Back when I lived in Northern Virginia, a fellow member of the Arlington County Republican Committee launched a quixotic bid to take on County Democrat stalwart Mary Margaret Whipple when she launched her bid for the state Senate. On every issue sacred to the Democrats, Whipple towed the party line, marching, for example, in lockstep with NARAL on abortion.
Well, while her challenger was not pro-life, on every bill related to abortion introduced in the Virginia General Assembly, he would have voted with the pro-lifers. But, that was not enough for some leaders of the pro-life movement in his jurisdiction. They refused to support him unless he declared himself to be pro-life.
Similarly, in a special election for the Virginia House of Delegates, a conservative friend balked at helping the Republican because she, who happened to be pro-life, wasn’t pro-gun. She would have voted with him on every other issue–and considerably better than her Democratic opponent, but wasn’t worth his support because she wasn’t ideologically pure enough.
I see a tone of this in some coverage I’ve been reading about the Illinois Senate race of Republicans (and even some Hillary Democrats) refusing to back Mark Kirk should he prevail in the Groundhog Day contest for the GOP nomination. Now, I’ll grant you that Kirk is far from perfect. He voted for Waxman-Markey (cap and trade), but has since relented. If conservatives don’t like Kirk, then they have until next Tuesday to rally support for his more conservative primary opponent Patrick Hughes. Indeed, if I lived in the Land of Lincoln, it’s highly likely I would be voting for Hughes next week.
Note the use of the conditional in the previous sentence; I use that tense because I don’t know enough about the candidate to make a definite choice in the matter. I do see it as a good sign that he’s gotten a lot of support from the Tea Party people, hence my conditional support.
That said, should Kirk win the GOP nomination–or, say, should Tom Campbell win the party’s nomination here, I’d vote for them, even though each has been less than perfect on fiscal issues. There’s that Kirk vote on Cap ‘n Trade. And Campbell’s refusal to sign the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Pledge.
Still, Kirk did vote against the “stimulus” and against Obamacare. He may not be as good as Hughes, but he’s better than whatever Democrat the president’s party nominates. Campbell may not been as solid on fiscal issues in this campaign as Carly has been, but compared to Barbara Boxer, well, there is no comparison.
It’s one thing to fight against a more moderate Republican in the primary, it’s another to refuse to vote for him (or her) in the general. Now, of course, there are exceptions, when a Republican is ideologically indistinguishable from (or, to the left of) a Democrat. But, with folks like Kirk, Carly or Campbell, you’ll get something far better than the opposition. No, not ideal, but then again, Scott Brown is not ideologically ideal.
You will, at worst, have someone voting for you 60% of the time, instead of voting against you 90% of the time. Not just that, if conservatives walk when a moderate or even a moderate/conservative wins the party’s nod, what message does that send to moderates should a more conservative candidate win the nomination? Will that encourage them to remove their marbles from the game and play some place else?
In those aforementioned Arlington races, the Republican may never really have had a chance, but once in Richmond, the Democrats who won towed the party line, voting for more liberal policies on abortion and against fiscal restraint. Their Republican opponents may not have been ideal, but the victorious Democrats were a disaster.
You are correct, it is very difficult if not impossible to postulate the conditions where any Democrat is preferable to any Republican. Conservatives, Independents and Republicans need to be critically aware of this as we progress towards the November elections.
This is a very tough decision for me. On one hand, I think RINOs are the reason the GOP lost it’s way. On the other hand, I think dire straights require dire action. A RINO with a moderate President is a very different beast than a RINO with a Socialist-lite in charge, who also has a Super majority in Congress.
I am socially moderate; I will never base my vote on abortion or gay marriage, but I’d be very leery of supporting anyone who was less than Conservative fiscally. I am especially leery of Kirk, but at this point, the psychological victory of taking Obama’s old seat would be enough for me to back him. I much prefer Hughes, and think he’d do better against the Dem, but I am not sure if he has enough time to get any kind of name recognition at all.
I blame the NRSC for this…they aren’t paying any more attention to the mood of the country than Obama is, IMHO.
That is why there are primaries. And whoever wins the GOP nomination, in a primary, gets my support and vote. Although I will have a really hard time voting for Tom Campbell if he should pull off the upset here in Cali. Makes me almost in Carly’s corner!
Almost forgot. That was the problem in NY 23. A bunch of county Republican chairs put up Dede Scozzafava. The Republican voters had no say in the matter. It is obvious that they had no clue as who the stronger candidate would have been. If there was a primary and Doug Hoffman won, he would be in congress right now.
Sorry for the OT, but I stumbled across this while blog hopping, and wanted to spread the word. Have you seen this video of a Muslim professor at Vanderbilt? A student wanted to expose the professor and had someone recording it, while he asked him about the Islamic demand that gay people be killed. I can not believe that Vanderbilt allows this man to teach at their school, and that he’s not being protested. The left wing are vile hypocrites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAW743OXC8o&feature=player_embedded
I voted for McCain. What choice did I have? RINOs, conservatives with a loose screw or two, and other variations are too often what we have available to vote for. I voted for a guy who was totally out of his league in the September 2009 financial crisis. A New York City mayor or a Governor would have been far better in such a crisis. Instead, we got Obama and ……………… Still, I seriously doubt a President McCain would have found Republican advisors who would have urged him to throw another trillion to fund emerging industries such as cars that run on wind power and rubber bands that don’t sting when government employees shoot them at one another.
Hell, I’d take someone who voted with us 30% of the time over 0% of the time. Of course, this is a bit self-serving, as our Senators here in Maine would likely be put on a spit anywhere outside of New England. 😉
I guess we’re back to the WFB standard: Nominate the most conservative viable candidate.
Best wishes,
-MFS
It seems that we never learn our lesson. We support only those candidates who can pass the litmus test as to who is a conservative. In the last presidential election some Republicans voted either for the Conservative Party candidate or the Libertarian. The defection was probably not enough to put Senator McCain in the White House. Look what we got. Massive debt, bigger government and creeping socialism, apart these can be reversed in time; but we can´t do anything about Sonia Sotomayor. and the possibilty of two more like her or more activist than she is. The other wing of our Party is just as guilty. Who can forget how Christie Todd Whitman submarined Bret Schundler´s gubernatiorial campaign by telling the press he was too conservative for New Jersey.
We forget the value of ´R´ after a legislator´s name. It should have been driven home by the defection of Senator Jeffords who as an independent went on to caucus with the Democrats and gave the majority back to the Democrats. My main motivation for voting for McCain was his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges to the SCOTUS. More than anything else I feared that Obama could change the makeup of SCOTUS that would last for the next twenty to forty years.
In the end it still boils down to you have an obligatin either;
1) for for the candidate of you agree with, or
2) vote against the one you can’t.
Either are valid criteria.