jmdrake
01-19-2010, 07:19 PM
Well here we are. Almost to the end of another RPF civil war. One way or another the "Scott Brown" fight will over tonight. But the fault lines will remain. Should we only endorse republicans? Should we only endorse principled candidates? Should we take something in between?
It's instructive to look at the last special election. Like Joe Kennedy, Doug Hoffman ran third party. Unlike Joe Kennedy, many big name republicans lined up behind Hoffman. The final result is that a democrat ultimately won the race. Sure there were twists and turns in the race (Dede dropping out....and then endorsing the democrat), but the democrat still won. Bad result? Would the country be better off with an obvious opportunist like Dede Scozzafava in congress? Would that advance our liberty strategy? I think not. In 2012 there will be a real primary and a liberty candidate will have a chance to win. Had Dede won she'd be an incumbent and there would be all kinds of pressure against liberty candidates NOT to run against her in the primaries for fear of "splitting the primary". Now that primary will be wide open.
Now some might be thinking "The Scott Brown case is different because the house doesn't hang on one vote but legislation in the senate could". To that I agree. I also agree that it's at least as important to "send a message" to Obama and the MSM that he didn't get a mandate for universal healthcare in 2008 just like it was important to send a message to the GOP in 2008 that we no longer support these wars. (Unfortunately it seems that message fell on deaf ears.) The problem is when precious resources are diverted to candidates that don't really support limited government (Scott Brown "moneybombs") or when some of us try to browbeat others of us who decide to stick with principles (a vote for Kennedy is a vote for deathcare). A wiser choice is everybody to look at the individual races and decide what's best for them. After all if Sarah Palin can support a 3rd party candidate against a republican.....
It's instructive to look at the last special election. Like Joe Kennedy, Doug Hoffman ran third party. Unlike Joe Kennedy, many big name republicans lined up behind Hoffman. The final result is that a democrat ultimately won the race. Sure there were twists and turns in the race (Dede dropping out....and then endorsing the democrat), but the democrat still won. Bad result? Would the country be better off with an obvious opportunist like Dede Scozzafava in congress? Would that advance our liberty strategy? I think not. In 2012 there will be a real primary and a liberty candidate will have a chance to win. Had Dede won she'd be an incumbent and there would be all kinds of pressure against liberty candidates NOT to run against her in the primaries for fear of "splitting the primary". Now that primary will be wide open.
Now some might be thinking "The Scott Brown case is different because the house doesn't hang on one vote but legislation in the senate could". To that I agree. I also agree that it's at least as important to "send a message" to Obama and the MSM that he didn't get a mandate for universal healthcare in 2008 just like it was important to send a message to the GOP in 2008 that we no longer support these wars. (Unfortunately it seems that message fell on deaf ears.) The problem is when precious resources are diverted to candidates that don't really support limited government (Scott Brown "moneybombs") or when some of us try to browbeat others of us who decide to stick with principles (a vote for Kennedy is a vote for deathcare). A wiser choice is everybody to look at the individual races and decide what's best for them. After all if Sarah Palin can support a 3rd party candidate against a republican.....