Posted on 02/23/2010 10:12:38 AM PST by Sergeant Tim
"Ronald Reagan would never have loosely generalized about conservatives and the Republican Party because like a surgeon, like a real thinker, and like an activist, he wanted the distinctions to be known, he wanted the distinctions to be clear, he wanted to promote our principles, and he wanted to contrast them with those who either had no principles or were promoting something else. Carpet-bombing the Republican Party takes out an awful lot of good people, too many good people." -- Mark Levin, February 22, 2010
Mark Levin took great issue last night with "carpet-bombing" the Republican Party:
Mark had some advice for the bomber:
"It is the spending, stupid." Yes, we get it; this grass roots movement of ours gets it and seems determined to vote out of office the offenders. Yet just reading one label, i.e. Republican or Tea Party, and applying a value to candidates is very risky.
In Nevada, a man who few ever heard of and who has not been endorse by two substantial tea party groups there, is polling at 11%; his candidacy might return Harry Reid to the Senate.
Rand Paul in Kentucky is polling far ahead of his nearest opponent to become the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. He sounds remarkably like his father, Congressman Ron Paul, on national defense. Rand Paul speaks about the "military-industrial complex." He derides McCain-Feingold yet proposes he own set of restrictions on campaign contributions.
Rand Paul is also factually incorrect about both our invasion of Afghanistan and what constitutes a formal declaration of war. He quotes Michael Scheuer saying, "One of the mistakes we made in Afghanistan was not that we invaded but that we waited a month and a half to go in." Paul expands from that by saying, "So there might have been a reason the President could have sent Special Forces in secretly within a few days and I think that could have been something that would have been justified. However, the truth is it took us a month and a half to get into Afghanistan and there is no reason why there should not have been a declaration of war vote in Congress." Here are the facts: our Special Forces began crossing the border into Afghanistan before dawn there on September 12, 2001; we began invading Afghanistan in force on October 7, 2001; and Congress has 'declared war' more times without using those words that it has used them during our history. In addition, Congress voted in favor (including Ron Paul) of an 'Authorization to Use Military Force' on September 18, 2001 and it did not limit the President to merely invading Afghanistan:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
If that was not a declaration of war, then two Presidents have violated Congress's intent in Afghanistan. Yet Congress has since authorized more than 800 billion dollars and nearly 1,000 U.S. troops have died fighting there. It is clear to me that Congress declared war and Rand Paul would be a 'chip off the old block' as a U.S. Senator.
Voters beware!
Nah, I’m sure Mark is only jealous that some else got a TV show. Bill Bennett is the guy who came from the country club.
I doubt he would. Why would he really care?
“Is Beck a Republican?”
No. Voted for McCain, though.
So, when Mark hammers Beck, he can't be speaking ill of another Republican then, can he?
Beck said in his speech that he always votes for Republicans.
Hannity goes out of his way to say he’s not a registered Republican either. Do you consider him anything other than a Republican?
“But be that as it may, I just think that a straight-up Declaration that ‘A State of War is formally Declared to exist’ simply leaves opponents a lot less wiggle room, IMHO.”
It would make no difference, so far as I can see. In the very least, no one who cares is representative of the general public, which does not read Congressional acts and probably has no idea we haven’t declared war in a long time. The public is smart enough, however, to know who wanted the war in the first place, who asked for the war, and who prosecuted the war. They also know, if they stop to think about it, that the Democrats authorizing force was hedging their bets (so they can cash in whether or not it’s a success).
But that doesn’t matter. There are only two parties, and as regards mass opinion, if you blame one you favor the other. One side has to be MORE to blame for the war, even if the other side is partly to blame. And the side that will get more blame is the one that fought the war. See LBJ not running for re-election and Nixon taking the Whitehouse (the first one of his party since Hoover, for pete’s sake!), even though Republicans authorized Vietnam en masse.
If you are not a registered Republican, you are not a Republican. Is that a trick question?
How you vote means infinitely more than how you’re registered.
Do you think everyone who took part in Operation: Chaos is a Democrat?
