By The Right Scoop


Levin isn’t happy with CPAC or Mitch Daniels. I was going to try and cut this 11 minute clip down, but to be honest, Levin talks more here than about CPAC and Mitch Daniels. He talks about conservatism and why people like Daniels should embrace all conservatives and not tell them to check their social issues at the door. My edits would have killed that part and I’d hate to give you the wrong impression of what The Great One really means, especially when he is coming out against a candidate.

But rest assured it’s a great segment, worthing listening to in it’s entirety.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://twitter.com/1389LK LK

    I also liked Mark’s, really quite gentle, rebuke of Michael Medved for throwing his colleagues overboard in the WSJ, today.

    • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

      Michael is a progressive with some conservative leanings. He is coming to conservatism from the Left, but he hasn’t made the full journey yet.

    • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

      Just listened to it for the second time- I didn’t can’t any reference to Medved.

    • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

      Just listened to it for the second time- I didn’t can’t any reference to Medved.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCXIIA2NIGMS5FISEL5R5QBZA Max

    Daniels has a better pro-life record then anyone in the field, he just thinks maybe saving the nation from catastrophe should be a priority.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Zee/1060674129 Bob Zee

      Not quite. On the issue of life in the field of 2012 contenders, there is Sarah Palin, and then everyone else.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCXIIA2NIGMS5FISEL5R5QBZA Max

        Palin put a member of Planned Parenthood on the Alaska Supreme Court

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCXIIA2NIGMS5FISEL5R5QBZA Max
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCXIIA2NIGMS5FISEL5R5QBZA Max

    Daniels helped craft the ’85 Reagan speech to CPAC.

    Levin was not allowed near Reagan, because unlike Daniels, Levin was not Reagan’s aide and friend.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCXIIA2NIGMS5FISEL5R5QBZA Max

    When will Levin address Palin’s selection of a member of the criminal Planned Parenthood organization to the Alaska Supreme Court. http://www.thealaskastandard.com/?q=node/559

    Daniels would NEVER do such a thing.

  • Anonymous

    Levin may not be able to vote for Daniels, but I definitely am. I don’t think Levin’s commentary has ever shaped my thoughts one way or another. Now Rush or Beck? Maybe.

    I never got Levin’s appeal.

    • Anonymous

      m, I kind of understand where you’re coming from, but I would disagree that Levin has never shaped my thoughts. The thing with Levin is he turns All Libs off and some wishy washy conservative’s off. Levin mainly appeals to constitutional conservatives, of which I consider myself to be one.

      I also consider Levin to be an anomly of sorts according to contemporary conservatives. Levin is like a blast from 1776. I could easily see Levin in a Colonial Pub back in the 1700’s sharing a brew with Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry and discussing the issues of the day.

      • Anonymous

        He would have strong words for Jefferson and his opinions of religion, I suppose.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t think Levin would have strong words since both would agree on each other’s inalienable rights to liberty and the free exercise that liberty has as it pertains to one’s own religious beliefs; of this I’m sure they would enthusiatically agree!

      • Anonymous

        He would have strong words for Jefferson and his opinions of religion, I suppose.

      • Stan350

        You let radio hosts shape your opinions? Maybe I’m doing it backwards but I got my ideological bearings from Locke, Thoreau, J. S. Mill, Madison and Jefferson.

        Aside from that I think there is a lot of confusion as to what everybody thinks social conservatism is. It would be nice to see what exactly we are fighting over.

        I consider myself a social liberal, a libertarian. But these broad labels don’t do any justice to the debate since I am pro-life, and thinks anybody should be able to pray in school so long as they don’t disturb anyone. Reagan said libertarianism was a core part of conservatism. You can be a libertarian and a social con, (and if you think that is contradictory, it’s another example of why we need to define what we’re arguing over) but you can’t be libertarian or conservative AND want the gov’t forcing people to be better.

        • Anonymous

          I think if we are open minded, which I try to be, yes sometimes a radio host like Levin or Hannity or Beck or Rush or Laura Inghram or Rick and Bubba can help shape my opinion. That doesn’t mean that I am wishy washy and have no foundational core beliefs, I do, but I think too many of us are closed minded and negative all the time.

    • Anonymous

      m, I kind of understand where you’re coming from, but I would disagree that Levin has never shaped my thoughts. The thing with Levin is he turns All Libs off and some wishy washy conservative’s off. Levin mainly appeals to constitutional conservatives, of which I consider myself to be one.

