I couldn’t resist the alliteration when I saw Martin Knight’s reply to Liz Mair. In it, he leaves yet another little tidbit I find to tempting to resist.
In other words, we’re on the same side. That doesn’t mean we must be in lockstep. But it does mean that you should shield my back from the other side because we wear the same jersey. Don’t assist the other side in hurting me, because that also hurts you.
Does that include the way Steve Laffey shielded Lincoln Chafee? Everyone knew that a social conservative running in Rhode Island would get about 9% of the vote. That did not, however, stop the so-cons from savaging Chafee and leaving him mortally wounded following the primary.
The RNC, no fan of Chafee over the years, came to his aid because they realized the rigidly conservative Laffey would be unable to win. Chafee was, for all his undeniable warts, the only one of the two who could win. Is the Senate better served by yet another Democrat who will unflinchingly serve Harry Reid than they were by a guy who voted with the GOP 30% of the time?
Is that what Martin calls “shielding my back”? If so, and a moderate is counting on him for protection, I’d hedge my bets and buy some body armor.
He also makes a claim that he can argue on behalf of prohibitions on gay marriage and abortion without using religion and with consistent support for small government. I would like to issue a formal challenge to do just that.
Martin, I will gladly repost your reply to this challenge in its entirety if you care to make a coherent attempt at answering it. Please explain, without resorting to questions of religion or morality and within the framework of a party that believes in federal government as a last resort, why abortion should be legislated by Congress and why gay marriage should be federally prohibited rather than decided on a state by state basis.
I eagerly await your reply.