Tag: Elite (page 2)

And as well, any of the other elected Republicans.

Crazy thought for a staunch conservative, right? Perhaps. But not if one has had the philosophical disagreements still within the framework of that conservatism. Not if those disagreements extend into Republican governance. Not if any particular conservative part of the constituency still feels his or her best representation is not being made.

We'll get back to representative Amash, et al, in a little bit.  In the meantime, consider the way we now select our candidates.

We'll start and end with candidate "A".

Candidate "A" is recognized as most popular, recognizable, and is considered as such to be the most likely candidate to carry an election when facing the opposing team. Candidate "A" might be incumbent. Candidate "A" has a history of disagreeable positions, and in fact has historically held positions contrary to those stated in his or her party's platform. A voting record backs up the positions taken in the past, but Candidate "A" is (or claims to be ) contrite, has found error in the votes made, positions previously held, and now expects to be taken at word to represent the platform philosophy.

Candidate "A"'s predetermined ascendency creates friction in the party. Goals of principled activists are put at odds with those who simply want the win, have no philosophic grounding, or are willing to accept the lesser of evils in order to achieve party dominance. Presumably, that dominance enables the platform advancement.  Newer members see a sort of nepotism, and become turned off to party affairs, lose trust in leaders already in place, and are less likely to work toward overall party goals.

Fewer participate in the process of selection.  Fewer work towards the advancement of Republican platform ideals.

The lefties have it wrong yet again.

Gross Pointe schools either do not want "certain elements" from other school districts in their schools or they are ignorant of the needs of kids getting shafted in certain areas throughout the state. From the Oakland Press:

"My personal point of view is when you take away local control of education, you essentially steal a community's destiny," board president John Steininger said.

"If your school board cannot control its boundaries and who is allowed to attend your schools, there just isn't much left that Lansing can't determine," Bledsoe said. "The school board is left to hire and fire the superintendent and that's about it."

Only in the Democrat party could the 'shellacking' of 2010 be considered worthy of a repeat.  And only in the Michigan Democrat party, an institution which continually attempts to deceive the voters with front causes like the RMGN effort that attempted to change the state constitution, and form fake alternate parties to 'siphon' potential opposing votes would the November 2010 election be seen as a mandate to keep such wonderful leadership.

Yes dear reader, the Michigan Dems have proven once again, they not only tolerate failure, but they revel in it. As the Detroit News reports he won easily:

The proceedings were interrupted three times by boos. A challenger to party Chair Mark Brewer claimed the party squelched his voice. He also claimed the party is being run by "elites" who ignore diversity.

Brewer easily won re-election.

Oh my..  ignore that other stuff.

Don't forget, this is the party of Carl (Karl) Levin (Lenin) and Debbie (I feel it.. from seat 3A) Stabenow.  The choosers and controllers have obviously made great choices in backing these high caliber (disclaimer - NOT a gun reference) candidates and they have won a great number of elections during their tenure.  Why who else could be present to ride alongside and in unison with, the downfall of the greatest nation that ever existed on the planet.  Certainly not the peasantry who mistakenly think the Democrats speak for them. or work in their best interest. So put those hurtful words away little Democrat, you are hurting the party.