Today I learned that the word "never" when uttered by someone like Mark Levin means something completely different than what it would mean if I uttered it.
Levin has repeatedly said that he would never vote for Donald Trump. Guess that statement came with an expiration date, like the promises of so many politicians that Levin has mocked throughout his career as a pundit. Levin now says he will vote for Trump come this November. He gives the usual lesser of two evils rationale and lots of other fancy backpedaling on his promise to stand on principles this election.
Nice spine there, Mark.
Levin and Michelle Malkin are the tip of the spear for what I have repeatedly referred to as the extreme purity wing of the Republican party. These two hold politicians to a nearly unattainable level of accountability in their voting records and achievements while in office. For example, Paul Ryan gets an F grade at their little hangout -- Conservative Review while Ted Cruz and Jason Chaffetz get A's.
Malkin and Levin almost single-handedly destroyed Marco Rubio's presidential aspirations over his support for the ill-fated Gang of Eight immigration bill. A bill that mirrors or may actually be to the right of Levin's current choice for President.
Ever since the spray-tanned buffoon began walking back his tough talk on immigration reform, I've been waiting to hear something from the gang at CR. The silence over there has been deafening. In her last 17 posts, immigration warrior Malkin has exactly one post about Trump's about face. One. At the end of the article, she demands Trump choose either amnesty or proper immigration reform.
Guess we know where her buddy Levin stands on that now.
Since that crowd likes to grade politicians so much. I wonder when Levin will give himself an F for not only going back on his word, but supporting an amnesty shilling, life-long progressive democrat for President?
Way back when I was a blogger for Huckabee in the 2008 primaries, I pointed out a disturbing statement by then candidate Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator, a supposed constitutional expert, said that he found the Constitution of the United States to be a fundamentally flawed document because it didn't contain entitlement language. I tried to point out to all my liberal friends and others that I feared might vote for this wildly unqualified candidate, that his statement illustrated a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what the Constitution was. That is, a firewall against an intrusive and overreaching federal government. I thought that was a disturbing position for a presidential candidate to take.
But Obama made a number of disturbing statements that election cycle, including one about wanting the ability to go around the world and sign treaties without getting Congress to ratify them. That is the sort of power wielded by monarchs and kings, not a president of a constitutional republic like ours. And again, I tried to warn my friends about how scary this candidate's views on what he would do as President were.
Flash forward to now. After eight years of "I've got a pen and a phone, I don't need Congress" we now have President (King) Obama going to China for the G20 summit and signing a climate change treaty without getting the approval of Congress.
Obama has already issued more executive orders than any President before him. When you add in the stealthy presidential memoranda (which are the same as executive orders), King Obama has issued over 30% more executive orders than even George Bush did. And Bush was excoriated by the left-wing press for trying to run the country by executive fiat, even though the majority of his EA's were to manage benign, mundane daily business types of situations. Nothing with the wide-reaching effects of forcing the U.S. to comply to regulations set by foreign governments.
We've got what, four or five more months of this ego maniac in the White House? The left's holy grail of wiping out the Second Amendment and outlawing private ownership of firearms is still available. How many more EA's do you think this President will put in place on his way out the door? He said he wanted to fundamentally change this country. He's done a good job of that so far. And not in a positive way.
And hey, Mark Levin? If your boy gets in the White House, do you really think he'll overturn anything Obama's put in place? A die-hard left-wing New Yorker? Do you really think someone that spent his life donating to Democratic campaigns and politicians is really conservative? That he really doesn't think like them? Believe what they believe? His words are on record. You're going to own his bullsh*t if/when he gets in the White House.
But look at the bright side -- at least now you'll get more face time on Hannity.
After Trump tagged Mike Pence as his running mate, I posted about what I feared was going to be a rationale by many conservatives that perhaps Trump could/would bow out at the last minute and Pence could run for President.
Guess what I just saw over at Erick Erickson's website? Yep. Erickson saying that the time is right for Trump to bow out and let Pence be the nominee of the party.
I've said before that Erickson's a bit of a tool. And honestly, I find these conservative pundits and bloggers who constantly quote from the Bible to be tedious and just a bit insincere and try hard. But The Resurgent has at times been an enjoyable read. But Erickson is hardly objective on this situation. He's admittedly a very good friend of Pence, even encouraging Pence to run for President at one point and offering his help if he chose to do so.
But setting a precedent with this sort of bait-and-switch maneuver in an important election such as this would destroy this country. And I am really not trying to use hyperbole here. Imagine the ramifications of politics in the future when parties just simply put pretty faces up there to win voters and then at the last minute pull them off the ticket for some unvetted hard-liner that met whatever their party's goal-of-the-moment was? We'd be little more than a banana republic in that case. The entire power of the voter would be lost because there would be no reason to pay attention to politics or the news or pretty much anything that we currently do to inform ourselves and make us intelligent voters.
What a disaster. And I'm disappointed that Erickson can't see beyond his own dislike of Trump and admiration for Pence exactly what the ramifications of what he's proposing are.
Just another reason why I'm finding it harder and harder to find anyone who's opinion I value when it comes to politics anymore.