From Mark Levin in January 2008: Rally for Romney

National Review ^ | January 31, 2008 | Mark Levin

[Palin Republic]

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The only person who excites the base is Palin... and she gave a great speech today in Hong Kong, for those who still equate her to the Tina Fey impression.”

At this point in history I dont even trust the base. I just saw Gretta FNC and the speech is being kept secret.

[9YearLurker]

The focus shouldn’t be on chasing RINOs out of the party, it should be on voting more small-government, freedom-defending Republicans in.

There’s a big, big difference, and in the art of politics, where coalitions must be built, it is the smarter way to go. Hence Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment.

[Palin Republic]

I agree 100%.

I don’t take ‘purge’ in anything like a literal sense.

We can chase the RINOs out of the party by de-programming and re-educating the people that hold RINO opinions.

[9YearLurker]

Yes, the war of ideas must be engaged—with both fellow Republicans and Independents especially.

[9YearLurker]

Palin’s already posted a major part of it on her Facebook page.

[sickoflibs]

Can you post it here as a vanity?

[9YearLurker]

Here’s a link to it. You could start a thread for it if you’d like: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=app_2347471856&viewas=0

[sickoflibs]

That’s what I was thinking, maybe tomorrow. I dont know if facebook is allowed here.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Well, lucky for us Palin posted her transcript on her facebook page tonight... releases of what she said were embargoed (from what I read) until she chose to release it... the reviews (from people who were there and heard it in person) were excellent, even the NYTimes praised it.

[rabscuttle385]

by de-programming and re-educating the people that hold RINO opinions.

McKook has already been "re-educated"...by North Vietnamese Communists!

[Gilbo_3]

FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons

heheheh...I believe 'black ugly anything I damn well please ' includes full auto...

good nuff fer the military [gov] or the goon squads [gov] then good enough for their employers, ie the entity that actually 'grants' them their power in accordance with our God given rights...

great questionaire haledude, needs to be tweaked and forwarded to the RinoNC...

[Uncle Ivan]

And Palin is most certainly NOT qualified or electable.

BS. And Obama was?

[Chunga]

Darlin', I've been here since 1998. I've been through hundreds of debates about the GOP, conservatism and the ire that Republicans (like Palin, Levin, Limbaugh and Hannity) inspire in libertarians masking themselves and presenting themselves as conservatives.

They aren't. Conservative philosophy has as little to do with libertarianism as it has with Marxism and you're going to need to research this for yourself. It's not my job to sit here hour after hour trying to explain the difference between conservatism and libertarianism to lazy people.

Conservatives consistently vote Republican. This board is infested with trolls attempting to convince people that throwing their vote away in 2008 was the thing to do, and they're trashing the GOP and conservative commentators this very moment on this board in an attempt to shore up Republican defeats in 2010 and 2012. Why? Because libertarians are diametrically opposed to conservatives.

Libertarianism is a stupid, hogwash philosophy, and libertarians are mortal enemies of conservatism.

McCain was not conservative enough for me, but I gladly voted for him because of Sarah Palin and because Barack Obama was the alternative. So did Rush Limbaugh, James Inhofe, Mark Levin, Duncan Hunter and Michele Bachmann.

That ought to tell you something...and that something ought not be that Limbaugh, Levin, Inhofe, Hunter and Bachmann are RINO-lovers.

[Chunga]

I dare you to point out one comment of mine that does not reflect a conservative, small-l libertarian line of thinking and argument.

You need to understand that small "l" libertarianism and conservatism are philosophies in opposition to one another.

Libertarians aren't conservatives. This wholly explains your hostility toward the GOP.

[Chunga]

Romney supporters -- such poor sports at losing that they call Republican or conservatives who actively disparage their guy "anti GOP trolls."

YET ANOTHER example of how the behavior of Romney supporters speaks volumes about Romney.

Romney supporters? Who's a Romney supporter?

[sickoflibs]

Why dont you post it for comments ?

Someone pinged me with this link.

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=app_2347471856&viewas=0

[NFHale]

“...concept of repealing any and all federal firearms regulation which restrict the ownership of FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons, i.e., machine guns?...”

Of course. They’re lawful, Constitutionally-recognized small arms.

2nd A says “to keep and bear arms...’ it doesn’t qualify “Single Shot Flintlocks”, or “Bolt-Action M1903 Springfields” (I know, I know, ‘03’s weren’t available back then - but it’s not the point).

It says “Arms” and it was written for the AGES, not the day, because those brilliant men KNEW that human beings always sink eventually to the lowest common denominator, if left to our devices.

Up until 1934 you could buy a Thompson from the damned Sears catalog! Comrade FDR and his socialist A*hole buddies used the Prohibition gang wars and criminal misuse to limit the ownership of such weapons as BARs, Thompsons, etc., and then 68GCA further restricted us. And they always enact these illegal laws using some “criminal acts” to justify it - just like they try to now.

Class III weapons are small arms; as such, they are Constitutionally protected. Just getting the feddimwits to recognize this fact and OBEY it is the problem.

We’re a loooong way away from what we were originally, friends. Going to take more than one or two Mr/Mrs Magic Wonderfuls getting elected to rectify it.

But it’s a start.

That being said - RINOs are not the answer. They jump ship at the WORST possible moment for our side, either by DESIGN or out of base, crass opportunistic self-interest.

You cannot trust them, other than trusting them to be RINOs at the worst moment for us.

