Mark Levin on 2016: GOP Must Nominate Conservative for First Time Since Ronald Reagan

[mystery-ak]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/27/Mark-Levin-on-2016-GOP-Must-Nominate-Conservative-for-First-Time-since-Ronald-Reagan

 by Tony Lee 27 Sep 2014

Conservative scholar and talk radio host Mark Levin said the GOP is "a party in trouble" that must nominate a bold conservative for president in 2016 if they do not want to get walloped yet again.

Speaking at Values Voter Summit on Saturday with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Levin, who is cementing himself as the intellectual godfather for conservatives in the age of Obama, said moderate candidates favored by the establishment and stand for nothing will never appeal to Americans who are hungry for leadership.

"It's very, very, important that we nominate a conservative for the first time since Ronald Reagan," Levin said. "There are people under 50-years-old who have never had an opportunity to vote for a conservative president. We want to show them what it's like. It's our generation's responsibility."

Levin said "it's invigorating, energizing" and "almost spiritual to get behind somebody with enthusiasm and excitement. To go door-to-door. That's how you win elections."

He said conservatism cannot be chopped up "conservatism is a way of life" where faith, spirituality, individuality, individual liberty, respect for the rule of law, and the Constitution are valued. Levin said conservatives try "to project founding principles onto modern day events."

"We are people of faith," he said. "We believe in free-market capitalism and private property rights."

In the 2016 primary, Levin said conservatives can't be split among various candidates. He said conservatives must look for "the most articulate, intelligent, charismatic conservative candidate that we can get behind" and "we need to start rallying behind one or two." Levin said Obama was beatable in 2008 and "more defeatable in 2012," and he just cannot stomach establishment consultants saying candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney are the only ones who can beat someone like Hillary Clinton, whom Levin said was Obama in a pantsuit.

"We need to take this party back," he said. "We're taking it back from cowards. We're taking it back from corporatists."

Levin said he is a free-market capitalist and blasted crony capitalists who "use government and government policies to defeat their competition and take money from We the People, the taxpayers."

"I've had it with an incompetent Republican bureaucracy and all of their consultants," Levin said. "These people are not conservative Republicans. They are neo-statist, big-government Republicans."

Levin said establishment Republican candidates have lost more winnable races than conservatives, but the establishment continues to attempt to re-write history. They pat themselves for winning anti-Obama races and blame conservatives for losing races in which the establishment blunted enthusiasm among the grassroots, he said.

"Their candidates are not appealing. Their candidates don't stand for anything," Levin said of establishment Republican candidates. "And when they do stand for something, they're moving left; they're not moving right."

Levin said Americans want leaders who make "emphatic, unequivocal statements about Americanism and American principles" and speak about securing the country's borders, getting the economy running again, and addressing World War III.

"We need more conservatives who happen to be Republicans," he said.

Levin talked about the dilemma many conservatives face today. He said they see a tyrannical left with a "totalitarian mindset" who are trying to import "every form of tyranny" and package them as compassionate while talking about "race and genitalia to get people all worked up." But they also see Nelson Rockefeller Republicans who do not speak about principles, can't stand up to the left, and don't know how to "articulate how they will restore the republic and save the Constitution."

"We damn well better nominate a conservative in 2016 to save this country and save the Republican Party. We don't have a lot of time left," Levin said. "We cannot nominate another RINO, or we're going to get our clocks cleaned again."

[MACVSOG68]

He said conservatives must look for "the most articulate, intelligent, charismatic conservative candidate that we can get behind"

Nothing about leadership experience or exactly how the "conservative" candidate would push the various issues.  This is no different from the Obama crowd in 2008.  They didn't care a whit about experience or knowledge of the issues.  But they loved his speechifying. 

I enjoy reading these self-described conservatives who still hold Reagan up as the unchallenged model for conservatism in spite of his rather major non-conservative term in office.  But he could give a great speech and make people feel good about themselves and their Country.  But articulate and charismatic speeches do not make for conservative tenures in office. 

[kevindavis007]

Nothing about leadership experience or exactly how the "conservative" candidate would push the various issues.  This is no different from the Obama crowd in 2008.  They didn't care a whit about experience or knowledge of the issues.  But they loved his speechifying. 

I enjoy reading these self-described conservatives who still hold Reagan up as the unchallenged model for conservatism in spite of his rather major non-conservative term in office.  But he could give a great speech and make people feel good about themselves and their Country.  But articulate and charismatic speeches do not make for conservative tenures in office.

