Archive for the ‘Conservatism’ Category

I’m more than a little suspicious of this article. I’m suspicious partly because I’ve never heard of this politician before. I’m partially suspicious because Randy Johnson said “I still have the same fiscally conservative values, the same beliefs in limited government. The Republican party is kind of out in Never Never Land right now”, then writes in the Star Tribune that “for the first time in his life, he’s voting Democrat.”

If you’re a fiscal conservative, it’s impossible to vote for DFL politicians. DFL politicians are the opposite of fiscally conservative. According to the 2017 Taxpayers League Scorecard, the worst scores House Republicans got were 60s. The best score that a House DFL politician got was a 67 by Jeanne Poppe. That 67 is an outlier, though, because Poppe’s lifetime score from the TPL is 16.
If Johnson wants to vote for the party of rioters, that’s his option. Randy, welcome to your new party:

If Johnson wants to vote DFL this year, that’s his right and privilege. That being said, he’s kidding himself if he thinks he’s a fiscal conservative. I’d put him in the Arne Carlson/Dave Durenberger wing of the Republican Party. In other words, Johnson appears to be a perfect fit into the RINO wing of the MNGOP.

It’s apparent that Johnson enjoys the attention that this interview gives him. This is a dead giveaway:

President Trump is popular among Minnesota Republicans, but Johnson says he can’t support what the President stands for. He won’t vote for his former Hennepin County Board colleague Jeff Johnson for governor, or his friend Erik Paulsen for Congress. He says he cannot trust they will ever stand up to President Trump. “I think it’s time for Republicans, mainstream, real Republicans, to stand up and say ‘enough is enough,'” Johnson said.

Let’s compare Trump’s agenda with President Reagan’s agenda. Both cut and reformed taxes. Both cut regulations significantly. Economic growth exploded during their administration. Both rebuilt the military. Johnson approved of President Reagan’s agenda. Why doesn’t he approve of President Trump’s agenda?

In the interview, Johnson says that he didn’t leave the Republican Party. That’s BS. If he’s voting for a straight DFL ticket this fall, that’s proof he left the MNGOP. He can spin it whichever way he wants. The truth is that he isn’t a fiscal conservative. However, he might be a ‘Never Trumper’.

It’s been well-reported that the Edina Public Schools have implemented an indoctrination agenda. This Strib hit piece attempts to discredit those reports.

According to the Strib’s hit piece, “many parents and school board members dismissed the piece for providing little context and cherry-picking data.” That’s nonsense. Dictionary.com’s definition for cherrypicking is “to select with great care.” That isn’t what’s happening. Conservative students have testified in front of legislative committees. One of those students, Tatum Buyse, said during her testimony “The environment at school is so political. Everything is viewed as comparing white versus black when all I want to do is be a high-schooler.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. This article tells the story of Edina High School’s hostility towards conservatives:

Last month, some students sat in protest during the playing of taps and the national anthem in a Veterans Day assembly, the lawsuit says. Members of the Young Conservatives Club were outraged and took to Twitter to express that, according to a statement by the students who filed suit.

Members of the club also sent private chat messages among themselves that contained disparaging remarks about other students, including Somali-Americans. Those were made public in a YouTube video from an Edina High “anti-fascist” group, which demanded an apology. Afterward, school leaders revoked the Young Conservatives Club’s status as a school-sponsored organization, said attorney Erick Kaardal, who’s representing the students: Nick Spades, Elizabeth Ebner, Jazmine Edmond, Tatum Buyse and Ana Doval.

I’d argue that it’s difficult to “select with great care” episodes that apparently happen with great frequency. Further, I’d love hearing the Edina Public School’s explanation for revoking the Young Conservatives Club’s status as a school-sponsored organization. BTW, that’s a lawsuit EPS will lose.

