The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘An Awful Lot of Stupid People’

Posted on | November 9, 2012 | 54 Comments

“You know, I’ve always known this but I’m coming to the conclusion yet again, that Republican leaders are really stupid people. And I’m coming to the conclusion that there are an awful lot of stupid people posing as commentators on cable TV.”
Mark Levin

UPDATE: Here’s the audio via The Right Scoop:


  • Mark30339

    When Mark Levin dares to run for office in a swing state and proves he can win with his strident talk and snarky put-downs, then I’ll start paying attention to him.

  • smitty

    Fair cop. I was going to say that when he shows some more political leadership, and offers some sort of reform plan, that will be helpful.

  • rosalie

    I think his new “reform plan” dealing with the liberals is from the Bible: “an eye for an eye”. I agree with him too. The other thing we have to do is get photo ID in every state. Look what happened to the Republican inspectors in Philadelphia. Why do we put up with things like that? And he’s right about the commentators.

  • Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Mark Levin makes a fair argument on policy. Do you remember Democrats getting all cooperative after Kerry lost in a relatively close election? We need to double down on what is right.

    But let’s remember that candidates like Akin got their ass whooped. It was not even close.

  • keyboard jockey

    I can’t believe that people said the reason they voted for President Obama was because of the way he handled the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. People are still suffering up in New Jersey and New York, but I am sure they all still voted Democrat.

    “Winning” Democrats Celebrate Gridlock

    The results from Tuesday night’s election tally means, we are in for at least two more years of gridlock. Voters voted for status quo. The democrats hold the presidency, and the senate, the republicans hold the house, so no change. It’s going to be like ground hog day up in here for the foreseeable future.

  • Thomas L. Knapp

    It’s not about “amnesty.”

    It’s about what you tell the growing number/percentage of Latino citizen-voters AND the anti-immigration voters.

    “Your friends and relatives should ‘self-deport'” is not a good play with the Latino demographic. It’s even worse than “we are going to build a border fence and we are going to track down your friends and relatives and frog-march their asses back across the border” because it is not just unfriendly, it’s patronizing. It’s “I’m not going to be on your side on this … but I don’t have the balls to actually tell you that.”

    And it’s not a good play with anti-immigration voters, either, because they want the “turn the US into East Germany” stuff. To them, anything but that IS “amnesty.”

    Levin may or may not be right that it wasn’t the Latino vote that made the biggest difference. But it is increasingly making _a_ difference. And the anti-immigration vote is either motivated for you or it isn’t. Romney managed to blow both sides of that equation.

  • McGehee

    And it’s not a good play with anti-immigration voters, either, because they want the “turn the US into East Germany” stuff.

    The last person I heard say anything this monumentally stupid was a meth addict.

  • ThomasD

    I read your tangled verbiage slightly different than McGehee, but still think you are wrong. Stop thinking tactically. Pandering on identity is still pandering, and we will never do that as well as the left. So all such efforts are doomed to defeat.

    We need to think and act strategically. And that means basing immigration policy on principles of fairness and law abiding.

    Amnesty, in all current formulations, rewards the law breaker, and that cannot rightfully be sanctioned.

  • richard mcenroe

    Mark Levin and his Freedom Foundation have stood up for us often enough, up to and including at the Supreme Court, that he has earned cred as a conservative voice and leader. In my opinion, he’s fought harder for us than that impotent “Limp” Boehner who we are stuck with as Speaker.

  • richard mcenroe

    You want to meet someone who doesn’t like illegals, talk to an Hispanic citizen who got here legally. Those are their kids’ jobs and education opportunities you’re giving away.

    OK, maybe your kids’, too, if any of them are humanties majors.

  • Thomas L. Knapp


    The GOP panders on identity. It just doesn’t do as good a job of it as the Democrats do, in part because the identity it panders to is a shrinking demographic.

    Anyway, here’s the thing: I predicted the election outcome in advance, and I did it pretty close to exactly, and afterward I explained how I predicted it so accurately.

    If you think that was just luck, well, I also predicted the Senate outcome pretty closely, and predicted the 2006 congressional outcomes well enough to win first prize out of a field of tens of prediction competitors, and predicted McCain’s nomination in May of 2007 when everyone else was wondering when he would close up shop.

    So maybe I have just some very slight idea of what the hell I am talking about when it comes to the numbers and how they work.

    In 2004, George W. Bush got 40% of the Latino vote. In 2012, Romney got somewhere south of 25% of the Latino vote. Since the Latino vote is growing and will continue to grow (even if the US seals its borders and deports every last “illegal” [sic]), that is THE WRONG DIRECTION. You don’t have to like it. It’s that way whether you like it or not.

  • ReaganiteRepublican

    I dunno about stupid but the GOP was wholly ineffective to say the least- they need to clean house and lose Karl Rove

  • Thane_Eichenauer

    Could you make any more an ad hominem attack?

  • Thane_Eichenauer

    When a person from New York moves to Arizona he doesn’t consume a job I could have had he adds demand to the overall economy. Secondly there are an abundance of education opportunities across the US, not a scarcity of opportunities. I could walk in the door of any college in Arizona today and be taking classes a week or a semester later guaranteed.