I voted for McCain because the alternative is EXACTLY what I knew we’d have now if he lost (which he did, because HE WOULDN’T FIGHT BACK); but, given Mc’s past history, he’d probably have given in to whatever insane demands the Dems in congress threw at him anyway, and throw us under the bus in the process.

In his favor, he was ardently pro-life. So-so on my gun rights.

He’s only a “maverick” when it comes to sticking it to his own party and helping the enemy.

I’m done with supporting those folks that don’t/won’t/can’t stand up and fight these b*stards that are tearing down everything I love and hold dear.

I’m an American first, a conservative second, and a republican a distant third. Anybody that can’t understand that...well, it ain’t rocket science, after all.

[mkjessup]

I kinda anticipated that you would answer in that fashion, I am proud to say that I stand with you 110 percent.

Well said FRiend.

[NFHale]

“..Punishment should be for the crime not what tool the fool used...”

Roger that, Squantos. Right on the nail head.

Again, it ain’t a rocket science concept. The Founders understood it well. But our “brilliant statesmen” in this day and age know better - you know, those same pathetic idiots that never even READ the “flawed document” they swear to uphold, protect, and defend...

[rabscuttle385]

You need to understand that small "l" libertarianism and conservatism are philosophies in opposition to one another.

Conservative philosophy has as little to do with libertarianism as it has with Marxism and you're going to need to research this for yourself.

Libertarianism is a stupid, hogwash philosophy, and libertarians are mortal enemies of conservatism.

Because libertarians are diametrically opposed to conservatives.

So basically Reagan was wrong, eh?

Because that's exactly what you're saying...

Let's review, shall we?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

—Taken from "Inside Reagan" (interview), Reason magazine, Jul. 1975.

So tell me, Chunga, if libertarians are "diametrically" opposed to conservatives, then how can Reagan be right in saying "that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path"?

Only one of you and Reagan can be right, unless we live in bizarro world where logical contradictions are permissible.

And frankly, I think Reagan has far more credibility than a dumb sheep like you, Chunga.

Conservatives consistently vote Republican.

No, conservatives who consistently vote Republican irrespective of whether the Republicans in question actually consistently believe in and act based on conservative and libertarian values are not just tools but idiots.

Why don't you wake up and smell the sh*t you're shoveling, Chunga?

As conservatarian commentator Jack Hunter (aka the Southern Avenger) wrote in May 2009:

There are two types of "conservative" Republicans. The first type believes that government is broken, but simply needs Republicans to better manage it, while the other believes we need to actually reduce government.

Which type are you, Chunga? The type that actually gives a d*mn? Or the type that has forgotten exactly what conservatism is, or that politics is a means to an end, not merely an end in and of itself?

Oh, and by the way, since you're going to attack me personally, Coolidge himself wrote:

Politics is not an end, but a means. It is not a product, but a process. It is the art of government.
—Calvin Coolidge, R-Mass., Have Faith in Massachusetts, 2nd Ed. Large, 1919, p. 69

...which is what I have just said, more or less.

I voted Bush (R) in 2004, and look what I got.

Graham (R) and McCain (R) called me a "bigot" for insisting that valid U.S. law be enforced.

Instead of dismantling the Department of Education, as promised, a Republican Congress with a Republican President and a divided Supreme Court enlarged it, under "No Child Left Behind," and additionally created a whole new bureaucracy, the "Department of Homeland Security."

Instead of eliminating the un-Constitutional Medicare, a Republican Congress with a Republican President and a divided Supreme Court enlarged its scope by creating "Medicare Part D."

Instead of reducing the size and scope of government, a Republican administration rammed through a bailout for the largest, politically-connected banks, enabling them to engorge themselves on acquisitions at taxpayer expense. Banks that once were "too big to fail" are now even bigger than before.

Faithful Republicans in Massachusetts voted for Romney (R), and they got slammed with Romneycare, which is effectively Obamacare on the state level.

Faithful Republicans in Arizona voted for McCain (R), and now free speech is limited (McCain-Feingold), and leftist Democrats have a template for cap-and-trade (McCain-Lieberman-Warner).

Faithful Republicans in San Diego, California voted for Bilbray (R), who just the other day said on live television that health insurance corporations should "give up some of [their] profits so Americans can have good health care."

Faithful Republicans in Texas voted for Cornyn (R) and Lamar Smith (R). In Feb. 2009, the pair proposed a bill that would have required practically every operator of a computer network, including home users, to maintain detailed access records for on-demand inspection by police. Their excuse? "It's for the children." [Nevermind the part where their bill mirrored a similar Democrat attempt three years prior.] And it wasn't even the first time that Smith (R) had attempted to curtail the freedom and liberty of American citizens and lawful residents: in Apr. 2006, Smith proposed expansions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in favor of various entertainment industry cartels.

Oh, and dare I mention the part where Cornyn (R), McCain (R), and others (R) in the NRSC attempted to silence conservatives in the upcoming Pennsylvania and Florida Senate races by prematurely endorsing Specter (R, now D) and Crist (R) in an attempt to derail genuine conservatives Toomey (R) and Rubio (R), respectively?

I could go on and on, but pray tell, why exactly should I vote for Republicans, no matter what, when the vast majority of them clearly don't believe in free speech, individual liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the rule of law, and limited government, except when it comes time to get re-elected? Or are you trying to suggest that free speech, individual liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the rule of law, and limited government are not conservative values?