Replies

Matt Cunningham is a principal in Pacific Strategies, in Orange County.

It's called liberals trying to eliminate conservatives!!

Lets see what they are going to do for Tom McClintock.

"But just as desperately needed is a hard-edged commitment to battling for expressly for liberty and limited government..."

Cunningham must certainly know better.

Strikes me as a puff piece. I put him down as well on the way to TNM shilldom.

http://www.thenewmajority.com/

Welcome to the New Majority

The New Majority is an organization founded on a vision of bringing a Republican majority to California by lending the necessary resources to candidates who support fiscally responsible government and an inclusive Party.

Since 2000, the New Majority has contributed more than ten million dollars to Republican candidates and causes. Many of our individual members have donated and directed millions more. In our first year we said we were “creating a group that was going to level the playing field in California politics.” Back then we had just four members. Today, with more than 215 members across two chapters and an annual budget of more than $2 million, it looks like our prediction could not have been more accurate.

Today, our focus remains on Governor Schwarzenegger, whom we played an instrumental role in the 2003 Recall Election. We are looking forward to a challenging and exciting year in 2006 which will determine the direction of our state.

We hope that you will take a minute to consider the New Majority.

http://www.thenewmajority.com/mission.php

Mission Statement

The New Majority will broaden the appeal of the Republican Party by promoting a fiscally responsible philosophy toward government and lending resources to Republicans who support an inclusive, mainstream approach toward politics.

.

"According to Tucker and Folino, TNM is already the most prolific GOP fundraiser in the state: since 2002, $30 has been raised by TNM and its members."
If all they could raise over 4 years is lousy thirty dollars - and that qualifies them as the most prolific - then what the expletive are they doing there?

When a society lets businessmen exclusively dictate the policies of a political party the society has a problem. Political parties best serve the public interests when their agenda and goals are philosophically driven, not monetary.

When those policies are implemented by an influential party the society has an even bigger problem. The New Majority and its candidates will soon be in the headlines for their ancient, but freshly packaged, brand of public corruption. In the twentieth century it was called fascism. Today it's called the public-private partnership.

The New Majority and their handpicked Wilsonegger gang see the public sector only as a mechanism to further their business interests and line their pockets with public money. Follow the money, whether budgets or bonds, and it leads increasingly, directly, to the pockets of the New Majority.

Money, introduced into the political process, which was directly derived from public coffers, is not generosity and not free speech. It is an arch typical example of public corruption.

Annual dues are $10,000.

Sounds like a bunch of fat-cat, elitist Third Way types. Now that I know Schwarzennegger is one of these "New Majority" (really Third Way) types, I better understand why he governs the way he does.

There have been many "third way" movements around the world. The modern one is nothing more than an attempt to repackage socialism by shoring up its economic weaknesses while still adhering to a "progressive" governmental and social agenda. Third Way types are Leftists who cherry pick elements of Rightist fiscal policies. Then they try to marginalize both traditional Leftists and people on the Right by characterizing themselves pragmatists and centrists.

Remember the Democratic Leadership Council that pushed Bill Clinton to the White House? It's a Third Way group. Remember the group founded by Warren Rudman and Paul Psongas in the early 1990's? Same thing. Even Newt Gingrich was pushing the Third Way for awhile, because he was a friend of someone who wrote a book about the Third Way. (I don't know if he still adheres to that philosophy though.)

If you Google "Third Way," you'll find many references. There's even an official Third Way website. Here's a link.

Here's a link to the Democratic Leadership Council's website. You'll easily see the commonalities. Between the Third Way's site and the DLC's site.

I think this is the book Newt was pushing several years ago.

Here's a snippet of Amazon's review of this book:

The idea of finding a third way in politics has been widely discussed - not only in the UK, but in the US, Continental Europe and Latin America. But what is the third way? Supporters of the notion haven't been able to agree, and critics deny the possibility altogether. Anthony Giddens shows that developing a third way is not only a possibility but a necessity in modern politics. The third way represents the renewal of social democracy in a world where the views of the old left have become obsolete, while those of the new right are inadequate and contradictory.

Here's an excerpt from the description of Third Way on Wikipedia:

The term was appropriated by politicians in the 1990s who wished to incorporate Thatcher and Reagan's projects of economic deregulation, privatization, and globalization into the mainstream centre-left political parties (following the crisis of socialism after the fall of the Berlin Wall) so that in this context the Third Way is usually understood as a nickname for neoliberal social-economic policy. As such, it has become an important ideology in modern European democracies, especially by some Social-Democratic parties, as well as for some members of the United States Democratic Party (particularly, the Democratic Leadership Council). It gets its name from its alleged role as an alternative to both pure, free market capitalism and the kind of economic order represented by strong welfare states such as the Scandinavian countries and Germany, which are held to be too regulated and taxed at rates that are too high to compete with economies run on free-market principles.