      I also consider Levin to be an anomly of sorts according to contemporary conservatives. Levin is like a blast from 1776. I could easily see Levin in a Colonial Pub back in the 1700’s sharing a brew with Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry and discussing the issues of the day.

  • Anonymous

    Daniels certainly can’t be blame for the budget going from surplus to deficit during the Bush admin – there are a lot more fingers in the pie. One contributor to the deficit was the “Bush tax cuts”, ill-timed and ineffective. No one asked for them, it just was we had a surplus and Greenspan said we might not be able to control the economy if the natl debt wasn’t big enough. He obviously didn’t tell Bush what a too big natl debt was.

    • Quindan

      It’s no longer the Bush tax cuts. It’s the congresses fault for excessive spending on pork barrel projects….

      • Anonymous

        They certainly were Bush’s tax cuts when Daniels was Bush’s budget director from 01/01 to 06/03. My point is they weren’t Daniels’.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you, Mark! I actually had no idea. George Will??! Carl Rove. That would explain why I was not feeling the true excitement here.

  • Anonymous

    Edmund Burke. Do you mean the author of this Anti-State publication?
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=850&layout=html

    He tried to write it off as satire later on, but it’s far too earnest a piece for me to buy that excuse.

  • Sorry2Say

    Obama is going to win the next election.

  • Anonymous

    I was on par with Levin as soon as he said Mitch Daniels was Karl Rove’s pick.

    He’s about as right as it gets though, as soon as we lose our morality as a society we lose the republic as a whole.

    • who wins then?

      Levin acted like Daniels was some godless individual… just short of calling Daniels a Muslim… there is something going on here that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense…

      • Anonymous

        Didn’t you know? If you don’t tow the evangelical and zionist social meddling legislative rhetoric line you’re a godless heathen scum. And everyone knows us atheists are the epitome of amoral decadence and debauched inhuman behavior. Never mind that we go to prison less, get divorced less, have less kids out of wedlock, get married under 18 less, have less domestic abuse cases, drop out of school less, and have less abortions.

        And we eat babies.

        • Who wins then?

          I didnt know that about you… um, and I dont know anybody that talks like that either… but that also wasnt my point…

          • Anonymous

            Uh huh.

            • Who wins then?

              my point was and is… I dont understand why a candidate like Daniels is being dismissed… attach him to Rove or some moderate…

              but as of today, he has the best and longest conservative record than any of the other candidates… which other candidate has demonstrated this and has a comparable record… who?

              that is why I think that something is going on that doesn’t make sense…

              there really aren’t a whole lot of candidates to choose from…

              • Anonymous

                There really doesn’t seem to be a lot of good picks here, but I don’t see why we should compromise on someone who isn’t a conservative; not saying that Daniels isn’t, but he doesn’t have the purest record. I just don’t want another John McCain.

                Personally, I’m leaning towards Herman Cain myself, but things are too early to really decide.

                • Who wins then?

                  Well, I like Herman Cain too… but he doesn’t have any experience in government… this might not be a problem but one of the main arguments against Obama is that he didn’t have any experience… though Cain would be amazing… do you think he can win in the primaries?… also,

                  Which of the candidates has a record comparable to Daniels?

                  Look, I want to win… and it is disturbing to me to see somebody like Levin whom I have great respect for, throw Daniels under the bus for reasons that seemed to be trumped up… his argument doesn’t make sense to me…

                • Anonymous

                  Someone who doesn’t have any political experience is a plus in my book; just look at some of the tea party backed candidates, who came out of no where, and weren’t corrupted by decades of politics.

                  Obama, on the other hand, was a lawyer and a community organizer; he never once balanced a budget or did a payroll. Herman Cain has been in the business world all his life and worked his way up to President/CEO, MUCH different than Obama.

                  The biggest thing against him is support, as he’s not a current front runner, but he can give one hell of a speech. If Palin doesn’t run, then I would back and support him, and I do believe a large majority would as well.

                • Who wins then?

                  Okay, I’ve been a fan of Cain for the last several years… think he would be an exciting candidate… So you think it will be: 45th President of the United States Herman Cain.

                • Anonymous

                  Allen West was the most presidential in my mind, but if neither he nor Sarah are going to run, then Cain seems like the best candidate. Still, 2 years is a long ways, anything could still happen.

                • Who wins then?