  • Thane_Eichenauer

    When the law is another victimless crime prohibition abolishing or shrinking it exponentially is a good idea. Continued prohibition of immigration continues to reward people in the black market. Continued prohibition perpetuates unintended consequences and perverse incentives. All laws are not good laws.

  • K-Bob


    So what the hell are borders for, really? I’ll bet you don’t allow just anyone to walk into your house uninvited and start consuming your resources.

  • K-Bob

    If that’s the bar you want to set for using one’s right to voice an opinion, then please tell us what office you are running for. Otherwise we’d be forced by your rules to ignore you.

  • K-Bob

    That’s a good point. Unlike any other conservative “talker” out there, he actually has engaged directly with the system at multiple levels.

  • K-Bob

    We all know the demographic trends. Mark Steyn isn’t exactly new to us.

    The point is, pandering absolutely does not work for the right (with the possible exception of how they keep mistreating the evangelicals).

    Newsflash: it will continue to “not work” for the right, whether you like it or not.

  • Christy Waters

    “Stupid people are ruining America.” –Herman Cain

  • Thomas L. Knapp


    I agree, the right should stop pandering.

    But the thing is, being sensible about immigration ISN’T pandering.

    The Constitution is quite clear: Congress not only has zero, zip, zilch, nada enumerated authority to regulate immigration, it is explicitly forbidden to do so, and didn’t do so for 90 years, until an activist SCOTUS miracled that power up.

    The “conservative” position is that Congress ought to stop doing crap it’s forbidden by the Constitution to do.

    It just so happens that Latino voters would probably like that with respect to immigration.

  • K-Bob


    Article I, Section 8 expressly charges congress with the rules of Naturalization.

    You can’t come up with rules for something unless you can define it. You can’t define it for legal purposes, unless you are empowered to do so.

    That is following simple logic, not being “activist.”

    However, the notion of people being citizens of their respective sovereign states within the republic is what has been trampled upon, and ought to be restored.

  • Thomas L. Knapp


    Naturalization is not immigration. See Article I, Section 9, and Article V. Immigration was left to the states, Congress was forbidden to interfere with it for 20 years OR EVEN AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to allow it to interfere with it for 20 years. And they never did amend the Constitution to allow them to interfere with it. No enumerated power, an explicit prohibition, and no amendment to repeal that prohibition or to enumerate that power.

    That’s exactly how Congress understood it and applied it for almost a century.

    So why shouldn’t the GOP say “we are going to abide by the Constitution. If we want the federal government to regulate immigration, someone needs to propose a constitutional amendment to that effect?”

    That would get the feds out of e.g. Arizona’s hair and let them try their experiments — experiments I think are dangerous and foolhardy, but constitutional, and hey, laboratories of democracy and all that crap.

  • Mark30339

    K-Bob. It takes quite a bit of skill to keep a small HOA from descending into petty power trips, and my annual re-election to an HOA board is my claim to fame. I tip my hat to Levin for getting his media forum — but does anyone calculate the cost the Right pays when his smug style and broad prominence repulses independents from conservatism entirely? How far can a message go when the messenger is bubbling over with contempt for just about everyone else around?

  • Quartermaster

    Akin was also thrown to the dogs by a lot of so called conservatives and the GOP establishment. They acted like the utter morons they are.

  • Quartermaster

    If “independents” want to take anger at those who sell us down the river as some sort of insult, then when they are looking at an empty larder down the road because of their political idiocy, then tough luck for them. What I have noticed about that crowd is they are a large part of the “gimme caucus” (or parasite caucus if it floats your boat and it is just as accurate and less candy coated).

    Either they are parasites or they simply aren’t paying attention. That’s why they vote as they do. That type will never be persuaded because it’s all about them and nothing else.

  • Quartermaster

    What Knapp said has been refuted too many times to count. Standing for the rule of law is not popular with law breakers. Illegal immigrants are law breakers, so why should we expect that enforcing the law is going to buy anything with them?

    And, what Knapp said was monumentally stupid.

  • Quartermaster

    Oh please! This isn’t about “educational opportunities.” It’s about the rule of law. That one concept played a very la;rge part in allowing a trust society to be built. The other major components were dealt with by Toqueville. It would do you a lot of good to read him and see what has disappeared from the US.

    What you are saying is of monumental stupidity.

  • Quartermaster

    Illegal immigration falls under the head of invasion. FedGov is obligated to defend the states from invasion and they are shirking their duty.

    Simple immigration is a different matter entirely. That falls under the head of the rules of naturalization because an Immigrant is coming to be a part of the body politic. There is no subtlety to this at all.

  • Quartermaster

    Alas. Those stupid people vote.

  • K-Bob

    You mistake his contempt for sloppy thinking as contempt for people. Unless you are willing to get over that, you will be stuck with folks who judge others by non-intellectual means.

  • K-Bob

    Naturalization is about citizenship, period. It was not meant to apply solely to those already resident in the boundaries of the nation at the time of ratification, or it would have said as much. Clearly the congress MUST have the authority to define it, and that authority MUST, by simple logic, include the authority to determine how, when, and where people arrive within the boundaries of the Republic, and what their status may be, with regard to the law.

