Mark Levin Goes Nuclear Over Romney’s Inability To Explain Conservatism (audio)

Quick question about the Florida primarys the other day. I to live in Florida and voted the other day. My ballot listed EVERY candidate including those no longer running. Were other bounties across the state the same way with their ballots?

I looked at the vote totals of those no longer running and it was significant.

I can assure you one thing. If my ballot was like others agrippa the state and had listed only active candidates. Met would have won in a landslide.

Totally agree! And so well said It is the LACK of MORALITY and ETHICS on the part of many of those who run them that contributes to the anti-corporate mentality. It is the individual lack of morality and integrity, rampant throughout much of our nation, that is bringing us down.

Hey, they use words like zealot and racist to control our speech/actions/thoughts. That makes me speak out more! One is considered a zealot if you bring God into anything. Or if you disagree w/Barry or Mitt, you're a racist or hat Mormoms. That's Saul Alinky in action.

When our Republic was founded we were warned that it could not survive w/o a moral and just people. We are failing that basic standard and the results of that failure are all around us to behold.

Gay marriages, pro abortion and LYING is not 'moral' and mandated socialist/fascist healthcare is not 'just' for the Land of the Free/America. And those are both Barry's and Mitt's record and mindset.

Levin is correct on Romney's lack of understanding on the minimum wage point.

Likewise, Romney's remark about the poor didn't indicate a callousness to "the poor." What it did fail to do, however, was to take advantage of the opportunity he had to present a case for a truly conservative solution for helping 'the poor' and all other citizens.

And, to win the battle for the minds and hearts of citizens, the nominee needs to be someone whose quickness of mind and ready familiarity with founding principles can refuse to "class" people by "rich," "middle class," "poor," etc. That is Obama's playground. It is how the collectivists/redistributionists classify and divide us, and it is how they avoid accountability for providing real solutions in economic matters.

Romney, as Krauthammer has pointed out, seems "incapable" of responding with and explaining conservative ideas.

To restore America's greatness will require leaders who, like America's Founders, have thought through the ideas which made America great, for it is the restoration of those ideas to the American mind which can give freedom back to the citizens and wrest power from the hands of "rulers" who use "poverty" as their vote-getting mechanism.

Would suggest readers here visit another thread today referencing Jonah Goldberg's observations on Romney's "not speaking the language naturally," meaning he doesn't speak the language of conservatism.

My post there points out that the problem is much deeper than "language," as this matter of his full embrace of the idea of the minimum wage illustrates.

Romney's natural philosophy, as evidenced by these and other debate answers, are just indications that his well of thought on America's core constitutional philosophy is not very deep--and certainly does not include a grounding in the Founders' ideas sufficient to rebut, rebuke, and reveal Obama's firmly-held ideology.

As a result, his "private sector" experience, while impressive and to be commended, has not prepared him for preserving the ideas which made possible his personal success in the Founders' system.

Great analysis, which is why I don’t understand why so many “conservatives” are pushing this guy and hoping they can “reprogram” him with conservative philosophy. It’s the equivalent of those women who marry a “jerk” and hope in their heart that he will “change” for them into a good guy.

These highfalutin’ Republicans seem to be hellbent on casting the nominee as an “American Idol” enterprise, thinking that the only reason Obama got elected was because he was youthful and good-looking. But that had nothing to do with it. Obama was passionate, a good speaker and pushed ideas that he truly seemed to believe in. Most of all, people believed he was not just another typical politician, they believed that he was a sincere guy who cared about the American people. This is why Romney would utterly fail as a general election candidate. The only reason he’s winning the nomination is because people, although they don’t like him, think he’s “electable” based on the aforementioned faulty and superficial analysis of why Obama got elected. Well, everyone has to realize, the voters in November won’t be casting their vote in such an analytical way. They will be looking for the passion and sincerity they saw in Obama that Romney does not have.

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.