                  Well, when are the primaries, isn’t it this year… so, won’t we know who are guy/gal is by the end of the year? Allen West is a rockstar but he has only been serving in the U.S. House of Representatives since November. Maybe he should run for Nelson’s seat in Florida if Jeb doesn’t take it… that seat is vulnerable this cycle. The American people haven’t elected somebody from the House since James Garfield, otherwise, Mike Pence would have run for the presidency instead of the governorship. And not sure if we have ever elected anybody who has never served in government before… though I know that Herman Cain is definately competent… not sure how that translates into electability for people who aren’t political junkies and are already thinking two years out…

              • Who wins then?

                Why does Levin think Daniels is against social conservatives by first quoting the Declaration of Independence which talks about our inalienable rights coming from God, ties social conservatives to this, and then ties Daniels to this idea that he is against this premise in the Declaration of Independence? Kind of a big leap for me…

            • Who wins then?

              my point was and is… I dont understand why a candidate like Daniels is being dismissed… attach him to Rove or some moderate…

              but as of today, he has the best and longest conservative record than any of the other candidates… which other candidate has demonstrated this and has a comparable record… who?

              that is why I think that something is going on that doesn’t make sense…

              there really aren’t a whole lot of candidates to choose from…

        • Catholic Husband/Mormon Wife

          First, we’ve never heard any of my evangelical friends say any of that about atheists, but we’re sure a guy like you hangs out on the internet plenty enough to hear that kind of thing. (Pssst! The internet is not representative of the real world. We know that’s not common knowledge, so we thought we’d let you know, just in case.)

          Second, there is both a high level of poverty/single parenthood/domestic abuse/abortions/school dropouts, as well as religion, among blacks in America. This is the largest source of the supposed hypocrisies of evangelical Christian Americans.

          Your post is obviously meant to imply that contrary to what you think is popular belief, atheists are in fact the people who are naturally more moral. Correct us if we’re wrong, but we also interpret your post as to imply that being atheist actually RESULTS in being wealthy, moral,. Do you then posit that if any large number of poor black Christians suddenly (un)converted to atheism, then the social/moral problems of the United States would decrease sharply?

          The problem is a simple case of ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’. Atheism is a luxury that STEMS from being wealthy, established, and living in a moral society; it does not follow that atheism CAUSES morality or even good living conditions.

          • Who wins then?

            Wow! A Mormon and a Catholic try to convince and Atheist! Now that’s Something!!!
            I was going to say… something about purity in religion and ecumenism in politics, but… so the husband believes Mary is the Mother of God and the Mormon thinks Satan is Jesus’ brother… and Mark Levin applies the purity test to Daniels!

            • Catholic Husband/Mormon Wife

              Yeah, we have disagreements a lot. :)

              • Who wins then?

                Well… did you ever think about giving up the titles and just become regular Bible believing Christians and use that as your basis of truth?

                • Christian Couple

                  They’re not “titles”, they’re fairly serious theological differences. It irks us to some extent to hear people claim that all the Christian denominations believe in the same God, as well as those in Judaism and in Islam, so there ought to be no distinctions. We appreciate the feeling of solidarity and tolerance, but to claim that “all the same” is evidence for some kind of shallow understanding or misapprehension of the nature of Christianity and of religion in general.

                  To answer your question, we thought that was what we were doing. If you’re referring to our use of titles to differentiate ourselves, we can change it to “Christian Couple” if you so prefer. For the most part, we put “Catholic Husband/Mormon Wife” as the name to indicate that the two of us come from a pair of diverse theological backgrounds to agree on something meaningful. That’s a good Christian thing to do, in our opinion.

          • Anonymous

            1. Internet is irrelevant. I live one town over from a creation “museum,” I get to hear at least some part of that tirade against non-believers in real life, and not infrequently.

            Also, even supposedly mainstream religious figures let it slip on camera from time to time. Glenn Beck would just be one very easy example, the guy who blames all immorality in the united states and the gang murder of a youth in Chicago on godlessness. Then there are very easy inferences from things said by Levin in this clip, questions I’ve been asked by religious friends, things said by classmates, etc.

            2. Don’t lay it all on government program-destroyed inner-city black communities. The south (bible belt) is loaded with teenage pregnancies, domestic abuse, dropouts, and abortion. That also happens to be where the largest concentration of insular religious communities are, along with the wonderful evangelical figures who keep getting caught with homosexual lovers and/or embezzling congregation donations. I’ll resist belaboring the point about Catholic clergy.

            The stats I’m talking about aren’t just straight numbers, it’s proportion as well.
            Example: Non-believers are approximately 17% of the general population, we make up 0.25% of the prison population. Mormons are the only other group that rival that statistic, and I think it’s a tie at best.

