Posted on 12/15/2015 6:37:39 AM PST by Isara
On Monday night’s radio program, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin called out Donald Trump for mimicking the statists and the Republican establishment by attacking rival Ted Cruz and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia over the weekend.
Listen:
Listen to the audio at the link.
Levin cited three “reckless comments” made by Donald Trump.
First, Mr. Trump joined in with a leftist on CNN to dump on Justice Scalia, who’s comments during oral argument have been unfairly accused of being racist. Conservatives know better.
Second, Levin said that Mr. Trump’s insinuation that Ted Cruz is bought and paid for by Texas oil companies because he opposes ethanol was “stupid.” Ethanol subsidies are a “typical, big-government, Stalinist program” and conservatives know better than to criticize a candidate who opposes government waste. Announcing your support for ethanol subsidies because you’re campaigning in Iowa is pandering.
Thirdly, Levin declared that Mr. Trump sided with the Republican establishment when he called Sen. Cruz a “maniac” for refusing to go along with the Washington establishment in the Senate. Isn’t Mr. Trump himself running an anti-establishment campaign? Why would he adopt Establishment talking points to attack another conservative?
Levin went on to say that running a populist campaign by abandoning conservative principles is nothing more than liberalism. If Mr. Trump is a conservative, he should not be attacking another conservative from the left.
I agree. It is just a term that has been corrupted by the left, just like everything else they get their tentacles attached too.
Indeed, just like God at some point no longer bothers arguing with the devil. He has his hell; he lives in it; he hates God forever; all agree on where they are though not on why.
sorry......I actually have seen that kind of response (even here) soI was going to get all hot and lathered.
you did indeed nail it exactly
Thats 6 and the predicted pretend faith rears it’s head as always.
Keep on being Satan in the hole. I find it amusing. Psalm 2.
That dovetails with another one here a month back that called the Founders words ‘nonsense’. And prefered America to be imperial.
“At this point I want practical and logical and Trump is who can win. I am not concerned or do I care if Trump is Conservative, I want to win.”
Therein lies the rub. I want to win too. I like Trump. But I cringe at the thought of him self-imploding just days before the general election, throwing it all to the empty pants suit. I’m beginning to put more stock in Cruz’ steadiness and consistency as a candidate.
Thats 8 posts with no proof of your assertions.
.
“All” great leaders must have the capacity of listen to “genuinely” good advice ...
Rush and Mark Levin are trying to HELP Donald Trump ...
THIS EPISODE is the “first” real character test for Donald Trump the candidate ...
I pray to God that Donald Trump passes the test ...
Donald Trump needs to apologize to Ted Cruz and Scalia ... and THEN reap INCREDIBLE political rewards ...
Period.
.
And it's not even the first time that kind of thing has been posted.
Jpsb has stated that he is no social conservative; I don't think a person can be conservative without caring about social issues. And we know that liberals have a historical love of tyrants.
But he’s magically going to change once he gets elected - - right?
He insinuated that Scalia is racist.
Anyway, Breitbart.com is a terrible website. They really need to clean that thing up.
With 20 Republican Senators currently against TPP, it is hard to see it passing.
Does “all” in the “to:” bar work for you? I doesn’t for me.
YES....
Trump will build a bridge, and then sell it to you.
In the interest of fairness I must point out that eventually dictators became emperors so maybe it's a good thing we can't copy Rome. Maybe.
It there any lie to big for the intellectually challenged Trump haters to say? I think not. I see you had to ping your buddies for help since you yourself are incapable of coherent thought.
“Are we at the point where we care not what is true?”
Thats an excellent point. Here’s how I approach this.
First, as I said, politics is a contact sport. I expect the candidates to throw punches at each other and to his back. It makes for a better eventual nominee.
However what I don’t expect is the candidates to take a basebal bat from the Liberals, use it on the other candidates and then hand the bat back to the Liberals.
Second, the truth here is that Scalia asked a question about studies seeming to show that students who aren’t capable of handing the rigour of highly competative schools tend to fail and drop out, while students who are capable of handling the rigour of less competative schools tend to stay in and succeed. Because the example used in the studies (and the court case) applied to race, Scalia was attacked as being a racist.
But the McWhorter article supports the point Scalia was trying to get at with citing those studies.
So what’s the truth here? That Scalia was just being a racist, or that he was citing legitimate and valuable studies? Once thats determined, Trump’s comments on Scalia can be evaluated in proper context.
You all did it with Romney and drove the party left. Now you openly dropped the pretense that you want a conservative and have begun attacking the actual conservative in the race.
Thats a fact. Deal with it. Or not. I don’t care. You have to live in the world your actions create."
This post just deserves to be seen again.
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.