Club Makes Odd Endorsement: George Allen
Written by YellowJacket on October 12th, 2006Color me surprised. The Club for Growth announced today their endorsement of embattled Republican Senator George Allen.
I really don’t know what to say about this. Though Allen may be a through-and-through conservative, he’s put his foot in his mouth constantly this election season. What does the Club have to gain from endorsing Allen, when he is already relatively comfortably leading Jim Webb? Even after the “macaca” brewhaha, and the Jewish ancestry business, Allen still consistently leads Webb in the polls.
How does the Club benefit from endorsing such a controversial candidate who has shown to be solid in the polls already?
NOTE: This blog isn’t solely dedicated to Virginia politics, I swear…
12
PM
Well, I’ve found that the Club makes questionable endorsements from time to time to either inflate their victory totals after the election or to curry favor. Since Allen will (unfortunately) be a figure of some stature in the new Senate, the Club probably thought they would be better off having backed him. I think it’s a terrible idea, but from a pure power politics point of view it makes a lot of sense.
12
PM
Also, Allen is not comfortably ahead. This is particularly true when you consider that the ground game for Democrats in Virginia is far better than the ground game for Republicans. That situation is courtesy of Mark Warner’s shrewd use of political technology.
For myself, I’m giving Webb a +2% on every poll just because the GOP game sucks that much.
12
PM
I don’t understand the Allen bashing. He’s the ONLY true conservative who will be running in ‘08.
McCain? Pro-Kyoto, Pro-amnesty, anti-gay marriage amendment, anti-Bush tax cuts… need I continue?
Rudy? Ran around on his wife, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, etc.
Gingrich? Has the same problem as Clinton with women.
MITT ROMNEY?? The flavor-of-the-month for many conservatives, he’s pro gun control and CLEARLY stated he was “pro-choice” when running for office because a family member died in an illegal abortion.
12
PM
Nobody’s bashing Allen for his credentials. His problem is that he constantly has put his foot in his mouth, thus making him a less desireable candidate. Policy-wise, he is certainly at the head of the pack. He just can’t seem to control what comes out of his mouth sometimes.
12
PM
Allen comes off as an idiot, and the last thing that the GOP is going to need in ‘08 is someone that the media can easily dismiss as ignorant. Beyond that he also isn’t particularly conservative, just look at the way he ran the 2004 Senate campaign. From what I can tell Allen’s natural constituency is RNC pary hacks who want a W clone.
12
PM
I’m voting for Allen in the primaries.
I aint voting for Romney/McCain/Guiliani/Frist
Besides Allen is anti-illegal Immigration.
All this talk about him being stupid or unelectable sounds stupid.
12
PM
It’s “brouhaha” — Are there any conservatives who are literate?
12
PM
So sorry “anonymous,” I spelled 1 word wrong. Your rhetorical question is dumb, I could equally ask, “Are there any liberals who don’t want to be anonymous on a blog?” Of course the question is stupid in its premise, that’s my point. You can either chastise me endlessly for mispelling a word, and paint the entire conservative movement with it, or you can confront the issues head-on like most would. Your choice. (I know, that was an incomplete sentence, so sue me)
12
PM
Are there any liberals that aren’t effete snobs? I assume so, so please get a life. Also, at least make up a name to post under, okay?
12
PM
Oh SNAP, Andrew!
13
AM
Since when is brouhaha even a “real” word that requires proper spelling? I thought it was one of those words like crunk/krunk that can be spelled however you please.
13
AM
According to our liberal friends, Mike, if we don’t spell the damn word right we are doomed to failure. Either for that reason, or because we are conservatives. No telling what punishment a liberal misspelling that word might receive. But hey, Democrat Underground is a perfectly acceptable voice of reason.
13
AM
Controversial among whom, the moonbats?