For example, leaving aside Les Otten’s poorly reasoned response letter, your initial comment was that his contributions to Dems (the rationale behind which had, to that point, not been explored) further damaged his standing with conservatives, and that the right’s negative response was understandable.

Now your contention is that Poliquin’s service on NRCM’s board or Jacobson’s presence at what amounted to an anti-TABOR rally deserves further examination before ruffling anyone’s feathers. Aren’t you just noting a different degree of the exact same offence?

I am 115% in agreement with your contention that conservatives, and specifically Republicans, as a whole need to become a bit more tempered in their dialogue and outreach if the party, or movement, or whatever, is to have any future relevance.

But I disagree that criticizing these blog posters for their comments is the way to go about it. I believe that not only are their criticisms completely valid given their own proclivities (as was your calling out of Otten), but that their “fundamentalist” viewpoint is one of the key anchors that continues to cement the party platform to its base values.

Bottom line is, these folks’ vitriol didn’t keep Jacobson from dialoguing with MSEA, Poliquin from serving on the board of an environmental advocacy group, or Mills from injecting his voice into the health care debate. And it shouldn’t. These candidates recognize that leadership doesn’t just involve toeing the line, but that representing and then growing the party means engaging in healthy, democratic debate with those who disagree, possibly even bringing on board (gulp) moderates.

But should every pajama-wearing blog commenter get on board the love train? I don’t think so. And you needn’t worry. If it’s Jacobson and Steve Rowe in 2010, who do you think they’ll support?

For example:

Poliquin was on the Board of the Natural Resources Council. That is a far left group. He needs to explain his tenure there. Did he try to move the group to the center? Did he disagree with the group’s agenda on any key issues when he was on the Board? Would he be willing to release Board minutes from when her served? His role with NRCM does not disqualify him for me, but he needs to explain it. If Brownie Carson is going to head DEP in a Poliquin administration, Republicans would want to know that.

The MSEA is the enemy, in my book. They help fund the Democrats’ campaigns and provide them key campaign workers. Jacobsen attending their convention is like Obama saying he would meet with North Korea and Iraq. He needed to expect criticism and be prepared to respond to it.

As for Mills appearing at the health care rally. He has a long track record of carrying water for the left. His appearance fits a pattern. Though what he said was unobjectionable, by appearing, he sent the message that he supported the agenda of the sponsors of the rally.

Kos may not have “formally” endorsed her, but his exact words on Oct. 1 were ” …So it’s official, I’m rooting for the Republican to win.” He also called her the most liberal person in the race. Maybe he didn’t “love” her, but come on, that is hardly a mischaracterization.

Guilt by association is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOT different when you talk about a candidate simply speaking to a group of people, and somebody actually being the NOMINEE of a political party. I wouldn’t have any trouble attacking a GOP candidate had he or she previously been the standard bearer of the Green Party, or the Democrats, and is now a Republican without changing any of his or her positions.

And yes, just like Mike Huckabee. I hate Mike Huckabee – he is one of the 5 Republicans I hate the most. He’s not a conservative, he is a thin skinned, oversensitive bible thumping hypocrite who couldn’t give two shits about limited government.

But anyway, I’m not going to keep going round and round on Scozzafava.

The point of this article was that if conservatives are going to attack a candidate like that, it needs to actually have some substance to it. Scozzafava has a repeated history of associations and political positions that are contrary to what the party stands for – and not just a little bit… quite a lot.

None of the GOP candidates in the race (except Otten) have any similar history… so to go apeshit about them is misplaced, premature, and counterproductive.

We’ll see how that election turns out on Tuesday.

* “Previously ran on the “Working Families Party” ticket in the past”

So you believe in guilt by association in New York, but not in Maine?

* “Supports tax increases”

Just like Mike Huckabee, you mean?

* “Vocally supports the stimulus”

Like Susan & Olympia, you mean?

Did Scozzafava ever give money to liberal Democrats? Because if not she’s better than some Maine gubernatorial candidates.

Do I think there are lines that can’t be crossed? Do I think some Republicans – heck, a lot of Republicans – deserve scorn, deserve to be labeled turncoats, and deserve to have the ire of the conservative, activist base thrown at them? Yes. Yes I do. Just as an example, I was a rather vocal anti-Scozzafava voice for the New York 23rd congressional district special election. She was not only too left on the issues, she was quite literally in bed with the other side too much to be trusted, even if she was right on the issues. She deserved it.

But just because she deserved it for supporting the stimulus, being in favor of card-check, and being endorsed by the SEIU (I could go on, there is a lot more than just that) does not mean that having a conversation with an opposition group equates to a mortal political sin.

—

The point of the article wasn’t that we should never reject a Republican politician for sins against the movement – it was that being so paranoid and absolutist that you go ape over a candidate even APPEARING in “enemy territory” – even if that candidate goes there with a message that is consistent with a conservative ideology, is insane and stupid.

Scozzafava didn’t just pop in to some place she shouldn’t have and say she wants to cut taxes… in no particular order she:

-Was endorsed by Daily Kos because she was “the most liberal candidate in the race”

-Previously ran on the “Working Families Party” ticket in the past. Go look them up.

-Supports tax increases

-Vocally supports the stimulus

-Vocally supports card check

-Is liberal on any number of other issues I could list, but don’t need to

-Has been endorsed by the SEIU in the past

I could keep going on, but my point is made. She DESERVED the scorn of activists.

It isn’t a hard concept – it is an appeal for a little rationality and reason. We need to stop savaging anyone who does ONE thing that could be construed as bad, especially without even going in and looking to see if it actually WAS bad. If that’s how we want to operate, this party will be dead, and dead quickly.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t get to a point where we SHOULD go after a candidate for betraying the movement. Its just that the point where that happens needs to be based in REALITY, FACTS, and PATTERNS… as is the case with Scozzafava.

The over-reactions I’ve been seeing in the MEGOV race have been based on none of that.

I have to agree with you 100%. If you deviant from the party lines you might as well be burned at the stake. For someone goes off the reservation often it can make political discussions difficult. It ain’t easy being a moderate. I talked to Jacobson about speaking at the SEIU meeting. His reason made perfect sense to me. They invited him for one. Also, I’m paraphrasing, but he said basically that he’d rather work with a group to reach equitable outcomes than always be butting heads and going nowhere. Again I’m paraphrasing so I might be reading into what he told me, but that is the kind of attitude we need in government. One shouldn’t always compromise their principles, but to get things done sometimes we have to meet halfway.