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 ...
rove’s mission is to get RINOS elected, not conservatives.
Outstanding article. I particularly enjoyed the inclusion and link to the history-correcting article by Neal Freeman to accurately define the “Buckley Rule” which is quite opposed to the GOPe ‘Rove rule’.
Great article. “Viability” does not necessarily equal “electability”. The real Buckley Rule should be a part of Conservative dogma.
rove’s mission is to make money that is all
Great article.
That’s okay, a few more losses and Rove shall have grown old and expired.
Or ....
The Gop wakes up and realizes that Rove is actually costing them more conservative voters than they are gaining in so-called moderate voters.
From the article:
The way you bring real change to Washington is to change the views of the country. Simply winning an election and then setting about “consensus-building” is exactly what has gotten the Republican Party into so much electoral trouble. Not to mention gotten the country in so much financial trouble.
This is the whole problem with the GOP! winning the election, and then maintaining the status quo (no matter how leftward the rats have pushed it), is exactly the governing policy of the party. That has to stop!!! And the only man who I think has a chance of doing so is the Honorable Senator from Texas.
Cruz has got me excited about politics again because he has injected me with a small dose of optimism about what may still be possible in the country. God bless Ted Cruz!
Very poorly written: “ Cruz has surfaced a longstanding problem with the Republican Party...”
A thing, like a problem or issue can surface, but you can’t surface something. It surfaces, you can’t surface it.
“Cruz has got me excited about politics again because he has injected me with a small dose of optimism about what may still be possible in the country.”
And that fervor you feel inside is exactly what both the republicans and the democrats have been working to tamp down on the republican side (though they love it on the democrat side, see 2008).
Did Bob Dole inspire you to march to the polls, torch and pitchfork in hand?? Did either George Bush? Did John McCain? Did Mitt Romney? Did Gerald Ford? Do you get energized after a Mitch McConnell or John Boehner speech??
On the other hand, the people marched to vote for Reagan in droves, the same with Nixon (though a moderate by today’s standards, he knew how to get the people going), and Gingrich, in both the 90’s and last year when he, by his words and mind alone, caused people to rally to him. And Sarah Palin. And now Ted Cruz.
Uninspiring, milquetoast moderates do not inspire, plain-speaking conservatives do. And both parties fear plain-speaking conservatives because they move mountains and don’t bother listening to those who say “it can’t be done.”
From Reagan’s A Time For Choosing Speech:
“Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ‘round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.”
Awesome article, As other stated.. Definitely recommended to click through and read it in its entirety.
Wow! Fantastic article! I was knocked off my Cruz high hope for a bit, when all that I was hearing and reading were attacks against Cruz. I’ve now read several really good articles, better than I’ve read in a long while. My Cruz high hope is back—we can do this!
Thank you!
Proven Federal Fact: The only way to balance the US Federal Spending and Income within the next two years is to execute this two step process:
1.) DEFUND Obamacare in 2013; and
2.) ABOLISH Obamacare, Democratcare, and Republicancare in the first month of 2014.
______________________
BTW US Congress men and women, failure to do BOTH of these timely steps will insure that your replacements will gladly do it for you.
It is all about the money, stupid - - - OUR taxpayer money!
Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock, tick ———
Good article. Thank you for posting it.
My own revision of the Buckley rule is to support the candidate most likely to effect conservative change. Again, if you want to “Cruzify” it to swap “issue” for “candidate”, I think that works for my version, too.
From the electoral standpoint, it means don’t give me the guy with the 100% ACU rating unless he can win elections and get people to go along with his agenda. (At the same time, someone who can win elections but doesn’t have conservative ideals is a bad candidate as well.)
From an issue standpoint, it’s taking on not necessarily the most dogmatic topic, but the one where you can “move the needle” or get something accomplished. Seize the opportunities that present themselves, and even in a losing cause on the voting tally, to set the stage for future fights.
An excellent article. Well worth the time to read.
There may be a simpler way to get the result. Pick the issue first and then the candidate who expresses it best. The corollary for hopeful candidates is if you express it well, it may be picked as the right issue, and you as the candidate to express it.
“rove’s mission is to get RINOS elected, not conservatives.”
Hate to tell you this but the USA is a center right nation.
THE USA IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE NATION.
And rinos shall eventually rule because the USA is a center right nation.
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.