 

[olde north church]

I have always wondered why people seek to return to a "Golden Age".

[jmyrlefuller]

I have always wondered why people seek to return to a "Golden Age".

Because anything is better than the **** we're dealing with now.

The 1980s were that brief renaissance of conservatism in American culture. Liberalism—both the fiscal liberalism of Carter and, because of the AIDS crisis, the social liberalism of the sexual misfits—had failed. Many conservatives associate that failure to Reagan, just as the march toward liberalism we experience today is often attributed to Obama. Neither is the case. Reagan did not cause the successes of the 1980s and 1990s any more than Obama directly caused today's malaise. It was the people who supported them, the American people, who made the country what it was and is.

It will take a cultural revolution to fix America's problems, not a political one. That will follow.

[MACVSOG68]

Because anything is better than the **** we're dealing with now.

The 1980s were that brief renaissance of conservatism in American culture. Liberalism—both the fiscal liberalism of Carter and, because of the AIDS crisis, the social liberalism of the sexual misfits—had failed. Many conservatives associate that failure to Reagan, just as the march toward liberalism we experience today is often attributed to Obama. Neither is the case. Reagan did not cause the successes of the 1980s and 1990s any more than Obama directly caused today's malaise. It was the people who supported them, the American people, who made the country what it was and is.

Can't argue that at all.

It will take a cultural revolution to fix America's problems, not a political one. That will follow.

The problem I see with that is the difference between cultural change and cultural revolution.  The first, for better or worse is as you pointed out earlier, in the hands of the people.  The second isn't.  Regardless of outcome, revolutions, either political or social (cultural) will pose far greater dangers to the people in the long run.

[sinkspur]

If Mark Levin is the "intellectual godfather" of conservatism, both conservatism and the GOP is in deep trouble.

Levin is completely unrealistic in his expectations and understanding of the political environment. Hell, GW Bush was more conservative than Reagan, not only on social policy, but on economic policies as well.

[speekinout]

Reagan wouldn't pass muster with Levin or any of the social conservatives today. The only issues he worked hard for were prosperity and defense. He was willing to compromise with the dims on just about everything else. By Levin's standards today, that's standing for nothing.

[jmyrlefuller]

If Mark Levin is the "intellectual godfather" of conservatism, both conservatism and the GOP is in deep trouble.

Levin is completely unrealistic in his expectations and understanding of the political environment. Hell, GW Bush was more conservative than Reagan, not only on social policy, but on economic policies as well.

Just remember:

Levin worked in Reagan's administration. It was his first "real job," if you will. Basically, Levin owes his livelihood to Reagan personally. So of course the guy's going to be a sycophant.

[Fishrrman]

MAC wrote above:
[[ Regardless of outcome, revolutions, either political or social (cultural) will pose far greater dangers to the people in the long run. ]]

I suppose your statement above is apropos to "the revolution" that began in 1776?

"Greater dangers?"
Of course.

But without taking the risks, there can be no advancement, no gain.

Let me pose to you a direct question:
Just how do you propose to wrestle from the grip of the left those American institutions (particularly the media and education) that they have control over now?

Do you believe that this will be accomplished genially?

If you believe that..... well.....

[MACVSOG68]

MAC wrote above:
[[ Regardless of outcome, revolutions, either political or social (cultural) will pose far greater dangers to the people in the long run. ]]

I suppose your statement above is apropos to "the revolution" that began in 1776?

"Greater dangers?"
Of course.

But without taking the risks, there can be no advancement, no gain.

Let me pose to you a direct question:
Just how do you propose to wrestle from the grip of the left those American institutions (particularly the media and education) that they have control over now?

Do you believe that this will be accomplished genially?

If you believe that..... well.....

A couple of quick points.  As for 1776, we fought a war against Britain that could easily have gone the other way.  And ultimately the British empire was doomed to diminish, as Canada showed.

As for some type of revolution that will wrest our institutions from the left, most Americans today are part of those institutions in terms of receipts.  If we can't do it through the voting booths, trying it through other means isn't going to be anything like it was in 1775-1783.  We won't have France, and we won't have the Atlantic ocean that puts the left several weeks from our shores.

Culture and society changes.  I don't like where we are culturally, but if we attempt to change it by force, don't try to predict the outcome.