I disagree.

Kelly always has a glow on her face and a gleam in her eye. The gleam gets even stronger either when she’s happy, or angry, or especially when she is winning an argument (which is often). I’ve watched her quite a bit, although less lately, and in my opinion she is basically a moderately conservative Republican.

I understand; never meant to insinuate such.

Just a little tangential venting on my part that, as a society, we seem to want to look to sincerity as a justification. My larger point; if it can defend the bad things as well as the good it is a useless arbiter. Just like “A” for effort; effort is useless if it leads to failed or useless results.

When I bought my car in 2011, used (it was a 2010), it had been a corporate car and had Sirius radio on it from that. Apparently they had recently renewed it and paid for the year, because I had it for free for about 10 more months. So I got to know Sirius. I kept trying, but I never found a station I much cared for, music-wise. Some were okay, but I found that I listened to it less and less till by the time it came to be renewed I didn’t bother.

I didn’t offer “sincere” as a justification or excuse, merely a description to let “Frog” know my assessment of Levin ‘s character and motivation.

Neo,

People cite sincerity as a positive attribute usually to rationalize a behavior. I, long-ago, discounted sincerity as a rationale or justification for anything. After all, Hitler was sincere (Godwin’s law, I know), Stalin was sincere, etc. Hell! Even Obama is sincere about his fundamental transformation of our country.

The road to Hell is paved with sincerity; I don’t think it counts for a hill of beans whether it’s applied to Mark Levin, Bernie Sanders, Megyn Kelly or Chris Matthews. We should develop more pointed assessment standards (which your points 2 & 3 qualify for).

Get Sirius satellite radio in your car. Commercial-free music.

I have always liked Megyn Kelly and I don’t think he made a wise choice in who to attack. Like you, the sexist (or not) aspect is not the important part, more that he is acting like a foolish person who does not have a clear answer and cannot think on his feet though he can insult on his feet. But yes, that is not thinking.

Actually, I’ve listened to Mark Levin much more than I care to.

I’ll explain. You may recall that I don’t like talk shows and almost never listen to them for pleasure. The only one I like at all is Howie Carr, for his self-deprecating, sarcastic humor. He’s also a pretty smart guy (from Maine originally, now in Massachusetts).

Other than that, I don’t listen, don’t like to process information that way, find most callers stupid or strident and the whole thing a waste of time mostly.

However, I’m in my car quite a bit, and sometimes the drives are fairly long, and so there’s the radio to pass the time. It just so happens that I seem to often be in the car when Mark Levin’s show is on, because nine times out of ten it seems as if, when I turn on the radio, there he is, yakking away. So I’ve listened to him a lot, much more than any other talk show host except Carr and probably arguably more than I’ve heard Carr.

This has been going on for years, but particularly in the two years or so. So I would say I’m extremely familiar with his thought and his audience.

I find him a paradox. He is a smart and knowledgeable lawyer and often quite good on the Constitution and issues connected with its history. Sometimes he’s good on the news of the day, especially regarding terrorism and that sort of thing. Every time he talks about the Republicans, however (which he does very very very often), he goes into a rage, but more importantly I find that he is wrong about a lot of what he says. For example, when he spoke about Corker-Menendez he said quite a few things that were factually wrong. And always wrong in the direction of making the Republicans out to be even worse and more craven than they actually were being (which was bad enough).

I have found this happening time and again over the years. I have mulled it over, and quite a while ago I came to the following conclusions:

(1) he is sincere and is motivated by patriotism and love of liberty
(2) however, he is a talk-show host and has found his niche, and that niche is rage at the Republicans and stirring up further anger at them, which I believe clouds his judgment on various issues connected with that
(3) his callers and he feed on it together, and whip each other up to greater heights of anger

I believe that the net result—although I do not think it is his intended result—has been greater victory for the left.