Boy, this is hard. We Republicans know that in many cases we must make "strategic voting decisions," and vote—as we have so many, many times in the past—for "the lessor two two evils." That is, we might have to vote for a questionable even outright bad Republican, over a statist, socialist Democrat. Such is the choice we face in the Senate race between Ayotte and Hodes. We must vote for Ayotte. She is questionable at this point, but the alternative is six years of tear-down-America votes in the U.S. Senate by Paul Hodes. Even worse, control of the Senate hangs in the balance.
However, this is not the case in New Hampshire’s Congressional District #2, where a past GOP congressman who was "part of the problem," is squared off against Ann Custer, a particularly statist Democrat who fully supports socialized medicine and the whole Reid/Pelosi/Obama plan for America. Kuster is a pro-abortion lawyer who opposes the so-called "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy," believes in global warming, and thinks that "government creates jobs." In other words, she is awful.
Her opponent is former congressman Charlie Bass. Here’s his voting record: He voted against requiring a photo ID for people to vote in federal elections (thus helping the Democrats to continue massive vote fraud operations); he voted to allow minors to be transported across state lines for abortions, without the knowledge or consent of their parents; he voted to keep the moratorium on offshore oil drilling; he voted to prohibit drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge; he voted to begin implementing the economy-killing Kyoto Protocols; he voted in favor the the "McCain-Feingold incumbent protection bill" (which was and is a direct attack on the First Amendment); he voted to approve huge budget deficits under President Bush; he supported the economy-killing "cap and trade" plan; and he voted against protecting the property rights of private citizens in zoning disputes. Bass describes himself as a "moderate," and is in the same category with Republicans such as Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arnold Swartznegger, all of whom are in the "Republican Main Street Partnership" with him (some would call it the "Main Street RINO Partnership").
In other words, Charlie Bass is also awful, and arguably just as bad or nearly as bad as Ann Kuster. (After all, what Bass votes above would Kuster disagree with?)
The difference between strategically voting for Kelly Ayotte, and voting for Charlie Bass, is that…in the case of Kuster, we’ll only need to put up with her for 24 months. Nor would her temporary presence in Congress change the dynamics of the coming Republican majority in the U.S. House. If Bass gets into office, he will camoflage himself with a few strategic votes to make him "look" like a conservative…but he won’t be. And when the chips are down, he will be unreliable.
In short, Charlie Bass will be a continuing danger to both conservatives and to the Republican Party. Yet he will "portray" himself as a Republican conservative. If allowed to do so, it will be harder in 2012 to pry him out of the CD-2 congressional seat in order to put a real conservative in office (especially with the incumbent-protection measures he has supported in the past, such as the egregious McCain-Feingold mess).
On the other hand, there’s Kuster: If she’s elected this time, she will continue to do and be a regular Democrat: She’ll try to expand the reach and power of the federal government, she’ll vote for higher taxes, and she’ll generally support policies harmful to America. BUT, thankfully, Kuster’s stupid and harmful votes will be ineffectual with the large Republican majority that will exist. Then, in 2012, the conservative movement in New Hampshire can unite behind a single Republican candidate to beat Kuster and join the Real Republicans in Congress fighting statists and socialists wherever they are found…in both parties.
That’s my take. I’m not saying I’ll vote for Kuster. But I won’t vote for Charlie Bass. For all of the above reasons. Sorry.
