Says the jerk (via reader Mack):

Frankly, I don’t care if people call me an Establishment Republican. It used to bother me, but it doesn’t anymore. In fact, I’ve come to wear it as a badge of honor.

I’ve been working on my own definition of what it means to be an Establishment Republican. While my definition is still a work in progress, I would suggest that the following are some good factors to consider when deciding what kind of Republican you are:

First, an Establishment Republican is typically someone who was actively involved in the Republican Party prior to the advent of the Tea Party.

In my case, I have been a Republican since I worked on my first political campaign at the age of 15. I have been a member of the Republican Party of Virginia since 1987. And I held elected office as a Republican for more than 22 years.

Even though some of the GOP’s more recent members seem to think that they are the only ones who know what it means to be a Republican, I would remind them that there was a very successful Republican Party prior to the advent of the Tea Party. In fact, I would argue that the Republican Party was stronger, more cohesive, and more successful in days gone by than it is today.

Second, an Establishment Republican is someone who adheres to a conservative political philosophy, but understands that not everyone will agree with us on every issue; and we have respect for dissenting opinions, even if we don’t agree with them.

Or, as Ronald Reagan said, we understand that the person who agrees with us 80 percent of the time is an 80 percent friend, not a 20 percent traitor. This distinguishes us from those that take an ideologically rigid “my way or the highway” approach to politics and policy.

Third, an Establishment Republican is someone who understands that there is a difference between being conservative and being anti-government.

Okay, have you heard enough?  I’m sure Mr. Bolling and I aren’t going camping or shooting together.  I don’t think he’s my type.  Besides, I’ve grown weary of the whole tea party / establishment bifurcation and definition and advocate something much different.  Marco Rubio was a tea party candidate, and he’s a loser and liar.  In fact, Mark Levin and I think alike on this.

Mr. Bolling wants to know what you think about a “do something” republican.  I don’t think I like that idea very much.  You see, I think that the federal government has the right under the constitution to provide for the common defense, and that’s about it.  States only a little more, perhaps the construction of roads to enable commerce.  Gun control is evil in all of its forms, and I would much rather see the federal government completely shut down than anyone doing something about anything.

I want a constitutionalist, not an anti-establishment candidate.  Donald Trump is an anti-establishment candidate, and he’s blabbering about making all kinds of deals with just about everyone under the sun.  I don’t want that.  I don’t want the federal government to be empowered that way.  I don’t want somebody who pokes their thumb in the eye of the establishment, because that could very well be the devil, who happens to hate you and want to control you even more than the establishment.

I will not side with the establishment or the devil.  The Holy Scriptures contain examples of God using evil nations to judge Israel, and then turning on those evil nations and destroying them for what they did.  When God has two wicked enemies attacking each other, the best bet is to stay back rather than take sides in that dark war.  There will be no winners – only losers.