The fact that you need to root Android negates the meaning of using a Linux OS.
The fact that he prefers GPLv2 is a pretty strong counter-argument: GPLv2 allows the ODM/OEM to implement a linux soltuion. The end user has no guarantee of crypto keys, software, or hardware that enables "root" access.
Rooting most likely voids your warranty and is definitely nontrivial to non-technical people. I have rooted my phone and installed cyanogenmod before and I wouldn't call it easy. I can't imagine average people going through that process voluntarily or without screwing it up. Yeah, to people like us it might not be that bad, but to your every day user it just doesn't make any sense to do.
That's a horrible analogy, sorry.
I have to agree with some other commenters here that Google using Linux as a base for android and chromeOS doesn't do much for the Linux community (not nothing, though). It really doesn't matter what kernel they are using. It's all the stuff that's build on top which matters... maybe there's something to calling it "GNU/Linux" after all - just so we could avoid misleading and misinformed commentary like this blog post.
It wasn't built into mine (Gentoo Linux). I had to install it separately.
Sudo is also nontrivial to nontechnical people[1], and it doesn't even have a warranty[2].
[1] As immortalized in the mouseover of a recent xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1343/
Are you actually complaining about how manufacturers often have locked boot loaders and you need to jump through hoops to get to an OS you like? That's not an issue with the OS.
The real problem is that tools like Unrevoked[0] are needed, and that bootloaders can come encrypted (even on the HTC One, for Verizon).