“So, when Mark hammers Beck, he can’t be speaking ill of another Republican then, can he?”
I presume some poster upthread said something about not speaking ill of other Republicans, but I don’t care. It’s a matter of semantics, really, as the public persona of Mark Levin is, no doubt, not Mr. Republican. Really, the only people who can claim that title are Republican politicians holding or seeking elective office. Beck is a conservative, as is Levin, who cares about the Republican party (or one of the major parties, at least. I suppose if Democrats magically became conservative, he’d sign on) remaining conservative.
A good portion of the electorate is smart enough to see that.
I think that another large portion, however, isn't.
Ergo, I don't think we should allow our opponents to "hedge their bets". Maybe that's just me.
“If you are not a registered Republican, you are not a Republican. Is that a trick question?”
Silly word games. Levin’s position only makes sense if the Republicans are the only conservative party that matters, which can only be the case if it is the only one capable of pulling in a significant plurality of support amongst the American people, which is only possible if it has a constituency (or potential consituency) FAR beyond its registered membership. Think of Beck as one of those unaligned Republicans. You know, the ones who get Republicans elected (which is the point of political parties in the first place).
Beck has a whole floor on 6th Avenue in NY, makes nice with George Clooney, embraces man-made global warming, has a liberal agent, goes on the View and sits repeatedly for interviews with the NYT, lives in a mansion in Connecticut, and is driven in a limo each and every day, and he’s a man of the people? And Levin doesn’t charge $120 a seat to attend a seminar either, or the other stage and carnival shows Beck does. Levin doesn’t charge for using his website. He doesn’t have a big team of staff writing his books and speeches. Actually, Beck is the country clubber. He’s a fraud. You are a drone.
He does not embrace manmade global warming.
You must be getting your info from the MSM.
I don’t listen to Beck much at all, I just know stupid attacks of jealousy when I see them.
“I don’t think we should allow our opponents to ‘hedge their bets’. Maybe that’s just me.”
Yes, well, they could easily hedge their bets nonetheless. It’s called “I changed my mind.” Which gets you called a flip-flopper, but not if the whole party does it at once. And not if you can add in that you follow your heart, or whatever.
Anyway, I find it hard to believe that people are too dense to see that Democrats didn’t necessarily want the Iraq war in the heart of hearts (in fact, I figure people pretty much knew Dems weren’t enthusiastic, and that some of them secretly hoped it would fail), yet clever enough to set a trap for catching wish-washiness. They’ll always fall for the bet-hedging, no matter how cynical they are, for the previously outlined “what party is MORE to blame?” principle. People knew Iraq was more of a Republican thing than a Democratic thing (they’re not THAT stupid). What’s more, they had years of non-resolution, Bushites apologizing, and Dems attacking in which to forget there ever was such a thing as an authorization vote.
Which, in my opinion, doesn’t make them stupid, lazy or forgetful. The authorization really doesn’t matter, after all, since the Dems didn’t really mean it anway. Oh, and Bush was still “MORE to blame.”
Yes, post #2. How could you miss it?
No, Tublecane, it's not silly word games. It's a fact. If Beck used his head, he'd become a Republican and contribute to the party's conservative ascendancy!
An entire floor? AND he lives in a big house? AND he rides in limos? AND he he makes money?
Down with this sort of thing! Power to the proletariat!
“Yes, post #2. How could you miss it?”
I don’t commit every post to memory.
“No, Tublecane, it’s not silly word games. It’s a fact.”
Yes, all semantic arguments are basically arguments of fact, aren’t they? Often irrelevant facts, but facts nonetheless.
“If Beck used his head, he’d become a Republican and contribute to the party’s conservative ascendancy!”
But what if he joins and the conservative ascendancy never comes? Imagine we run someone like—oh, I don’t know—John Freakin’ McCain again. Then he’s accomplished nothing and ruined his reputation (based as it is firmly in not being a bot like Sean Hannity).
“Actually, Beck is the country clubber. He’s a fraud. You are a drone.”
A country-clubber is as a country-clubber talks.
The point is Beck is the country clubber.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.