I don't like either one of them, really. Ingrahm is a weak, lilly-livered type that was repeatedly run over during this interview, and completely lost control of the show. Mark Levin, on the other hand, has warned people, directly and with no BS, that he will not be talked over, and will be permitted to finish sentences, just as he allows others to. She should've shut the guy down, and warned him that if he was going to be uncooperative and evade answering questions like the average ambulance-chasing shyster, his line of questioning should've been declared over, and the rest of the segment should've been between herself and the other guest. This is not an uncommon liberal tactic (using bluster, BS and a loud mouth to cover the fact that they are completely lacking in mental ammunition to intelligently defend themselves in open debate), and she should be old enough to have seen this, by now. If necessary, their microphones need to be shut off for varying lengths of time, until such time as they become courteous and cooperative. They can say it's squelching dissenting speech all they want; we'd all know that it was shutting down a disruptive influence, Hell-bent on hijacking the show and taking control over the line of questioning, driving it in the direction he wanted it to go into, as opposed to the host's wishes.