing nothing to the current bailout plan. If they reluctantly accept the bailout plan, then it seems to me that some rethinking of their philosophy is in order.

As for myself, I always tend to believe that the burden of proof is on the government to show that regulations will have substantially more benefits than drawbacks before imposing them. Here is where I tend to disagree with many of strict free market advocates though:

1. I think that the government is actually capable of meeting the burden of proof referenced above on occasion for certain industries. I’ve met some people who seem to think that such a hurdle is never met.

2.  Sometimes, complete regulation, or even outright socialization in rare instances is actually preferable to partial or small amounts of government regulation.

This second point is where I seem to have the biggest disagreement with many of the free marketers that I run into these days. Whenever government introduces a regulation that begins to distort market principles, free market advocates seem to accept it as inevitable, but then argue against any further regulations of the same industry. This can be a mistake in my view, since it then allows the private actors in the market to then abuse the market system and often use the initial regulations to shield themselves from the consequences.

Here is an illustrative example: Like many states, California requires you to purchase car insurance in order to drive a car. However, there is no socialized car insurance industry. You have to purchase the insurance from private players who are usually able to set their own prices and terms for their product. Had it not been for this law, there would have been many periods in my life where I would not have bought insurance (because my car was a worthless piece of junk, and my personal assets weren’t all that much either — so it made economic sense for me to forgo insurance and risk the costs associated with a potential accident).

So now that you have a government law/regulation forcing you to buy a product from a private industry, does it make more sense to have the government thoroughly regulate the prices and policies of that industry to make sure that the consumer is protected from predatory market practices that the government has encouraged with its initial regulation? I say yes. For this reason, I’m glad that there is a California Insurance Commissioner that helps regulate the industry. But I know many who would say no.  They seem to argue that as long as there is “competition” among several insurance carriers, the law forcing you to buy insurance doesn’t constitute enough of an unfair market distortion for consumers such that it warrants further government regulation. [There are also a few nitwits who would actually argue that I can just make the “free market economic choice” to not drive in Southern California. Those people and I are simply on different planets when it comes to arguing economic policy.]

Which brings us back to the current economic situation with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and a host of other institutions. I would argue the same dynamic is at work here. Freddie and Fannie were born out of government tinkering with market principles in a half-assed manner. So now the government was faced with a stark choice:  More thorough regulations of the institutions, or a complete economic meltdown that would adversely affect everyone — including those who steered clear of the housing industry and are effectively “innocent” players here.

That is what I see as the real challenge for free market advocates today. There are very few genuinely laissez-faire institutions left when it comes to the large pillars of our economy. We could face this same situation again if we are lulled into thinking that 20% government regulations will always be better than 60% government regulation in all situations in every industry. Regretfully, many use the term “free market” as just a reflexive talking point these days rather than as a substantive idea that reflects the realities of today’s commerce.

So says I. Political party hacks and talking point robots can naturally continue to send the Justin Levine hate mail to Patterico.

– Justin Levine

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Stephen Macklin dissents from Justin’s opinion, here.

UPDATE X 2 BY JUSTIN LEVINE:  I welcome Macklin’s comments. The reason I turn off comments is to encourage more substantive reactions like his that you get far more often in actual blog posts that link back to the original post, rather than off the cuff ramblings in the comment section.

With that said, I don’t see Macklin’s recation as much of an actual ‘disssent’, even though he tries to frame it in that language. He actually seems to agree with me much more than he is willing to admit.

As he states:

I see the question as, “The government created this crisis. Can and should the government have a role in fixing it?”

Despite my adherence to the idea of a free market, even to the point of it being a “reflexive talking point,” I do see a role and a responsibility for government in cleaning up its mess.

Here. Here.

I agree with him that the current situation is not a “failure of the free market”, and never said as such. My point was that government helped create this mess with half-hearted and partial regulations. And as such, it makes sense for them to minimize the damage with even more robust regulations. That is a point that Macklin seems to agree with.

My other point that perhaps Macklin fails to acknowledge is that few actual “free markets” exist anymore since government regulation now touches virtually every important sector of our economy. Even the very idea of a federal manipulation of the nation’s money supply causes market distortions. As such, it makes sense to consider further government regualtions to tame the market abuse of private players whose abuse was only enabled by the initial half-assed regulations to begin with (see for instance my automobile insurance example above which Maklin does not directly address).

UPDATE X 3 BY JUSTIN LEVINE:  Macklin his updated his thoughts and now explicitly admits, “This is not the free market we’re talking about here, this is the government. The best approach is to regulate it. Regulate it. And regulate it some more.”

Exactly my point to begin with. In many instances, thorough government regulations are far more preferable than half-assed partial regulations that distort free markets and create incentives for predatory abuse among private players who are shielded from the consequences until it is too late. Forgive me if I declare victory in this non-debate.

[posted by Justin Levine]

Another instance of big business lobbyists trying to bully a blogging soccer mom. Absolutely disgraceful in my view.

Top pork man Steve Murphy and legal hack Jennifer Daniel Collins blow big time – despite Murphy’s cynical apology after the fact of getting bad press on this move. But as Part 6 of the Tyranny of Trademark series suggests, President Bush also bears partial responsibility for this one.

I wasn’t sure if I should headline this event as an exhibit under the “Tyranny of Trademark” or “The Coming Legal Superstorm Against Bloggers“. Either one would fit.

[posted by Justin Levine]

[guest post by Dana]

Why are there no Republican multi-billionaires offering to lend President Trump the funds to file his appeal in the outrageous case in NY state? Are none of them liquid enough to help or join with others to help? This is an outrage.

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 18, 2024

The expectation that anyone should bail Trump out of the mess that he made seems to contradict the historical view of Republicans that it is an admirable thing to ‘pull one up by their own bootstraps’ rather than be dependent on others. It doesn’t even occur to Levin that uber-wealthy Republicans are sharp enough to understand that Trump is a dishonest man who will never change his corrupt ways and that they prefer to back winners instead of losers. Levin also assumes that wealthy Republicans have an obligation to loan Trump money. But consider, they didn’t become billionaires and multi-billionaires by flushing good money after bad. After all, loaning someone money suggests that it will be paid back. Donald Trump has never been known to be an honest broker who pays off his debts.

These “party first” people are so clueless. Do they not understand how many Republicans have left the party because of Trump’s corruption? Do they not realize that more and more Republicans and former Republican voters have decided that a vote for Biden to keep Trump out of the Oval Office is the only sensible option after years of watching the bellicose grifter trample the Constitution and rule of law?

Moreover, I just looked up the combined wealth of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump – they are billionaires. Don Jr. is worth approximately $200 million. Eric Trump and wife Laura are worth a combined $350 million. So what’s stopping his very wealthy children from helping him out?

P.S. It appears that Mark Levin himself is a multi-millionaire, so perhaps he can lead by example and pony up first…

—Dana