Mark Levin Gives "Unvarnished Truth" On Romney Loss

realclearpolitics.com ^ | 11/'6/12 | Mark Levin

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Mark Levin passionately defends conservatism and analyzes last night's election in the opening monologue of the Wednesday broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program. Here's a partial transcript of Levin's opening remarks:

MARK LEVIN: We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

[Colofornian]

From Mark Levin: Now I hear we're called 'purists.' Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We're purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans. (Mark Levin)

Well, let's name names. Who are some of the Freepers dishing out this kind of "crap" that Levin references?

Freepers like: onthelookout777; Emperor Palpatine; Mkjessup; Publana; Dave W; GlocktheVote; Aquila48; Nicmarlo; Zulu; Aemilius Paulus; No Dems... For exact quotes, see below...

* As you know, the conservative purists who refuse to vote for Romney/Ryan are just enabling Obama. [Onthelookout777, Post #47 (Nov. 2, 2012)]

* Wait til the usual suspects show up. You know - that group of a dozen or so vapid Romney haters who plug losers like Johnson or Goode and would rather have Zero win because “God needs to punish America for her sins”. The sanctimonious “purists”. [Emperor Palpatine, Post #5 (Oct.7, 2012)]...See also Oct. 3, post 27 here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2939586/posts

* The only voters who won't be pulling the lever for Romney & Ryan are of course the bought and paid for zombies who are on the dole from the government in addition to the holier-than-thou ideological conservative purists who would rather see another 4 years of that filthy Kenyan Communist, than to vote for Romney & Ryan. [Mkjessup, Post #15 (Sept. 18, 2012)]

* They aren’t kneeling at the feet of Obama. They are the holier-than-thou purists that refuse to vote for Romney, thus are complicit in destroying the very Country they profess to love. Imbeciles and traitors all. [Publana, Post #46 (Sept. 17, 2012)]

* Sounds like then-Governor Romney was having to deal with the gay mafia kinda like the same way we realists are having to deal with the conservative purists who would rather see 0bama get 4 more years than to pull the lever for Romney & Ryan. Post #3 (Sept. 12, 2012)]

* Purists make me barf. [Dave W, Post #8 (Sept. 8, 2012)]

* Exactly - the “purists” who rather obama get 4 more years than try something different in the name of so called “principle”. A bunch of a delusional sickos. [GlocktheVote, Post #50 (Sept. 5, 2012)]

* Exactamundo - the purists would have us wait until our messiah comes around - at which point we will have been in hell for a century. I’m satisfied with one step at a time - as long as it’s in the right direction. Romney/Ryan may not be our messiah but they’re one step in the right direction. (Aquila48, Post #7 (Sept. 1, 2012)]

* I wrote the following, in part, with you (and your fellow drones) in mind. I'm disgusted and, frankly, embarrassed, of your professions of "Christianity," for you are NOT representative of what true Christianity is about in spirit, demeanor, behavior, or attitude. After reading too many posts by those in FR who profess to be 'purists' in Christian theology and "conservative" political ideology, I am disappointed. [NicMarlo, Post #235 (Aug. 28, 2012)]

* So stay home and pout and watch all my predictions come true when Obama gets elected, because purists like you pull off the same tactics you were so successful at in 2008 and 2006!! (Zulu, Post #87 (Aug. 26, 2012)]

* Statement: "Conservative “expert” purists have to recognize people are voting AGAINST Obama not FOR Romney" Response: Agreed. [Aemilius Paulus, Post #23 (July 5, 2012)]

* ...there are the Conservative purists, who hate Romney and won’t vote. [no dems, Post #8 (July 5, 2012)]

**************************************************

Best responses to one of above --
#1...from FieldMarshaldj (to Dave W):

Darn those purists wanting Conservatives and Conservatism ! Who do they think they are?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2928738/posts ... Post #12

#2 From Yosemitetest: Post #19 (Sept. 22, 2012), citing a Jack Kerwick article excerpt...

[kitkat]

ABSOLUTELY

[Yosemitest]

Thanks for the heads up.

I've had it with our stinking "Establishment Republicans" who keep blaming conservatives for THEIR LOSES.
And yes, I DID cast a vote for LOSER and "Establishment Republican" Romney, and AGAINST the Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro),
the one guilty of TREASON !
Jack Kerwick's article May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican was right.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me IS a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

Mitt Romney and the "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[aquila48]

“Well, let’s name names. Who are some of the Freepers dishing out this kind of “crap” that Levin references?”

