Mark Levin : Karl Rove & The Republican Establishment Need a Hard Kick In The @$$

MARK LEVIN: I want to invite as many people as possible to join the voices and forces of liberty; that's what we are, that's what we believe in. Not the forces of defeat in the Republican party. Not the forces of big government and back room deals, and crony capitalism; illustrative of Karl Rove and Steven Law and the whole cabal that is the Republican establishment.

These people need a hard, swift kick in the ass off the public stage because they're making it much more difficult to persuade more and more Americans that we have to win some elections quickly. These people are getting rich off of this federal leviathan. They go on T.V. and talk about how awful Obama is, but they attack us. They really don't think Obama is that awful. What bothers them about Obama is that their not running things, that's what really bothers them.

We didn't make any progress for reestablishing Constitutional government under George W. Bush, none. And his right hand man was Karl Rove, so that's just the way it is. (Mark Levin Show, February 5, 2013)

Link to Audio : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...lic_stage.html

A few takeaways based on the clip :

1. The great one Mark Levin, as always, ISN'T A TYPICAL CONSERVATIVE. Regardless of what certain clowns from the liberal party will tell you, this guy calls it like he sees it.. so next time I post his view, STOP with the "Karl Rove, Fox News" Cr@p

2. He's ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. The establishment HAS TO GO. There is a huge swell in the US (tea party was a great example) of the demand for a smaller government, intelligent spending, reduced budgets, isolationist principles, and a return to individual sovereignty.

3. The NON POLITICAL MACHINE conservative MUST win in 2016.. if not, it's not just the end of Republicans. It's the end of ANY CHANCE at a smaller government going forward. The Establishment republicans will echo Bush.. the establishment Dems will echo Obama. Either way, it will be expansion, power grabs, etc.

if the non-political machine conservative = fiscally conservative (for once) while keeping their antiquated views out of social issues, I'm all for it.

Agreed. Liberals would much rather prefer establishment republicans for several reasons. One, they are pretty much the same. They spend, they put pork into bills, they are unaccountable, they go to war, they enrich themselves and they feed the DC machine. Even though they may disagree on tiny things that get blown up into big stories, at the end of the day they are all greedy politicians who are out for government and themselves.

Second, it is very easy to run against establishment republicans because of the aforementioned similarities. Why vote for him, we stand for the same things but I ALSO like gays! When there is so little distinction between candidates it is easier to just fall back and vote just on party lines.

Third, most people agree with the principle of liberty. Most people think the government spends too much. Government types, R & D alike, would much rather that this is not a forefront issue because it threatens their power and their source of wealth. That is why the establishment republicans and democrats show such disdain for libertarians, Ron Paul types and coherent tea party candidates....they LOVE incoherent ones, though.

*This message brought to you by the Mark Levin fan club.

The thread title is the same as the article title. I think this is the first time Chase didn't sensationalize a thread title.

Originally Posted by evolved

if the non-political machine conservative = fiscally conservative (for once) while keeping their antiquated views out of social issues, I'm all for it.

Even Democrats would welcome that.

And here is the problem Chase. Fiscal responsibility isn't the bastion of "conservatives". Wanting the govt to keep its nose out of people's general business including their sex lives, reproductive parts, whom they marry isn't just a desire of "conservatives". The repeal of portions of the "Patriot Act" and its various incarnations is not just the rallying point for "conservatives".

The "NON POLITICAL MACHINE" candidates (liberal or conservative) need to win in 2016 to help this country get "back on track". But, this has been the case dating back to every election I can recall since 1984.

Truth of the matter is, until "conservatives" get aligned with "liberals" on social issues like abortion and (more and more) gay marriage and are willing to come up with some compromise on existing immigration reform/partial amnesty/etc to help them win big chunks of hispanic voters (which is why Reagan conservatives did it in the 80's )
They are going to be on the outside looking in.

When both sides are fundamentally the same (big government/status quo/political machine) the elections are going to come down to social issues and who has the more personable & media-friendly candidate. That is what history tells us.

