Tea Party Splits over 5th District Endorsement

    1090
    5



    Accoring to the Lynchburg News & Advance, the tea party right-wingers in the 5th congressional district are now officially divided over whether to support the Republican nominee, state Sen. Robert Hurt (R-Chatham). Some of the tea partiers refuse to “forgive” Hurt for his rational vote in support of former Gov. Mark Warner’s budget that got the state out of a fiscal hole.  This development is bound to help Rep. Tom Perriello’s bid for re-election.

    Leaders of the Lynchburg Tea Party stated in a news release that they won’t endorse any candidate in the 5th District. Instead, they are “drawing a line in the sand.” Further, the release also criticized some tea party people who are supporting Hurt.

    According to the News & Advance, partier Kurt Feigel said, “We congratulate Robert Hurt on his recent victory. However, we cannot and will not endorse a candidate that does not align with our core principles.”

    Sounds good to me! I would encourage all those partiers to raise money for the independent far-rightie in the race, Jeffrey Clark, as well.

    Clark, who runs a small business in Danville, is officially the third candidate in the race. Without much in the way of resources, Clark normally would be just another meaningless quixotic challenger who couldn’t affect an election’s outcome. However, this split among the far right in the 5th just might give Clark enough momentum to peel off some votes from Hurt.

    When interviewed last week by WSLS-TV, Clark said, “I think [Republicans] think that me being in the race will split the vote and give Tom Perriello the win but this is not about Congressman Perriello. This is about the system.”

    Now, if fellow 5th District GOP loser Jim McElvey could just be persuaded to endorse Clark and hand him some money!  

    ********************************************************


    Sign up for the Blue Virginia weekly newsletter

    Previous articleScary graphs illuminate jobs crisis
    Next article“Talking Your Book” and One of Its More Dangerous and Immoral Fallacies (Part 1)