Friday, January 15, 2010
- those that support Coleman (rare in the blogosphere, though I have heard it from activists here);
- those that argue the candidate they like is better than Coleman, even though they like Coleman and would be willing to support him if their preferred candidate exited the race;
- those that think Coleman cannot win;
- those that think it bad or wrong that Coleman would join the race at this time, that it's disruptive or somehow harmful to GOP aspirations;
- those that dislike Coleman and have for a long time because he isn't "conservative enough" for their tastes.
But the penultimate group bothers me as well because while the writer can certainly "see through Coleman" she or he does not trust the others at the state party convention to do so as well, thus losing the endorsement. (Let me add that I fully expect if Coleman asked for the endorsement and failed to get it, he would not run in the primary. I would be the first to voice disappointment if he did challenge the endorsed candidate in the primary. The other party does that; Republicans don't.)
There is a process by which one gets the endorsement. Whatever happened to "let the best man win?" Why would it produce a candidate that cannot win? If it would, then it's the process that has the problem, not the candidate. Any party member in good standing has the right to seek the endorsement and, after all his troubles last year, Sen. Coleman should have that right as much as any other GOPer.
Either trust the process or fix it. Don't use disrespect and bile to cover your lack of faith in your fellow party members to pick the best candidate.