Politicians need to stick to their original platforms
Walk like a leftist? Talk like a leftist? Vote like a leftist? Call yourself “moderate”? Have an R after your name?
Well son, you just might have the backing of the GOP establishment!
The concept that the GOP should run and support Republicans In Name Only at election time is ridiculous. This of course is why those in support of the practice usually get the literary equivalent of a full-broadside from an Iowa Class battleship from real conservatives.
The “establishment” types like to defend the position by citing the Buckley Rule, which is essentially, “Always support the most conservative candidate who is electable.”
It basically states that someone who votes conservatively some ridiculously low percentage of the time is better than a “hardcore liberal.” This is so that “at least some of the liberal bills can be defeated.”
It has also been stated by our very own Nathan Inks that certain areas of the country require these “moderates” to be nominated in order to win one for the big ol’ R.
Certainly no candidate is going to hold 100 percentage of our views, but to support someone who is batting just over .500 is pathetic. Even more so when said candidate is horrendously wrong on issues that should be core to the philosophy of the party.
Mike Castle, RINO-of-choice in the Delaware senate Republican primary, voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, and the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This is who the GOP establishment wanted to win a United States Senate race?
Even if a legitimately conservative candidate gets nominated and ends up losing a race because a district might be “moderate,” it shouldn’t be considered a loss.
What would real Republicans rather have: An actual Democrat winning, only to screw things up and make their party look bad? Or would they prefer a Democrat-in-Republican-clothing like Castle to win and make the party smell like the Arlen Specter’s decomposing political career by doing the exact same thing?
If the point of a political party is to have members possessing roughly the same political principals, why would anyone think it’s a good idea to sacrifice those principals in order to get some perverted sense of a short term gain?
It’s time to pour the Democrat-lite down the drain.
