Why is such an influential 'conservative' group so silent about such a civil rights victory?

A funny thing happened on the way to yesterday’s US Supreme Court victory for Michigan.

Greg McNeilly, and the DeVos funded Freedom fund were unusually quiet.  The all-things-go except true equality “Freedom Fund” was silent on the issue, offering no opinion, no support, or any insight where it stands with regard to racial preferences.  Apparently, this influential, well financed, political advocacy group had no qualms about the state constitution being squashed by activist judges.

The question if of whether we should be surprised was answered years ago.  In 2003, Greg McNeilly, who was the executive director under Michigan Republican party chair Betsy DeVos,  made it clear that voters should not be in charge of repairing the mistaken race based decision making process.

GOP shuns affirmative action [racial quota] vote

“Affirmative action [racial quotas] may not be popular with its members, but the Michigan Republican Party wants nothing to do with a ballot proposal to let voters decide the policy.

“California activist Ward Connerly is coming to the University of Michigan today to launch a $1 million campaign to collect at least 317,517 signatures and force a November 2004 referendum on whether race can be a factor in school admissions.

“Public opinion polls consistently show a majority of Michigan and U.S. residents oppose the race-conscious policies, but the state Republican party is denouncing Connerly’s effort as divisive and unnecessary. “We don’t think it’s valuable to keep stirring the pot on this issue,” said Greg McNeilly, spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party. “Public policy should be focused on healing the racial divide, and that’s not something accomplished by Mr. Connerly’s initiative.” “

oh.. Snap.

In 2004 McNeilly drove the DeVos chaired party away from the MCRI fight, and it faltered leaving supporters without the backing of a major political state party. The petition drive was then handicapped by a claim of technical process. The party position appeared to have poisoned the well for candidates who might step out to do the right thing by supporting it, and some might have even thought it was a ‘done deal,’ and did not expect MCRI to return.

Civil Rights champion Ward Connerly, and Michigan activists led by Jen Gratz, Leon Drolet, Chetly Zarko, and a slew of notable others returned in 2006 with a successful signature campaign, gaining the needed ballot access. The 2006 Proposal 2 was a landslide success with a 58-42 margin victory. A major Republican supporter, Attorney General Mike Cox,  garnered a 54 to 43 win over the Democrat challenger Williams in the same election.

Others didn’t fare so well.

Missing from the supporters list was the campaign of Dick DeVos; then managed by none other than Greg McNeilly.  As was typical of establishment political campaigns, McNeilly likely advised candidate DeVos to avoid going into the weeds of MCRI as a divisive issue. The Dick DeVos campaign under McNeilly’s guidance suffered a humiliating loss of 56-42 to the already obvious and miserable failure Jennifer Granholm.

The story, as it has been consistently, is that conservative principles win.  And at the very least, they DONT LOSE:

A Tale of Two Who Lost
The two most prominent Republican losers in Michigan were gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, who sought to unseat Jennifer Granholm, and Michael Bouchard, running to replace Debbie Stabenow in the U.S. Senate. Both DeVos and Bouchard, along with the leaders of the state Republican party, opposed MCRI. However, Republican Mike Cox, running for reelection as attorney general, was a vocal supporter, having thrown his support behind it nearly three years ago when the proposal was being organized. Cox beat his Democrat challenger with 54 percent of the vote, while DeVos and Bouchard lost by wide margins.

And one might ask whether such mistakes would be made, if we recognize who might be more likely to make them?

As pointed out yesterday, the decision by the US Supreme Court may have other ramifications. A positive outcome here, and protections of TRUE Civil Rights, and the rights of the voters in a sovereign state.  Interestingly, the activist courts who attempt to insert a single judge’s ideology has again not been challenged by Michigan’s ‘Freedom Fund’ leadership.

Because It finds no issue with the activist judge’s decision March 21, 2014.

In fact, it’s leadership has used it for his own personal agenda. McNeilly himself using that small window of time before an injunction to play house with his boyfriend along with multiple homosexual activists around the state.  As clerks made (unequal access) provisions for this small period of time,  McNeilly ‘wed’ his partner, once again undermining foundations and principles of the party he has supposedly been working to advance over a decade.

But for a brief email blast today, calling out for precinct delegate participation from ‘Conservatives,’ the ‘Freedom Fund’ is muted.

MCRI is not something McNeilly cares for, or has ever advocated.

And though not a surprise from the liberal progressive McNeilly, what a shame it is.

You Betcha! (17)Nuh Uh.(0)