"Levin is lowering his rhetoric against Trump."

Krauthammer gave him a shoutout also: "Trump Has "The Most Rock Solid Floor Of Support" In Memory, "Despite The (Wisconsin) Loss"

Levin's dreams of rewriting the Constitution are fading along with Cruz's campaign.

Kind of a gratuitous shot there. This has nothing to do with Levin's pet project.

The upshot is Levin isn't going to be a #NeverTrump type or continue talking like that.

I expect we'll see much the same from others like Vannity and Ingraham and Limbaugh overall. And they'll also shy away from any #NeverCruz talk.

The talk radio people, mostly having done so much to help Trump, don't want the blame for Trump getting the nomination. And Levin doesn't want any blame for encouraging people to be stay-homes or third-party voters if Trump does get the nomination.

So they're all going for a GOP unity message. Not much of a surprise.

It occurs to me that they already know the fix is in and that Trump won't be the nominee. If so, this would be a smart play to invoke fair-contest rules to try to shame the Trump people into voting for Cruz (or another nominee).

Krauthammer gave him a shoutout also: "Trump Has "The Most Rock Solid Floor Of Support" In Memory, "Despite The (Wisconsin) Loss"

He remains very opposed. I thought his remarks were in the context of "Yes, he lost badly in Wisconsin but he still keeps all of his core voters and they never desert him, no matter what."

Trump has made repeated personal attacks on Krauthammer, far more than Krauthammer's attacks on Trump's policy ideas or conduct.

But you do not vote for Hillary Clinton. Or you don’t not stay home.

I won't do either.

. If so, this would be a smart play to invoke fair-contest rules to try to shame the Trump people into voting for Cruz (or another nominee

Stupid people think dumb things are smart.

This has nothing to do with Levin's pet project.

Really?

"Yes, he lost badly in Wisconsin but he still keeps all of his core voters and they never desert him, no matter what."

yup ,Trump will have a solid 35-40 % support in the general election. He will have a hard sell to the rest of the American people ;let alone conservative voters .

I get Levin's point . I voted for less than ideal standard bearers before . But Trump takes that to places I many not want to go.

"But Trump takes that to places I many not want to go."

Whoa! Sounds scary.

Trump is talking about a lot of positive things for the country -- the border wall, deporting illegals, pausing Syrian immigration, "fair" trade, tax cuts, fixing the VA, strengthening the military, etc. You're familiar with those issues and more.

What I don't understand are these negatives you're referring to -- negatives that offset these positives to the point where you may not vote for him. Maybe I'm missing something. What are these negatives?

I disagree with most everything he says are his positions except for perhaps border security (something every other Republican candidate also favored except Jeb). His so called fair trade will be a disaster for the economy as most punitive tariffs are . Going isolationist does not strengthen the military .

If Trump is the standard bearer ,the GOP will no longer be a conservative party; it will be a nationalist populist one not much different than where Bernie Sanders is leading the Dems. Trump is the very type of person the founders feared ;the demagogue who promises to do whatever it takes ;constitutional or not, to achive their goals.

why did he criticize Scott Walker for not raising taxes in Wisconsin ?

Because Walker spent the state into a massive deficit.

if he's so big on reducing taxes then why did he criticize Scott Walker for not raising taxes in Wisconsin ? I opposed his statist authoritarianism ,his lack of conservative constitutional principles .His lack of basic knowlege and curiosity of the issues confronting the country is frightening .I question his temperment for the office . He is erratic, inconsistent and unprincipled. He possesses a streak of crudity and cruelty .

And those are his good points! LOL

Because Walker spent the state into a massive deficit.

Standard Lefty propaganda, straight out of the WI Dem playbook.

Trump hurt himself with WI GOP voters by spouting that stuff. It was part of the effort to contest the WI Supreme Court and recall Walker. None of it is true.

Look at the recent GOP Presidential candidates. Look at the current crop of Republicans in Congress. And you tell me the GOP is a conservative party that you want to preserve?

And you tell me the GOP is a conservative party that you want to preserve?

Hmmm.

Nope.

"Because Walker spent the state into a massive deficit."

Yeah. About $2.2 billion worth. He refused to raise taxes because he was running for President. He papered over the shortfall with voodoo budgeting.

About $2.2 billion worth.

It may be "only" $1.8 billion now.

He papered over the shortfall with voodoo budgeting.

