Mark Levin: The Republican Party is in danger of destroying itself

Thought experiment, folks.

Let’s say that “Moderate Mitt” ends up being the Republican nominee. Whatever way you slice it, Romney is more of a liberal Republican than his colleagues running for president. Naturally, he’ll stand head and shoulders above Barack Obama as Commander-in-chief, but his record in Massachusetts as well as his past positions show a comfort level with government activism that has made conservatives uneasy.

That’s the reason Romney has hit a ceiling in the polls, both statewide and nationally.

But if he is the GOP nominee, does that reflect a repudiation of the Tea Party movement that helped force Nancy Pelosi to give up her gavel as Speaker of the House? Not so, says Mark Levin, in the next installment of his interview with HUMAN EVENTS.

“It’s a repudiation of conservatism as practiced by the Republican Party. The Republican Party has ceased to be a conservative party and it needs to change.”

The question that needs to be asked, says Levin, is will the Republican Party survive? “I’m not so sure if it keeps [abandoning conservative ideas].”

Watch part five of our interview with Mark Levin on his brand-new book, Ameritopia.

But for the Tea Party movement, Levin adds, there wouldn’t be an emphasis among American pols to scale back the size of government and demonstrate fidelity to the Constitution. “There would be no voice for our founding principles, for our human principles… the Republican Party is not a constitutional party,” he said before adding that there are certainly members of the GOP who don’t want to offer the country a Democrat-lite agenda.

But those politicians are few.

On the Republican presidential debates, Levin says that they have been worthless, except for reinforcing his extreme dislike of one particular entity.  

“These debates teach me nothing — except that my contempt for the media just grows.”

Sign Up
  • jagscl

    I have been a Republican my entire life. Many, many times I was disappointed by our candidates for the Presidency in particular. They for the most part ran on Conservative principles and governed on liberal ones.  The latest example was Bush, the exception was Ronald Reagan. Even so, I have always opposed third parties because it splits the vote and allows the Democrat, guaranteed true liberal in. Third parties haven’t won, even with someone as well liked and charismatic as Teddy Roosevelt.
    Levin’s interview  reminded me of what I’ve read on many of the posts to HE. I am not trying to be critical, but just stating an observation.  There are tremendous fissures among the writers.  Many have said they won’t vote, will write in someone or even form a third party if their candidate doesn’t become the nominee. With the strong current of divisivness I am now beginning to think a third party may be necessary if the country is to survive.  Members of the Tea Party make or should be, instant members of the third party.
    Nonethless, here’s my problem with seeking to develop a third alternative at this late date.  A third party cannot come out of the blue and beat Obama, but will split conservative votes. I have great fear that 4 more years of Obama may make the entire issue moot, because with four years to finish shredding the Constitution, there may not be another election, let alone an active third party. Hence, I continue to say anyone but Obama.  But, now I add that once Obama is dispatched (by which I mean voted out of office), I intend to look into formation of a third party.  Not that I could form one, but I may well support someone who can if it is demonstrably conservative.

  • Jude O’Connor

    I’m with you. Our screams to our Congress have fallen on deaf ears when the Health Bill was hot and with over a thousand exemptions to the Health Care Law and our Congressman being of the first to claim exemption will verify the enormity of the problems.

  • Walter_Peterson

    The funny thing is that prior to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Party was actually the more “conservative” party.   With Woodrow Wilson, the Northern Democrats surpassed the Southern Democrats and made the Democratic Party more “liberal.”  The Republican Party party really didn’t change; it just stood still.  Only when Barry Goldwater came along did the Republicans become more expressly conservative.  And, even since then, less conservative corporate interests have continued to hold sway in the Republican leadership.

  • BarkyK9

    Newt would lose to Obama….Envision them up on stage with their families….Obama with one wife and two children….Newt with 3 wives, the latest one being his mistress when he was married to wife #2…..Many people will say, “I won’t vote for a serial adulterer.”  Others might say, “I’ll vote for Obama because at least he has a good family.”  So the Democrats win the family values contest and the election

  • Richardgridmark

    Can you have a third party that will pay attention to the middle class? Or do we have to have one party for the poor and the other for the rich. 

  • Poor Wilber

    If Mitt gets the nomination, and manages to barely win,  conservatives should mount a primary challenge in 2016….starting the day he gets the nomination. 

    It won’t be a question of whether Romney will turn back left once he is in office, and we need to be prepared ….that Romney will govern as a moderate….likely left of center.

    If conservatives continue to find the GOP as hostile territory,  formation of a third party is inevitable.  The Republican leadership in Congress has already forgotten who drove their success in 2010.   Conservatives will not ride in the back of the bus forever.     

  • Poor Wilber

    If your going to tell a fairy tale about Democrats caring about family values (unless its a story about a transgendered “man” having a baby (by invitro) in a committed homosexual relationship)….at least start your diatribe with “once upon a time”.

