Sunday, November 12, 2006

Radio Clown Mark Levin Suggests Santorum, Allen Should Seek 2008 GOP Nomination

No, it's true.

Radio ranter Mark Levin, by his own admission "going against today's conventional wisdom," suggested in a Friday column on National Review Online that outgoing Sens. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and George Allen (R-VA) should consider running for president in 2008.

"I still consider Santorum and Allen among the best and most appealing conservatives on the scene," he wrote.

It's a fringe right fantasy come true, but the truth is, Democrats would love the chance to take on Santorum or Allen.

Santorum was trounced on Tuesday -- the weakest performance by an incumbent Senator in recent memory -- after a race in which multiple false statements didn't budge his poll numbers.

But Levin has always liked Santorum, seeming ignoring when the Pennsylvanian appeared to distance himself from President Bush's agenda.

Meanwhile, Levin also remains loyal to Allen.

Is it possible to have had a more error-prone re-election campaign than Allen had this year in Virginia? Presidential timber? I just don't see it.

Allen had a 20-point lead over Democrat Jim Webb in an April poll. That lead was still 10 points in July. And really, it shouldn't have gotten much closer than that.

But somewhere between being caught on tape uttering "macaca" and having his staffers caught on tape assaulting a University of Virginia student and former marine, too many Virginians lost faith in Allen.

Conservative may blame the "liberal media" for keeping various Allen stories alive. But the problem was, Allen was slow to apologize, and then offered lame apologies at that.

Allen defended questionably racist decisions during a Meet The Press debate by suggesting those decisions were made because he was a rebellious "kid" -- even though some of the incidents occurred from age 25 to 41. After the assault was caught on tape, CNN reported Allen's response was "Things like that happen."

***

Hey, if this is who Levin thinks should represent the party, so be it. Maybe Levin thinks that Santorum and Allen couldn't do this badly on the national stage.

He'd be wrong, of course. But then again, Levin is seldom right.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does Levin not see that the election was not only a repudiation of Bush and his rubber stamp Republican control of Congress, but a repudiation of him as well.

8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allen & Santorum 2008. Sounds great to me. The Conservatives have got to get back to electing true Conservatives and not phoney ones. These next two years will play out and those who voted for the other party out of protest will see the error of their ways. They will also see that the Neo-Dems are not a good balance for the country. If Allen and Santorum cant do it, I only hope Newt taps Romney for VP. Either way, its great for the country. Enjoy the next two years donks. I have faith in you to screw everything up. Economy, unemployment.....

9:09 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Allen and Santorum, Gingrich and Romney, or any combination thereof, sounds great to me, and it will probably sound even better two years down the road.

David R. Mark said...
"Hey, if this is who Levin thinks should represent the party, so be it. Maybe Levin thinks that Santorum and Allen couldn't do this badly on the national stage.

He'd be wrong, of course. But then again, Levin is seldom right."


Seldom right among the ranks of the liberal horde, perhaps. :) No great surprise that you guys further on the left do not agree with conservative principles and values.

People like myself, on the other hand, greatly admire Levin for his love of country, his respect and gratitude for our wonderful and brave military, and for his devotion to the Constitution and all of the values that have made America great.

In response to what you said ab out Santorum's chances on the national stage, I strongly disagree. The Senator definitely had an uphill battle trying to get himself re-elected in such a blue state as PA.

Besides the solid Democrat strongholds of Philly and Pittsburg, PA also has one of the largest percentage of senior population in the country, which certainly didn't help Santorum. Add to that the conservative votes he lost here because of his support two years ago for the RINO, Arlen Specter, and it was more than enough to ensure his defeat. I believe he'd definitely do better nationally than he did here.

12:27 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:09 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:09 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

trinity, of course you agree with mark levin. no surprise there.

as for santorum in a blue state, I think that's a cop out. He lost 59-41. That's a crushing. And to blame that on demographics, rather than on Santorum's own actions, is a little silly.

using your logic, it'd be hard to explain how there are democratic governors in places like wyoming, and democratic senators in nebraska and south dakota. those are very conservative states.

santorum couldn't give pennsylvanians a legitimate reaosn to re-elect him. all he could do was make wild and unsubstantiated claims about casey, which ended up huritng santorum's standing.

santorum's strongest attribute was his nice concession speech, during which he complimented casey and vowed to help him during the transaition.

