This goes back to growing tired of the pragmatism versus principle argument that is going on throughout the Republican party, spurred in large part by the election of Obama and more recently by the nomination of Dede Scozzafava in NY-23. For far too long, the citizenry of this country has sat upon the sidelines taking no real action in supporting a candidate of any sort. And as a result when the primary comes along, the candidate we'd prefer (i.e. Tom McClintock for Governor, 2001; Fred Thompson for President, 2008; etc.) loses to a candidate that has larger name recognition or a prettier smile. We sit back and pontificate amongst ourselves on why these conservative candidates are the only acceptable choice for the office they seek and then sit back on our laurels as a much more moderate and distasteful candidate handily wins the primary. Once the primaries are over, then we watch this milquetoast candidate go on to run against the candidate from the other party, and then hold our noses as we enter the voting booth and publicly state that we've just voted for the lesser of two evils. Are you catching my drift here? We are to blame for 'middle of the road' candidates, and the RINO plague that currently infests the Republican party.
Now specifically as to Ms. Whitman... My principles would never allow me to support Barbara Boxer for Senate, ever. However, the last time that Boxer was up for re-election, Ms. Whitman publicly supported Boxer, and maxed out on donations to the Boxer for Senate campaign. (Also supported by Meg Whitman are moderate icons Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins as well as Democrats John Kerry and Mike Honda.) There are few in the Senate who in my opinion are more liberal than Mrs. Boxer, and yet Ms. Whitman not only publicly supported Boxer, but also donated money to her, snubbing Republican Bill Jones in his bid for the Senate seat. I would be interested to know what has changed about Mrs. Boxer, and Ms. Whitman in the last 5-6 years that would allow Ms. Whitman to support Carly Fiorina or Chuck Devore against Boxer as a Republican candidate would have to do in order to secure the Republican nomination. In addition, Ms. Whitman seems to be pleased with the job that self-proclaimed 'Radical Communist' Van Jones was doing, as recently as May 2009. If you'll recall Van Jones was President Obama's Green Jobs Czar and an admitted 9/11 truther. What business does a 'darned good' conservative Republican have supporting an avowed communist and 9/11 truther who is in the Obama Administration?! I have yet to hear Meg Whitman explicitly denounce the Stimulus package which has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. Ms. Whitman seems to have a hard time showing up to complete her civic duty. She was not registered to vote until 2002 and since that time, no voting records can be found in any of the counties or precincts she has inhabited. Recently, Ms. Whitman has also made some 'pro-amnesty' comments in interviews, all of which make my skin crawl.
Ms. Whitman may indeed be a Republican, but she, should she get elected, is going to be the type of Republican than is difficult to distinguish from a Democrat and that is one of the factors contributing to the Grand Old Party's current wander in the wilderness.
I refuse to continue to elect RINO's and then spend 2, 4 or 6 years complaining about the direction of the country. Ms. Whitman will not receive my vote, because she has not earned it, period.
Please take the time to comment!