Tag: Progressivism

What is the purpose of a political party?  Asking nearly anyone in politics, the most common answer is that it is to raise money and elect candidates.  A simple enough reason to exist, utilizing varying methods of fundraising and activities to realize the desired result. Goals are made, (elect the candidate) and presumably the shortest route is plotted to achieve those goals.  Most folks might even think this accomplishes what is necessary to be properly represented; "we got our guy in", and "now there is nothing to worry about".

That particular perspective is lazy, presumptuous, and frankly pretty dangerous when one considers the power (and trust) we vest in our elected officials.

The Republican party ought not be so relaxed in its commonly accepted role of managing the benevolence of donors, keeping a place in line for electoral hopefuls, and delivering the occasional platitude release berating the opposing party however.  Opposition because some are on the other side often follows, but that it provides red-meat for the membership is nearly too simple and unimaginative.  And it is incomplete as other responsibilities become more clear alongside the breakdown of the social fabric and dissolution of individual liberties we face in multiple affronts daily.

The purpose for the existence of the Michigan Republican party could be driven so much more clearly, and the basis for action already exists within the organization.

We DO have a platform, do we not?

- - -

Clearly the Traverse City Record Eagle editors have "Gillman on the mind".

Nearly a full month out from the last commission meeting attended, their editorial writers attack once more.

The Editorial: "Gillman's rant shows his true colors" begins as a few others do; laced with hate, and front loaded with hyperbole:

"Former Grand Traverse County Commissioner Jason Gillman has always had an interesting take on public policy issues. Often factually wrong, or lacking perspective or just plain biased, but interesting."

This is not intended as a coldhearted statement, but rather an observation that is crying out for recognition.

Dead kids, property destruction, general disregard for our fellow man.  All of it resulting from exactly the opposite message of what founded our great nation.  Our current bizarro world would not be complete without death being the 'preferred' alternative to a woman not being able to play around unfettered by the inconvenience of pregnancy, without the labor unions calling for the 'rights' of workers to be protected by placing shackles on their legs, or the game played by progressive thinkers which sets rules that define taking as morally preferable to voluntary concession.

There could hardly be a dry eye out there from parents of 5 to 10 year old children after yesterday's tragedy in CT.  In fact, anyone with a soul left in these dark times must feel for those parents and family members who had only days before had the highest dreams for their happy little treasures. Even the souls scarred with the axiomatic wrist cutting belief that abortions are OK, or those with sociological defects that believe that honor killing or personal slavery is ever appropriate, must hide their eyes lest the world witness their hypocrisy.

The world is doing its pole shift, not in the geological sense, but in logic and reasoning and common sense.  Our civilization is running its moral clock backward.

What stretch of the imagination is it to see a people who are immersed in a culture of death such as that experienced in Detroit, which sports a near 38% abortion rate, and leaves a lesson for those who survive, that life is not sacred? How can we be surprised at the destruction of hot dog carts, and tents, and personal property by union members who have been told that "its OK to break things in your fight to retain dominion over your brother"?  What level of coercive (violence based) taxation is enough for ANY political party, when each scheme rewarding some, must be borne on the backs of others, involuntarily?

Are we as a nation ready to appropriately answer these questions?

"If I had to name people I don't like, I'd say Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin. It's that breed of real toxic-spewers who are really damaging to our discourse. I'd be embarrassed to have my mom or dad listen to them. I don't think they shouldn't be on the radio but when the rhetoric inflames and exaggerates to the point of lacking integrity, that bothers me."

Aw Jennifer, the feeling is mutual...

-- Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 20, 2012

Heh, heh.

Believable?

Perhaps, as the there are enough potential true Republican Voters who are convinced enough to believe Rick Snyder is worthy of their support for the primary, much less an acknowledgment he is a Republican in the first place.  Something to take seriously when looking at a candidate who hopes to be the standard bearer of the Republican party of Michigan.  To be sure... the GOP can do far better than this RINO. (yeah.. I said it)

Am I being a little strong?