Nevada's GOP Governor Race: Principle or Viability?

Everywhere across the country, incumbent politicians from both parties seem to be dropping like hundred dollars bills from a Goldman Sachs executive's pocket.

Just yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Representative Alan Mollohan, a 14-term incumbent Democrat, was ousted by state Senator Mike Oliverio in West Virginia’s Democratic primary by double digits. And of course who can forget Republican Senator Robert Bennett of Utah who got unceremoniously dumped for being apart of the establishment in Washington a few weeks prior.

With the Tea Party movement sweeping across our nation and Sarah Palin drawing large applause at the 2008 GOP convention for her attack on the good ole boy network, America is seeing the same red the French saw during it's revolution where aristocratic heads rolled off guillotine blades faster than PETA could throw red paint on lavish fur.

This toxic political climate for established Washingtonians have created the perfect brew for those opportunity seekers who've long been sitting on the floor, filtering off the scraps, dreaming of the day where they can sit with the big league at the dinner table and properly eat their slice of cake too.

All across the nation, those seeking political office are lining the ballot of every position possible, seeking a way into government by any means necessary. This leaves primary voters, especially Republicans who occupy the minority, a very serious question.

Is it more about viability or is it solely about principle?

We don't have to look far before we encounter this dilemma. Just analyzing the Republican primary in Nevada alone, there are a slew of candidates who are riding on the coat tail of the political atmosphere trying to make enough of an impression to irk out a primary win.

Just take a look at the Governor's race in Nevada. Even with rising polling numbers, Governor Jim Gibbons is still trying to fill a significant gap with ex-federal judge Brian Sandoval who's campaign calls him "the reason to believe again."

In this race alone, Republicans in Nevada have a dichotomy. Do you go with the incumbent Governor who has the conservative street credit but who is saddled with scandal and a high un-likeability rating with general voters? Or, do you go with the charismatic upstart who's conservative record is all but laughable but polls a bit higher than the incumbent in the general election?

And of course most races have that distant guy in third, in this case Mike Montandon, who brands himself smartly as "the only electable conservative candidate," but has such low polling figures that people question whether voting for him would be a waste of ballot paper.

So where do you go?

If the entire purpose of this current political climate was to keep politicians accountable and honest, then the answer has to be and only can be: principle first, viability second.

When people continue the routine of, "oh I like this guy, but we're going to have to go with him" mentality, then this entire process becomes a giant circle of constant dissatisfaction due to mediocre results by viable yet mediocre candidates.

If we continue down this path, we will forever be burdened with trying to figure out, which of the two is the lesser evil.

Even after all this head chopping, the people, if focusing on viability alone, will end up exactly where they started in the first place.

So if enough people started voting on principle without trying to factor in every ratio and percentage thrown out there, maybe it won't matter whether your the upstart, incumbent, or that guy in distant third.

Maybe, just maybe, for once in our lives we'll vote in a guy who'll do a decent enough of a job.