As to the broader point, whenever there's an ACTUAL "moderate" Republican running against a liberal Democrat, I almost always support the moderate Republican if they have a decent chance of winning. A real moderate Republican is someone who is not as conservative as I am, but is clearly to the right of the Democrat. Usually a squishy type who votes conservative somewhere around 60-75% of the time. For example I strongly supported Norm Coleman for Senate, Mike DeWine for Senate, (not to mention McCain for President) and other such moderates.
On the other hand, I will NOT support a LIBERAL Republican running against an equally liberal Democrat. Norm Coleman is a MODERATE Republican, and there's clear differences between him and the Dem -- I can name at least a dozen issues where he was on the opposite side of the Dem. Mark Kirk is a LIBERAL Republican, and during his very first campaign for Congress he simply agreed with his RAT opponent on every major issue. Check the transcripts of the 2000 Kirk-Gash debate if you don't believe me -- they gave up trying to find an actual issue to "debate" and finally decided to argue over who had better roots in the district. Many of Kirk's views are far-left fringe beliefs that no "moderate" or "middle of the road" person would be caught dead supporting. For example Kirk got a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, even supporting partial birth abortion and opposing parental notification for minors going across state lines for abortion. The media falsely claims Kirk is a "social moderate". I have yet to meet any "moderate" voters -- even mildly pro-choice ones -- who justify third trimester infanticide like Kirk. I refuse to believe he "has" to take those positions to win over "middle of the road" voters. A real "social moderate" on abortion would vote with Planned Parenthood 50% of the time, not 100%
So in the case of liberal vs. liberal, no, I'm not going to vote for one of the liberals simply because they have an "R" next to their name on the ballot, sorry. At least the Dem is being honest about their agenda. Kirk can wear a "Republican" label just like I can stamp the word "meat product" on a bundle of carrots, that doesn't make it true. Between the bundle of carrots labeled "vegetable" and the one labeled "meat", it's clear which one is being presently truthfully to the public.
If you disagree, can you tell me what advantage we gained from having people like Jeffords, Chafee, and Specter in the Senate? Everytime the Senate was divided 50-50 and we "needed" those "Republicans", they'd cast their lot with the Dems. Chafee was replaced with a Democrat in 2006, did anyone notice a difference in Rhode Island's votes? No, because the Dem agreed with Chafee on every issue.
As to Dr. Eric Wallace, glad you like the website. Certainly he's not a top-tier candidate, but I certainly think he'd at least be a credible opponent against a Democrat in November, and his credentials for the job are far better than the "electable" RINO hack the state party put up last time in Illinois (clueless family phyiscian Steve Sauerberg, who got steamrolled by Dick Durbin). His fund-raising is going well, and he's bringing in some big names nationally in the coming months -- Ken Blackwell and Herman Cain -- to stump for him. But the primary will be Feb. so it's a long way off. As to how he's polling in hypothetical match-ups, I wish I knew, but see the liberal media here has a love affair with Kirk and ignores any other Republican who runs for the Senate. They'd have us believe Kirk is the only Republican in the race. He's second only to Obama in fawning coverage from the Illinois media.
Heh. We were writing our responses simultaneously... ;-)
I used Campbell simply as an example, I know he’s running for Gov, but you get my point. As to Jeffords Chafee and Specter I’ll say the following:
1) Jeffords: true moderate/liberal who was one of the last “Yankee Repubs” along with John Chafee to serve in the Senate. I disagreed with most of his positions (he was a very vocal pro choice advocate and I am pro life, he voted against Clarence Thomas’ confirmation and he supported Hillarycare), but I do appreciate his votes for Bush’s tax cuts.
2) Lincoln Chafee: don’t care for him, I never would have voted for him, he should have followed his beliefs and quit the Repub Party and joined the dems.
3) Specter: the dem turned Repub turned dem. I could write a book on why I would never and will never support him. But suffice it to say that we Repubs should have known long ago that if he left the dem party purely for electoral reasons then there was always the possibility he would switch back if necessary to further his personal ambitions.
On Kirk: I didn’t know he supported partial birth abortions. I cannot support that. I also didn’t know about his relationship with the press, it’s scary when the MSM fawns over a Repub.
On Wallace: I wish him well, I’ll follow him in the news.