The name "Charles Munger Jr." came up in the conversation.
He controls the Republican Party, because he offers so much, was in effect the gist of the conversation.
Well - the last time I checked, money was having less and less of an influence.
Then another Republican told me that his bid for office was shot down, and the support he sought went to a Democrat, because of this Munger fellow.
What?!
Then I found this interesting blog:
 |
| Charles Munger Jr., spoofed (Source: The Munger Games) |
Wow!
And the latest posts depict a strange, Bill-Nye looking individual with a ubiquitous bow-tie (also feature in a $100 bill at the top of the blog), a physicist with a lot of money to spend.
The mantra of "The Munger Games" exposes a man bent on reshaping the GOP to be more liberal on certain issues, as if watering down key platforms of the party will make the GOP more competitive statewide.
I had heard something about allowing every Republican candidate for state or statewide office to tailor their conservative message to line up with the voters in the district they are running to represent.
That was GOP Chairman Jim Brulte. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with residents in a specific community running to represent their friends, neighbors, and committed contacts in the state legislature. That's local control at its best, and a key feature of the Republican Party.
Of course, this matter of watering down the Republican Party brand must be taken seriously, too.
On The Munger Games, I noticed posts in which the blogger reported on Munger's backing more liberal Republican candidates in safe Republican seats during the 2012 election, while Republicans in other conservative races (like Chris Norby in Orange County) could have used Munger's money to overcome a rising Democratic tide.
Whatever happened to the tide raising all boats, Charles?
That seems to be one of the questions posed by the Munger Games.
Another way to phrase the question: Why would a wealthy political donor spend so much time influencing safe Republican seats instead of getting Republicans elected in swing districts or slightly blue seats?
The GOP needs unity, not discord, and a mission of redefining the party platform with more liberal candidates goes against Chairman Brulte's directive, as well as the better interests of the party and the state.
California deserves two parties which represent diverse views on the role of government. If anyone wants to see the long-term damage of one-party rule, partly because of watered-down political opposition, look no further than Rhode Island, where eighty years of Democratic rule have created the Petri Dish of Socialism: government dependency, public sector unionism, and special interest cronyism have bankrupted the state. "Progressive" policies have enshrined hostile, anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-growth, anti-prosperity policies. More people are leaving than entering Rhode Island, as well (if one does not count the study influx of illegal immigrants looking for welfare). The Rhode Island General Assembly had to restructure the state's pension obligations in 2011, which topped at $6 billion unfunded for a state which does not take in $1 billion a year in revenue.
Unions balked and filed a lawsuit. The same treasurer who brokered the pension reforms, Rhode Scholar Gina Raimondo, is running for Governor, and has walked away from many of the stern yet necessary reforms in her pension plan.
Forget Detroit. Providence, Rhode Island may declare file for Chapter Nine next, followed by the entire state, and the fate of the Ocean State does not crest and fall on the East Coast. With the same putrid progressive follies festering in California, the Golden State may join Little Rhody in massive, comprehensive, unsurpassed bankruptcy.
And liberalizing the California Republican Party will only make things worse. Do Californians want to be come a Big Rhode Island? I would hope to believe that Munger does not want that
Or does he? Judging by how he has invested his funds, one can only draw such a dour conclusion
Ontario Mayor Paul Leon could have used some of Munger's financial help in his race for a state senate election in 2012 as a Republican. Then there was Susan Shelley of West Valley, Los Angeles last year, running in a special election to replace Bob Blumenfield, elected to the LA City Council.
Why does Munger focus on blurring (or rather bluing) the safe GOP seats?
Why does Munger have this hunger for the GOP? Why has he gone out of his way to ignoring Republicans in need and get rid of the Republicans indeed?
 |
| Harmeet Dhillon |
As the top of the Munger Games states, the junior physicist is "wasting his patrimony."
Not just the odd direction of his donations, there was a copyright lawsuit waged by the Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party, Harmeet Dhillon, against The Munger Games.
Now Republican leaders are attacking free speech, too?
Well, the lawsuit target the anti-Munger blog for using the above headshot in one post. The picture belonged to the public domain, according to the judge who heard the case, and the same jurist dismissed the lawsuit.
Munger has a hunger to help or hurt the GOP, and this Dhillon lady is connected to it in some way?
Well, as far as I can tell, any race will ultimately be about the grassroots, not the turf at the top, or even the leadership with the money. Still, wouldn't it be nice if the leadership of a political party spent more time advancing the values of the members and spent time and money shaping the culture and views of the state to those values?
From Vidak to Faulconer to
thank for the post for more good post about the game help you can visit level 147 candy crush
ReplyDelete