    You make much of the simple allowance for States to “settle” their populations as they saw fit for a short period of time. The Constitution has several places where they made provision for complete adoptation over time, so that isn’t really a big deal.

    This isn’t activism, it’s simply the logic of the way they laid it out. That congress has the power to determine citizenship of the Republic is not an issue for most conservatives, nor the vast majority of people who care about citizenship.

    The real problem is law enforcement, and putting in place barriers to “slow invasion.” Nothing in the constitution should be read to construe that a slow invasion of non-citizens may be allowed to debase the rights that belong to the States and to The People.

    You sure as heck don’t create those barriers by making porous borders the law of the land.

  • Wombat_socho

    I suppose in retrospect, since he and Mourdock got hung around the neck of every Republican candidate from Augusta to Honolulu, it wouldn’t have made any difference if they had stuck by him. Low-information voters, remember?

  • Thane_Eichenauer

    The best laws that exemplify why rule of law should be admired are those that do no prohibit otherwise peaceful behavior. That is why Arizona should not seek to prohibit New Yorkers from moving to Arizona.
    I will put Toqueville on my reading queue.

  • Thane_Eichenauer

    If government welfare is your primary beef then how about you campaign for its end? Just because someone from Mexico moves to the US is no guarantee that he will consume more resources than he creates.

  • AngelaTC

    Sure Thomas, but giving a blanket amnesty to the illegals gives the GOP absolutely zero votes. Low income workers vote Democrat. What’s the point?

  • lolvincitomnia

    We need to stand up and fight, and not wuss out like the RNC and other RINOS like Boehner and Cantor. Our committees that investigate have been told to play nice and let Obama get away with more crimes, we have to stand up and say no. I’m fed up with this crap

  • Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Do not kid yourself. Akin was toxic. I agree the GOP panicked when he spouted off just before the deadline. It was a combination of bad luck and stupidity all around, but Akin caused it.

    I think God spoke on Tuesday: He said he does not support Akin for MO’s Senator.

    Had he dropped out we would have likely picked up that seat.

  • K-Bob

    If inventing someone’s “primary beef” is an argument, then I might read the rest of the comment.

  • Evi L. Bloggerlady

    I am all for Mark Levin telling us when we strayed off the conservative path. And Levin did serve in the Reagan administration. I generally agree with Levin, even if he would unlikely be elected to office himself.

  • ThomasD

    Prohibition? Where in the hell did I advocate for prohibition, much less against immigration?

    Your attempts at a Manichean formulation fail, if only because Levin has already advocate for an aggressively pro-immigration policy, one that I happen to strongly agree with.

    That said policy involves selecting peoples not likely to become Democrat party pander-ees is apparently lost on you.

    Fail troll fails.

  • ThomasD

    So your solution to the problem of pandering is…

    more pandering?

    Brilliant. Maybe you and Thane can start your own party.

  • K-Bob

    Heh. Nobody gets elected by telling the truth anymore. Levin wouldn’t stand a chance.

  • K-Bob

    That’s been my take, too. Akin was toxic, but was turned into a virus by Carl Rove making a big deal about it, just like he did with Christine O’Donnell. I’d have preferred Akin to step aside and let someone else run, but once that became impossible, the RNC and “leading conservatives” should have sold the case that McHaskill was far, far worse. Instead, we got dribbling and drooling and complaining about Akin for weeks.

    They could at least have shut up about him.

  • K-Bob

    You are correct, but I still wish people on the right would stop referring to it as immigration, illegal or otherwise. Most illegal aliens refuse to do what real immigrants do.

  • ThomasD

    Are you referring to this clause?

    “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now
    existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
    Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
    tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten
    dollars for each person.”

    Are you aware that the specific subject of that clause was the importation of slaves? And that that explains the time limit? That Congress curiously prohibited further US participation in the international slave trade on January 1, 1808 is apparently a coincidence lost on you.

    Anyway, skip back a section, “The Congress shall have power… To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…”

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  • Thomas L. Knapp

    In other words, you don’t give a tinker’s damn for the Constitution if you don’t like what it says.

    So why pretend to? If Congress can violate the clear letter and the historically irrefutable intent of the Constitution on immigration so far as you are concerned, is there any particular reason why it shouldn’t do so on, say, guns, health care, and anything else that pops into the politicians’ little pea brains?

    Shit, I don’t care a damn for the Constitution (I’m an anarchist), but at least I have the balls to say so instead of trying to lie my way out of it.

  • RichFader

    I’d also think “regulating Commerce with foreign Nations”.would quite reasonably include the ability to set the conditions under which those other nations’ citizens could enter and remain temporarily or permanently.

  • Bob Belvedere

    The most important thing Mr. Levin said on Wednesday’s show was:

    We may have to think about this…

    Why is it that the left are the only people in this country who can resist, who can obstruct, who can sabotage?

    I say we resist and where we can obstruct and where we can sabotage tyranny.

    What do you say?