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.
[Donald Trump Screwed Up.]
So did his poll numbers.
“So Trump, after a lifetime of DOING things only for himself, and SAYING liberal things, starts SAYING things that sound conservative and he’s good and Levin is bad.”
Welcome to The Cult of Don.
Cruz on the other hand attacked Trump first and it was a going for the throat personal attack. Bad Cruz on that. I do not fault Trump for hitting back.
Yes, you all. You all groupthink, groupact and grouprespond with the same droll daily. So yes, ‘you all’.
Speaking facts is not blasting. It is speaking facts. Prove one word I said wrong. I’ll save you the trouble. Facts are not wrong.
I think people see a larger spiritual trend going on, and it seems to be preparing for an upswing again after the years of chastisement under Obama and (to lesser extent) Bush and Clinton. People have prayed and, mirabile dictu! the prayers are beginning to be answered.
And Trump looks like a plausibly placed shepherd for it. He doesn’t need to be perfect in order to be riding a good wind and to be willing to stay aboard it. It really is an “in God we trust” thing, but not shallowly, like the fellow who talks the most about God gets the post.
If government is the answer, then other then enumerated powers, it was a stupid question.
It’s mostly Romneybot holdovers that want revenge. Not all, but most.
I didn’t know that America was NOT great, and only someone like bad hairdo Trump could save us.
Well thank you for confessing your wholly unbiased /sarc position!
Sometimes there is no better thing to do for a fool, than, indeed, to ignore him. You can’t talk him into a better position. To attempt to do it anyhow is mental onanism.
Sometimes it takes someone with a conviction that America CAN be great, to encourage it to get back into greatness.
Politics is a contact sport. The issue here isn’t that Trump attacked Cruz or Scalia, it’s that he did so using the Liberals’ arguments, thereby giving ammo to the Liberals as they wage their political war on the rest of us.
Trump’s attack on Scalia is especially problemmatic because it uses and reinforces the Social Justice Warrior/Bully attacks. If anyone wants to know why Trump’s wrong on this, McWhorter has an excellent article defending Scalia on CNN.com. Be sure to read not only the article but also the viscious smears being thrown at McWhorter in the comments section.
Who in the world are you talking about????
When you find something incorrect in my post, provide the proof. Calling me names is not proof. But then in all this time you never once have proven me incorrect on anything. You just launch into your false religious spiel. And yell louder.
Trumpanzees don't care who gets hit... just as long as they can fling their own feces at someone.
I would prefer it if it were at each other.
What difference does it make? He's a homosexual and a communist.
ad ho·mi·nem. [ˌad ˈhämənəm] adjective attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Yawn.
Mandate, noun, an official order or commission to do something.
See the difference?
Relax, I’m speaking ironically. It’s a gentle jab at people who, when presented with facts that don’t favor “their” candidate, tend to respond with vitriol and personal remarks against the messenger.
Thats 3 posts with no proof. I expect you’ll prove me right again and make excuses or one line it because you have no proof to provide.
Go ahead and prove me right. Again.
Wait, what? Did someone actually think he wasn’t going to? Wanna buy a bridge?
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.