Monday, October 15, 2007

A Trip Down Blogger Memory Lane For Mark Souder Supporters

Dan Turkette has an excellent post up about Mark Souder's abandonment of Matt Kelty over the cake fiasco. There's one specific part I wanted to highlight because it relates to something I wrote prior to the 2006 election but the whole thing is definitely worth reading:
Souder surely is only “disturbed” by the Allen County GOP regulars’ threat to abandon him in the next election if he continued to support Kelty for mayor. The cake was the break he needed to part, and judgment is always just a subjective enough reason to appear plausible. Souder is going to need their money to get elected next year, so why risk that for a guy you didn’t support to begin with. Easy call. If Mark Souder is willing to trade principles (like innocent until proven guilty), loyalty (his lengthy collegial and personal relationship with Kelty), and unity (Party unity) for campaign cash and power, what else is he willing trade?

I supported Souder in his run against Hayhurst last year. That won’t be happening again in 2008.

After reading this I couldn't help but remember my plea to conservatives to abandon Souder in favor of Tom Hayhurst. The premise of my argument was that Souder is a poor representative for this district but the structure of party politics don't allow for significant primary challengers. Since the Democrats were clearly going to take over the House anyway, voters could've elected Hayhurst - if only for two years - and gotten new Republican representation. I stand by this argument and think it's even more valid today than ever before. I've copied the original post below for those that are new to the blogosphere or might've missed it the first time around:
First off, let me start by saying Mark Souder is no conservative. In fact the case against Souder has been made so many times and is so obvious I won't even bother repeating it - instead, I will simply stipulate it.

However, I understand that a broader picture must be taken into account when choosing between two candidates. I'm sure it's extremely difficult for many conservatives to vote for Souder but the alternative is to support the Democratic party and that has just been out of the question. In a sense, Mark Souder is right when he says "a vote for Tom Hayhurst is a vote for Nancy Pelosi". Sometimes you HAVE to vote for a candidate because you believe in the party and its platform - even if you don't agree with the local candidate.

However, this logic breaks down when the national race isn't in doubt. If casting out a bad seed won't affect the party's position, then an argument can be made that you should send a message to your local and national party. NOW is the time for this district to send that message and purge Souder from the party. There is no doubt in my mind that superior Republican candidates would come forward if Souder was out of the picture. Waiting for primary elections isn't the best strategy because up-and-comers don't want to cross the party establishment by challenging an incumbent with over a decade of seniority.

The Congressional race isn't in doubt - the Democrats are most likely going to win the House regardless of what happens in this district. This presents a genuine opportunity for Republicans that are sick and tired of Mark Souder to turn this district upside down - for the better. The public discourse would be elevated tremendously with Souder out of the picture. Mark Souder and the Republican party have not lived up to their Contract with America - remember they ALL said:"If we break this Contract, throw us out"It's time to hold Mark Souder accountable to this district, the Republican party and the pledge he made to America - VOTE TOM HAYHURST ON TUESDAY...


John Good said...

One can only hope for more enlightenment here locally. If Dan can change his mind about Souder, than anyone can.

John B. Kalb said...

Jeff - I guess that you and I have agreed on more than just the HS ballpark - A life-long Republican, I worked hard for Tom Hayhurst last year - Tom has been our City Council representative in the 4th district I made lots of phone calls and haul many to the polls to vote for him on election day.
Souder was a real disappointment to many of us - I recall when my wife met him after an event at the coliseum, she greeted him with the comment, " You are a little guy!" I about broke up at this. John B. Kalb

DT said...

John, it's not really about me changing my mind, Souder did that for me. While you and I (and Jeff at times) can disagree on many issues, from the philosophical, political and religious - one thing I look for in our system of representative government is a steadfast and firm belief in one’s convictions. That’s why I’ve stood so firmly behind Bush, and did the same for Bush 1 and Reagan; they never wavered (excluding Bush 1 on “no new taxes”.

Souder has displayed to me that he only cares about one thing – votes in 2008.

He’s not getting mine.

John Good said...

Dan - I understand your view on conviction, but some of these politicians blindly stay on course (on BOTH sides of the fence) regardless of changing details that require some bending. I lose respect when someone refuses to adapt in the face of overwhelming evidence of the need to do so.

You might, in fact, say that Mark Souder has remained true to his convictions - his convictions of remaining a consumate politician, rather than a representative of we the people.

I was actually complimenting you. Souder's behavior was the overwhelming evidence, and you made a course correction. THAT earns my respect.

steve said...

DT, Bush and conviction?
Do you really accept this most insulting lie of the Bush administration- that Bush is some sort-of earnest, uncorrupted believer in the convictions of "real" America. Or maybe you admirably think he governs based on folksy wisdom.
For all your bullshit, AWB, you seem more cynical, at least.