            3. Atheism isn’t a causative factor, it’s merely a side-effect/symptom, one of many possible side-effects of freethought. Nor is it the result of luxury, though the notion that religiosity is more prevalent among the desperate and disenfranchised is an interesting observation about it’s predatory nature. All people are born atheist, the people who simply aren’t instructed in belief by their parents can be just as destructive as anyone. By and large, the non-religious who came to that position through objective analysis usually end up repulsed by religion the same way other “immoralities” repulse them and the religious alike.

            4. My point was more that if religious faith is supposed to be some great transformative experience and moral instructor, it’s a miserable failure. Being an ethical person comes from education, not religion.

            • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

              “Being an ethical person comes from education, not religion.”

              Hey DT-

              On that quoted line from your usual WOT :)

              Ethical people are a product of their parents— their ethics come from what they perceive to be “ethics” from those that are around during their growth.

              It may be due to religion, but I wouldn’t claim that it’s due to education as in schools and learning.

              The growth of a person usually follows parameters set by parents, and they will usually pursue education that is within those guidelines. (IMO)

              If the parents have lost the “ethical” connection to their faith, then that change in faith is likely to be reborn in their children. It is not due to the faith, it is due to the failure of people to adhere to their beliefs….after that, then education in religion or academic can bring them back.

              Also, it is not what is said or taught, it is what is learned through example that makes an impact up until a point.

              • Anonymous

                “Education” includes more than formal schooling, dealings with parents and other people are a form a learning as well. Whether it’s more traditional academics or more through experiences doesn’t matter, it’s all education.

                The point is, there are good people and a**holes in every religion, just as their are nice atheists and a**holes like me. If it were truly a transformative process, and something actually having a demonstrable effect on people, the results, I think, would be a little more consistent. It can be a rapturous transformative feelings, but whoopdy-doo if it doesn’t change behavior.

                People talk about faith as though it’s the lynchpin of all civil society and blame everything they don’t like in it on godlessness. But history and statistics beg to differ. Considering 80-85% of people profess some religion, it seems more likely to me they’re just blaming what they feel like rather than a nuanced multi-faceted and hard to understand explanation.

                • Who wins then?

                  The thing is being ethical, moral, educated, or religious does not make somebody a Christian… those are all things that a person must deny about themselves in order to fully embrace Christ… many people claim to be Christians are simply moralists…. which is a false standard… and the so-called Biblebelt states are no more inherently Christian than any other place… True Christianity is found where there is a completely repudiation of any self-righteousness, a complete denial of one’s sinful nature, and fully embracing the righteousness of Christ… in fact, there are very many who are willing to give up their own ethics, morality, education, religion, and self-righteousness in order to do this…

                • Who wins then?

                  *aren’t very many*

              • Anonymous

                “Education” includes more than formal schooling, dealings with parents and other people are a form a learning as well. Whether it’s more traditional academics or more through experiences doesn’t matter, it’s all education.

                The point is, there are good people and a**holes in every religion, just as their are nice atheists and a**holes like me. If it were truly a transformative process, and something actually having a demonstrable effect on people, the results, I think, would be a little more consistent. It can be a rapturous transformative feelings, but whoopdy-doo if it doesn’t change behavior.

                People talk about faith as though it’s the lynchpin of all civil society and blame everything they don’t like in it on godlessness. But history and statistics beg to differ. Considering 80-85% of people profess some religion, it seems more likely to me they’re just blaming what they feel like rather than a nuanced multi-faceted and hard to understand explanation.

      • Anonymous

        That’s not true.

  • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

    Please post the audio of the interview between Levin and Paul Ryan- just listened to part of it in the car and loved the details given about the proposed budget.

  • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

    Please post the audio of the interview between Levin and Paul Ryan- just listened to part of it in the car and loved the details given about the proposed budget.

  • Guest

    I just had to add my 2 cents here. Mitch Daniels is the best man in the race at this point, I live in Indiana and I can tell you he has done an excellent job for us as Gov. When all the states surrounding us are on the brink and in debt up to their eyeballs, we are doing pretty darn well here. As to his character, he is a man of his word, he is responsible and honest, and fiscally responsible. He is down to earth and a man of the people. He campaigned in an RV driving all across Indiana, so he could be on the ground meeting with the people of Indiana, staying overnight with families in their homes, sharing meals and chores with them. For Pete’s sake he still takes the garbage out for himself at his home, he fell on some ice during our most recent ice storm here and hurt his shoulder doing just that. Instead of making a big deal about it, he laughed it off , and from what I understand, will have it taken care of when it fits into his schedule. He takes his lunch with him to work everyday and works through his lunch in his office. He is a no frills, hard working, honest and honorable man, he is what this country needs. If you want someone who will not be just another politician in a suit, bowing down to all the big players in Washington, then Mitch Daniels should be someone you take a better look at.