Contained in John Hinderaker’s post is this information:

This one is from a student:

The day after the election I was texting my mom to pick me up from school and she almost had to!! Every teacher was crying in class, one even told the whole class “Trump winning is worse than 9/11 and the Columbine shooting.” The amount of liberal propaganda that was pushed every single day in class this year was worse than it’s ever been–and you’re bullied by the teachers and every student if you dare speak against it.
Yeah its horrible, the teachers can absolutely do whatever they want. The administration will do nothing about it!! The day of the election every single student was in the commons chanting “F*** TRUMP” and the teachers never did anything. A LOT of people are starting to complain and my mom has some friends who are leaving the school district.

A parent describes her daughter being abused in class in an email to a school administrator:

In talking with [my daughters], it came out that yesterday in my 10th grader’s AP World class, [the teacher] called out any Trump supporters and asked them to assure the class that they weren’t racist. Both my husband and I were aghast and we felt strongly that we should say something to you. … Yesterday’s incident in her class really surprised us as it is so completely inappropriate and unprofessional. If you talk with [the teacher] about this, please don’t mention my daughter. She doesn’t want to be identified for fear of retribution.

It sounds like this retaliation is pretty widespread. It’s difficult to cherry-pick information when it’s this plentiful. Mr. Hinderaker expresses his thoughts in this presentation:

Almost 10 minutes into his presentation, Mr. Hinderaker listed a series of statements. The anti-conservative hostility was described as “pervasive.” Based on the information in the presentation, I’d consider that description indisputable. FYI- the definition of pervasive is “spread throughout.”

Please take the time to watch Mr. Hinderaker’s entire presentation. I did and I’m glad I did.

Technorati: Edina Public Schools, Indoctrination, Star Tribune, Media Bias, Censorship, Fascism, DFL, Young Conservatives Club, First Amendment, Center for the American Experiment

After John Kline endorsed Darlene Miller to replace him in Congress, I did some checking into who she was and what she stood for. One of the first things that I found was this memo from the “President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness,” which is chaired by Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE.

Another thing I found was this article, which talks about Miller being invited to be “one of 23 guests sitting in First Lady Michelle Obama’s box for President Barack Obama’s jobs speech to Congress tonight.” The speech happened in September, 2011. I mention this because somehow, that experience isn’t listed on Ms. Miller’s ‘Meet Darlene’ page.

Among the things that are included in Ms. Miller’s Meet Darlene page is her “2016 Induction into the Minnesota Women Business Owner Hall of Fame,” her serving “as the first female President of Precision Machined Products Association (PMPA)” in 2014 and her being named as the “2010 Burnsville Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the Year.”

Further, the DCCC put together this 203-page research report on Miller. Here’s something worth noting:

Miller: “I Have Never Received Any Money From The Federal Government In A Form Of A Check.”

Then she tried explaining:

MODERATOR: Darlene, it has been reported that your company PERMAC, has previously taken some of the federal stimulus money, please explain.
MILLER: Well I wish I could take about a half hour and explain some accounting practices. I have never received any money from the federal government in a form of a check. This is strictly a tax … I won’t even call it an incentive, it’s just a tax, uh, the way we actually depreciate our equipment, instead of the government deciding that we can depreciate it over five years so they can get their money sooner, we’re allowed to depreciate it as we purchase it, so when I pay for it, I can depreciate it in that same year. And you know when you do that, and you buy equipment, you hire more people, and you create jobs, so that is what I have done and the Democrats are just strictly afraid of telling the whole truth because they don’t understand business.

I don’t have problem with Ms. Miller’s company using the deduction. It’s her fiduciary responsibility as CEO to PERMAC to increase profits. The problem I have is with the coy way that she tried explaining away the tax cut, saying “I have never received any money from the federal government in a form of a check.”

Any lawyer worth their salt that heard that would ask if she got a tax break by reducing the amount of taxes owed rather than in the form of a check. It’s foolish to think that the DCCC won’t go after her hard on this issue.

With all these ‘bipartisan moments, it’s fair to ask whether Darlene Miller is a conservative or just another cookie-cutter Republican that sounds conservative campaigning, then governs like a moderate.

