Mark Levin: ‘The Republican Party Is Going To Split, And There’s Going To Be Two Parties’

Source:Real Clear Politics- right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin.

“MARK LEVIN: The autopsy report. They don’t even know how to name a report. The autopsy report. Here’s the deal, folks: Reince Priebus was ahead of the Republican National Committee when Romney lost. Why hasn’t he been fired? Why hasn’t he been fired? Karl Rove ran the biggest independent PAC in America, or one of them. He won 1.3% of his races. Why do people keep promoting him? On TV, donors, and so forth. These losers are not going to save the Republican party.

LEVIN: A year ago, a poll was done, it’s not every year, except this year so far, and I believe it’s Gallup, the political ideology of the American people. ‘While 47% of Americans continue to describe their views as conservative, 35% moderate, 21% liberal. For the third straight year, conservatives outnumber moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives. I’m giving you this information for a reason.

February, 1, 2013, Gallup did another poll of the individual states. Which ideology outnumbers which ideology in the states? Conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 out of the 50 states. So what’s the problem here? Well, the word conservative can be a little ambiguous. But what’s the real problem here? If you’re going into elections and your political party, where every survey and poll shows that Americans identify themselves more as conservatives than liberals, and you can’t beat Barack Obama, what’s the problem here?

The problem is execution. The problem is your being outworked, you’re being outsmarted. The problem is you’re not standing on “conservative principles.” You’re not believable. You’re not an alternative to Obama. You’re not an alternative to Pelosi and Reid. Less and less people view you that way. I mean, I’m amazed by this. When we look at the last thirty years, who was the most successful Republican president electorally? Ronald Reagan. Of course the times have changed, but the principles haven’t. Just apply them, wisely.

That’s like saying, ‘the times have changed, so our Constitution needs to be living and breathing.’ No it doesn’t! These principles are invaluable. These rights are inalienable. The fact that the modern politician in the Republican party is incapable of articulating them and applying them to modern society is the problem with that politician. The fact that the chairman of the Republican National Committee can’t do it and the Speaker can’t do is a problem with the Republican party and it’s leadership. And damn it, if it’s not changed, if these people aren’t thrown out, we’re going to lose. And the Republican party is going to split, and there’s going to be two parties. (Mark Levin Show, March 18, 2013)”

From Real Clear Politics 

I would argue that in actuality there is already two Republican Party’s in America or at least two political parties that call themselves the Republican Party. It’s just officially there’s just one Republican Party, but in all intense purposes it functions as two political parties but with two names. If you are dizzy now, I understand and I’m not insulted by that.

You have the Grand Ole Party which in my view is the conservative Republican Party made up of a very elite group of Americans that believes in old fashion values like intelligence, hard work, economic freedom, personal freedom, a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility. That’s what the Republican Party was up until the early 1990s when you saw the party split into two political parties ideologically: a Center-Right conservative and a right-wing populist party. And thanks to the Tea Party, the right-wing populists have a bigger role in the Republican Party, the dominant role in the party now.

What Mark Levin and others call Conservatives, are right-wing, religious and cultural populists, who interested in one’s and the country’s religious and cultural values, as well as lifestyle, and even to a certain extent their race and ethnicity, then what someone’s positions on economic and fiscal policy, national security, and the Constitution. You don’t have to be a believer in free trade, pluralism, economic freedom even, to be a member of the Republican Populists. You just have to share their religious and cultural values.

The Democratic Party is going through a similar split with their Center-Left led by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others, versus their left-wing led by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other left-wing Democrats in Congress. This can happen in a country of 320 million people that has in effect a two-party system where there are no other options for the hardcore political partisans, other than the two major political parties. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- 'Why Capitalism is Best (1979)'

Source:Commonsense Capitalism- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

"Milton Friedman On Why Capitalism is Best"  

From Commonsense Capitalism

Phil Donahue essentially trying to make the case that private enterprise and capitalism is somehow greedy and all the angels and unselfish people work for government, with the role of regulating how the rest of us live. 

With Professor Friedman making the sharp and quick response to that by boomeranging Mr. Donahue's point against him and rhetorically asking him: "Do you think Russia and China doesn't act on greed and aren't greedy." As well as asking him if he's aware of a successful society that doesn't act on greed. 

Webster's definition of greed: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed" We all want more than we need in life (except for Angels and Saints) so we have security and not have to worry about how we're going to pay our bills and take care of our families. 

There can be too much of anything in life, as well as too little. But if you eliminate greed, you'll have a lot more poverty in America, as well as anywhere else, because you'll have fewer people wanting to be successful in life and getting the skills and knowledge to be successful, because they won't have that self-motivation to be secure and have more than they need to live well.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

James Miller Center: President Gerald R. Ford; 1975 State of the Union

Source:James Miller Center- President Gerald R. Ford: 1974 State of the Union address to Congress.

"(Part One) President Gerald R. Ford's State of the Union Address - January 15, 1975

Video Courtesy of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library."

From the James Miller Center

President Gerald Ford's 1975 State of The Union address was interesting for several reasons. First of all it was his first one since becoming President of The United States. So it was his first opportunity to layout in front of a huge audience in front of Congress on national TV, in prime time what he believes the situation of the country is and where he wants to take the the country, what his administration would be focused on since becoming President of The United States in August, 1974 after President Richard Nixon resigned because of Watergate with Gerry Ford being Vice President of The United States before that.

