Posted on 09/26/2013 7:07:57 AM PDT by cotton1706
We all understand that it is Karl Rove’s mission to promote the Republican Party. It was the mission of Bill Buckley to promote the conservative cause. There should be no confusion between the two.” — Neal B. Freeman
Ted Cruz has done more than concentrate the nation’s attention on the train wreck that is Obamacare.
Cruz has surfaced a longstanding problem with the Republican Party and, disturbingly, various conservative quarters as well.
Cruz has also effectively extended what is known as “The Buckley Rule” from a focus on candidates to a focus on issues. And in doing so is calling attention to the divide between Republican Party apparatchiks whose only goal is to win elections for the sake of winning elections — principles be damned — and those who believe not just that elections should be won but won for a reason.
We don’t mean to pick on any conservative in particular here. There has been a lot of back and forth involving names and publications including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, National Review, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Brit Hume, and Charles Krauthammer. As Senator Cruz himself has said repeatedly, there’s nothing personal here.
But the latest rant from ex-McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt, the man who believes politics is all about winning yet whose moderate obsession managed to give Obama the presidency, illustrates the problem of “first we have to win an election” exactly. We cite it here only because of its succinctness in stating a sentiment that is, in fact, widespread in Washington GOP circles.
It provides a chance to discuss what might be called the Cruz Extension of the Buckley Rule.
What is the Buckley Rule?
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Center right is conservative, considering we have totalitarian on the left and anarchist on the right. That’s the political spectrum the way I see it.
Reading the article, in full, is a tutorial.
There are at least a couple of things going on, here, it seems to me.
Number One, is the aim of conservatives to conserve the principles of the founders, and all that those principles encompassed at the time, and keep them into the future. ( The Constitution)
Number Two, is to support and elect representatives, and presidents, who concur with Number One.
Can these aims and principles even move the nation today, in significant numbers to actually prevail?
As the schools have triumphed over the Church, the churches have been been systematically diminished in their sustaining influence, and increasingly marginalized in the public square.
It is to be expected when you cede the field to incremental Marxist advances made in the schools, leaving now generations of children to come out “educated”, but entirely removed from the founding principles, having been shaped to reject serious church dogma, doctrines and community as well.
Panicked finally, we conservatives are beating against a tide turned against us that will take time to redirect, but must begin with taking back our schools, in order to reinvigorate and restore the Church. After all, where do children spend their lifetime? They are relegated to the school house, and school related activities that keep them out of their home and church.
Your synopsis is on target.
As for schools, I tried from the inside, serving on a school board, was targeted by the unions (3 or 4 of them) and bounced. I concluded schools were beyond repair without massive political changes. Home schooled my youngest son.
Lots of work ahead, both for us individually and collectively.
ObamaCare is wildly unpopular. Thus speaking out and voting against ObamaCare should help most Republican candidates. I can at least understand the problem when conservatives support a principle that is NOT wildly popular. But that is not the case here
Thus this exposes the real problem - establishment Republicans really believe in ObamaCare and is acting on its idealogy and “principles” and not political calculations.
Good article
Good thoughts and hopefully the answer to your question can still be a "Yes". I think the failure, and unsustainability, of socialism in Europe and now America will ultimately be seen and understood by the public. And hopefully very soon.
And it is clear that the political strategy must be like that of Lady Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph (and espoused in the 'WTF book' (www.tokyorove.com) ....
... instead of wheeling and dealing with “consensus-building” in Parliament and 10 Downing Street, the way to return Britain to economic and societal health from its “sick man of Europe” status was to take the collectivist consensus and wage against it: “… a battle of ideas to be fought in every school, university, publication, committee, TV studio.”
You are most correct that we need to take back our schoolhouses (private & homeschool in the interim) to win in the long run. Viva Christo Rey!
I am so glad you agree that the insidious has been accomplished entirely in the school house, down the block from where we each live. It continues today.
Would that Ted Cruz and the “viable” others locate the dang fire right in front of our eyes. Doing so would in time solve an awful lot of other problems.
You can’t find a conservative anywhere willing to tackle the cause, but are getting rich off of the effects and minutiae.
It is going to take time to unravel this mess and at least Cruz is willing to start. I’ll bet he has the Department of Education on his list when the time is right, which may not be until a few other problems are solved. I think he will do the right thing and to some extent, we have to trust his political judgment. He says he will listen. I hope he does. I’ll sure give him a chance.
Almost everyone who’s against Cruz backed Romney in the primary. I think we already had a good litmus test on who the real RINOs are. They’re the ones who backed Romney. And they’re reliably doing the wrong thing for the party and the conservative cause yet again. There is no mystery about who we can and can’t trust. Romney RINOs need to be weeded out of the party.
good point
Sounds like a good theory but how does it work in practice? Who did you back in the 2012 presidential primary? The people who follow a rule like yours seem to do nothing but pick losing candidates like Dole, McCain and Romney.
Why did you post this in Bloggers & Personal?
“Why did you post this in Bloggers & Personal?”
That’s where I always post and nobody’s told me different. What’s the alternative?
And how could you tell?
I was going to post it in News/Activism. There you can check off for the editorial sidebar. IMHO, more people will see it in the editorial sidebar.
It's obvious. Look at the top and bottom of the thread now. I asked the admin moderator to change it to News/Activism from Bloggers & Personal.
It is rather odd that many “conservative” voters keep putting liberals on local school boards. It’s about name ID. They won’t take the time to research the candidates. They just favor candidates who say they are “for the children.”
I had a more detailed post on the subject once upon a time, but the 2012 field was... problematic, to say the least, in that none of the contenders had the "total package". The ideal candidate would be a solid conservative with executive experience, a track record for getting things accomplished, and have won at least a statewide election in the past.
The best fit, in my mind was Newt, as he was acceptably conservative (though he was not as reliable as I'd like) with a proven history of getting change pushed through. Speaker of the House was quite the same experience I'd normally look for as an executive, but it put him ahead of others with no executive experience at all. A drawback was the fact that he never won a statewide election. His iffier conservative cred meant he'd have been someone to watch and keep pressure on, but he would have been loads better than Romney or McCain.
Ohhhh. Thanks. Been a freeper for well over ten years and have done numerous posts and nobody told me.
OK, sounds good, I can’t argue with your logic there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.