Technorati: Darlene Miller, John Kline, President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Michelle Obama, Jeffrey Immelt, Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Richard Trumka, Republicans, Jason Lewis, Movement Conservative, Election 2016

Apparently, this nation has undergone a significant transformation from being a confident nation that loved free trade to being a nation that thinks the middle class gets screwed over by every free trade agreement. It’s sad to see the Party of Reagan getting duped into believing that we’re a nation that can’t compete by our party’s nominee.

Let’s unclutter this argument. Do you trust Donald Trump more than you trust Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman? That’s what this comes down to. Ronald Reagan took over a struggling economy, cut taxes and dramatically reduced regulation while negotiating trade deals. As a result of President Reagan’s economic policies, the US economy created over 20,000,000 jobs in 8 years. In September, 1983, the economy created 1,100,000 jobs.

Compare that with Donald Trump’s record of failed businesses and bankruptcies. That’s right. That isn’t a comparison. That’s more like Custer at the Battle of Little Bighorn. It isn’t much of a fight. That’s before getting into Milton Friedman’s lecturing Phil Donahue on the virtues of capitalism and free trade:

Here’s what Milton Friedman told Donahue:

In the only cases in which the masses have escaped the types of grinding poverty that you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, and where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.

Anyone that thinks that Trump knows what’s best compared to President Reagan and Dr. Friedman isn’t dealing with reality. The biggest reasons why jobs have moved overseas are the overtaxation and overregulation, the increase in regulatory compliance costs here in the United States and the lowering of marginal tax rates in other countries. Add into that Obamacare and this administration’s war on cheap energy prices (think Solyndra and Hillary’s statement that she was going to shut down coal plants) and it isn’t surprising that companies are leaving.

Without question, we’ve hesitated to call trading partners out when they’ve broken the agreement’s provisions. That’s proof of political spinelessness. It isn’t proof that trade agreements are counterproductive.

Anyone that trusts a man who opened a casino in flush economic times, then saw that casino go bankrupt, more than they trust the greatest president of the last 125 years and one of the most accomplished economists in modern history is a blithering idiot. I’ll trust President Reagan and Dr. Friedman over Donald Trump any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Technorati: Donald Trump, Fair Trade, Trade Wars, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Free Trade, Deregulation, Tax Cuts, Capitalism, Conservatism

I was stunned when I read Erick Erickson’s post on Erick’s new blog. (If you haven’t read Erick’s new blog, make sure you do. It’s a great combination of solid conservative thinking and the writers’ Christian testimony. I like it because it isn’t just about politics. It’s about something more important. It keeps people grounded.)

But I digress.

Erick’s latest post is actually a call to prayer. That thought came through loud and clear when Erick wrote “Over the course of the past few weeks my lungs have been filling with blood clots. The technical term in the medical report is that my lungs are “showered” with clots. My blood oxygen level cratered to the point of numb lips and the act of putting shampoo in my hair was leaving me out of breath.”

Though Erick’s health is improving, Erick still needs tons of prayers. James 5:16 says “The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” Here’s hoping Erick quickly (and fully) recovers so that he can torment liberals again.

It’s indisputable that Donald Trump has gotten lots of traction attacking specific media figures. This time, though, Trump won’t gain traction attacking a media figure. That’s because Trump’s attacked Charlie Sykes, saying “Charlie Sykes is a lowlife. Charlie Sykes is a guy who is not a real believer, he wants the establishment to win because it’s good for his third-rate show. He’s not a smart man, he’s actually a dumb man. He’s a dummy.”

In the past, like now, Trump has attacked media figures to take attention away from Trump’s misstatements. That’s worked well when he’s attacked ‘the media’ or if he’s attacked Megyn Kelly. It won’t work this time because Wisconsin conservatives know that Charlie Sykes is one of the smartest conservatives in Wisconsin. The only way that Trump benefits from picking this fight is if it helps him in later primaries. With New York’s primary 2 weeks away, attacking Sykes isn’t likely to benefit Trump there. Criticizing Sykes in Wisconsin isn’t as fatal as criticizing the Packers or cheese but it isn’t bright, either. Attacking Sykes is like criticizing Scott Walker. To use Sykes phrase about attacking Walker in Wisconsin, it’s “weapons-grade stupid.”

