Posted on 02/23/2010 10:12:38 AM PST by Sergeant Tim
"Ronald Reagan would never have loosely generalized about conservatives and the Republican Party because like a surgeon, like a real thinker, and like an activist, he wanted the distinctions to be known, he wanted the distinctions to be clear, he wanted to promote our principles, and he wanted to contrast them with those who either had no principles or were promoting something else. Carpet-bombing the Republican Party takes out an awful lot of good people, too many good people." -- Mark Levin, February 22, 2010
Mark Levin took great issue last night with "carpet-bombing" the Republican Party:
Mark had some advice for the bomber:
"It is the spending, stupid." Yes, we get it; this grass roots movement of ours gets it and seems determined to vote out of office the offenders. Yet just reading one label, i.e. Republican or Tea Party, and applying a value to candidates is very risky.
In Nevada, a man who few ever heard of and who has not been endorse by two substantial tea party groups there, is polling at 11%; his candidacy might return Harry Reid to the Senate.
Rand Paul in Kentucky is polling far ahead of his nearest opponent to become the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. He sounds remarkably like his father, Congressman Ron Paul, on national defense. Rand Paul speaks about the "military-industrial complex." He derides McCain-Feingold yet proposes he own set of restrictions on campaign contributions.
Rand Paul is also factually incorrect about both our invasion of Afghanistan and what constitutes a formal declaration of war. He quotes Michael Scheuer saying, "One of the mistakes we made in Afghanistan was not that we invaded but that we waited a month and a half to go in." Paul expands from that by saying, "So there might have been a reason the President could have sent Special Forces in secretly within a few days and I think that could have been something that would have been justified. However, the truth is it took us a month and a half to get into Afghanistan and there is no reason why there should not have been a declaration of war vote in Congress." Here are the facts: our Special Forces began crossing the border into Afghanistan before dawn there on September 12, 2001; we began invading Afghanistan in force on October 7, 2001; and Congress has 'declared war' more times without using those words that it has used them during our history. In addition, Congress voted in favor (including Ron Paul) of an 'Authorization to Use Military Force' on September 18, 2001 and it did not limit the President to merely invading Afghanistan:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
If that was not a declaration of war, then two Presidents have violated Congress's intent in Afghanistan. Yet Congress has since authorized more than 800 billion dollars and nearly 1,000 U.S. troops have died fighting there. It is clear to me that Congress declared war and Rand Paul would be a 'chip off the old block' as a U.S. Senator.
Voters beware!
and according to beck, voting for mccain was the wrong vote
well stated but can he explain why the RNC/GOP is attacking Rubio,Palin and the conservative base? Hmmmmmmmm?
Ron Paul + Glenn Beck = Disaster
Do you think Glenn Beck is the new Ron Paul, after all, Ron Paul is 77.
Have an opposing opinion on Beck and the hounds are unleashed. Beck is great for youngsters, but he’s not a serious conservative. For crying out loud, he just started learning history. In his words....
I love Beck. I also love Levin. they both have their own styles. Beck, Levin, Rush, Hannity, Quinn & Rose, Chris Plante, Jim Vicevich, Howie Carr - and many others less well-known - love their country and are all doing their part. We might not like their style, but they all are getting the word out. Pushing, shoving, preaching, chastising, and everything short of shouting from the rooftops. In their own ways, they are all calling us to action.
If an employer match for charities chosen by his employees is equal to financing terrorism in your eyes...well, then there's really no point in further discussion.
Didn't say that it was in the Constitution. What I'm saying was, here is an example of a Declaration of War that everybody acknowledges to be a, drum roll please, "Declaration of War".
When you instead say, "this 'Authorization of Force' thingee is really a Declaration of War, honest...", an opponent's obvious response is, "No, it's not! The word 'War' isn't even in there!!"
Ergo, I think that we should use a model which everyone acknowledges to be a "Declaration of War" -- like, for example, one which does actually use the word, "War". That way you force your opponents to make a straight up-or-down commitment, without a lot of weaselly wiggle room.
Levin is just a ranter to me. I don’t mind him and his book was great, but he seems to like to pick fights. I want to like everyone, but the Leviners are easily offended by anyone who comes around and says something not in their script.
Levin supports the Republican party through thick and thin. I understand. He wants to prop up his party because they are starting to stand up to Obama and the left.
But at the same time, we didn’t get to this point because Republicans did a good job or were able to convince enough people to vote for them.
A bunch of Republicans lost their way and Levin knows this. They didn’t hold up conservative principals. McCain is one of them that has not been doing a good job.
The fact that he was our nominee in 2008 and that he lost is exactly the problem. He chose Palin and I wish I would know all that went into how he picked her and what he had hoped to gain from it. Palin is good, but McCain is not.
The McCain team mishandled Palin and McCain sometimes sounded like he was lost. So my point is McCain has to go. He isn’t the best person to advocate conservative principals.
So that is where I am coming from and where Tea Parties are coming from. If the Republican establishment will prop up these bad people then that is no good.
Like Beck, I think they need to admit they have fallen astray of Conservative principals and want to return to them and thus they will oppose anybody trying to infiltrate the party with talk about big tents and holding hand with Obama.
Beck cals out all the people I think have hijacked the Republicans like Grhamnesty, McCain, and Hatch.
Anyways, I don’t mind anyone disliking Beck. All entitled to opinions, but if a bad candidate gets hoisted up again. That won’t be good for Republicans.
Tea Partiers aren’t going to support Democrat light.
Let make sure the Era of McCain is ended for good.
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.