9:57 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Levin and his sheep hiding under a rock?
Maybe they have all failed to heed even the most conservative commentary since Wednesday as to why the Republicans had been soundly trounced in Tuesday's elections.


Are you a complete moron, twot? Of course Mark Levin and his conservative listeners are well aware of the reasons why Republicans lost seats this past election.

What? Do you think we've supported President Bush when he has deviated from conservatism? Where the President has been right on the issues, we've supported him. Where he's been wrong, we've criticized him.

As far as both Houses go, if the Republicans had listened to Levin on issues, they'd be in good shape right now instead of losing their majority status.

BTW, both Allen and Santorum bucked the President and voted AGAINST the Senate Immigration Reform Bill. No true conservative could have voted FOR it.

10:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"as for santorum in a blue state, I think that's a cop out. He lost 59-41. That's a crushing"


Yes, he got beaten badly, cutiepie, but I repeat. There is no way he would have lost in a red state.

He is one of the few Senators who really understands the scope of the threat we face from the jihadists.

He understands the need to stop the flood of illegal immigrants across our borders.

And living here, I know for a fact that people are still livid with him for supporting liberal Specter instead of Pat Toomey two years ago. Big mistake on Santorum's part, and it cost him.

10:20 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Speaking more generally, the lines between the two parties have blurred, and the Republican Party, with few exceptions, has kind of morphed into what looks an awful lot like the Democratic Party. It is any wonder that they lost? Even the Democrat candidates appear to be more moderate than some of the Republican incumbants.

The interesting thing is that, as usual, you guys cannot win by spouting liberal principles. You won by campaigning to the right of the Republicans. Ever wonder why that is?

11:11 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

The interesting thing is that, as usual, you guys cannot win by spouting liberal principles.

>>

Not true. 27 of the 32 Democrats who won Republican seats are pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-phased redeployment from Iraq, pro-increase the minimum wage Democrats.

The idea that the Democrats got all conservative is a Ken Mehlman-inspired fantasy. The stats don't back it up.

12:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

reposted to fix HTML

Levin and his sheep hiding under a rock?
Maybe they have all failed to heed even the most conservative commentary since Wednesday as to why the Republicans had been soundly trounced in Tuesday's elections.

(Here's but a few of many possible examples:

link

another link

It was because of a general mood among conservatives and right-leaning independents that the Republicans had abandoned the conservative core principals of fiscal responsibility, family values, rejection of nation-building as a foreign policy, and limited government as represented by Bush and his rubber stamp Republican congress (and generally since 1994 since the party took control). This should be common knowledge to Republicans by now.

Hmmm, let's see now.

Have Allen and Santorum represented the kind of core conservative values necessary to win over Republicans like suggested by Levin and his tone-deaf sheep posting here?

Or do they represent the "conservative government" as defined by the Bush Administration that the voters had clearly rejected on Tuesday?

Allen and Santorum have each voted more than 90% of the time in favor of Bush Administration policies.

Enough said.

12:28 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Not true. 27 of the 32 Democrats who won Republican seats are pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-phased redeployment from Iraq, pro-increase the minimum wage Democrats."


I forgot which article I got this excerpt from, but one columnist itemized a variety of descriptive words used by some of the Democrats thusly:

"Look at how the candidates described themselves: "pro-marriage", "pro-life", "pro-gun", "born-again Christian", "pro-business", "anti-tax,” and in one case "former member of the Reagan administration."

They didn't exactly go around sounding like the Democrat party leadership. The country did not all of a sudden swing left on Tuesday, rob. The Democrat that may have won J.D. Hayworth's seat in AZ ran to the right of him on immigration, and J.D. was strong on that issue. He outdid J.D.

You can see from the referendums that were voted on all over the country, conservative values such as marriage between a man and a woman, ending affirmative action and curbing eminent domain are all still winning issues.

