Tag: Ronald Reagan

Me?  I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of all of that.  I also think that these various characterizations dance around an interesting finding of the iCaucus Michigan survey, but which wasn't referred to in the press release in a way that would draw attention, and which by itself explains why a top-down approach to Michigan Republican Party unity is never going to work.

Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov was a Russian born, KGB trained subverter who defected to Canada in 1970 after becoming discouraged with the Soviet system.  About a dozen years later, he lectured in Los Angeles under his nom de plume (Tomas David Schuman) and gave an interview to G. Edward Griffin (under his real name), in which he provided a detailed description of the process by which Moscow would quietly take over an enemy nation (specifically explaining the methods being used by the KGB for the gradual subversion of the political and economic systems of the United States).  Regardless of which video you prefer to watch, either is a rather an eye-opening explanation of just how thoroughly screwed this country really is, as well as critical information that the true American patriots need in order to prevent (or at least forestall) our nation's collapse.

Take Jon Huntsman: the governor of Utah for more than four and a half years. Huntsman also served stints as the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore and China in the early 1990s and late 2000s, respectively. Besides being fluent in Mandarin, his governorship saw the highest contemporaneous job growth rate in the country. The man was electable.

And if that isn't enough, Newsweek reported in 2011 that Huntsman was ready after the 2008 election to tweak party platforms to reach a younger base. The key changes: a more centrist Republican approach on "immigration, gay rights and the environment."

Never won a state in the primary.  Drops out with placing 3rd in New Hampshire.  Not even a noteworthy stalking horse candidate.

Self described moderates complain after every 'surprising' loss that the conservatives are chasing them out of the party.  Often that nonsequitor is used to explain the loss, and make themselves feel better for having no core foundation.

The side bar (hash tag #RightMi) had a real winner link to a story by a recent teenager with all the answers to our current political problems. His premise is essentially, that anything Bill Buckley Jr. has said, is correct, and applicable to our current election results.  Specifically noting the "Buckley Rule" of selecting a winnable candidate, thus advancing conservatism in that manner.  Inks writes:

"Looking at the past two elections, it seems that the GOP has forgotten the last three words of the Buckley Rule, and it is now costing us elections.

On the national level, the party primary voters have forced candidates further to the far right on issues that make our candidates undesirable to moderate American voters. During the time he was governor, Mitt Romney had viable, working solutions to health care and environmental problems. "

So Much Bloviating.

Inks has adopted the 'loser' posture, where there is nothing to stand for but (what is apparently) the winners position. (even if wrong.) He has twisted a mildly misinterpreted Buckley stance and given new meaning to the word accommodation and capitulation.  Mr Inks should remember in the last century the national socialists were elected as well.  Yes, the winners can be wrong, and standing for something opposite what those 'winners' stand for is unacceptable to this young man.  Buckley's "rule" once again is abused for a squishy position of a milquetoast political wannabe.

Buckley by the way was one of three, including conservative hero Russell Kirk to convince Barry Goldwater to run for president anyhow. What Buckley hadn't seen coming, was the shift in the way media, and the progressive/socialist training farms known as public schools and universities would through relative shifts, change what is a winning candidate.  The acceptable forum in fact, for Mr. Ink's article we should note, carries a small irony.  

"Outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector."

Stop it.  All of it.  Just stop.

It is truly amazing how we pay lip service to unity, then immediately turn around and try to tear each other apart.  This gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and it stokes the mistrust that so characterizes our current political process.

The negative campaigning, the dirty tricks, the middle-of-the-night meetings that rewrite the rule book - does it matter?  In the long run (meaning about six months from now), will any of this matter?

Given what I am currently seeing as a predominant tendency to completely misuse a key in-party philosophy (as well as an apparent misunderstanding as to how that philosophy is to be applied), I find myself compelled to address it similarly.