Rather than looking for "conservatives" and by doing so alienating "liberals", perhaps this energy (yours and Mr. Levin's) would be better spent looking for people who can be fiscally rational about issues facing the country. A platform of "fiscally rational policies and we don't give a damn about social issues", now that is a platform that might succeed. Whether it is conservatives or liberals pounding on that pulpit.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

A platform of "fiscally rational policies and we don't give a damn about social issues", now that is a platform that might succeed. Whether it is conservatives or liberals pounding on that pulpit.

The republicans are helpless without the church, and the church won't play unless the republicans try to control our reproductive choices and sexual orientation.

The party has been ruined by religious fanatics and neocons.

To hell with social issues already, just get them out of politics and treat all people the same. Time to focus on the real issues and the economy.

There is a huge swell in the US (tea party was a great example) of the demand for a smaller government, intelligent spending, reduced budgets, isolationist principles, and a return to individual sovereignty.

While the first element (smaller government) might be true in the abstract in polling, often depending on how the question is worded, in reality, when queried in more detail on specifics, most people are in fact supportive of the programs and services government provides. That dichotomy was well illustrated by a Tea Partier sign saying something to the effect of "Keep government away from my Medicare."

As for the second item, intelligent spending, well, I think that's a self-obvious truth regardless of political orientation (who's for stupid spending?). Of course, the rub is what you might consider "intelligent" or "stupid" spending.

As for reduced budgets, that's somewhat akin to the first item. In the broad abstract, sure, reduce spending. Get down in the weeds though and ask people what spending they want to reduce (Social? Defense? R&D? Infrastructure?) and the whole discussion gets more complex.

Isolationist principles: again, often more appealing in the abstract than desirable or doable in reality. Do recall that the most recent spate of international adventurism (Iraq) was the result of Neo Con thinking than any liberal/progressive ideals and there is still a strong interventionist/militaristic, even imperial streak in much of present day conservatism. As for isolationism, for better or worse, we are at the very least a quasi empire and have strong ties, links and integuments across the world (Middle East oil for a big example) and are a major component and beneficiary of the global economy. I don't necessarily think it wise or even possible to retreat inward like, say Qing Dynasty China.

Individual sovereignty: Not quite sure what exactly these means. Individual freedom? Individual rights? Anarchism? I think most people across the political spectrum would be for this to some degree or another, depending on how it's defined. How does this relate to our roles as Americans in a broader, co-existing and co-dependent society? I would guess it would be a matter of degree and that many people might have different concepts as to what the ideal balance would be (see arguments on government size and budgets above). Is that sense of "sovereignty" only in relation to government (Federal, state and/or local?) or other elements of our society that can just as assuredly impinge upon our freedom to effectively act as our own.

As for this threads broader theme, getting rid of "establishment" Republicans, well, what precisely are establishment Republicans beyond a few readily identifiable villains like Rove or Law? And what/who would replace these establishment Republicans? Tea Partiers who seem to have a far more limited appeal, broadly, than the more mainstream establishment Republicans? I think this basic premise touches on the deep divisions that are quickly growing and revealing themselves in the Republican party and will more likely result in schisms into smaller disparate factions than resolving into some more unified Republican party.

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

To hell with social issues already, just get them out of politics and treat all people the same. Time to focus on the real issues and the economy.

As long as politicians are trying to control things like equality under the law and reproductive rights, they are real issues. To just say "to hell with them" is not enough. Get them fixed, then say "now we don't need to worry about them" They are the ones that are the most easily "fixable" and to get off the political agenda. Then politicians and voters have no choice but to focus on "real issues and the economy".

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

The great one Mark Levin

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

The great one Mark Levin

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

The great one Mark Levin

Your own personal messiah.

I'll agree that Mark Levin isn't a typical conservative because he often appears crazier than most....he's nothing more than a Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck blowhard who riles up the easily swayed.

Edit: He does sound reasonable in the article OP referenced.

Originally Posted by evolved

I'll agree that Mark Levin isn't a typical conservative because he often appears crazier than most....he's nothing more than a Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck blowhard who riles up the easily swayed.