  • Richardgridmark

    It does not change the fact that we have added 2 billion cheap laborers to the free market system no matter what our tax rate is. You and nobody else can say what widget we can make here and not some other country. Fixing the tax code or some regulation may be helpful but you still have to invest in the country, in the people, and in the future as other countries do to deal with globalization. The ideologies of late have been a failure. Right to work states means cheap labor. It really is amazing how republicans say they create jobs when they take it from other states. They have not created new jobs, just took a piece of the pie. Investing in the country, in the people, and in the future will create new jobs. It will not replace what we lost, and no one has said what will replace what we lost. Ashamed that it went on so long as we went on with failed ideology. The higher productivity of the American worker is more automation, six sigma, and mergers and consolidation. It means throwing people out in the street. We lost some 57,000 factories or some 6 million jobs in the past decade. Didn’t hear anyone talking about that until Obama came into office. Where was everybody? I have been talking about this since 2004. 

  • Cool_Hand_Luke

    I don’t think you need a third party. What you need is men and women who are willing to get committed and fight tooth and nail to take back the party.

    I remember Barry Goldwater and that Revolution in the sixties. His side booted out the Liberal and dominant wing but went on to get trounced in the general election.

    But, the seeds were planted and didn’t come to fruition till 1980 when Pres. Reagan picked up the mantle and brought victory.

    My only question with this being the internet age will the old style tactics to build a party still work?

  • jagscl

    I agree. The process should start soon if it is to be a seerious challenge in 2016.

  • Concerned4America

    If Mitt gets the nomination whether he wins or loses I believe it is time to start a Conservative party.

  • Poor Wilber

    Understand, many folks like you have their buffers full of liberal Republicans winning the GOP nomination.   The establishment officials in the states stack the deck (i.e. Virginia).  VA all of a sudden starts auditing votes under 15K, something they didn’t do in 2008, or the last three primaries.    Now voters in VA cannot vote for the top tier candidate they support.  

    My hope is that the tea partiers that helped get conservatives elected pay the price for endorsing Romney (yes Nikki Haley, I’m talking to you).

    BTW, Ann Coulter is off my reading list as well.

    I’ve made this argument, that the tea party must take over
    State caucuses….to essentially take the party away from the establishment…district by district.   The establishment Repubs are still there, still pulling the strings as to who gets nominated, regardless of where the electorate is.

  • Concerned4America

    One of the tenets of the Christian faith is that people can be redeemed and change their ways. The important question is not Newt’s past but has he changed. I know it is hard for some people to get this concept. Bush drank in college but quit years ago but people still unfairly painted him as a boozer.

    We know a lot about Newt but the question of Obama has not been answered. There are still people who think he is a homosexual and Michele is just his beard.

  • Richardgridmark

    What is interesting is that trickle down and 1 trillion dollars borrowed for tax cuts was going to create prosperity. And it failed. Now we are being told that we need to lower the corporate tax rate. I don’t disagree with that. But why have we had 10 years of tax cuts if they did not good? Now, that is where ideology failed. It was “stay the course” and ignore everything else. 

  • Richardgridmark

    Bush turned into a right wing Christian Social Conservative ideologue. He “stayed the course” guided by God and ran the economy and two wars into the ground and soldiers died.

  • Poor Wilber

    The tax rate is not as important as raising revenue.  The corporate tax rate hasn’t changed in many years.   Corporate taxes are really “taxes for dummies”.    Its the only tax Congress can raise without taking much flak.    However,  most of these corporate taxes are passed off in higher retail prices or lower wages and benefits.    Liberals  focus on what is “fair”, rather than what policy raises the most revenue.   There is a sweet spot, where raising taxes reduces revenue (tax avoidance strategies), or where further reductions in taxes have a negligible affect, or may even lower revenue.  

    The real enemy is the 20 volume tax code….which are all tax agreements that favor the favored….pay to play….all put there by K Street lobbiests at the expense of free markets.  Warren Buffet wants higher taxes because his company specializes in tax shelters for millioniares.  Raising taxes will drive billions into his coffers.   We’ve got to wake up here.

    Did the 1 trillion stimulus that Obama borrowed from China create any prosperity?

  • sjmom

    I heard Nikki Haley supported Mitt Romney in 2008 so she was never really conservative or “Tea Party” in my mind. I am wondering how many moderates and liberals have infiltrated the Tea Party movement. 

    Ann Coulter is not the only one off my list. I am now having as much difficulty watching Fox as I do CNN or MSNBC and the last two I have avoided for years. I don’t trust the GOP any more than  I do the Dems. The other day I told my husband I believe the Republicans want another four years of Obama and the only rational explanation is what I heard Rush say; that the GOP would rather have Obama than a conservative.

  • Ksmith_Tx

    The Republican party is NOT conservative because the American people as a whole are not conservative. I know, I know all the surveys and studies indicate that the American electorate is for the most part majority right of center.  Well, I contend that what people tell a pollster or write down on a survey ballot is not necessarily what they truly belief nor how they actually live.  I believe when confronted with a question regarding conservatism they know in their hearts that the right answer to the social and economic questions are the conservative answers so they choose those answers because their conscience compels them to.  But in actual daily life and in the polling booth they don’t make those same choices. Think about it. The majority of politicians are moderate to liberal and have been for many, many years.  The divorce rate is 50% in this country for first time marriage.  The abortion rate is devastatingly high.  Drug use is expanding and spreading to the young children. The highest income earners are Hollywood types and many of our highly paid athletes are criminals and thugs.  

