To add to what Phil
wrote below, I think there's a very simple question to ask
when evaluating whether to support a flawed candidate: What's at
stake in the election? That should be followed by a second, more
complicated question: What is the likeliest outcome of a
particular candidate's election?
In Massachusetts, I reluctantly voted for Bill Weld, Paul
Cellucci, and the pre-conservative Mitt Romney because I agreed
with them on the issues that were actually in play during the
election, thought they would have little impact on the issues
where I disagreed with them, and found the viable alternative
worse. I would have voted for Rudy Giuliani in the New York
mayoral races of 1989, 1993, and 1997. But I voted
against Weld when he ran for Senate, voted against Romney in
the Republican presidential primary, and could not have pulled
the lever for Giuliani even in the general election.
Why? For me, the stakes changed. New York City was going to
remain pro-choice whether Giuliani lost or won. But it didn't
necessarily have to remain mired in high rates of crime, taxes,
and welfare dependency. Yet Giuliani as the GOP presidential
nominee might have had an impact on whether the Republicans
remained a pro-life party. (I wasn't wild about his foreign
policy either, but that's another argument for another day.)
What impact will electing Dede Scozzafava have? Best case
scenario, not much: she'll be another minority vote for John
Boenher for speaker (for now, anyway) in a chamber where the
minority seldom has much influence. Worst case scenario, she will
create confusion about the Republican brand, frequently vote with
the Democrats anyway, and help move the GOP to the left. In a
district where there is a better alternative with some realistic
chance of success, then party disloyalty seems like a no-brainer.
