Recent endorsement editorials in The Record and The New York Times reinforce a decision I made when I was writing editorials for The Princeton Packet: Never endorse in a primary.
Why? Because you either will have to jump through hoops to make the endorsement — as The Record did yesterday — or you will have to contradict your endorsement later on when you endorse in the general election.
Consider what The Record has to say about Steve Lonegan in its endorsement of him to be the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. Lonegan “clearly is the stronger Republican candidate” and “an anti-government social conservative to the core.”
His priorities include repealing “Obamacare,” reducing entitlement programs and opposing putting “left-wing radicals” on the federal bench. Lonegan opposes abortion, marriage equality and spending money to combat global warming, which he repeatedly questions. He says he would have opposed the emergency aid package for Sandy relief.All of this puts Lonegan at odds with The Record’s more liberal approach to governing.
Lonegan, however, “can display a reasonableness that sets him apart from some of his soulmates on the Republican right,” The Record writes.
He opposes spending huge sums to construct a fence along the nation’s border with Mexico, calling that yesterday’s technology. He also supports raising the number of immigrants who can be legally admitted to the country. Nor would Lonegan spare the nation’s military from his budget ax.
Good things, of course, but I think it is a stretch to use these positions as evidence of his reasonableness.
The Record then does something that undercuts its argument, essentially setting itself up for what is likely to be a November endorsement of Lonegan’s opponent — most likely Newark Mayor Cory Booker:
We are less pleased with the overall philosophy Lonegan would bring to the Senate. Rather than seek common ground with Democrats, who are a majority in the Senate, Lonegan says a more important priority for him would be staying true to his principles. That’s noble, but at a time when political gridlock in Washington is pervasive, the public is better served by politicians who compromise to get things done.
Basically, they argue, he is the wrong choice for the Senate, but the best of a bad Republican lot. While this may be accurate (and incredibly sad), it also did not have to be written. There is no reason for newspapers to weigh in on intra-party primary fights — except in those cases where there is no functioning opposition party (say, New Brunswick), and the primary is the de facto general election.
The party faithful understand this — does anyone thing that hardcore Republicans, the ones who vote in primaries, are going to listen to what The Record has to say in this case?
In the end, the paper looks wishy-washy (at best) or duplicitous (at worst). It puts itself in the position of backing a candidate for whom it has little use, and it would be like me, a non-observant Jew, telling a Catholic the best way to observe Ash Wednesday.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 
Lonegan is a right wing libertarian jackass, but I repeat myself. He is a poster boy for the absurdity, insanity and absolute cruelness of libertarianism. It's a putrid and toxic pseudo-philosophy that would take us back to 1840. The libertarian soul mates of that era hotly defended the property rights of slave owners to own slaves. Libertarianism is great if you are wealthy, very wealthy but an abysmal fraud for the ordinary American. Libertarians are rabidly against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, unions and anything that helps ordinary working class Americans. Libertarians proclaim that charities should take over the functions of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc., which is a patently stupid and inane notion. There is no possible way that charities could replace Medicare, let alone all those other social programs. We should have universal health care but the GOP and the yapping libertarian lap dogs will always stand in the way of such a sensible notion.