Whatever Mark Levin (and other like-minded conservatives) do this election they will compromise their conservative principles ... either by voting for Donald Trump (who they consider to be a flawed candidate with questionable -- at best -- conservative credentials) or by failing to defend our Constitution from the vicious and unrelenting attacks of the Left -- despite knowing that the only way they can do so this year is by voting for Donald Trump.
To me, the decision of which compromise to make is not difficult at all -- and, with but a few minutes of consideration -- is hardly a "struggle". Even a "casual conservative" knows that defense of our Constitution -- of our Republic -- is the primary principle of conservatism and the most important duty of a conservative voter.
For me, it's not about aligning around my principles, it's about aligning around my goals.
I can tolerate a less principled candidate as long as I think he's best positioned to achieve my goals. Of course, there is a minimum principles line I won't cross, but I don't think that Trump is anywhere near that line. But we have to win the election first for any of it to matter.
I know Levin wants to live up to ideological principles, but he also has to figure out how he's willing to trade off adherence to principles with alignment of goals.
And the goal is to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
-PJ
I'm going to disagree, slightly: Levin already has compromised, precisely because of his endorsement of Ted Cruz. As a Constitutional scholar he should know that someone born outside the US to an alien father and possibly ex-citizen mother isn't a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. — This is obvious given just a moment of thought: imagine an NBC who, as member of the first generation of natural-born citizens, moves to Europe and marries into the royal family of England, say the Crown Princess, and they have a son: if the NBC qualification is conferred on him, then that son (who is in-line for the throne) is also eligible for President. — Thus one of the greatest fears of the founders would be realized by the very mechanism adopted to prevent it. (Namely the natural born citizen requirement, which was advised by John Jay in a letter: Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
)
So we see w/ this (albeit informal) proof-by-contradiction that endorsing Cruz undermines the Constitution; now a lot of people were deceived by Cruz's assertions of his eligibility, but someone like Mr. Levin (a Constitutional lawyer/scholar) should be beyond excuse in the matter.
My working theory
is that the 2012 and 2008 (esp.) elections were st up to push Constitutionally ineligible/questionable candidates into the office and use that precedence to erode the qualification requirement, which is obviously nationalistic in its purpose and execution, by the globalists that have infested the political caste of our country. Just my theory, but given how hard the GOPe pushed Cruz (and tried/tries to beat down Trump) it seems to qualify for the three times is enemy action
rule.