


![]() |
From the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee blog: (OCPAC)
If the Republican primary voters select a liberal Republican like Dr. Doug Cox (R-Grove) or Shane Jett (R-Tecumseh) then the November election comes down to the lesser of two liberals. With the 2 mentioned above, a conservative Democrat may well govern better than either of these Republicans. In that case, what good is it to elect a Republican if you have a strong numerical majority in the legislature?
So how does a voter determine who is the more conservative candidate in a primary race? I would suggest it is not the positive “pink, puff and piffle” found in most campaign literature and political commercials? It is not the warm, fuzzy pictures of the kids, the over used “faith and family values” slogans, or the biggest campaign abuse of all is the use of the word “conservative.” Often times that word is used by candidates who don’t even know the meaning of the word.
In reality the most important information to evaluate a candidate is what is commonly called “negative campaigning” or “mud slinging.” In reality, the purpose of a political campaign is to understand the distinctions between the candidates. Unless it is pre-emptive, candidates will not tell anyone the information about themselves they don’t want the voters to know. That is the job of their opponents. Of course that goes both ways.
Here is where is gets touchy. What is the difference between important information that really defines the difference between candidates verses the lies, old information which no longer represents the position of a candidate, or irrelevant information which is meaningless to the person or how they will govern? Read more…
Related:
Batesline: 2008 primary picks
Leave a comment