Sykes didn’t take the criticism sitting down:

“I believe he was quoting Abraham Lincoln,” Sykes said. “Seriously though, he took time out from talking about ISIS, the war on terror, international trade, immigration and the economy, to talk about me? A talk-show host who asked him some questions? Kind of sad. But kind of typical.”

Trump has proven that he’s the thinnest of thin-skinned candidates in recent presidential history. His ‘rattle-factor’ is off-the-charts high.

Wisconsin voters, from what we’ve seen, aren’t easily distracted. They aren’t shiny object voters like Laura Ingraham, Eric Bolling and Sean Hannity. Finally, Trump made this foolish statement:

“I would tell you, I think this has the feel of a victory,” Trump told reporters Sunday during a campaign stop at a Milwaukee diner. “This has the feel of a victory.”

Trump’s onto something … if you define victory as finishing second, 8-12 points behind the guy getting the most votes. Trump cited the PPP ‘poll’ as reason for optimism. The Marquette University poll is Wisconsin’s gold standard. Their final poll before the primary didn’t show a tight race between Sen. Cruz and Mr.Trump.

Technorati: Donald Trump, GOP Establishment, Media, Megyn Kelly, Wisconsin, Charlie Sykes, Conservative Talk Radio, Scott Walker, Republicans, Election 2016

This article features a Trump quote that isn’t attached to reality. Campaigning in Wisconsin earlier this week, Trump said “if we win Wisconsin, it’s going to be pretty much over.” The thing is that Sen. Cruz will win the Wisconsin primary with a fairly solid margin.

Last night, Megyn Kelly asked conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes if the Walker endorsement would help Sen. Cruz. Sykes affirmed that it would, saying that Trump attacking Gov. Walker in a state where he’s still popular “is weapons-grade stupid.” Sykes said that Trump would lose “vote-rich southeastern Wisconsin” and lose it badly because he’s offended too many conservative women. That most likely means Trump will get hurt badly in the Milwaukee suburbs because that’s the source of Gov. Walker’s electoral strength and because Sen. Cruz does better with well-educated voters than with less-educated voters.

Trump simply couldn’t resist criticizing Gov. Walker. Trump’s been critical of Gov. Walker for months. During one of Trump’s rallies, he said “But you had a $2.2 billion budget deficit and the schools were going begging and everything and everything was going begging because he didn’t want to raise taxes because he was going to run for president.”

Campaigning in Janesville, WI, Trump said “Cruz likes to pretend he’s an outsider and in the meantime he gets all the establishment support, including your governor.” That’s quite the turnaround from what Trump said about Sen. Cruz in January:

“Look, the truth is, he’s a nasty guy. He was so nice to me. I mean, I knew it. I was watching. I kept saying, ‘Come on, Ted. Let’s go, OK.’ But he’s a nasty guy. Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him,” the real estate mogul said.

Apparently, Trump can’t decide whether Sen. Cruz “gets al the establishment support” or whether everyone hates him because he’s a nasty guy. While speaking out of both sides of his mouth won’t deprive Trump of the nomination by itself, it’s just another thing that’s getting in his way.

Sykes decimated Trump in this interview:

Here’s the pull quote worth noting:

SYKES: Donald Trump, I just don’t think of the term nuanced in terms of Donald Trump. I think he’s a bad mix for Wisconsin.
CHARLES PAYNE: Why is he a bad mix for Wisconsin? Is he not a conservative? Doesn’t he have some of your conservative principles? No?
SYKES: No. He’s not a conservative. He’s a narcissist — He’s a content-free narcissist and he’s an authoritarian who has not even take the time to learn about the issues he’s talking about. I think that, instead of articulating the kind of conservative values, for example the kind that Paul Ryan and Scott Walker have talked about, he’s essentially created a brand, which is Donald Trump and it’s a cult of personality.

