Conservative Purists Trying to Snatch Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

This seems to happen more frequently these days. A Republican comes along who seems to have a chance to knock off a liberal Democrat, but because the Republican doesn't check off every box on the purist conservative checklist, he or she must be opposed and a third party conservative supported, thus helping the liberal win.

Such a situation is underway in the Massachusetts Senate race. Jim Geraghty has the details on some Tea Party activists who are trying to push support for the third party independent instead of Scott Brown because Brown didn't vote their way EVERY SINGLE TIME. Geraghty adds this analysis:

So, just to review... we've got a Republican who is a member of the National Guard for 30 years and a practing attorney — how that translates to "career politician" is beyond me — who is actually within striking distance of winning Ted Kennedy's seat. He would be the vote that restores the filibuster; Democrats are openly talking about his election meaning the end of ObamaCare; with it would probably go cap-and-trade, Card Check, perhaps amnesty, the continuance of bailout nation, raising the debt limits, and so on. It would be the biggest psychological blow to big-government liberalism since the 1994 Republican Revolution, and probably trigger another slew of Democratic congressional retirements.

But he didn't vote the right way every time, and so now we're going to throw away the political upset of the century, an allow Martha Coakley to win with a plurality, because the third-party option polling in the single digits checks all the boxes on the checklist.

I don't think that Joe Kennedy, the independent, is going to get enough votes to be a factor in the race. But if he does - and if conservatives voting for him over issues like this make the difference and put Coakley in the seat... well, at a certain point, you begin to wonder if your political movement has enough strategic sense to be worth participating in, or whether it's all a waste of time.

Exactly. "Pyhrric victories" are still losses, and helping a liberal win through a purist test is foolish.