As I have been listening to the news and dialog surrounding the three special elections today, a certain aspect of the conversation has grabbed my attention. In the vein of being open about this I am a conservative independent from NH and have a tendancy to side with the republican party candidates over the democratic party candidates simply on the idea of fiscal responsibility--but I do not like either party themselves. The conversation I was speaking of was tht of the republican party needing a big tent vs. having a very small polarizing view of what a candidate needs to believe. This seems to be primarily stemming from the NY 23 congressional district election in which Scozzafava (R) dropped out of the race for falling behind in the race. Hoffman the third party candidate seems to have momentum and may win.
People are painting this as a situation where the republican party is purging the moderates, which seems silly and foolish, but upon closer inspection it is more that the particular candidate was very liberal, not very moderate. So to say the party is purging itself does not seem accurate, I love to see it anytime people vote for principle over party.
If the republican party wants to have success it needs to have a big tent, which means being able to allow people the freedom to believe what they feel is right and not have such a narrow political platform. The idea of a party makes sense, a sort of union for candidates, but also needs to back off (this applies to both parties) telling what each candidate should believe in, have a few basic beliefs and say that if you believe in X, Y, Z, you can fit into our party.
If the party has too extensive a platform, you will innevitably have politicians lying (gasp) and saying they believe these things to attract the support they need to get in power, then they will proceed to be themselves and pick and choose which part of the platform they really do believe in.
I will likely edit this early morning rant down a bit later,
the Granite Independent