Ah, voodoo economics. So you are a Bushie!

"It may be "only" $1.8 billion now."

I see an additional $1.8 billion in revenue. The budget is now balanced.

height="324">

When they had a $900M increase in tax revenue, the Dems naturally wanted to spend it. The GOP resisted and chose to spend down the debt.

Watchdog.org, 2013: Anybody want to look at Wisconsin’s debt? … Bueller? … Bueller?

I doubt that will interrupt Roscoe's lovely recitation of Dem lies about WI state finances.

Under Scott Walker, Wisconsin keeps increasing its long- term borrowing

Gov. Scott Walker has honed his reputation as a fiscal conservative, taking credit for closing a $3.6 billion spending gap left from the Jim Doyle administration. But a new report from the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance shows the state has actually just been borrowing more money.

The two-year, $70 billion state budget signed in July authorizes an additional $2.05 billion in borrowing, with $1.64 billion of it paid for with general fund revenues. That continues a borrowing trend that has tripled since 1999 under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Under Walker’s 2013-15 budget, debt service will climb even higher, claiming 5.26% of general fund dollars in 2014 and 4.88% in 2015, according to WISTAX. The state’s historical debt level target has been 4%.

The state debt was $2.9 billion

BTW, try looking up the words "deficit" and "debt." It might help you avoid humiliating yourself as badly in the future.

BTW, try looking up the words "deficit" and "debt."

I could always lie or just make stuff up, just like your man-crush Donald does over and over.

You Trumpkins sure are butt-hurt over Wisconsin running Trump out of the state on a rail.

Look at the recent GOP Presidential candidates. Look at the current crop of Republicans in Congress. And you tell me the GOP is a conservative party that you want to preserve?

I want a conservative party ;and that won't happen with Trump at the head of the ticket. You have to be kidding me. Trump is a north east liberal RINO in the mold of Romney . He just has better schtick .

"Trump is a north east liberal RINO in the mold of Romney"

Because you say so.

I want a conservative party ;

No you don't. You want a liberal Obama, Clinton open borders sell out the American people piece of shit.

You're a social conservative and liberal on trade etc.

At least you get it half right.

Trump is the very type of person the founders feared ;the demagogue who promises to do whatever it takes ;constitutional or not, to achive their goals.

And what makes you believe that Trump will be able to achieve any goals, --- that are not constitutional?

ALL of our presidents have ultimately been stymied by our constitutions separation of powers, -- and I don't see any changes coming..

ALL of our presidents have ultimately been stymied by our constitutions separation of powers

I don't see much that has constrained 0bama.

I think it is altogether too likely that 0bama will become known as the first true post-Constitutional president, one who rules the country like a banana republic.

Hugging up to the Castros is pretty natural. 0bama has ruled America the way the Castros have ruled Cuba for decades.

You're a social conservative and liberal on trade etc

and Trump has the same basic positions on trade as Bolshevik Bernie Sanders.

and Trump has the same basic positions on trade as Bolshevik Bernie Sanders.

Pat Buchanan is the definition of a pure conservative.

The founding fathers would have considered you a traitor.

Because they sought independence. You like interdependence with a global body bossing Americans representatives around.

In short you are a sell out.

Enjoy being ruled by democrats. You've made your roost now live in it.

www.mainetv.net/col_lawrenc e_sellin_001.htm

ALL of our presidents have ultimately been stymied by our constitutions separation of powers, -- and I don't see any changes coming..

I don't see much that has constrained 0bama.

Sure, he's 'unconstrained'; -- he ignores the Constitution, and the People, -- and we ignore his failed presidency.

I think it is altogether too likely that 0bama will become known as the first true post-Constitutional president, one who rules the country like a banana republic. --- Hugging up to the Castros is pretty natural. 0bama has ruled America the way the Castros have ruled Cuba for decades.

You really think Obama is RULING? -- Hell, around here, he's hardly ever mentioned, unless some late-nite comic cracks wise about him.

Get a grip, his 'reign' has been a joke..

The founding fathers would have considered you a traitor.

Because they sought independence. You like interdependence with a global body bossing Americans representatives around.

No they would not consider me a traitor. Their rhetoric matched Adam Smith's on free trade.

But their actions did not match their rhetoric. They started the revolution in Boston protesting tariff created monopolies and then mimicked the merchantile policies of the crown.

