Replies

“Linda is a weak ally. possibly better.”

She’s pro-abortion, and has been for years. How would she be an ally to pro-lifers? Besides, she’s a *terrible* candidate, and even if she did a 180 on abortion and became pro-life it won’t help us any when she loses to the Democrat by an even bigger margin than she lost to Blumenthal in 2010. If you want to call upon my commitment to the right to life to convince me to vote for a candidate, she should be pro-life, or electable, or (preferably) both, but McMahon is neither.

And I reiterate, the problem with the CT GOP is that there is no stable of conservatives with adequate résumés for Senate or gubernatorial runs. We need to start building from the ground up, and in 2012 we have an excellent chance of electing a Republican in CT-05, a fairly decent chance of electing one in CT-04, and an outside (but not insignificant) chance of doing so in CT-02. Electing youngish conservative (or moderate-to-conservative) Republicans in those congressional districts will give us the bench we need for the 2016 and 2018 Senate elections.

That’s why, unless you think that Greenberg is *much* better than Bernier on the issues (which I have no reason to think is the case), or that Greenberg has a *much* better chance of getting elected (which I don’t think is the case, either; if anything, I would think Bernier would have better odds), you should support the thirty-something Bernier over the middle-aged Greenberg. While I’m not saying by any stretch that Greenberg is too old to run for office, electing him to Congress would not provide the CT GOP with as much in terms of later dividends than would the election of Bernier, who is young enough that he can build up his résumé and profile over several terms in the House so that he can get elected to the Senate in his early 40s and serve for 30-40 years. You don’t build up a farm system by signing veteran players.