He also addressed the now famous Limbaugh nomination, briefly, which he acknowledges will not be accepted. "That's not the point," he says.
No one expects Limbaugh's nomination will be accepted. The nomination was made as an obvious conservative retort to Al Gore's nomination. And, along those lines, it has been extremely effective. It's an attempt to make a joke out of the whole process, which Levin refers to as "The Nobel Democrat Prize." That's all.
Tucker Carlson had this to say:
GUEST: (music) Rush Limbaugh may not be the first person who comes to mind when you think of the Nobel Peace Prize. But to the people at the conservative public interest law firm Landmark Legal Foundation, Rush is a regular Nelson Mandela. Landmark was -- has nominated Limbaugh for the 2007 Nobel Prize, saying, quote, "Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today," wow. End quote. This news, of course, sets up a Nobel smackdown for the ages, between Limbaugh and Al Gore, whose nomination by a pair of Norwegian parliamentarians was announced yesterday. Wow! Look at that. Nose to nose. Tucker, Rush has the weight advantage; Al has the reach. Who do you think takes that smackdown?
TUCKER: Actually, I think Gore has the weight advantage these days.
GUEST: So, you would take Gore over Limbaugh, or are you just still deciding?
TUCKER: That would make Gore even more pompous and ubiquitous.
TUCKER: So no, probably not. I think I'd go Limbaugh.
A lot of people have dismissed the "nomination" because it was unsolicited. And, of course, that's true, but as Levin himself said "that's not the point." It's been picked up as "legit" by the news and that is the intended consequence. The point is Al Gore, after all his work pushing for awareness of global warming, has to be paired with Limbaugh where he can be chided. It's like working your ass off only to find out some slacker is up for the same job. It doesn't matter if he has no shot, it's still an insult.
There is no reverence for truth. Evangelicals decry cultural relativism, but it is already all around us, from the far left to the far right. This is how we treat people who, inconveniently, are correct, and whose efforts at awareness infringe on our own right to be ignorant. How many listeners does someone like Mr. Levin have? He isn't concerned with discerning what is true, but defaming those who don't say what he wants to hear.
Even George Will, someone I would consider an intellectual conservative, someone usually governed more by reason than principle, just can't bring himself to accept the world-wide scientific consensus on global warming. Instead, he chooses to get hung up on the word "very-likely" which means 90%. He cares less about truth than feeling good about himself.
People who claim to fight for truth but selectively discard facts are not worth your attention. We all owe people who were behind global warming awareness on a debt of gratitude, but, instead, we allow them to be defamed. It turns out they were right all along, and no amount of cognitive dissonance is going to change our culpability. Far too many see Al Gore and global warming as an a joke. To those people a 10% chance to go on living without any personal responsibility is a well-spring.