Their reasoning behind the protectionism was not to support American businesses as much as a way to fill the government coffers without putting a heavy tax burden on their new constituents(who had fought the war in protest of burdensome taxes ) .

When they passed the first tariffs in the 1st Congress ,they said that this was a temporary measure. The Tariff Act of 1789 did what it was intended to do. The United States collected 80 to 95% of its revenue from foreign imports. Few constituents complained.

But as is often the case in government ,temporary measures have a way of setting themselves in cement . We still have a complex system of tariffs ,quotas ,and subsidies today ;many more than most Americans imagine . But now we pay the price in the cost of the goods ,and we still are taxed to death domestically .

So what was the unintended consequences of the tariffs passed in the 19th century ? Well for one thing it helped divide the nation.

The tariff justification shifted from revenue to protecting 'infant industry '. That meant that northern industry was being protected from primarily British industry . The unintended consequences was that the Southern states got to pay higher prices for goods. It also had a negative effect on the South's chief revenue source ..... cotton. Without the ability to export goods into the United States ,the Brits did not have the revenue to pay for cotton. So the export market suffered .....doubly when the Brits retailated with their own export restrictions.

This led directly to the Nullification crisis in 1832. Southern States like South Carolina made a compelling case that the tariffs were in fact unconstitutional because they favored one sector of the economy (and one region) over others . They were not alone. NE shipping also suffered from the government manipulations .

The British reduced their imports of cotton , which weakened the southern economy even more The tariff forced the South to buy manufactured goods from U.S. manufacturers, mainly in the North, at a higher price, while southern states also faced a reduced income from sales of cotton and other agricultural products .

In November 1832 South Carolina voted to 'nullify ' the Federal law leading to a constitutional crisis that was a foretelling of the Civil War. Tariff disagreement was one of the major causes of the Civil War.

simply because the Senate Conservative Fund bought copies of his books to promote membership a couple of years ago.

Just a few hundred thousand dollars worth.

Their rhetoric matched Adam Smith's on free trade.

For example?

I would like to hear more from SCF about this.

This is not the first time these books have been scandalized. They came out in 2009 in hardcover and became bestsellers. Somewhere around 2012-2013, SCF bought up some extras in paperback cheap as a donor lure. At the time, SCF was opposing McConnell's re-election in Kentucky. So the NRSC spokesman made these same attacks on SCF and Levin.

Now the whole attack has been recycled by the Trumpkins over at ConservativeTreehouse and Breitbart.

"Just a few hundred thousand dollars worth."

Plus the cost to warehouse them forever.

For example?

"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right" Thomas Jefferson

"The general principle in America being for a free trade with all the world, and to leave every one of their merchants at liberty to prosecute it as he may judge most for his advantage, I do not think...companies can be established there with any exclusive rights or privileges." 1780, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin,

“Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine

"The general principle in America being for a free trade with all the world...

I think you'd have to admit that American notions of "free trade" were quite different in that era from what they mean in the modern post-Friedman context.

Given that the country was founded on using tariffs on foreign-made goods to protect American industry and help it grow, what we have today is nothing like the "free trade" as the Founders conceived of it.

Plus the cost to warehouse them forever.

At some point, the publishers have a fire sale on old books and sell them out for $2 or less, sometimes for less than a buck (but they stick you for shipping).

That's what happens to almost all the excess stock of old political books.

Apparently, SCF grabbed up Levin's old paperbacks while they still had a little more value than that but they were paperbacks of a 5-year-old hardcover bestseller when SCF bought them as "free gifts" for their donors.

"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right" Thomas Jefferson

What a heavily altered "quote" you have there, tomder55.

"That the exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right, and which no law of their own had taken away or abridged..." Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was asserting right of the American colonists [redacted and altered by you] to control their trade with their own laws [again redacted by you].

Busted!

SCF snapped these up at publishers' clearing house rates. Probably for a buck or two.

Interesting assertion. How was Levin's royalty agreement structured?

"Apparently, SCF grabbed up Levin's old paperbacks while they still had a little more value than that"

The value of each book is irrelevant. It's the fact that they funneled $400,000 into Levin's coffers.

The value of each book is irrelevant. It's the fact that they funneled $400,000 into Levin's coffers.

To his publisher. Levin probably would have made between 5%-10% of that.