So this speech was President Ford's opportunity to layout for the country what type of politician he was and what type of Republican he was, what he believed in and where he was ideologically and who he was politically. And if you listen to one of the first lines of this speech, he says the State of The Union is not strong. High inflation, interest rates, budget deficit, too many people being unemployed and so-forth. So the American people got to see how honest he was as a leader.

Again, a State of The Union speech is an opportunity for the President of The United States to not only layout what he believes the situation of the country is, but where he wants to take the country and what he wants to accomplish. And with the speech you hear a Conservative Republican President who is focused on the economy and fiscal policy. Too many people out-of-work, a weak economy that went into recession in 1974-75, with a rising budget deficit. And you also hear his solutions for it with an across the board tax cut to respond to it.

But another interesting thing about the speech is that you hear both the economic and fiscal Conservative. Gerry Ford speech which separates him from President Reagan: "We need greater economic freedom and lower taxes.) but we also have to pay for our expenditures by cutting the budget. Because this tax cut won't pay for itself. Unlike with President Reagan who was a supply sider when it came to economic policy and believed that tax cuts pay for itself.

There are a lot of things I like and respect about Gerry Ford the man and politician. The man was one of the most decent, and honest politicians as well as public servants we've ever had. He came from the Harry Truman/Dwight Eisenhower school of public service as far as how public officials should talk to people. But he was also the real thing politically. A Conservative who was actually Conservative, because he knew what conservatism actually was. Rather than someone whose further to the right, but called themselves a Conservative.

Reagan Foundation: State of the Union: President Reagan's State of the Union Speech- 1/27/1987

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan, delivering the State of the Union Address, to a joint session of Congress, in 1987.

"President Reagan's State of the Union speech on January 27, 1987."

From the Reagan Foundation

State of The Union speeches can be important are not matter at all and be forgotten. Depending on who the President is, where he stands in the country politically and so-forth. And the situation of the country and so-forth, which in a lot of ways will determine how the President will be able to do that year. And what he'll be able to accomplish and for the President an opportunity to layout where he believes the country is and where he wants to take the country.

1987 was an interesting year, time and State of The Union for President Ronald Reagan. Because it was the start of his most politically difficult year for the Reagan Administration. Because of the Iran-Contra scandal and Congressional hearings come as a result of that both in the House and Senate. As well as economic difficulties that came for later with rising interest rates. And a rising national debt and deficit that led to the Wall Street crash in October of 1987. And with President Reagan becoming the most unpopular he had been at least since the 1981-82 recession.

So this State of The Union was the start of a very interesting and tough year for Ron Reagan as President and an opportunity for him to layout what he thought the condition of the country was. And where he wanted to take the country further. It was also the start of President Reagan's last two years as President and running out of time as far as being an effective leader that can push the country as well. 1987 was President Reagan's last year to basically move the country and to lead them in a certain direction. Partly because he accomplished almost everything he wanted to pre-1987, including tax reform through a divided Congress and 1987 was the year to deal with scandal, Supreme Court nominees. Including Robert Bork and then later Anthony Kennedy, as well as further negotiations with the Soviet Union.

Commentary: Peter Wehner: 'The Virtue of Moderation'

Source:Comment Magazine- columnist Peter Wehner.

"I recently read a splendid book by Harry Clor, On Moderation: Defending an Ancient Virtue in a Modern World, whose purpose is to “articulate a coherent, defensible case for moderation as a virtue, the possession and encouragement of which is important for us.”

Maybe the best way to begin is to be clear on what Clor says moderation is not. Political moderation is not, he writes, the antithesis of holding principled and wholehearted commitments. It’s not simply a matter of being in the middle of two extremes. It is not “tepid, middle compromise” between opposing ideals.

Like thoughtful scholarship, political moderation, according to Clor, takes a disinterested account of opposing perspectives on complex questions. It is synonymous with proportionality. And it recognizes limits and takes into account circumstances. For example, determining how much liberty and how much restraint a society embraces can’t be answered in the abstract; it depends on circumstances. “A course of action, policy, or pronouncement that is valid in some or most cases would be wrong, even disastrous, in certain situations, and there will be exceptions to any proposition you could affirm,” Clor writes. Immoderation, on the other hand, “is characterized by a one-sided or absolute commitment to a good that is in fact only one good among several.”

Professor Clor goes on to warn that we should want politics that incorporates moderation and “you should be quite afraid of any leaders, movements, or polities wholly lacking them.”

From Commentary Magazine 

Euro News: French and Malian Forces Secure Timbuktu

Source: Euro News-

Source: Euro News: French and Malian Forces Secure Timbuktu

Looks like the good guys are making progress in Mali

Euro News: In Mali Rebels Try to Buy Support

Source: Euro News.

Source:Euro News

Mali right now is in a debate to see if they are going to remain half-free and half-slave, or is the national government there going to regain control of North Mali and restore democracy there for the entire country and not just the South. This sort of reminds me of President John F. Kennedy's Cold War speech about freedom and communism, where he said (and I'm paraphrasing) we're now in a struggle to see whether or not America will half-free and half-slave, or will the forces of freedom win out. Europeans might have started slavery in Africa by kidnapping millions of Africans and bringing them to North America and South America, to be used as slaves. But slavery has never none away in Africa. That is just part of the legacy and conditions of a continent that has all the economic recourses in the world as far as what they're capable of producing for themselves. But has lacked the moral character and leadership to empower their own people to make the best lives for themselves that they possibly can.