    Christ said “You will know them by their fruits”.  The American people sure talk about conservative values but they sure don’t live them or choose the people that do.  The Republican party is NOT the conservative party, it is a political party made up of a small number of conservatives to the far right of center and a large percentage of moderates to liberals to the left of them.  The Democrats are the reverse of that with a small group of radical socialists to the extreme left.

    It is difficult enough to change a political party, it is near impossible to change a country.

  • Poor Wilber

    I heard Rush say that, and he’s right  , as usual.:-)

    Unfortunately when the media asks, anyone can say they’re a member of the Tea Party movement.   Maybe we should issue ID cards?   :-)

  • Poor Wilber

    I’m not sure I’m ready to give up, but things are trending in the wrong direction.   Conservatives need to get control of our schools, so the next generation doesn’t grow up with heads full of mush.   Local control and vouchers are our only hope.

  • Richardgridmark

    Can’t find a reply button. Will answer you here.

    As far as Obama’s trillion dollars of stimulus, this will sum it up.

    The democrats are spending for jobs, the republicans want more tax cuts for jobs after 10 years of tax cuts, the fed (treasury) is printing money for jobs, the states have gone to casinos for jobs. All the while we keep shipping jobs overseas. 

  • Ann_Banisher

    How can anyone really believe Newt stands a chance. He has said the same things as Romney, but has the baggage of being a liar, cheat (ethics violation), scumbag {dumping not one, but two wives who had cancer after carrying on years long affairs. That’s twice the Edwards ick factor),  insider lobbyist ($1.6 M from Fannie/Freddie), and, let’s be honest, he’s an ugly, mean,egotistical,  narcissistic weasel.
    Even his own party voted to get rid of him after 2 years

  • Richardgridmark

    The extreme right has its radicals. You go too far left or right, you end up with the same thing. You have to run the country in the middle. Now, has there been right policies in the middle? Probably not. The only thing we can do as we did many years ago is invest in our country, in our people, and in the future and make sure that there is an upward movement for all people. And for right now the right and the left do not have that. Globalization is the biggest obstacle we face. It means loss of jobs and wages. It still has to be addressed and no one has done it yet. 

    Invest in the country: energy independence, infrastructure, high speed internet for most of the country to keep pace with the rest of the world, and a new air traffic control system to save 12% on fuel.

    Invest in the people: mandatory vocational training for all in a globalized world.

    Invest in the future: Federal research grants to universities for new technologies.

    And here is what Thomas Friedman says:

    Cut spending in which democrats don’t like.
    Raise revenue in which republicans don’t like.
    Educate the population.
    Attract the best immigration and talent.
    Best infrastructure.
    Best rules for capital spending.
    And government funded research.

  • Poor Wilber

    Raising revenue and raising taxes isn’t the same thing.  I thought I explained that to you earlier.

  • Ksmith_Tx

    You make my point for me!  The vast squishy, wishy-washy middle from which you want the country run IS how the country HAS been run since the beginning of the last century and that is leading us unswervingly  and headlong into European socialism.

    The Constitution is not a middle of the road document. It is a CONSERVATIVE document making a declaration to the world of a free country with emphasis on INDIVIDUAL freedom.  It is truly a RIGHT WING document. It tells the government what it can do and what it can’t do and declares full freedom to the individual outside of the limits set to government and the limits set to the infringements on others’ constitutional rights.

  • Ksmith_Tx

    The same thing can be said about Clinton. So, when you voted for Clinton did you do it because in your estimation he wasn’t ugly?

  • Poor Wilber

    What many of has said is that Romney’s electability is a myth.   Much like John McCain.

    Romney has been on every side of every issue and cannot be trusted to keep his word.  He didn’t keep his word to Massachussets when he said he’d protect a womens right to choose, he didn’t keep his word that he would not repeal or change gun control laws, he didn’t keep his word when he said he was a moderate and progressive.   Now, we’re supposed to believe he’ll keep his word since he claims to be a conservative?

    Romney is almost McCain-est in his out of touch way…and thats what really is going to beat him.   He said on the stump he empathized with the unemployed, because Mitt,  the trust fund baby,  was “also worried about getting a pink slip”.   Insensative nonsense.    Again Mitt is now saying the economys improving, based on meager job growth numbers…so I’m not sure if he’s trying to help Obama or is just completely out of touch.  Mitt. needs to drive out of his gated community of his mind to really hear how something like that sounds to people who are worried where the next paycheck is coming from.   John McCain said the economy was sound in 2008, and you can see where it got him.   Romney doesn’t connect with average people in any meaningful way, and thats going to beat him in a general election more than anything.

