Talk:Mark Levin

"Conservative" commentator?

I think it is fundamentally dishonest for this article to call Levin a "Conservative," (as opposed to a Republican). Anyone familiar with Levin's radio show knows that he spends day after day, viciously blasting Democrats and strongly supporting Republicans. I listened extensively to Levin's program throughout the George W. Bush years and Levin fanatically supported Bush when the latter did all kinds of decidedly non-Conservative actions, from the 2008 Wall Street bailout to the "Patriot" Act and its Constitution-destroying provisions (i.e. warrantless wiretaps). Anyone who believes Levin is a "Conservative" simply doesn't grasp what a Conservative is. A true Conservative might well have supported Bush on some issues, but definitely not on warrantless wiretaps and the bailing out of Wall Street with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. Let's face it: Levin is a Republican hack. While I don't expect that description to make it into Wikipedia, I do think it would be entirely fair and accurate to call Levin a "Republican," rather than a "Conservative." Otherwise, the latter really has no real meaning. (And please: don't tell me that Levin opposed the 2008 bailout. He was mostly quiet on it during the Bush years---and even indicated at times that he felt it was necessary to save the economy--and he only really starting speaking up in opposition to it when Obama took power). Amazingly, Levin did the same with the Afghanistan War. He ferociously attacked opponents of that war during the Bush years and it has only been since Obama took power that Levin has said he doesn't understand what America is doing in Afghanistan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.223.18 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Even though I agree, it's seems that our view is too subjective, and we'd have to have sources that back it up in a non-partisan way. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems like the standard description for a modern conservative.98.232.80.37 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Levin explicitly states, on multiple occasions and in his books, that he is a conservative, and NOT per se a Republican.

I think the way to handle this is to simply describe the content of his show,eg, he calls prominent republicans like Speaker Boehner sell out RINOs, he often calls democrats "democrat", he call people he disagrees with extreme leftwing marxist totalitarians, etc

I think also some well chosen quotes would reveal that he is self contraditory (eg, he often criticizes liberals for calling republicans names, but he himself calls liberals all sorts of name) and often wrong on the facts and incoherent

The bar for a factual article such as this one is that Levin describes himself as a conservative. You may dissent from that view, but the foremost expert on what Mr. Levin is or believes is Mr. Levin himself. Thus, for example, you wouldn't kick someone out of the Republican party because you don't believe they are really republican. Thus, Levin should be able to classify himself as conservative just as you are able to file a dissent if space is provided for that.

Liberal vs Statist

Levin explicitly defines the terms "liberal" and "statist" and uses them distinctly in his books. They should not be confused or conflated in the descriptions thereof, by those whom, it would appear, haven't read them. 108.222.253.74 (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Constitutional Scholar

None of the three references offered to support the identification of the subject as a "constitutional scholar" appear to be reliable sources. Most appear in polemical web sites written by political pundits or operatives, none of them prominent and none of them an authority on constitutional law. A reliable source for this claim might be (a) that this identification has appeared in reliable news sources, such as major newspaper; (b) that the subject has unambiguously acted in this role, as (for example) by teaching constitutional law at an accredited university; or (c) has been recognized as a constitutional scholar in a number of journals and law reviews. Weblogs, informercials, and partisan Web sites are not reliable sources for information of this nature. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Sourcing definitely wasn't sufficient. Thanks for making the change. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)