Radio host Mark Levin called Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin a “kook” the other day. Par for the course; this is how Levin argues. We know that. Boldin hit back with an actual argument, noting that Levin’s cribbed arguments against nullification are exactly the same as the ones used by Rachel Maddow.

I already know what the critics will say.

(1) Why attack Levin? He’s a great guy who agrees with you on lots of things.

(2) Who cares what Levin says?

My replies:

(1) He argues like an elementary-school kid. He should be criticized for this. It’s all name-calling. Michael and I have never called him a name.

On foreign policy, my biggest issue, Levin is as much a propagandist as any other neocon. His long-exploded arguments against nullification are apparently cribbed from Heritage Foundation memos, not his own research.

He is supposed to be a defender of the Constitution. On presidential war powers, not exactly a trivial issue, he is a disaster. He has his listeners so screwed up that I actually had people calling me a left-winger because I defended the views of presidential war powers held by Mr. Republican himself, Senator Robert Taft. This is intellectual malpractice.

Levin sympathizers who tell me to leave him alone (which I normally do, by the way, unless he attacks me or a friend) should send me a copy of the email they sent him asking that he stop attacking Michael Boldin and the Tenth Amendment Center. Something tells me they never sent any such email. Their principle is: when Levin attacks you, it is wicked and reprehensible to defend yourself. That sounds reasonable.

(2) I don’t care what he thinks or says. I do think my friends have a right to defend themselves when a guy with an audience the size of Levin’s attacks them.