Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you.
Charles Krauthammer on Special Report last night:
Charles Krauthammer: The Palin endorsement, I think, is disruptive and capricious. Bill Buckley had a rule that he always supported the most conservative candidate who was electable; otherwise the vote is simply self-indulgence.
Baier: Now Jim DeMint, from South Carolina, also endorsed Christine O'Donnell:
Krauthammer: equally capricious and irresponsible. I'm not sexist on this. It's a big mistake....
Meanwhile, the boss tells CNN: "I know Sarah Palin. I respect Sarah Palin. And, with all due respect--Christine O'Donnell is no Sarah Palin."
And here's Rich Lowry on when conservatives should take a chance on nominating a conservative who might have a difficult time winning:
There are obviously circumstances when conservatives should back a candidate who will be a relative long-shot. Pat Toomey in 2004 is a great example. Specter clearly had a better chance in the general, but Toomey was worth the risk, not just because Specter was so awful, but because Toomey himself was such an exemplary conservative politician. He would have been–he still is–a walking advertisement for conservatism: reasonable, serious, upstanding, deeply grounded. You could imagine Toomey changing the political landscape because he has the ability to persuade. O’Donnell will be the anti-Toomey, a conservative standard-bearer who could have been selected by a group of hostile people out to create an unflatteringimpression of us. To compare O’Donnell to Sharron Angle is an insult to Angle, who has her rough edges as a candidate but whose personal integrity is beyond reproach. What many O’Donnell supporters are implicitly arguing is that there can be no standards in evaluating candidates beyond an ideological litmus test–a deeply unconservative sentiment.