  • Richardgridmark

    Does the constitution tell us on how to deal with globalization. Because that is how we lost the jobs. Can the constitution address that?

  • Ksmith_Tx

    Yes, of course it does.  The Constitution says for government to get the hell out of our way so we can compete with the rest of the world.  The Wagner Act is UNCONSTITUTIONAL get rid of it.  The EPA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, get rid of it. And the list goes on.  

    Simply following the U.S. Constitution will guarantee that our economic superiority will return.  

  • Richardgridmark

    Sorry, that is the ignorance that the right displays. You have to invest in the country, in the people, and in the future. This is what we saw under Bush. It was tax cuts and then laissez-faire as our jobs went overseas. And this is the exact reason the middle class gets hurt. The tax cuts went to the rich and the middle class lost the jobs. Deal with the issues. And it is not the Wagner act. Attacking the middle class seems to be the norm from the right. You people talk of religion, the constitution, and tax cuts and it is just total ignorant babble while we lost the jobs. Deal with 2 billion cheap laborers. We have globalization and should act like we do instead of ideological crap.

  • JayC777

    “What is interesting is that trickle down and 1 trillion dollars borrowed for tax cuts was going to create prosperity”

    Skidmark, are you retarded or just plain … STUPID!?!?!?!?!?!?!  I have already explained this to you.  What didn’t you get about it?  It was in the simplest terms.  No money was borrowed for tax cuts.  I repeat, there was absolutely no money borrowed for the Bush tax cuts as they paid for themselves with 100s of billions extra.


  • Richardgridmark

    Oh, is that why we had deficits and debt. That whole ideology failed. We lost jobs, nothing invested in our country and our future. The tax cuts have been overdone and has less effect today. It was borrowed, spent, and lost its effectiveness as all the problems piled up. Now, if you are going to fly a plane then you have to do 10 things at the same time, and what tax cuts did was ignore the other 9 problems. It was right wing ideology that failed. 

  • Ksmith_Tx

    “This is what we saw under Bush. It was tax cuts and then laissez-faire as our jobs went overseas.” 

    You BIG GOVERNMENT types will NEVER change. You rewrite history to suit your argument.  There was NOTHING like laissez-faire under Bush or under ANY president since McKinley.
    Go ahead and vote for Romney, but you will be voting against the U.S. Constitution and for European Socialism. 

  • JayC777

    “Oh, is that why we had deficits and debt. That whole ideology failed.  We lost jobs, ”

    We had deficits and debt because we spent more than we brought in, which INCREASED after the tax cuts, you friggin’ mathematically challenged moron.

    Unemployment was at 5.9 % in March of 2003 it was 4.4 in march of 2007.  That is not losing jobs.

    You really need to get off of HuffPo.

  • JayC777

    ” It was right wing ideology that failed.”

    What an idiot.  All our failures can be traced right back to left wing policies.  Social Security and the fact that it is going bankrupt – left wing.  Housing market crash because banks being forced to give out sub-prime loans – left wing.  Too many regulations stifling the economy – left wing.  etc, etc, etc.


  • Richardgridmark

    Laissez-faire under Bush.

    1. Came to my state and said “free trade is good” and we watched the factories close. We lost the jobs and got no help. He did nothing. He just “stayed the course.”

    2. Abandoned Afghanistan for Iraq for five years and “stayed the course.”  Soldiers died and he did nothing.

    3. Had a quagmire in Iraq for three years and he “stayed the course” and did nothing.

    4. Ran up deficits and debt and “stayed the course” and did nothing.

    5. Katrina, waited three days and did nothing. 

    6. Our infrastructure in neglect and did nothing.

    7. Neglected our future and did nothing.

    8. Bush “stayed the course” and let all the problems pile up as he believed in his trickle down voodoo economics. It was right wing ideology that failed. Bush “stayed the course” for eight years. We are where we are. 

    I waited and waited with each problem to see what his response was going to be and he “stayed the course.” And he did nothing. 

    It is your right wing that believes in tax cuts and doing nothing. And we saw what happens. 

    You don’t like big government but when your policies fail, then you end up with big government. So, it is best to fix the problems to begin with so that you can have less government. 

  • Richardgridmark

    The money had to come from somewhere, where did it come from? But the problem is, even if you get revenue, you cannot let jobs go overseas, you have to invest in the country and the infrastructure, and you have to invest in the future. If you cannot solve all the problems and project the future for America, then the tax cuts don’t mean a hill of beans. If factories closed, then the tax cuts do no good. 

  • JayC777

    Let me put something to you.  A business man has a product that sells for $50 a piece.  It costs him $35 to make each one of these products.  Thus, he makes $15 for each one.  His average sale has been 100 of these each month meaning he brings in 100 x $15 or $1500 dollars a month.  He spends $1500 dollars a month to maintain his lifestyle.  He has no deficit.  Let’s say he lowers the price to $45 for each unit.  Which people think is a good deal so he sells 175 units in one month.  Now, he is only making $10 a unit but since he sold 175 units he now brings in an increase of $250, total $1750 ( $10 x 175 ).  But this particular month he splurges and spends $2000 on living expenses.  Did he have a deficit because he lowered his price or because he spent too much?