Ouch. As I watched the interview, I kept waiting for Sykes to stop and say ‘Other than that, though, Trump’s a great guy.’ That line didn’t arrive. Unfortunately for Trump, this line arrived with a punch:

SYKES: I don’t think he’s gonna win in Wisconsin and I think you’re going to see that over the next week, that in fact, in southeastern Wisconsin, which is a very voter-rich area, he’s got an approval rating of about 25% and a disapproval rating of more than 60% because when voters start to pay attention to what he actually represents, it doesn’t resonate with voters.

Mathematically speaking, it’s difficult to picture how a candidate gets trounced in the most voter-rich part of the state, then makes it up in the rest of the state. That’s assuming that Trump is somewhat popular in the rest of Wisconsin.

It’s been reported that Gov. Kasich pulled his ads from Wisconsin. Sykes said that isn’t true, noting that he’s pulled his ads off of southeastern Wisconsin radio stations and putting them up in western Wisconsin.

Whether Trump wins the nomination is still too far out to predict. Still, Trump isn’t close to closing the deal with Republicans. It’s understatement to say he isn’t heading in the right direction.

Technorati: Donald Trump, Tax Increases, Narcissist, Ted Cruz, Heidi Cruz, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Conservatism, Charlie Sykes, Conservative Talk Radio, GOP Nomination, Election 2016

Prior to Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses, Donald Trump’s ceiling of support seemed to be in the 35%-36% range. He won handily in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. It’s particularly noteworthy that those 3 states were open states where Democrats were allowed to cause mischief or where independents could vote.

Yesterday’s events were closed events, with only Republicans voting. This table shows yesterday’s results:

Combining the 4 events together, Sen. Cruz got 41% of the votes cast. Meanwhile, Trump got 33.3% of the vote.

I haven’t hidden my disgust with Trump. If I were king for a day, I’d banish him to Gitmo and throw away the key to his cell. I’ve got great company in not respecting Trump. Steve Hayes’ article lowers the boom on Trump, especially this part:

The worst of these moments may have come when Trump mocked the disability of a journalist who had criticized him. At a rally in Sarasota last November, Trump was discussing Serge Kovaleski, a reporter for the New York Times. “The poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy,” Trump said, before flailing in a manner that resembled a palsy tremor. Kovaleski suffers from arthrogryposis, a congenital condition that affects the movement and positioning of his joints.

When Trump was criticized, he said he couldn’t have been mocking the reporter because he was unaware of Kovaleski’s condition. That wasn’t true. Kovaleski had interviewed Trump a dozen times and said they had interacted on “a first-name basis for years.” Trump then accused Kovaleski of “using his disability to grandstand.”

This came up last Friday, as I drove my 8-year-old son to see the Washington Capitals play. I’ll be gone on his birthday, covering presidential primaries, so this was an early present.

My son and his older sister have followed the campaign, as much as kids their age do, and they’re aware that I’ve traded barbs with Trump. So we sometimes talk about the candidates and their attributes and faults, and we’d previously talked about Trump’s penchant for insulting people. On our drive down, my son told me that some of the kids in his class like Trump because “he has the most points,” and he asked me again why I don’t like the Republican frontrunner.

I reminded him about the McCain and Fiorina stories and then we spent a moment talking about Kovaleski. I described his condition and showed him how physically limiting it would be. Then he asked a simple question:

“Why would anyone make fun of him?”

Why indeed?

I’d flip this around a bit. I’d ask what qualities or policies would convince me to vote for Mr. Trump. In terms of national security policy or taxes, regulations, federalism, the Constitution and the rule of law, I find Mr. Trump utterly deficient. Listening to Trump answer a question on national security is torture. At times, he’s said that he’d “bomb the s— out of ISIS.” At other times, he’s said he’d talk Putin into taking out ISIS. Bombing the s— out of ISIS sounds great but that’s just part of the threat ISIS poses. That does nothing to stop ISIS from radicalizing Muslims in Europe or the United States. Apparently, Trump hasn’t figured that out, mostly because he doesn’t even have an elemental understanding of foreign policy.

