I noticed conservative blogger John Smithson wrote a little something today about the primary wins by right-wing fringe candidates (and tea party favorites) Kelly Ayotte and Christine O'Donnell that caught my eye - he makes the statement that the time has come to focus on principles, not electability. I totally agree with Smithson on this matter and believe it is important to vote for a candidate who has principles - I have found myself voting for candidates that share my beliefs despite the fact that they were destined for failure because they were principled. I do deviate with Smithson, though - I believe that the majority should not be subjugated by the will of the minority.
Smithson wrote that "if there was ever a time when 'electability' need not be the primary consideration, it was this year." He then goes on to hypothesize about a tea party victory in the general election and if those candidates govern responsibly, but my problem is if you look at the "electability" of these candidates, especially the tea party candidates, they fair worse then the moderate republicans - just look at public opinion of Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, and Kelly Ayotte - while they may have won in their primaries, the entire electorate have a rather negative view of these candidates.
Understanding that, why should these individuals be elected if only a small percentage of the population agree with them?
Why should a majority of the population trust in these people to govern in their best interests, after all, the tea party candidates show zero interest in representing those who do not vote for them in the general election?
Check out the newest article on Palingates regarding Christine O'Donnell, which also includes some fun videos from O'Donnell's past including her 1990's MTV anti-masturbation campaign...