Posted on 06/23/2016 3:28:45 AM PDT by Biggirl
On Wednesday, talk radio host Mark Levin praised Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s speech earlier in the day as “a very good speech.” Where Trump “hit it out of the park.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle (IMPOSSIBLE!!)
Mark has at last given Mr. Trump a crumb. Not many, but one. What new meds has he been taking?
Erratic, yes. I myself was appalled initially when he announced. And he gored my ox by slandering Ted Cruz. OTOH, whenI'm 100% behind him in this election, but I also know that if he wins, a lot of people here on FreeRepublic are going to be terribly disappointed four years from now.Trumppeople who supported Trump were assaulted by rioters, you were assaulted, and so was I. When Ted Cruz next appeared in public, he volunteered the statement that the rioters were in the wrong - the perfect thing to say. But he then proceeded to volunteer his opinion of Trump, thereby changing the subject from the only thing that mattered at the moment. It was not important to say it, whatever the provocation - and therefore it was important not to say it. It was an egregious unforced error, and if Cruz ever had a chance at beating Trump I think that finally sunk him.
Frankly, my own expectation is that it won’t take 2 years for that. But unreliable and erratic is worlds ahead of reliably vicious, which is the only other option on the menu. So, unreliable and erratic it is. No doubt.Erratic could imply an upside surprise. Reliably vicious, not so much.
But why the question about the teleprompter?
++++
Two reasons:
1. It was unusual. Trump rarely uses a teleprompter. Apparently six times at the most.
2. There was a lot of media attention focused on his use of a teleprompter.
Using today’s standards, is that like a McConnell conservative, a Graham conservative, a McCain conservative, or a Ryan conservative?
++++
Read my tag line. You named 4 more or less leftists. I’m a Ted Cruz conservative fully behind Trump 2016.
“Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh probably suspect — and rightly so — that Donald Trump would be (politically speaking) one of the most erratic and unreliable people ever elected to public office.”
I don’t think so. I think that Limbaugh and Levin have been pursuing a plan for decades that involved educating the American people sufficiently that they would vote in a brilliant, doctrinally correct conservative.
Trump is a deus ex machina, not a doctrinally correct conservative. When he swung in from the wings, he threatened to derail their game plan, too. Even if it is a win for the country, it is not *their* win. It isn’t how *they* had things planned out.
Both Limbaugh and Levin are bright enough that they should have gotten behind Trump very early in the season. I wondered why they didn’t. I now think that pride of place is the reason.
Mark had to say something positive but I suspect he will be back to bashing.
Who woke Levin up?
It WAS a great speech. We’re gonna win this one...
Levin who?
He could not understand how any conservative could legitimately support Trump when ‘we have our first, true conservative in Ted Cruz.’ He would cackle prior to having a Trumpster on by saying that nothing could ever get through to a Trumpster that would make them waiver. He would then posit the latest bad thing that he said was true about Trump and throw it at his next Trumpster call-in. He would laugh at them at the end of the call just after terminating the listener, saying, ‘See, what did I tell you? We have a real conservative and even when these people say they dislike 80% of what Trump has stood for, they are still 100% going to vote for Trump. I can't explain it, folks.’
I have a Rush 24/7 subscription, so I hear most of what he says.
You are sort of of right in that he has said he would vote for the Republican winner, but he has always said Cruz was the only conservative and that Trump was a good talker.
Lyin' Ted???
I don’t listen to Rush but about 2-3 hours a week so you would definitely have a better grasp than I would.
I could tell Rush supported Cruz but I didn’t pick up him mocking Trump supporters.
Every candidate Trump included has/had followers that are total 100% worshipers and wouldn’t believe anything negative about “their” candidate.
I did believe that Cruz was the first proven solid conservative in my voting life and I was a supporter until he chose Carly. That was compromise I did not like.
Trump may or may not be a solid conservative but he is exactly what is needed to destroy the elite in Washington. I hope and pray he does just that.
I support Trump 100% now that the primaries are over.
If the GOPe tries to pull some shenanigans and insert anyone else (Cruz included) I will do everything in my power to help to restore the republic and remove those fools from any positions for the rest of my life.
The nation hangs in the balance.
I will campaign for Trump as the election gets closer.
I had listened to Dana Loesch up until the National Review article and now I see she lost her spot on what was her flagship and is now only a host on an Internet radio network.
She's still on the Blaze, I'm sure, but that ship is sinking as well.
The one and only. Check out his Senate voting record. He might be an inch or two behind Mike Lee. Way ahead of Jeff Sessions.
'Lyin'Ted was a very successful PR campaign. Totally blindsided Cruz and his campaign staff. Don't don't read any more into it than that. He's not perfect but he is the best we have in the United States Senate. I would argue that he is the best be have in the United States Congress.
Elect Trump and ask him if he wants Cruz to stay in the Senate or retire. I know the answer and so does Trump.
I’m quite sure that he didn’t ‘walk back’ any comments about the judge, but that instead he ‘doubled down’ as they say.
Limbaugh never “got behind” anyone. He said straight out that Cruz was the most reliable conservative in the race, but he never outright endorsed anyone for the nomination. Just saying Cruz was conservative is not enough - the primary electorate had electability to consider as well.It is treading on thin ice to criticize Trump at this point on this forum. Trump has taken positions I like, but I am nervous that he does not know the history of Herbert Hoover. In a real two party system I would be considering the other option - but as Trump is ably pointing out, the other party is a joke if it considers Hillary the best - or even a respectable - choice to be POTUS.
“Limbaugh never “got behind” anyone. He said straight out that Cruz was the most reliable conservative in the race, but he never outright endorsed anyone for the nomination.”
It is true that he never outright endorses anyone, but changes in the content and tone of his comments justify some inferences.
“It is treading on thin ice to criticize Trump at this point on this forum.”
I don’t understand why you said that. Do you think I am criticizing Trump?
“Trump has taken positions I like, but I am nervous that he does not know the history of Herbert Hoover.”
Which of the histories would that be? The one where Hoover’s signature on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act precipitates the Great Depression, or the one where Smoot-Hawley has little effect, and FDR turns a routine recession into a depression with his boneheaded socialist crap?
I am not bothered at all that Trump doesn’t know many things that political wonks consider de rigueur. I see that as the absence of guilty knowledge. Further, Trump has established a track record for arriving at correct conclusions once his attention lights on a matter.
I’m not trying to be clever after the fact, but I had been saying for a while that we were doomed unless a deus ex machina swung in from the wings. I never thought that it would be Donald Trump, but I know a deus ex machina when I see one. No member of our depraved, corrupt political class—including Ted Cruz—could have done what Trump has done, much less what he will do in the future.
A voter in 1932 had a choice between Tweedle-de-dum or Tweddle-Dee-Dumber. My fear is that in 1916 we face a “choice” between someone I don’t place a great deal of faith in - and an outright, in-your-face con artist. I can be wrong about Trump, and so can you - but we aren't wrong about Hillary.
I favor the explanation that FDR turned a routine recession into a depression with his boneheaded socialist crap.
“I can be wrong about Trump, and so can you”
Well, none of us is infallible, but if Trump doesn’t come through, we’re no worse off than if one of those depraved politicians had been elected.
“but we aren’t wrong about Hillary.”
The other day my alleged mind was wandering, and I went back to the fifties in a way I usually don’t. Colors, smells, details...
From that perspective, it is not merely astonishing, but literally horrifying, that a person like Clintesterone could be considered for the presidency.
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.