  • Anonymous

    Mark’s right about Daniels being the pick of the Republican establishment. Charles Krauthammer mentioned him on Special Report not too long ago. So we’ve got the trifecta: George Will, Karl Rove, and Charles Krauthammer all promoting this guy.

    George Will. He did more to sabotage Fred! than anybody else. Thompson had barely started his campaign when Will wrote a scathing column that was, of course, picked up by all the conservative blogs and analyzed to death. Thompson was never taken seriously after that and we supporters were treated like Paulnuts. By conservatives! Now it’s we Palin supporters who get ridiculed as if we are blind fans following a nut job like Ron Paul. Oh yeah. I’ve been here before when it comes to conservative ridicule because I support a candidate the establishment hates.

    Conservatives can’t help eating their own. They just can’t help themselves. But Palin has the guts and the balls to go the distance.

    • Who wins then?

      Honestly, I don’t think George Will could have done much to sabotage Fred Thompson… it seemed like everybody was against Thompson, for instance, every time there was a debate you might assume that everyone who was on stage was still running and still in the race but every news station including Foxnews said the same thing after the debates, every single time: well, Fred Thompson won this debate but it is too little, too late! They said that everytime! It was quite amazing… but when look back at Thompson’s race George Will doesn’t even cross my mind as an influential factor. There were other factors to why he lost. First, Huckabee wins Iowa? Then McCain picked up NH & SC. Then Thompson drops out… does even attempt to compete for any other states?

      So, let’s say Palin wins the nomination… do you think that she can beat Mitt Romney? Right now, as of today, it is looking like Romney is going to win NH… Romney was unable to be John McCain last time. Do you think she will be able to beat Romney in this race? She will need to demonstrate this before she has a chance at Obama. politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/07/romney_holds_big_lead_in_new_hampshire.html

      • Anonymous

        I don’t know if Palin can win the nomination. It doesn’t look good. Campaigning isn’t the problem. It’s the way the rules are written. I’m no expert on this stuff and am not pretending to understand it, but from what I’ve read Huckabee had a lot more to do with why McCain ended up with the nomination over Romney than anything Romney did. Spoilers like Huckabee can affect the outcome by simply staying in the race even though they have no hope of winning.

        Romney has the best chance of winning the nomination for the same reason McCain got it in 2008. The media will back him because he can’t win the general.

        So it’s going to be very tough. The Republican who has the best chance of getting the nomination has little hope of winning the general election, and the Republican who has the best chance of winning the general election has little hope of getting the nomination.

        • Who wins then?

          Well, what you concluded is correct… So do you think Levin would prefer another term of Obama rather than a President Daniels? That’s what it looks like to me.

          • Anonymous

            Stop thinking like Glenn Beck.

            • Musclebus

              haha! I dont listen to Beck but fair enough… just saying…

  • R(GA)

    I couldn’t disagree more with Levin about this. Mitch Daniels is a true conservative and has governed accordingly. His record stands for itself. I am very open to other candidates, but from what I’ve seen, Daniels is the only one who can beat Obama…unless Chris Christi jumps in.

    The GOP needs to pick carefully who we nominate to have any chance of evicting Obama. Palin, Santorum, Gingrich, Barbour, Bolton, Paul…none of them have any chance of beating Obama. Romney has a VERY slim chance, but not likely. Pawlenty or Thune could possibly pull it off, but again, not likely.

    Daniels seems to be the man for the job!

  • Alex

    So he’s opposed to libertarians?

  • thegeneral678

    “Our country was founded -this is just an historic fact; some people today may resist this notion but it is absolutely true- it was founded by people of faith. It was founded on principles of faith. The whole idea of equality of men and women [and] of the races all springs from the notion that we’re all children of a just God. It is very important to at least my notion of what America’s about and should be about and I hope it’s reflected most of the time in the choices that we make personally.” Mitch Daniels in an interview with newchannel 15 in IN. Here’s the link http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/politics/Daniels-talks-candidly-about-his-faith Yall Mitch Haters need to wise up and though I agree with Mark on the issues I don’t take what he say as Gospel. Mitch Daniels is the real deal. Here’s another linkhttp://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256858/really-mitch-daniels-must-not-be-allowed-speak-cpac