Michael Gerson at the Washington Post, Peter Wehner at Commentary, Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, and Karl Rove at the Wall Street Journal, and many more are the voice of the moderate mush, the mediocrity brigade of the Republican Party.
And so it has begun, the push to attack Reagan by Commentary’s Peter Wehner and Henry Olsen. Trying to put a fine point on what Reagan stood for, the two described Reagan as standing more for human dignity, rather than human freedom, as if the two can be separated. The rather long and tedious piece is answered by Western Journalism’s Donald Devine, who shows the weasel-like co-opting of Reagan’s philosophy by the re-write of history.
The small-mindedness of believing Reagan conservatism is outdated, and the accusation that Reagan didn’t get the job done, are things Wehner regularly accuses that great man of. But he does so by overlooking the fact that Reagan was opposed by the mush of the time, people like Wehner who want compromise with the left, but not with right, and Reagan couldn’t, “get the job done” because of them, Wehner’s philosophical comrades. Wehner is mighty bold when the man isn’t around to defend himself. The idiotic attempt to paint Reagan as someone who would reject tea party sentiment is pathetic. Reagan understood he was battling people who hated the idea of limited government when he ran for the party nomination, in fact, he contributed to George W. Bush’s opponent when he was running for office in Texas. Yes, Reagan was well aware of who was conservative, and who was not.
In the Wall Street Journal, Wehner takes the aggravating tone of a higher understanding of Reagan, by insisting Reaganites don’t understand who they understand. And he rewrites history by saying his favored Bush, “challenged” Reagan in 1980.
Can I lay a harsh reality on everyone? George H.W. Bush never ran for President, he was a perpetual Vice Presidential hopeful. When it came down to Bush and Reagan in 1980, Reagan made unity in the Republican Party a priority, and decided to pick Bush, and unfortunately, there began the Bushie rise in the Republican Party.
Get it? If there was no Reagan, there would be no Bush. The American people made George H.W. Bush their president because they wanted to keep Reaganism going, and after raising taxes, the Bushies lost us a hundred-years of political domination.
Wehner goes on to praise James Baker, who was, in all his years in politics, very intolerant of conservatism, and as Mark Levin points out, of Jews as well. What Wehner sidesteps is Baker’s treatment of Netanyahu, and mention of it in an interview last Sunday.
Michael Gerson, a Bush speech writer, has no understanding of Reagan, really doesn’t go for conservatism at all, and thinks Reagan’s views and experience are pointless to review because that was the old way of doing things. His approval and reiteration of Wehner and Olsen’s inane separation of human dignity and human freedom is far beyond anyone’s gag reflex. But Gerson proves his antipathy toward conservatives by the back-slap he gives to his pals for pushing conservative buttons. This is not a form of conservatism these Bushies are pushing, it is a repudiation of it, through and through, cleverly masked, or perhaps not so much.
These Bushies are cautioning everyone to not claim the mantle of Reagan. They are the ones who have put forth the idea that they understand Reagan better than the rest of us. They are the ones who claim Reagan could not be elected today, and in the meantime, put down Reaganites. The truth is, the only reason so many Reagans didn’t make it past the primary is because of the moderate mush who spent enormous amounts of money to keep them out. Really ridiculous amounts of money, to stop Reagan conservatives–which, as it turns out, is the main reason Reagan, “couldn’t be elected today.”
Tea partiers and constitutional conservatives, or rather the Reagan coalition, who still have ties with their State GOP, (after being smeared for four years for coming out of their homes to be a part of the influence and action of local and national campaigns,) did exactly what Reagan would do. They campaigned for the winner on the ground, online, and in their communities to elect guys they don’t think understand conservatism, but hoped the GOP would try to advance unity if we indeed did take over the Senate together. But the whole time, article after article planted by the establishment demanded money. Where is the tea party’s commitment if they won’t spend money? Why does the tea party think they will ever get anywhere if they don’t show us the money? And it’s such a slap in the face to the ordinary American trying to make a difference in their communities to be asked for something they don’t have, when they are spending tons of precious family time getting out the vote for people who brow beat them mercilessly.
Since 2012, the constant reproach, “You better not stay home!” was laid upside every tea party head in the nation by Republican operatives in every tier of their philosophically monochrome party. Nobody could possibly lay the claim this year that the tea party stayed home. But still, it wasn’t most of the tea party that sat out in 2012, it was the people that Reagan was able to get, and moderates never do. It is the conservative that leans Democrat–the people who believe in their country and refuse liberalism and can’t stand elitist snobs–that had no reason to vote for a Republican candidate who didn’t connect with them. Romney couldn’t connect with them because he does not understand conservatism. Bush didn’t connect with them, neither did Dole nor McCain, and here we are, in constant struggle for 50 plus one because we’re stuck in a Bush time warp, where people like Karl Rove have been given way too much latitude and influence.
None of these men are conservatives. Did you ever read Karl Rove’s book? It’s a defense of white bread, and a reply to people who criticize him. It’s not a defense of conservatism in the least, though he calls himself a conservative on the cover, for cover.
