In this editorial, Ann, who is a skilled and insightful writer, is making two errors and one oversight in my opinion.
First, she is signalling to McDaniels that, if he takes his lumps in this instance, the GOPe will pay him back with a later appointment or support in a later election. That assumes the GOPe will retain its iron grip on power, an error if one observes the weakness of the GOPe and its trajectory of decline due to a vanishing strategy and misunderstanding of what motivates voters. Ann also leaves out the influence of the Dem party, which, increasingly dominates the boundaries of what the GOPe can do. The GOPe is largely under the direction of the Dem party.
A second error that Ann makes regards election integrity. If the election is driven by illegality, it delegitimizes Cochran and Cochran will be less effectual in office than he would be otherwise. It could subordinate Cochran to others’ control and would be an issue thrown at R candidates in upcoming elections, weakening R influence going forward. It also severely damages public confidence in the integrity of elections, with broad and severe implications for the nation—not a minor political squabble.
The oversight regards the need for dissent and challenge WITHIN a party if that party is going to work hard, improve, and maintain awareness of the voting public. A party that is run by a core of elite power brokers and their few large donors will become out-of-touch with voters and serve only their own narrow self-interests. Such a party fades and is vulnerable to external challenge. A viable party must challenge itself to be vibrant and successful.
Just my 2 cents.
I think Ann has made a business decision to appeal to GOPe, thinking it's a larger market for her books. She may be right, but her books, which are usually compilations of past columns, do not broadly appeal to the generic GOPe supporter.
Up until 2012, I usually bought one (or more) of Ann's books to give to my wife. Not anymore.
Excellent analysis. If Chris “took his lumps” for future favors from the gop-e he wouldn’t be any better than them, which he is. Ann doesn’t seem to have much use for character or loyalty unless it’s blind loyalty to the rino establishment she embraces. Ann’s a conservative in name only, cino, look at her endorsements.
Interesting analysis, but it sounds like you're assuming there's some great gap between GOPe and Tea Party. In practice, though, political divisions have a way of healing if they aren't picked at. I don't think she's saying that the GOPe will reward McDaniel for turning his back on the fight, but rather that the party, more united further down the road, will look with more favor on McDaniel if he helps to patch things up, rather than them worse. Ann is betting that two years or four years from now, a reputation as a "sore loser" will be remembered while Republicans may not even remember other aspects of the election. That's anathema to a lot of people today, but it remains to be seen whether or not it's true.
A second error that Ann makes regards election integrity. If the election is driven by illegality, it delegitimizes Cochran and Cochran will be less effectual in office than he would be otherwise. It could subordinate Cochran to others’ control and would be an issue thrown at R candidates in upcoming elections, weakening R influence going forward.
She doesn't think there was sufficient corruption to overturn the result. I don't think she'd write as she does if she thought corruption was as bad as some people think it was. I don't know if that assumption is correct, but Coulter's advice to McDaniel is what a lot of politicians would say: if a recount won't actually affect the actual result of the election, it's best to move on.