2:32 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, I'm sorry. But 27 of the 32 Democrats who took Republican seats fall into either the liberal or moderate wings of the party.

the sentence you quote includes some of the senators elected. Webb is a former member of the Reagan administration, for example.

Out of 41 new Democrats in Congress, I'm sure you can find five or eight or so who fit those categories. It's a big tent.

But the majority are not conservative Democrats. You can look up their voting records or stances on the issues, and you'd see for yourself.

Furthermore, the idea that the GOP needs to move further right is silly. The biggest drop-off in votes for the GOP this year was among independents. I believe it was CNN that said that Independents voted for Republicans 56% in 2002, but just 42% in 2006.

Meanwhile, the GOP got 71% of the vote among white evangelical christians this year, compared with 72% in 2004. Not a big difference.

>>>

FYI: weird that we're both on here at the same time, huh?

2:39 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The interesting thing is that, as usual, you guys cannot win by spouting liberal principles. You won by campaigning to the right of the Republicans. Ever wonder why that is?

More on this stuff about how we were running to the right of Republicans:

--all but 2 of the new Dems in the House support embryonic stem-cell research.

--all but 5 are pro-choice.

--all support raising the minimum wage, all are against privatizing social security.

--Jon Tester and Jim Webb, two of the new "conservative' Democrats, are against a gay marriage amendment and are pro-choice as well.

--South Dakota's terrible abortion law was defeated last week; six states voted to raise the minimum wage, and Missouri passed its stem-cell research amendment. Arizona voted against a ban on gay marriage.

--Most of the new Democrats elected are economically very liberal, even social conservatives like Heath Shuler and Bob Casey. Sherrod Brown is quite liberal on all issues. So are Tester and Webb, save for issues involving guns and taxes.

So all this "running to the right of Republicans" stuff is really a bunch of malarkey. But believe it if you want to feel better.

8:34 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Big mistake on Santorum's part, and it cost him.

What really cost Santorum was being a sanctimonous scold who believed anyone who disagreed with him was in some way morally impure or less worthy. He deserved his loss, and he got creamed, losing ground in all areas of the state, save for the northern part.

8:36 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity, you completely misinterpreted my clearly-stated argument above.
(In which the blog administrator has kindly reposted under "anonymous" after a few computer glitches messed up my original post).

I said Levin and his followers misinterpreted the election results only to the extent of their newly-expressed support of Allen and Santorum as presidential candidates.

I never suggested, or even hinted at, that Levin and his sheep flocks have ever disputed Bush policies in the past, as you claim.

As for my original point, it still completely holds. Despite whether Santorum or Allen went against Bush on immigration, the facts hold that each voted in support of Bush more than 90 percent of the time, including on Iraq.

This was a large reason they lost their Senate seats, and a large reason they would have a steep hill to climb to ever win election again, much less for president.

I don't mind you countering my arguments, Trinity. But at least make an effort to interpret them correctly. Thanks.

9:34 AM  
Anonymous zbdent said...

going against all intellectual honesty and even rational thought ...

11:26 AM  
Anonymous maveric said...

Their slogan can be "Hate in 08".
These are two of the most hateful, racist, mysoginist assholes ever to cash a check for serving in congress.
Right!!!

11:27 AM  
Anonymous kaygore said...

You are too funny
I love it!!!!! They would be the dream hate team.

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Hav said...

Santorum/Allen for Pres and VP. That would be great. They would get the religious nut job vote and the racist vote. Well, ok, so nothing would really change.

Slogans?
"Have you already shown your kid a dead fetus today?"

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Penndems said...

What part of "ass-kicking" does Mark Levin not understand?

Which is exactly what Santorum and Allen got on Election Day.

I swear, those people are dumber than a bag of doorknobs.

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Skidmore said...

The part that means he may not have steady employment in the years to come. These folks had it all for a while, and they liked it ... a lot.

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Penndems said...

They got addicted to the attention, the celebrity and the power

Guess they didn't realize that as of November 7th their fifteen minutes were up.

11:28 AM  
Anonymous yellowcanine said...

