Good vs. Perfect for Governor of Colorado
Jim Hoft’s Tea Party 2.0 post today makes an excellent point that applies to the Colorado governor’s race.
Another sure path to failure: making the perfect the enemy of the good. This election cycle is very similar to triage in an army field hospital on the battlefield. If you’ve got one man shot in the arm, another shot in the chest and only one doctor, some quick, decisive decisions must be made if both men are to survive. The doctor must attend to the chest wound first because it’s the most serious.
In a similar way, we need to stop the bleeding with this election cycle. This cycle, we don’t necessarily need anything fancy, just a candidate that can beat the Socialist candidate. If you’re going to hammer a nail into a piece of wood, you don’t necessarily need a gold plated hammer: you just need something that will get the nail into the wood. In some races, our favorite or best ideological candidate might not win the primary. But if the candidate that does win has a better shot at defeating the Socialist candidate come November, we can at least stop the bleeding. Later on, once we’re in a position of power, we can worry about improving the quality of the candidates.
In Colorado’s gubernatorial race, many conservatives have lost sight of the goal; myself included. The goal is to beat John Hickenlooper and keep him and his socialist policies out of office. Scott McInnis is going to win the Republican primary in a couple of weeks and face Hickenlooper and Tom Tancredo in the general election. Unless Conservatives rally around one candidate, Hickenlooper is going to win. Neither candidate will be able to win without the base.
The problem, though, are the independents in the middle. Tacredo has built a reputation is a radical on immigration and is perceived as a radical in general. That will hurt him despite the Denver Post/9 News poll that showed 61 percent of Coloradans supporting Arizona-style immigration laws. I think too many voters will see him as too radical. Straight up, I don’t think Tancredo will be able to beat Hickenlooper.
That brings us back to McInnis. He is the perfect definition of a good but not perfect candidate. Will the plagiarism scandal hurt McInnis? Yes, but not as much as the Democrats hope or Republicans fear. Unfortunately, it cuts the margin McInnis has to work with and Tancredo will eat into the rest.
Don Johnson has posted several times on PPC that supporting McInnis is tantamount to supporting the same corrupt politicians that we’re trying to throw out. While agree to some extent, I would rather have McInnis in the Governor’s Mansion come January otherwise any gains Conservatives make in the Assembly will be moot. Hickenlooper will veto any real Conservative reforms that the Assembly tries to make. It’s not about party. It’s about getting (and keeping) the Statists out of power.
So, here’s the deal. Let’s focus on keeping Hickenlooper out. If Tancredo had any hope of pulling in enough moderates to do that, I’d say support him of McInnis. Since that’s not the case with Tancredo and is with McInnis, I suggest that we work to get McInnis elected in November with an eye to replacing him with a better candidate in four years. As Hoft says, “Once we stop the bleeding, we can then focus on improving the quality of our stock of candidates. This election cycle is too important to let slip away because we’re not willing to prioritize victory.”
(Originally posted at PerlStalker’s Ramblings)