Peter Wehner, Bush’s Minister of Propaganda, idolizes Karl Rove as a brilliant genius. For what? Well, for being able to convince enough people that Bush spending and Bush philosophy was on the level of Reagan. Not for being Reagan-like, because people hadn’t forgotten that it was the Bush team that labeled Reagan’s economic plan, “Voodoo economics.” People hadn’t forgotten that Bush Senior was every bit the establishment country club political moderate that dismissed conservatism. As Craig Shirley pointed out in Rendezvous with Destiny, “As chairman of the Republican National Committee, Bush was asked if he was a conservative, a moderate, or a liberal and he dismissively said, ‘Labels are for cans.'” This describes the mentality of all the Bushies, who have a stranglehold on the party today, yet they continue to hijack conservatism as a buzz-word rather than as terrifically espoused by the “insurgent” Reagan, and by many so-called tea-party “insurgents” of today.
The problem in the Republican party does not exist for the people who call themselves Reaganites. It is those who want the party to rid its adherence to conservatism. They want to redefine it and reduce it to something meaningless. And that brigade of mediocrity, of mush, of 50 plus 1, of no labels, and of compromise with collectivism, is represented by Gerson, Wehner, Rove, Rubin, and many Bush era moderates.
There are two teams in the Republican Party. The conservatives and the mush. The mush can be seen already, as Mark Levin has pointed out, “surrendering the power of the purse” right out of the gate. McConnell saying that there will be no bargaining chip used against this president was not why Republicans got the majority. How about Orrin Hatch’s comment in the New York Times, after his party wins both houses in congress, “‘There are intelligent things to do, and there are some not-so-intelligent things to do,’ said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah. ‘And one of the first things we should do is find some areas of common ground with our Democrat friends.'” Our Democrat friends? No Senator, your Democrat friends, the ones we rejected! As you observe these mush in action, you begin to realize our brain trust on the Bushie wing is severely compromised.
The only bright lights are Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and conservatives in the House, and the newly elected conservatives who will join them and speak out against capitulation and needless compromise with collectivism.
The mediocrity brigade doesn’t understand what America understood about Reagan. Everything Reagan gave radio messages about and wrote about was the application of conservative thought to modern times. Reagan biographer Craig Shirley wrote that Reagan was constantly writing, thinking, and communicating the conservative approach to government. The mediocrity brigade is doing the opposite. They look at the times as a reason to find a new approach, and somehow fit the word conservative in the effort to attract popularity. These writers are already trying to shape the 2016 contest by putting conservatives like Ted Cruz in a bad light.
Shirley also pointed to a simple, but telling episode in his book Rendezvous with Destiny. A man by the name of Dave Keene had joined George H.W. Bush’s team in the run up to the 1980 election. Shirley writes, “After Dave Keene had signed on with Bush, the candidate invited him to the family’s summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine, to talk about the forthcoming campaign. There Keene asked Bush — rhetorically he thought — ‘Why do you want to be president?’ and was astonished to hear Bush reply, ‘Because I want to bring good people to government.’ Keene turned to Ambassador Bush, twenty years his elder, and said, ‘No, George, you want to be president because you want to save Western civilization.'” You see, Keene had been a Reaganite, and that is our only reason to leave our homes and get entangled in this nasty game of politics—we have to save the country.
But things in Washington DC are getting more and more cynical, and reviewing what made people vote a certain way is treated as a negative review of the past. Surely, the call for trade promotion authority was nowhere championed on the campaign trail. It is pushed by the chemical lobby. So, right out of the gate, the Bushies will reward their crony lobbyist friends rather than the people, the people, who may not know that the administration they believe is turning America in the wrong direction, is all for it. Repeal Obamacare? They’ll try, they said, to “repeal and replace,” certain parts of it. The parts that the lobbyists have been badgering them about like the medical device tax. Comprehensive immigration reform means amnesty, a forgiveness for breaking the law, but it also means compromising with border security. The Chamber of Commerce has made it clear that amnesty will be a Republican issue, or they will not receive any funds in 2016. But in the face of a President who insists on Executive Amnesty, they aren’t even talking about Impeachment. Everything is off the table. And the reasons that the American people put Republicans in office for, stopping Obama being numero uno, are as well, as long as the mush prevail.
The Chamber of Commerce has no interest whatsoever in Reaganism. Their dollars were used in the primaries to put down conservative efforts primarily because the CoC has lobbied both political parties to provide cheap labor through amnesty. The CoC is the emulsifier of the two major parties, and will remain so as long as the Bushies are in charge. The CoC’s lobbyists and the revolving door for former Republican politicians have kept the Republican Party knee deep in the crony capitalism that Reagan despised, and so many Americans still despise today.
What is euphemistically called government-corporate partnership is just government coercion, political favoritism, collectivist industrial policy, and old-fashioned federal boondoggles nicely wrapped up in a bright colored ribbon. And it doesn’t work. Ronald Reagan – June 29th, 1988
The mediocrity brigade, the mush Bushie team, are the fellas pushing the party away from the greatest President in modern history, to line their pockets, and keep us from a populist victory based on timeless conservatism. These influencers must be seen for who they are, and what they represent–the opposite of what America needs.
Thank you Breitbart, for linking:) Hello Breitbart folks!