Hey, you want a little dissent on the right? You got it. Here's Thomas Sowell on how conservative-sponsored primary fights are endangering COP chances to take the Senate:
Only Republican control of the Senate can rein in the lawless Obama administration, which can otherwise load up the federal courts with lawless judges, who will be dismantling the rule of law and destroying the rights of the people for decades after Barack Obama himself is long gone from the White House.
Once that happens, even a future Republican majority, led by people with the kind of ideological purity that the Republican dissidents want, cannot undo the damage.
And here's the dissent:
What is this ideological purity Sowell and so many of his fellow establishment apologists speak of? Is it mere "purity" to desire a Republican party that works to shrink government or at the very least stops its growth? Is "ideological purity" a vice while "ideological flexibility" that leads Republicans to join with Democrats to peruse policies such as amnesty, bailouts and supporting nominees like Eric Holder and Sonya Sotomayor, is a virtue? Is the judgement of people who supported candidates like Trey Grayson, Robert Bennett, Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter over Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey beyond question and challenge?
It's an eternal dilemma. The danger of Sowell's position is that we will get a "loyal opposition" party that is less and less distinguishable from the other one. The danger of the dissenting opinion is that the other party will face less and less opposition. Either way, government grows and we get screwed, so I guess I opt for pushing the GOP as far away from the Democrats as possible so we have a real choice for a change. And isn't that exactly what primaries are for, to define and redine the party?