From the Blondesense comments, DBK writes:

I am unfamiliar with Kansas politics, so what I have to say on this is pure speculation, but I always find it the most cynical of acts when someone who has long been in one party and is deep within the party decides to change parties. It always seems opportunistic and it is inevitably proven so. Were there a genuine change of heart with respect to political platforms and philosophies, the change would not be affected at a time when, as it also inevitably proves to be, a political opportunity is in the offing.

In New Jersey we have a fellow named Albio Sires who went from Republican to Democrat in time to run for the state assembly in his district. It might have had something to do with no Republican having ever been elected to the assembly from that district, I don't know, but it sure seemed like it. Sires is now in a battle with Joe Vas for the nomination to be the Democratic candidate. Vas is receiving support from the progressives and with good reason; Sires may be a good candidate in terms of his ability to win and his connections, but he is still a Republican on many issues, especially with respect to LGBTI issues. Vas, on the other hand, is a Democrat and stands by the platform.

Opportunism is a part of politics, no doubt, and we all can think of examples of individuals who moved solely so that they could run in a district or state where they previously had little affiliation. But switching parties for the sake of an opportunity is a far greater example of opportunism to me, and exceptionally cynical. I just don't like it. At some point, parties need to decide whether another notch in the W column is worth sacrificing the organization's principles. If it is worth that sacrifice, then that organization does not have any principles. Let people switch parties? Absolutely, and welcome them with open arms, too. But don't let them immediately run for office on your party's line. That's when you sell your soul.
DBK | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 10:19 am | #

jes sayin'.