    Deficits are caused by spending too much.

  • JayC777

    “The money had to come from somewhere, where did it come from?”

    Oh, so is it your contention that tax revenues decreased after the Bush tax cuts?

    This question only requires a yes or no answer.

  • Richardgridmark

    There you go again. It was borrowed money that created the false economy. You still have to deal with the problems. Globalization took away some 57,000 factories. This problem was covered up with the housing market that was reaching a bubble. When the dust cleared, we have found out with the housing collapse that we lost 1/3 of our manufacturing. Most of the factories closed in 2004 and thereafter in my town. What good was the tax cuts? We lost 6 million jobs in a decade. The tax cuts was overdone and lost its effectiveness. It is like taking medicine too long and it has lost its effectiveness. Bush could have achieved the same results with three years of tax cuts. Even Greenspan was against the 2003 tax cuts. And you cannot have war and tax cuts at the same time. Do it right or don’t do it all. 

  • Richardgridmark

    There are many failures. Social programs need to be fixed, but right wing ideology of ignoring our problems is also a problem. 

  • Richardgridmark

    It cannot be answered. You have to look at all the other problems and not an ideology. I can increase my own revenues too. I will not put money in my property and I won’t buy food. Yeah, those tax cuts look real good, but look the other way. 

  • Richardgridmark

    I agree on the spending issue. But that is not what Bush did. Bush came in with little or no deficit. He gave out tax cuts. That money had to come from somewhere. He could have cut spending to get his money, but he did not do that. Then he added the two wars (guns and butter economics) and he spent more for tax cuts. And all the while, we have globalization taking our jobs, our infrastructure was neglected, and nothing was done for our future. All the problems piled up. We are where we are. 

  • Ksmith_Tx

    Study the meaning and history of Laissez-faire. Then study the history of the United States in its entirety.

  • JayC777

    “It cannot be answered. You have to look at all the other problems and not an ideology.”

    You’re kidding, right?  It has nothing to do with ideology.  I suggest you enroll in an english comprehension course at your nearest community college.

    “I can increase my own revenues too. I will not put money in my property and I won’t buy food.”

    What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?  Irrelevant comment.

    Did tax revenues decrease after the Bush tax cuts?  The only way tax cuts could be part of the cause of deficits is if tax revenues decrease.

    Now, answer the question.

  • Richardgridmark

    And I just told you what Bush didn’t do. The right wing believes in tax cuts as that is part of the constitution. You give tax cuts back to the people or the states. I suspect you believe in federalism. The problem is that many problems can only be solved out of Washington. States cannot compete with 2 billion cheap laborers and you need policy to deal with globalization and the loss of jobs. The tax cuts did no good.

  • JayC777

    Wrong again.  Paul Ryan and many conservatives have tried to fix the problems only to be rebuffed by left wingers.

    That’s a fact.

  • Richardgridmark

    They only increased for the time alloted. The tax cuts burn out at some point. You have to deal with other problems. Relying on an ideology of trickle down, did not solve our problems. It was ideology. Bush lived by ideology. It was “stay the course” and he ran both the economy and two wars into the ground. 

    Again, Greenspan was against it if it was going to increase the deficits. If you want tax cuts, then cut the spending first and then give tax cuts. But again, that is not the only thing you do. You have to fix the budget and the spending, and you have to invest back into America. And especially if you have globalization. Because tax cuts does not solve problems by themselves. 

  • Richardgridmark

    But then the right wing turns around and create wars. And you still cannot ignore globalization and what it is doing to our middle class. 

  • celador2

    Is there an assumption that Newt is a conservative because Romney is not? He has no empathy and could care less about the suffering of others. That pattern has become clear in the interview with Mariane. He does have big ideas, big diamonds and got rich off his big name.

    It is correct that the president sets the direction of the Republican party and R is a life long liberal despite the way he talks now. The party will be screwed with Newt as president too. And he won’t think twice about stabbing us–constitutional conservatives– in the back. It won’t be the first time.
    Constitutional conservatives need to stay stong and stand up to any president who grows spending, government, raises taxes. And who violates the oath of office, ‘So help me GOD’. Be honorable and keep your word or face a primary challenge 2016..

  • celador2

    I also dislike the media sponsored ‘debates’ and regret so many conservatives allowed them to become rhe sole standards of who won and lost.  The media have stopped covering news, they make it , manipulate it and then have panels whose anchors tell us what to think. And many conservatives have bought into that sales pitch.

    The media have defined the message this year more than any campaign season for Republicans.

    Media have tried to replace campaigns of the candidate and people with themselves as debate hosts..

  • magy

    you need a third party…. my buddy’s aunt makes $81 hourly on the internet. She has been fired for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $7980 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more…

  • Ann_Banisher

    Of all the descriptions I used, you focused on ugly? It’s all the other descriptions that matter…like cheat, scumbag, insider lobbyist, narcissistic, egotistical, & weasel that describe his actions. Tell me where I am wrong.

