Saturday, February 13, 2010

Anti-Establishment Conservatism will hurt our cause.

Tea Partiers have been around for just twelve months, but their political impact has been felt across the political scene, as Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell defeated two Obama supported candidates in two states Obama carried in 2008, tax proposals were devoured in California last spring and health care legislation has stalled, due to Tea Partiers unrelenting defense of freedom.

Let us not forget about Massachusetts; where over a million voters delivered a political shot heard around in the world, especially fiscal conservative Americans who are sick and tired of government waste in Washington.

With the congressional elections just nine months from now, several political narratives have been developed amongst Conservative bloggers, activists and politicians in relation to Republican primaries and our Republican candidates heading into November. Most of these narratives have been correct to a point, but one has ticked me off - the assumed evil of Establishment candidates.

When the average political junkie is considering a "establishment candidate", he will think of "Dede" Scozzafava, Mark Kirk and candidates who tend to lean leftward in their political beliefs, but I have a feeling some are biased in their understanding of these "establishment candidates" instead of understanding the political reasoning.

Our Republican counterparts who are involved in the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee are focused on electing Republicans first and foremost, not pandering to political interests.

Those involved in the above mentioned Republican organizations are looking for candidates that can win in a particular region, not for candidates that will appeal to 45 percent of the electorate and lose, however, our friends at the above mentioned Republican organizations are also wrong on occasion, which is a good reason we have primaries.

We cannot base our support for or against Republican candidates on their political endorsement from the Republican Establishment, because that idiotic process will weaken a coalition that should work together when a candidate is selected, instead we should agree to disagree during the primaries, in which ideologies and opinions will be on the ballot. Not anti-establishment ill will.

What about Congressman Castle of Delaware? He is a Moderate Republican who has voted with our Republican caucus close to 90% of the time, despite his liberal viewpoints on social issues. Congressman Castle can capture Delaware for Senate Republicans, the seat Vice-President Biden held for decades or should we support a Republican who is more Conservative, but cannot win?

In conclusion, could we agree to agree on one thing - Candidates should not be opposed or supported on a basis of "establishment support", but on who has the greatest chance of achieving electoral and political success.

Bookmark our site!
Subscribe


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

This line of thinking has led to the last straw and formed the TeaParty.
The fact that a noboby can strongly oppose a political selection...ieNY23 against both established DC pols should cause concern amoung the elected of the precarious support they have.
Consider the Kommiecrat numbers in both house who are stopped cold by 4 elections.
No vote for the ulitmate good of the coutry and if in doubt, vote out the incumbent and then the DC selection...

Albany Lawyer said...

The NRCC et al are focused on reelecting incumbent Republicans (themselves) first and foremost. Everything else is secondary.

Mr. K lives in a fantasyland. Or maybe Mr. K stands for K Street, where he works or hopes to work someday.