Speaking of crap, you Colonfornian are the asshole extruding crap.

I backed Romney for the general election JUST LIKE LEVIN DID because I did not want another 4 years of Obama (this time unleashed).

The people I was calling “purists” were morons like you, who even in the general election would not vote for Romney.

[Colofornian]

Levin's labels fit you perfectly -- a "pseudo conservative" -- who enjoys 'purist'-labeling just as pagan liberals do:

Now I hear we're called 'purists.' Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We're purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans.

[Psalm 144]

Yep. I’ve seen a lot of this on FR today from our in-house squishy moderate ABO crowd.

*******************

One of them got so frustrated he called me a Christian.

Well, yeah...

[aquila48]

You’re right, you’re not a purist... you’re a PURE IDIOT.

I bet anything you’re also one of those holier-than-thou “Christians” always ready to cast the first stone. You do realize that Jesus is not going to look too kindly at that.

[Colofornian]

(You’re the one casting all types of name-calling ‘stones’...three of them now in two posts...you just convicted yourself...but I invite you...more names, please...wanna make sure all of the “pseudo conservatives” out themselves pure Mark Levin’s comments!)

[aquila48]

It’s the first stone that counts - and YOU threw it.

You know nothing about the people you directly insulted by name with your post, yet you had no qualms about gloatingly judging us and insulting us. You should be ashamed.

[ducttape45]

I saw that last night, I cannot believe that Hannity would have her, OF ALL PEOPLE, on his show first. I’m done with him, and she has been on my crap list for a long time.

[patriot08]

Hannity was great. You could tell how heartsick he was about the election.
Poor guy. He worked so hard to expose Obama.

[usconservative]

Rush seemed to just jokingly bring this up.

I suggest you go look at the show's transcript which I quoted directly from. He was not joking.

[softwarecreator]

Agree. Problem is they have the media under their control and people do not see beyond that.

The whole process starts with the media. Fox is a decent start but only a small % of the people will ever see it.

Until we can get access to the MSM we are sunk.

[Ann Archy]

Mark....America is LOST....The Demographic means we will ALWAYS NOW have a Democrat majority. You can't beat FREE STUFF with ETHICS.....the Dems aren't ethical.

What do we do with America now???

[bert]

The problem is that conservatives are apathetic wimps, cowards who cringe at the thought of getting off their asses and fighting.

There is another, larger detrimental characteristic, lack of personal responsibility. there is a tendency to pray and then think I have done my duty. God will sort it out.

[softwarecreator]

This once great nation is dying from internal rot.

Yep. Say what you want about the Marxist party, they knew how to do it and slowly and quietly went about putting the chess pieces in place. It took decades for them, but now they have us in "Check". Obama is the culmination of a very patient socialist movement just waiting to say "Checkmate".

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Agree. Problem is they have the media under their control and people do not see beyond that. The whole process starts with the media. Fox is a decent start but only a small % of the people will ever see it. Until we can get access to the MSM we are sunk.

Absolutely.

We need to:

1) Boycott MSM news / news talk show advertisers.

2) NEVER watch non-Fox/Beck on cable, even out of curiosity.

3) Watch only Fox and the Blaze TV --preferably the Blaze TV.

[GlockThe Vote]

I showed up and voted. Don’t blame me.

[softwarecreator]

I totally agree with you. That is great for us, but, the rest of the country still will never hear the truth.

Unfortunately, I do not see how that can be changed any time soon, and time is something we ran out of 4 years ago.

I honestly do not see how a conservative can win in the next 10 years or so. The socialists have a total grip on most of the media and that is the ONLY reason Obama won. Pure 100% relentless propaganda blasted into 80% of the country's subconscience 24 hours a day. They know that they do not have to infect ALL the people, just the majority, and right now they do.

[Pilsner]

Our party has become splintered with single issue voters

There used to be a saying: "Conservatives search for converts. Liberals hunt for heretics." You never hear that anymore. And for good reason. If conservatism is going to have a successful future in electoral politics at the national level, two things that we will have to do are:

1. Acknowledge that there will disagreements among conservatives, agree to disagree agreeably, and stop this BS of heretic hunting, where folks proclaim that the path to success is to expel from the movement everyone who disagrees with them.
2. Expand our base by searching for converts. Not by outbidding the left in pandering, but by convincing people that they, and their families, will be better off under conservative policies. Given the left's control of education, the news media, and entertainment, that will be a long, hard process. Of course, since BO has a second term in which to destroy the economy, we may have a target rich environment in the next couple of election cycles.