  • Poor Wilber

    What is the appropriate defense, when someone calls you a weasel and scumbag   Perhaps it goes something like, um, “no I’m not”.   So there, you’re wrong.

    I think it could be easily proven that Grigrich or his firm were or were not lobbyists…. simply provide a copy of their LD 1 registration form.   If it does not exist, he likely wasn’t a lobbyist.   I’m sure the Democrat controlled media has been looking high and low.   So, are you going to provide the easily obtainable evidence that this is true, or just throw an accusation?   I’m sure it will be easier to get than Obama’s college transcripts.

  • Poor Wilber

    You mean like Obama’s investment in Solyndra and other Green companies, right?   Those jobs are in the toilet, billions wasted, and all those folks standing in the unemployment line as I write.  

    You also mean Federal and State jobs, that produce nothing but a boogger storm of costly regulation slowing the private sectors ability to open a business or factory (and generate revenue, real revenue).   Additionally, much of private productivity (and borrowed Chinese capital)  is misdirected to pay the salaries of useless bureaucrats.   Yes, these bureaucrats are so necessary, we definately need all those Deputy Assistants to the Chief Deputy of the Undersecretary of whatever.

    Be honest, you don’t seem to know how wealth is generated in an economy, do you?    You think raising taxes = raising revenue, don’t you?  Until you understand the fundementals of economics, you’ll continue to vote for Democrats.   So, for those unwilling to learn, go ahead and sit there with your mouths hanging open peeping for some Government Big Bird to drop  a morsel down the ol’ piehole.   .

  • Richardgridmark

    So, what is the difference with Solyndra from the democrats to tax cuts from Bush and you ignore the problems. Solyndra may have been a few billion dollars, the Bush tax cuts was around a trillion dollars and we watched our jobs go overseas. Not an effective use of money.

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about federal and state jobs. But you will have to find ways to find jobs that can stay in our country. Difficult to do. 

    I did not say raising taxes either, except if you want to be non biased that we need to cut spending and raise taxes to reduce the deficit. We cannot go on with both sides with their heels dug in. 

    The hypocrisy is that you do not want to recognize globalization as a problem, you want to close your eyes to it and rely on the constitution. The constitution says nothing in managing day to day problems. You rely on ideology and ideology failed. Ideology has taken down the wrong road for the past 20 to 30 years as the right became more right wing. Globalization means people are losing jobs, lower wages, less tax revenue for cities, states, and federal government. It means more welfare and bigger government. Solve the problems and understand that capitalism leaves gaps. Understand that we have an economic war with China and other countries for jobs. And when you understand that, we can build our country. 

    When Eisenhower was president, he built the Interstate. The interstate system created jobs.  Jobs were created in tourism, commerce, gas stations, restaurants, and motels. And that is what we have to do. Find the new jobs that will stay here and not vulnerable to going overseas. Invest in our country, in our people, and in the future instead of failed ideology. 

  • Brett Bergamo

    “On the Republican presidential debates, Levin says that they have been worthless, except for reinforcing his extreme dislike of one particular entity. “These debates teach me nothing — except that my contempt for the media just grows.”

    Thats because the Country is leaning way more left then right! and thats because people are sick of Republicans putting their Religion in Politics.
    People DO believe in Gay right. People are sick of being told what is right and what is wrong by religious nut jobs liek Santorum. you cannot put people down in this country simply because you disagree with them, or it will back fire on the Rep Party.
    As far as all the cuts in SSI medicaid i keep seeing commented.. Just because your against it and decide to stop funding it and take the money out of it so you can start wars,and when thats gone you borrow the money from other countries. DOESNT MEAN the people WANT THAT! you idots took an even playing field and put us so far into debt because of that idot Bush, that its not even funny. You would of thought that after his father he would of known that you have to raise taxes! hell Sr did it and the war was a 10th of the time and a 10th of the cost!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!! your own Economist are TELLING YOU that you DROPPED the ball on Helathcare. Reagans Economic advisor who did the largest tax break is saying YOU NEED TO RAISE TAXES!!!
    You people will not ruin this country. and is why the Democrats are WINNING a lot of seats back!!
    You guys need to reformat your talking Points before your rendered completely uselss!!!!!!

  • avagreen

    Oh hogwash! Here’s the latest poop —> In case you aren’t aware I have changed my allegiance once again. I know. I know. Mind-boggling, right? The truth: Gingrich is an absolute fool. Romney is our only hope.

  • Phillip Waller

    If Gov. Romney wins…I will NEVER vote again. If President Obama wins…I will never vote again. I plan to prepare for the inevitable, as this country does not have time to wait until the 2016 elections for a massive turnaround. 15 TRILLION dollar deficits cannot be corrected without immense pain and slashing of entitlements that will make every City a warzone. Greece was the snapshot of a world-wide picture. Store food, water, ammo, and medicine, and prepare for when TSHTF. I pray that I am wrong. 

