Tag: Gary Glenn (page 2)

I don't doubt the ability of the tea movement to shoulder once again, a myriad collection of RINOs, power hungry moderates, and mislabeled Republicans this election.  I expect them to once again carry across the finish line, the standard bearers of establishment elitism and compromise. But there is something else that we will see.

They will have replaced a few of those along the way.

And it starts with the victory of Richard Mourdock over Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican US Senate primary.  Tea party grass roots ultimately helped by favorites such as Palin, and Club for growth, to overcome the entrenched RNC financed defense of "Obama's favorite Republican" made the Bob Bennett loss of a couple years ago more real.  It took it from fluke status to a legitimate answer for politicians who pander too far over to the left for their own good.

Fair play,and a good game.  Play to win, and when we don't, we plod forward to the next election.

"The Tea Party conservatives have been increasingly supporting Pete Hoekstra over the years as a result of his staunch fiscal policies in Congress," Cain said in a statement to the paper.

If that statement is true, it's disgusting.  Cain is either ignorant about the Party power brokers in play in Michigan in general, or as I suspect, merely playing the old political payola game for other obvious agendas.  Either way, no plausible excuse is acceptable anymore.

Several questions were asked, but one that stood out as an interesting contrast point, was the question on the 17th amendment.  Most readers understand the 17th amendment was the point which state's rights were severely hobbled.  I have supported the repeal of the 17th amendment since learning the reasons for which the founders had purposefully avoided it.  Of course I was never exposed to such radical ideas in public school, so it was full blown adulthood, and fighting off the years of indoctrination which provided a sense of truth how this country was meant to be.

The Mi4CS (Michigan 4 Conservative Senate) vetting questionnaire asked:

"Do you believe the Framers were in error in providing for the election of Senators by the State Legislatures and if so do you believe the 17th Amendment, (ratified during the Wilson administration), is the proper solution. Would you introduce/support a repeal of the 17th Amendment?"

The 5 participating candidates had an interesting array of answers. While I would vote for ANY of these distinguished gentlemen over the meat puppet Debbie Stabenow, I was not enthusiastic about a couple of views.  I WAS intrigued by the thought process which went into each however.  Well done.

The debate was lively and each candidate did well enough, but each of them would also be hoping to have earned the straw poll top result afterward.  That result will be announced later by the MI4CS.

The Social Security Question.

Interesting responses.

However, When one looks at the bigger picture of this Ponzi scheme, it seems that some further out of the box answers may be necessary.  Opting out perhaps?

I wonder what Pete Hoekstra or Clark Durant would say?  Shame they didn't show up for this GOP sponsored event.

What about Obama care?  What should we do about it?

As we look to the possible results of next year's elections, the Senate will be playing an important part in how this is handled going forward.  If the SCOTUS says it stands with an expected ruling in April of 2012, it will be especially important to have Senators who are principled enough to destroy it from within the body of its creation.

It was too bad that candidates Hoekstra and Durant "couldn't attend" this debate, as it would have allowed us to see how committed they are in reversing the trend of big government mandates  and encroachment on our rights.  Perhaps for Pete, and his record, its best to stay "mysterious" so that some are easily fooled into thinking he might actually carry sufficient principle into this fight when its time. As For Clark, I don't know him well enough yet.  Maybe a video response by either of them would be a sufficient way to answer?