What Welch is really calling for is an anti-Buckley to reanimate the GOP. In my view the most intriguing thinking on the right, as David Brooks has noted, is taking place among the renegades at the plucky American Conservative, where libertarian propositions are freely aired, where American foreign policy is invigilated, and where, above all, few shibboleths are left unchallenged. It has the feel of what Buckley's magazine once represented, an insurgent movement with little to lose and much to gain. But whether that can translate into actual political influence is an open question. Welch urges a different tack: the emergence of an establishment figure from the ranks of the moderate establishment that Buckley originally set out to destroy. But as Geoffrey Kabaservice has chronicled in his new book Rule and Ruin, it would be a herculean task to reconstitute it. Will anyone rise to the challenge? And will anyone be listening?
Comments
Actually, Welch is spot on the money when he likens the Tea Party to the John Birchers. A couple of years ago the NAACP did a study of seven Tea Party organzations. Only one, Dick Armey's and Grover Norquist's, was NOT riddled with people who dressed in camaflouge, lived in nuclear bunkers, or had some connection to neo-Nazi, KKK, militia, white supremacist, and secesionist groups. The fact that some of them now live in Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota does not alter the fact that Welch is right.
If the ratio is less than 1:1, the church does not have enough income to support the debt. If the liabilities outweigh the church’s assets, it is already highly leveraged, making further loans a risky venture. Thanks.Regards,interview transcript