On national security, Trump says he’ll be strong and frequently pronounces himself “militaristic.” But he doesn’t seem to have even a newspaper reader’s familiarity with the pressing issues of the day. He was nonplussed by a reference to the “nuclear triad”; he confused Iran’s Quds Force and the Kurds; he didn’t know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. The ignorance would be less worrisome if his instincts weren’t terrifying. He’s praised authoritarians for their strength, whether Vladimir Putin for killing journalists and political opponents or the Chinese government for the massacre it perpetrated in Tiananmen Square. To the extent he articulates policies, he seems to be an odd mix of third-world despot and naïve pacifist.

Like Steve Hayes, I’m a proud member of the #NeverTrump movement. While pundits like Sean Hannity and Andrea Tantaros talk about Trump like he’s a conservative god, I won’t. That’s because I care more about the principles that make conservatism and capitalism the most powerful forces for positive change.

Why anyone would vote for a disgusting, immoral liberal like Donald Trump is mind-boggling. Personally, I won’t.

Technorati: Donald Trump, Serge Kovaleski, National Security, Open Primaries, Ted Cruz, #NeverTrump, Conservatism, Capitalism, Steve Hayes, Election 2016

Laura Ingraham has apparently named herself the determiner of who is the GOP establishment and who is part of a populist movement of, by and for the people. In one of her articles, she throws the kitchen sink at the GOP establishment. (I won’t supply the link because I don’t want to drive traffic to her website.)

According to Ingraham’s article, the “takeaway for the GOP Establishment, and its enablers at places like National Review and RedState, will be that Marco Rubio’s win in Minnesota, combined with Cruz’s victories in Texas and Oklahoma and the close-ish race in Virginia, show that Donald Trump can be stopped. They just have to keep going negative.”

First, it’s frightening to think that Ms. Ingraham thinks of RedState is part of the GOP establishment. While I haven’t always agreed with RedState’s beliefs and political analysis, I’ve never questioned their commitment to TEA Party principles. Second, while I agree that NRO is GOP Establishment-ish, I can’t say that they’re card-carrying members of the GOP establishment. Writers like Jonah Goldberg, Jim Geraghty and Kevin Williamson are thinkers who don’t take their marching orders from anyone, much less from the ever-morphing GOP Establishment.

This statement is utterly mindless:

There’s no point in complaining about this. Trump represents a potentially existential threat to the Donor Class.

When Trump told Bret Baier that soldiers would obey his illegal orders, did that represent a “potentially existential threat to the donor class” or did it represent that rantings of a lunatic who didn’t care about the rule of law? Trump didn’t reverse himself until after conservatives wrote negative articles criticizing Mr. Trump for his willingness to order troops to commit war crimes.

At the same time, this primary season has demonstrated that the Establishment has some real problems. It’s clear that Rubio is a deeply flawed candidate. It’s clear he struggles to reach people who aren’t already committed to the Establishment Agenda. It’s clear that the voters are screaming “NO!” to the Establishment’s agenda; they have rejected it in almost every state by almost overwhelming numbers.

What’s equally clear is that conservative activists, like the activists populating CPAC, have noticed that Mr. Trump “is a deeply flawed candidate” who “struggles to reach people who aren’t” repeating Mr. Trump’s clichés.