  • drwooly

    We DO need a third party! The GOP, and the Democrat Party have been seduced and corrupted by power AND money (No shock there!) TheTEA Party HAS to rise to the status of being a REAL representative of THE PEOPLE, NOT the machine!

  • Phillip Waller

    Sorry Wilber. I “held my nose” and voted for Senator McCain. That vote REALLY hurt! I cannot. will not, do it again. The Republican Party has lost my affiliation, and the affiliation of many Conservatives. A note to the RNC: Do NOT call, asking for a donation. You won’t get it. This is my last election cycle as a participant. I will however, prepare to care for me and mine, and suggest you do the same. America, as we know it is at its most dangerous precipice since WW2. 

  • redwolf6911

    The RNC and GOP Elite are responsible for the current fiasco.  They not only had way too many so called debates, but the majority were run by liberal moderators.  Why the devil would they do that? 
    The GOP elite have been pushing Romney who is a liberal, and have driven out conservative candidates.  This has been a disgusting cycle.  I am no longer excited about the election.  I early voted today and could barely tolerate the one I voted for, but I sure could not vote for the other 3.  The main thing for me, is to oust Obama. 

  • Phillip Waller

    he lost my attention when he addressed you as…”You People.” Classic Progressive, pretending to be a moderate. 

  • Christopher C George

    If we dont pick the right Candidate there wont BE a 2016! It will be too late.

  • Deborah Pernice Knefel

    “It won’t be a question of whether Romney will turn back left once he is
    in office, and we need to be prepared ….that Romney will govern as a
    moderate….likely left of center.”

    The problem is the shifting “center”… Romney, like Bush may look conservative because that is how the media portray him.

  • Deborah Pernice Knefel

    I held my nose voting McCain the last election.

  • Ann_Banisher

    First of all, I’m a conservative republican who is desperate to get rid of BHO. That said…
    Cheat: Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term
    as speaker. After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee,
    Gingrich was penalized $300,000 by a 395–28 House vote. It was the
    first time in history a speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.
    Scumbag: Newt dumps two wives after they are hospitalized and cheats on both of them for 6 years. Can you picture our first lady being a woman who slept with a married man for 6 years before getting to divorce the ex-wife?
    Insider lobbyist: Paid $1.6 M as a ‘consultant’ to Freddie. If you believe Newt that he was paid that kind of dough to be a historian, then you probably all his other lies. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
    Narcissistic: Google’ Gingrich’s doodles’. Anyone who sees themselves as the center of the universe and boasted of how “I helped Reagan create millions of jobs
    while he was president.” and, “We helped defeat the Soviet
    empire.” is a full blown narcissist.
    Egotistical: A year into his first teaching gig, he applies for College President, the next year as chairman of the history department. I’m shocked he was denied tenure.
    Weasel (hypocrite):  He kited checks and then wielded ethics charges to oust Democratic
    leaders. He bashed Bill Clinton’s lack of morals while carrying on with
    Callista. Newt, when asked how he could be unfaithful and give a speech on family
    values: “It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear
    what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It
    doesn’t matter what I live.” OK, that last one qualifies as weasel narcissist, egotistical and scumbag, so responding by saying um…no I’m not not really hold much water.

  • Bill Sanders

    Mark Levin makes the same point as many others, such as Sarah Palin. If the Republican will not embrace Small Government, the Constitution and Liberty, they will become irrelevant. Only one Republican candidate is committed to these principles – Ron Paul. Either embrace Ron Paul or perish.

  • Jon

    Those of you “standing on principle” who will not vote for a Republican candidate you don’t like will share in the responsibility of Barack Obama getting a second term. Period. At this point, I’ll gladly cast my vote for a litter-coated cat turd if that’s who ends up being the GOP nominee. I don’t care for Mitt Romney, but Obama and his ilk scare the bejesus out of me. Newt is another one I don’t particularly like, but to be fair, he’ll wipe the floor with Obama in the debates if he gets the ticket. Would be kinda fun to watch. Either way, I’m voting, and will be voting R this time around. We’re too disorganized as conservatives, and with the opposition in power right now, we don’t have the luxury of gathering our marbles up and going home this election season.

    Frankly, I can’t believe some of you.

  • another_engineer

    Thank god some people are getting it… you have no idea how many times I was called a “liberal” because I showed my disdain for Bush (except for tax cuts and eventual scotus appointments).

  • another_engineer

    Newt’s conversion is another forked tongue ploy to lure the gullible.  Any candidate that touts his religion should be beaten with a knotted plow line.

    And any voter that votes for a candidate based on his supposed religion should be disenfranchised from voting.

  • another_engineer

    Fastest way to start turning this country conservative is to severely curtail immigration.  The electoral college was created because Madison knew all new immigrants would bring their crappy form of government with them.


    saw what happens. .. my neighbor’s sister makes $67/hour on the computer. She has been unemployed for 5 months but last month her income was $7401 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site…

  • surfcitysocal

    I’ve “worshipped” Levin, but perhaps my admiration is beginning to wane a bit. You note that he says his contempt for the media grows…but he’s a part of that media he says he despises! I wonder if his disdain for the media partly stems from the fact that he seems uncomfortable in the tv interviews he’s been making with the release of his new book, and prefers the Oz curtain of separation that radio offers. But aside from that, what’s bothered me most lately is that he’s said he’d vote for Romney if he had no other choice, but at the same time, in so many words, he complains about the establishment forcing conservatives to go along with their annointed moderate and conservatives not standing up for what they believe. Sorry, but it seems hypocritcal, O Great One. 

