Levin just name dropped Rand Paul for President

[69360]

I think so to. Rand needs to explain this grand bargain. In return for such a grand concession as amnesty, what we will we get in return?

A chunk of the important hispanic vote that was previously unattainable.

 

[Athan]

I was just listening to him but I didn't catch that part. I heard him call rand, lee, and Rubio stars on the bench of the GOP. I think he is definitely moving our way.

Your in for a rude awakening.

 

[___j___]

Please don't start promoting Mark Levin's opinions on this board. I'm begging you.

All the guy is trying to do is get Levin on record as saying something good about Rand. What's wrong with *that* particular opinion? You seem to think that, because Levin/Rush/Hannity/etc have at some point failed to be full-fledged supporters of Ron Paul, therefore they can *never* be supporters of anything that will help the liberty-movement. Do you apply the same reasoning to the 57m people that voted for Mitt, and the 60m people that voted for Obama? That is what is known as self-fulfilling-prophecy-leading-to-defeat.

The point is not that we should paper over bad behavior from the past, or have unrealistically sunny expectations for an about-face in the future. We need to be realistic. But here is the reality: Levin called (per quotation by some other person on rpf) out the names of Marco Rubio (80% liberty-candidate), Mike Lee (90% liberty-candidate) and Rand Paul (95% liberty-candidate) as being rising stars on the repub bench. That is pretty high praise for the senate-tea-party-caucus, and I think it's absolutely true. Sure, having a Rubio-Rand 2016 ticket would not compare to having a Ron-Napolitano 2012 ticket in ideological purity. But that's comparing apples to apples, across time. One crop to the next, as it were. The *correct* comparison is Rubio-Rand versus Jeb-Christie. Which do you want to see as the nominees in 2016? Assuming you take the liberty-leaning pair, then the next *correct* comparison is Rubio-Rand versus Hillary-Gillibrand. Which of those pairs will you vote for? Coming full circle, we can do a crop-to-crop comparison, and say that if you want Rubio-Rand as the eventual winners over Hillary-Gillibrand, then we need to do our best to encourage Levin/Hannity/Rush/Savage/RedState/Malkin/etc to *fairly* portray what Rand says-n-does. Calling both him and Rubio the rising stars of the GOP is perfectly fair, and will help the cause of the liberty-movement. We want more of the same.

You say that if Levin et al ever actually endorse Rand, that will prove *Rand* is compromised. But the reverse is actually the case: the day the talk-radio-establishment endorses Rand (as potus or vpotus) is the day *we* have remade the GOP from the inside. Remember the theme from Ron Paul's mid-convention celebration in Tampa -- we are the future. Having somebody like Levin hold their nose and endorse Rand 2016, which later will give us President Amash in 2024 or somesuch, is *exactly* what Ron was talking about.

p.s. You are correct that Thumper's Motto does not apply in repub-dem fights, nor in the 2012 repub primaries, but it *can* work in repub-primaries: remember Reagan, and his never-criticize-another-repub rule.

 

[___j___]

I don't have much respect for Levin after the way he treated Ron. ... He has no credibility at all when he claims to believe in liberty and limited government.

Ahhh, but this is your opinion. It is also my opinion. But millions of everyday repubs, who get ALL THEIR INFORMATION from big-teevee and big-radio, in fact *do* respect Levin / Rush / Hannity / RedState / Malkin / et cetera. What those pundits say is largely driven by what their audience wants to hear, and by what will generate controversy, aka larger audience. Like the romineey, they are often flexible ideologically when successful-ratings are at stake. Would it really be so bad to have Levin spouting off about how we must strictly follow the Constitution, end the central banking cartel, and bring the troops home yesterday? Even if he didn't really and truly believe everything he said?

I agree we want to have more journalists like Ben Swann, John Stossel, and even Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow... who were often fair to Ron Paul, and will do the same for Rand no doubt... but I would rather we have *some* members of the Levin/Rush/Hannity/Savage/RedState/Malkin group on our side, at least nominally, rather than against us as they usually were in 2012.