Donald Trump’s Strategy Against The Clintons Isn’t Terrible
It’s not a terrible strategy. Will it produces good results? Maybe. Some, at least. Is it a winning strategy? Who knows?Read More »
2010 is shaping up to be the best congressional election year for Republicans and conservatives since the Republican Revolution of 1994. However, an emerging trend is becoming more and more prevalent in republican primaries across the nation. The conservative vote is being split, thus leaving way for squishy moderates to win the primary. Conservatives have recently seen this fate come true in Indiana in which the conservative vote was split between two candidates. Other races such as the California Senate race and the New Hampshire Senate are subject to such a conservative split, that will enable an unelectable or unacceptable candidate to win the race.
In California Tom Campbell is poised to win the primary as conservatives spar over Devore and Fiorina. Campbell is flying completely under the radar while the other two only increase the negatives of one another. Now, normally I would be alright with a moderate winning in a state like California, considering the strong liberal tilt of the state. However, nominating a moderate only is appropriate when that moderate is considerably more electable than the conservative and it is a race in a blue state. This is not the case in California. Republicans need to realize that Tom Campbell has run for Senate twice, and has done very poorly. He is a liberal republican, more so than a moderate republican and has proven to be unelectable. Therefore, it is up to Conservatives to decide between Carly and Chuck, or else we will be playing Russian Roulette with a proven loser for the third time. Personally, I would go with Chuck because he is a fresh young conservative who has a record of reform, and is not subject to the vicious attacks about his business dealings that will come if Carly is the nominee.
Although it is not receiving much attention, the New Hampshire Senate race is in jeopardy for conservatives. The candidate who is surging in the polls as of now is Bill Binnie. Bill Binnie has donated to Democratic candidates on multiple occasions, is against the Arizona immigration law, is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage/rights. I appreciate the anti-establishment sentiment of many conservatives and share that same sentiment. But it is essential to the viability of conservative and republican chances of taking over both houses of Congress, that we challenge a candidate based upon their conservative credentials, and not just because they might be the establishment favorite. Attorney General Kelly Ayotte seems to be a strong conservative who is also waxing the floor with Paul Hodes in general election polls. Her positions on the issues are pretty down the line conservative; and although she said she would have supported Sotomayor, so did Pat Toomey who is an undoubtedly conservative candidate. She has a record as Attorney General of being a law and order, no nonsense conservative prosecutor. She seems to put principles above politics and her principles are conservative. Ovide Lamontagne who is the other conservative in the race, is a good man, but an opportunist non-the-less. He got crushed by 15 points in his two statewide runs for office in 94 and 96. We could be stuck with Bill Binnie if we decide to turn a blind eye to Ayotte for the reason that she is a “establishment” favorite. The arguement for Kelly Ayotte, very much could be similar to that for Rubio or Paul. A young fresh face who is conservative and has a record of being a fighter and a reformer.
Overall, we as Redstaters and conservatives must understand that we need to coalesce around the candidate that is conservative, tough and viable. Devore and Ayotte are two that can carry the conservative mantle for us in the primaries and then win in the general.