The GOP Establishment didn’t start the #NeverTrump movement. Sen. Ben Sasse, (R-NE), is the spiritual leader of the movement. Calling a freshman senator from Nebraska who confronted Sean Hannity at CPAC, “chastising the Fox News host for suggesting his refusal to vote for Donald Trump was equivalent to a vote for Hillary Clinton.” Here’s the set of questions Sen. Sasse posed to Mr. Trump that have gone unanswered:

Q1: You said you want single-payer “govt pays4everyone” [health care]. If that isn’t your position now when did it change? Why?
Q2: You’ve said you “hate the concept of guns.” Why the change? When did it happen? What’s the 2nd Amendment mean to you?
Q3: A few yrs ago u proposed $6trillion tax hike. Still want to do that? Agree w/ Biden that higher taxes=more patriotism?
Q4: You brag about many affairs w/ married women. Have you repented? To harmed children & spouses? Do you think it matters?
Q5: I believe 1 of the most damaging things POTUS Obama did is ignore Constitution, act on his own,& bypass Congress Next GOP POTUS must roll this back & reaffirm a Constitutional system b4 we lose this special inheritance forever. Do you agree that exec unilateralism is very bad? Because you talk A LOT about “running the country” as though 1 man should “run America.” Will you commit to rolling back Exec power & undoing Obama unilateral habit?

Do those sound like questions that the GOP Establishment pose on a daily basis? Of course they aren’t, which proves my point that populists mindlessly use the term GOP Establishment whenever their indefensible positions are questions. (They’ll use the term elitist, too. The words are interchangeable.)

Opposing Trump isn’t part of a GOP Establishment conspiracy to thwart the will of the people. It’s the re-invigoration of the TEA Party movement after high-profile TEA Party activists sold out TEA Party principles for high-paying positions with politicians. We’re opposing Trump because he’s the embodiment of the corruption known as crony capitalism.

Technorati: Laura Ingraham, Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Populism, GOP Establishment, Ben Sasse, Conservatism, TEA Party Principles, #NeverTrump, CPAC, Election 2016

To say that Mark Levin has lost it with regards to Marco Rubio is understatement. His latest diatribe reads like the rantings of an unhinged lefty. One statement that questions Levin’s state of mind starts with him saying “But Rubio has no significant accomplishments other than his election to various public offices. He has few if any accomplishments outside of politics and virtually no accomplishments in public office as a U.S. senator.”

There’s no question that Mr. Levin is a well-informed conservative. That doesn’t mean he’s always right. This time, he’s terribly dishonest. Yuval Levin highlights Sen. Rubio’s biggest accomplishment, saying “The answer, it seems to me, is that none of it would have happened if Rubio had not made the risk-corridor insurer bailout an issue, starting in 2013. Before that, a few health wonks on the right had raised red flags about the issue, but it wasn’t until Rubio and his staff grasped its significance, insistently drew attention to it, and produced a bill to avert an insurer bailout that the issue became prominent among the priorities of Obamacare’s opponents. Rubio was without question the first and most significant congressional voice on this subject, and if he hadn’t done the work he did, the risk-corridor neutralization provision would not have been in last year’s (or this year’s) budget bill.”

Unlike Sen. Cruz, who shut down the government trying to do the impossible, Sen. Rubio highlighted a provision that would have been used to bail out insurance companies, then wrote legislation that was eventually included in a major spending bill that prevents insurance company bailouts. Is Mr. Levin willing to insist that this isn’t a significant accomplishment? If he’s willing to deny the importance of Sen. Rubio’s bailout prevention provision, then he isn’t honest.

Rubio fancies himself the next Ronald Reagan. But such self-aggrandizement is unmerited.

With all due respect to Mr. Levin, who worked in the Reagan administration, I’ll trust Michael Reagan’s word over Levin’s:

If @marcorubio beats Cruz tonight that’s the win of the night….

Levin hasn’t hidden the fact that he’s supporting Sen. Cruz. He’s certainly entitled to do that. What he isn’t entitled to do, though, is use deceptive arguments to make Sen. Cruz’s chief competitor look bad. I’d expect that from a Democrat. I won’t tolerate that from a former member of the Reagan administration.

Technorati: Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, Government Shutdown, Alinskyite Tactics, Marco Rubio, Michael Reagan, Insurance Company Bailout, Obamacare, Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, Republicans, Election 2016