I think you don't understand how the publishing industry works with the advances, the percentages and so on. Those weren't books owned by Levin, they belonged to the publisher. Only if they got sold did Levin get anything out of them and, the later in the book's lifecycle, the less Levin would get.

Interesting assertion. How was Levin's royalty agreement structured?

That I would like to know but it's almost certainly confidential by contract for an author as popular as Levin.

I do know how the publishing clearinghouses work. I used to get several catalogs from the bottomfeeders who would buy up these old excess stocks of books and sell them dirt cheap, relying on the hidden subsidy for shipping books via the post office. It's a small but significant segment of the publishing industry.

"The general principle in America being for a free trade with all the world, and to leave every one of their merchants at liberty to prosecute it as he may judge most for his advantage, I do not think...companies can be established there with any exclusive rights or privileges." 1780, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin

You left off the very next sentence. I wonder why?

"And this open commerce being free to all Nations, and more profitable to Europe than to America, which can very well subsist and flourish without a Commerce with Europe..." 1780, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin

2. I used to get several catalogs from the bottomfeeders

1. That I would like to know but it's almost certainly confidential by contract for an author as popular as Levin.

2. Like Hamilton Books? Yeah, me too. I rather doubt they ever had hundreds of thousands of copies of a given title on hand.

1. So you have no idea how much Levin may have pocketed from the sale or what part he may have played in arranging it.

2. Like Hamilton Books? Yeah, me too. I rather doubt they ever had hundreds of thousands of copies of a given title on hand.

Yep. These were ex-bestsellers on their way to the landfill. Normally before they get to Hamilton's or the others where the publisher sells them for 50¢ or so, you might have a deal where a conservative foundation or libraries get a chance to buy them for $1-$2. My guess is that Levin's publishers sold 200,000 paperbacks for $2 each to SCF. Or something along those lines.

It was a book whose topics weren't too specific, that they could keep around for a while as grab-bag "gifts" to donors. I'd also like to know if SCF still has a warehouse of them sitting around.

1. So you have no idea how much Levin may have pocketed from the sale or what part he may have played in arranging it. If my assumptions are correct, Levin would have only gotten $20K or so out of selling out these remaining paperbacks.

Even if SCF couldn't "gift" them all to donors, they could always donate them to libraries to spread the book's message and take a tax writeoff for their purchase. They're smart guys, they'd play all the angles.

“Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine

Vague, not supportive of your outlandish extrapolation, and probably fake to boot. Can you point to a primary document source? (Assuming you even know the difference between primary and secondary sources.)

If my assumptions are correct, Levin would have only gotten $20K or so out of selling out these remaining paperbacks.

$400k at two bucks each equals 200k copies

With a paperback retail of about $12 and a 10% of retail royalty, that's about a $1.20 per royalty per copy. $1.20 x 200k = $240k.

How do you get to $20k?

With a paperback retail of about $12 and a 10% of retail royalty, that's about a $1.20 per royalty per copy. $1.20 x 200k = $240k.

I don't think any author ever gets more than a percentage of the actual sale price.

So 200,000 books * $2 = $400K and assuming Levin gets 5% of the sale price, that would be $20K.

Admittedly, I have only a wild guess about the details of Levin's contract. But I am pretty sure the publishers do not pay a retail royalty on a clearance book. It would ruin them.

Seems to me, since this book and the SCF was part of the McConnell-Bevin race as well, that Levin's listeners ought to pester him until he tells exactly how much he did make from this deal. Especially since he's going #NeverTrump over it.

I would like to know the details. Levin made good money off this book for a few years but I think he made chickenfeed on the SCF sale, just as he says.

But I am pretty sure the publishers do not pay a retail royalty on a clearance book. It would ruin them.

I thought that % of SRP was pretty common. And as you said, celebrity author deals can be all over the board. As for it ruining the publisher, it depends on their reason for the payout/payoff. Do you think that Simon & Schuster expected to earn back the $8 million advance against future royalties they funneled to Hillary Clinton?

Do you think that Simon & Schuster expected to earn back the $8 million advance against future royalties they funneled to Hillary Clinton?

I think political bio books like Hitlery's or those by 0bama are a special category. The most they expect is to break even and they usually expect to lose money on them, perhaps a lot of money.

I think only the obvious frontrunner (Hitlery) or the top challenger (0bama) get these sweetheart political bio deals.

And, of course, it is a way to curry favor with the political establishment. You see the same with fashion designers dealing with political wives.