This thorough analysis by Scott McKay of the Hayride regarding the differences between the Cochran/McDaniels race and the Cassidy/ Maness race is certainly valid in every respect it addressed. However I think that there are at least two valid analogies to be made between the races. First is the obvious contrast in the degree of conservative idealogy represented by each set of candidates. Even with a respectable 92% ACU rating Mr. Cassidy has compromised conservative ideals for pragmatic political concerns on a few benchmark issues. In fairness Mr. Cassidy is at a disadvantage in this respect because he has a record forged from real life political interaction. Mr. Maness has not been tested under the same pressures however his avowed idealogical stands are certainly more in line with the conservative faction of the party and the Tea Party movement. The contrast in idealogy is not as great as that of Cochran in Ms. who scores a low 60% ACU rating and McDaniel but there is a clear idealogical divide that is somewhat analogous even if the establishment vs outsider analogy is iffy. Then there is, in my opinion, the far more weighty issue of doing that which is necessary to win elections at the expense of idealogy. I have read on this page eloquent defense of compromising on some issues in order to win or hold office. They usually state that the value of Republicans holding office exceeds the value of idealogical purity. I contend that this belief perches on a slippery slope. How far should we compromise idealogy to win or get along? Would not a Republican who held 10% traditional conservative values and stances trump a Democrat who held none? What is the point that idealogical diffusion is too great? This brings me to the Mississippi Cochran/McDaniel race. If Cochran felt that McDaniels views, right or wrong, would result in a loss of the seat to the Grand Old Party or a loss of accrued DC influence then was he simply not making a compromise that violated party ethics in order to have the compromised seat in the hand over the purist seat in the bush, so to speak. At what point is winning more important than idealogy? Despite all my ramblings I lean towards Cassidy but this Mississippi travesty has given me reason to wonder. thehayride/2014/06/cassidy-is-not-cochran-maness-is-not-mcdaniel-and-landrieu-is-not-childers/
Posted on: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:21:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015