I wish it worked that way but unfortunately the Levins and Limbaughs always seem to find someone willing to finance their sophomoric rants.

11:28 AM  
Anonymous Skidmore said...

If nothing else, this election exposed the true level of support for those RW extremist ideas in this nation...and it is not the majority that is required to elect a president.

11:29 AM  
Anonymous Vash the Stampede said...

BRING IT ON!!!

11:29 AM  
Anonymous lionesspriyanka said...

i will start praying from today to nov 08 that GOP listens to Mark Levin

It will be so much fun to see them getting ass whupped!

11:29 AM  
Anonymous On Par said...

Since Neither One Can Carry Their Home State.. the Dems can only hope that Man on Dog Santorium or Macaca get nominated !

11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well ... i mean, if you want to buy into the rationalization that Santorum or Allen can pull a Nixon ... wait, that didn't come out right.

11:30 AM  
Anonymous sfexpat2000 said...

Oh, PLEASE RUN THEM!

11:30 AM  
Anonymous AIJ Alom said...

Maccaca-ManDog '08 ! I love it !
Great bumper sticker material !

11:30 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
" Arizona voted against a ban on gay marriage."


But what you do not seem to be aware of, Dave, is that, as told to me by my "left-of-center" friend who lives in AZ, the reason the ban against gay marriage did not pass there, was because it was too broad a bill. As written, it would have made all civil unions illegal as well, and that was not popular.

Other referendums around the country (the other seven did pass) made it a very narrow referendum specifically on gay marriage, and the ban passed everywhere.

This is the problem with the way things have been done in the past in this country. When you allow the U.S. Supreme Court to make law, such as they did in Roe VS. Wade, you see the negative consequences for decades. Why? Because the American people never got to vote for the issue, instead having it shoved down their throats.

Polls taken even in very liberal states show that there is not enough support for gay marriage to make it pass the legislature. That's where activist judges come in. Very unconstitutional way of doing things.

5:30 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Polls taken even in very liberal states show that there is not enough support for gay marriage to make it pass the legislature. That's where activist judges come in.

>>

In what state, other than Massachusetts and New Jersey, have "activist judges" ok'd gay marriage?

Also, why is that when a left-leaning judge does something, it's activism, but when a right-leaning judge does something, it's ok?

6:20 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

But what you do not seem to be aware of, Dave, is that, as told to me by my "left-of-center" friend who lives in AZ, the reason the ban against gay marriage did not pass there, was because it was too broad a bill. As written, it would have made all civil unions illegal as well, and that was not popular.

Really? Maybe I am aware of it. Why do you judge people so harshly? Maybe just answer my point without the gratuitous snark and condescension, ok?

Yes, Arizona's bill was a very broad one -- and it is still evidence that most people do not agree with the notion that gay people shouldn't enjoy the same rights as others.

My point remains the same. That bill went down to defeat, but it would have passed in some other states. Regardless, the idea that Democrats only won by moving hard to the right ignores all reality, but again, believe it if it makes you feel comfortable.

6:22 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

In what state, other than Massachusetts and New Jersey, have "activist judges" ok'd gay marriage?

And NJ didn't even ok gay marriage, either. It just said the law has to bring civil unions in line with marriage in terms of rights, or allow for gay marriage.

But the point is the same -- when a conservative judge does something that goes against all precedent, they're ok. A liberal judge, and it's "activism." What it really points to, honestly, is that conservatives have no respect for the law if it circumscribes Pres. Bush's powers -- no matter how right-wing a judge is, if they hand down a decision that doesn't agree with Dear Leader, it's obviously a sign of "activism."

6:24 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"This is the problem with the way things have been done in the past in this country. When you allow the U.S. Supreme Court to make law, such as they did in Roe VS. Wade, you see the negative consequences for decades. Why? Because the American people never got to vote for the issue, instead having it shoved down their throats."

What nonsense. It is the court's constitutional role to interpret the laws, including the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. In Roe verses Wade the court was presented with the challenge of interpreting whether the personal liberty and due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to abortion.