  • Poor Wilber

    The ethics charges were thrown out.   The 300K was repayment for the cost of the investigation….a expeditious agreement he made  because Newton dared to resistence the assault on the office of the speaker from both liberal Democrats and Republicans.   He was surrounded.   

    Again using FOIA, go get the LD 1 and prove his lobbying status or shut up.    You’ve got nothing Ann… but malicious slander to offer.

    We had a founding father accused of poking his African American house servant, and everyone today and then still think fairly highly of Mr. Jefferson.

  • Ann_Banisher

    Comparing Newt to Thomas Jefferson? You think as highly of Newt as he thinks of himself. It’s funny how you selectively answer one out of his 10 problems and say case closed. What has Newt ever been elected to other than one overly conservative district in Georgia? Why does having the highest negatives of any candidate make him the obvious choice? If his own party voted to get rid of him after 2 years and he has virtually no support among his republican colleagues, how is that a vote of confidence? He has been one of the most polarizing figures in recent political history, how does that translate to victory?

  • Guest

    The GOP has been on suicide watch since the end of the Reagan Administration.

  • Matno

    Bad decision. Ann Coulter is currently just about the only commentator/columnist/journalist offering an honest assessment of the candidates, and she backs up everything she says with excellent background evidence. Anyone who thinks Gingrich is more conservative than Romney is clearly blocking a lot of things out of their minds. Newt’s Contract with America was his one conservative high point, but even that he backed away from. Very little he has said since has confirmed his conservative “credentials” (and virtually nothing that he has DONE). Until he was ousted from Congress, he was the official RINO-in-chief. (a title later given to a similar presidential candidate: John McCain.)

    Romney is a good man who sincerely wants to do what’s best for his country. Gingrich, on the other hand, is a man who ought to be too ashamed of his personal past to think he should represent our country to the world.

  • antirino

    Brett, cut out the caffeine!

  • Leon Welch

    I was an Alternate Delegate to the RNC from GA. I sat in disbelief when John Boehner read from the teleprompter and when it scrolled by, “the ayes have it”. I am sitting there thinking, this was all preplanned just like the stripping away of fairly elected Delegates. For awhile I did not want to believe that the Primary’s were rigged. But when I witnessed this I had not doubt left. My question is this. If the Republican Party resorts to using the same tactics to remove Obama as he used to install himself then what does that make the Republican Party? We need fix these under handed tactics not promote them, Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are broken beyond repair. We can only fix this mess with a third party and we best be at it. If Obama gets four more and I think he will then we have an excellent chance of electing a third party candidate in 2016. We bet get to it if we expect to have a country left.

  • Leon Welch

    I was in the Tea Party. I went to DC on the first trip. A lot of good people in there. But when I saw them catering up to the Republican Party and Romney I got out. I tried to tell them they were making a huge mistake but they paid no attention. Now with the new Republican rule they just got slapped across the face. No more bottom up in the GOP, it is not completely top down.
    Time for a third party. Give them four more of Obama and we can walk a third party candidate into the WH. I fully intend on doing my part. Will vote Gary Johnson in November.

  • Leon Welch

    I stopped with Fox a year back. And to think I thought I was crazy. My gut told me they were no good. Always pay attention to your gut feeling because it is normally backed up by something which lies just under your conscious level. Right now my gut is telling me third party 2016.

  • Leon Welch

    Ok fine. So myself as a Christian should condone cheating by the GOP. Is that what you are saying? Just because there has never been a third party candidate elected does not mean it can not happen. Every last thing you said in your post is exactly what is wrong with this country. You are hung in the status quo mode. As long as we have people like you who will not dare to step out of there comfort zone then we will only continue to drift into the deep dark hole. Some where some how the American people have to wake up. I think four more years of Obama will go a long ways in accomplishing that wake up. Sure we will more than likely end up in a all out Civil war but that may be what it takes to wake people like you up. The American people go status quo because they are trying to avoid and unavoidable butt kicking all the while making things worse.

  • Tpartyleader

    You’ll have no one to blame but yourself if you vote for a third party candidate and Obama is re-elected. Hide your 401K and IRA. Forget nursing home care if you aren’t rich. Forget your knee replacement if you’re overweight and your kidney transplant if you drank colas. I said I’d never vote for the lesser of two evils, but this is not ordinary times, and we must all gather forces and do whatever we must – even holding our noses – to prevent Obama’s election. Romney is a well-credentialed businessman. Ryan is a financial genius. A CEO and a CFO. If we don’t survive the financial crisis, nothing else much matters, and they’re our best bet.