So you're saying Trinity, the courts should have instead ruled in Roe verses Wade:
"Sorry Jane, we are required to forfeit our constitutional duty to interpret the 14th Amendment in this case. We are taking a pass. We don't want to listen to conservatives accuse us of legislating from the bench. Our ruling therefore is to throw up our hands. Let the Congress deal with it, or even better, put it before the people in a goddamned ballot measure for all we care."

7:52 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"I said Levin and his followers misinterpreted the election results only to the extent of their newly-expressed support of Allen and Santorum as presidential candidates."


Except that our support of Allen and Santorum, especially Allen, is not as you suggest, "newly-expressed". We've discussed potential '08 presidential candidates over on the Mark Levin Fan forum for months now, and Allen's name was always in the mix.

1:14 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

We've discussed potential '08 presidential candidates over on the Mark Levin Fan forum for months now, and Allen's name was always in the mix.

Not anymore.

7:05 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

It's probably too soon to say with that much certainty. I think it depends upon the circumstances we will find ourselves in two years down the road. Just my two cents worth.

11:12 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I think it depends upon the circumstances we will find ourselves in two years down the road.

Maybe. It's hard to see where he fits, though. Guiliani occupies the more liberal end of the conservative spectrum. McCain's more the conservative end, with Chuck Hagel the "I'm not as loud as McCain" conservative alternative; Sam Brownback would be the far-right candidate. Duncan Hunter of the House of Reps. is the "who cares about me" candidate. It's hard to know where George Allen, whose most recent history will be that of a loss in a Senate race, will come into this picture. I think he's dead as a Pres candidate goes.

11:32 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

I think Brownback will be posed as the true conservative, since the Mark Levin fans don't consider McCain, Hagel or Lindsey Graham true to the cause.

I don't see Allen or Santorum even trying to run. They would have to form exploratory committees now, and begin fund-raising. They couldn't possibly be in weaker states with regard to fund-raising.

Santorum may have some money left over from the Senate campaign. Allen's campaign ended with no money.

And unfortunately, money is a key factor in who is a legitimate candidate for president.

11:46 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity (if you are still reading here):

Which better describes your viewpoint:

1) You don't believe the negatives laid out against Santorum and Allen (the Al Jazeera vs. Al Jazeerah for Santorum, for example, and the "N Word" claims for Allen).

2) You agree these negatives are true, but figure that every major politicians has similar negatives.

3) You agree these negatives are true, but will overlook them because you think Santorum or Allen would make a great president.

Thanks

11:07 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"McCain's more the conservative end, with Chuck Hagel the "I'm not as loud as McCain" conservative alternative;"


Neither McCain nor Hagel are all that conservative, Dave G. If either of these guys win the primary, the Republicans are in even more trouble than they know.

11:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

In all honesty, rob, I never "got" the Al Jazeera vs. Al Jazeerah point. I don't even remember if I posted on that thread. It just came across as a trumped-up, stupid story that should not have even qualified as news. It seems petty.

I mean, look at the two words. I don't think it's that difficult to mistake one for the other.

Santorum losing his Senate seat is a loss for Pennsylvania. He might have squeaked by, even in a state this blue, but since Gov. Rendell was up for re-election on the Democratic ticket, it all but guaranteed his loss.

As for all the hearsay crap that gets put out there during nasty political campaigns, I can't say that I necessarily believe everything that I hear. I just don't buy that Allen's a racist bigot, and I doubt many Virginians really believe that he is either.

Also, I'm sick to death of Democrats pulling out the race card all the time. It's gotten very old. Allen is a decent man, and I have no use for that kind of character assassination.

12:14 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Neither McCain nor Hagel are all that conservative, Dave G. If either of these guys win the primary, the Republicans are in even more trouble than they know.

What is your barometer? I consider McCain quite conservative. Hagel's a pretty conservative guy, too (in the continuum of conservative to absolute middle-of-road, if you put a RINO like Chafee at one end, and Dick Cheney, say, at the other, I'd put Hagel right in the middle of those points. That makes him a solid conservative. Not rabid, but solid.

As for Santorum, the only thing that guaranteed Santorum's loss was Santorum. He went down 59-41. That's not a few votes here and there - he got creamed.

3:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares