GOP primary elections the last two years have become enthralling events, in greatest part because the present dynamic at least gives quality non-incumbents a fighting chance. In the past, they would not have stood a chance.
Disgust and distrust of establishment-oriented, big-government, big-spending Republicans by an increasingly principled and well-informed electorate, has led to the ouster of incumbent after incumbent, especially in the U.S. Senate, where the entrenched once thrived.
But, of course, the big-monied, status-quo interests get a second bite at the apple, once the insurgents are elected, when they begin to work their magic in D.C., and wear down the resolve of the most thick skinned conservative.
Thus, the primary elections have become a challenge for the voters, who want conservative action, not words, to discern who is telling the truth and who is lying about their willingness to move conservatism into action. We saw it in Indiana (insurgents won with Richard Mourdock), Utah (establishment won with Orrin Hatch), and now Texas.
In Texas, each of David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz will be measurably more conservative than Kay Baily Hutchison. Both claim hard-right conservative credentials. But the voters must ascertain who will deliver -- over the long haul -- for the conservative cause.
Dewhurst, using deep pockets of personal wealth, claims the mantle of the "true conservative" in the race, and points to the Ivy League education of Cruz, and some positions he took as Solicitor General of the State. Cruz for his part attacks the voting record of Dewhurst (in favor of tax hikes) and promotes his conservative endorsements, including Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Jim DeMint (R-SC).
But all of these things are just hints, clues as to which way these candidates will vote when in D.C. With a 6-year term, virtually guaranteed re-election and monied interests working on them to buckle from their first day in office, no one knows for sure if Mourdock, and now Cruz, will deliver.
And they have right to be skeptical, for over decades, candidate after candidate has promised to shrink the size of government, only to vote for the Americans with Disabilities Act, TARP, raising the deficit cap, and refusing to cut food stamps.
So, historically it has appeared to be nothing more than a big game. COAST believes the 2012 election, like the 2010 election, will be different. We are finally electing candidates we believe will actually vote, consistently, to shrink the size of government -- and dramatically. And if they don't we will work to dispatch them just as completely.
And thus, what has always been a game -- a game of lying to the electorate that has been pretty consistent in wanting smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government -- may no longer be.
It's up to use to discern the right candidate, and then to hold them to their promises throughout their entire tenure in office.
Ladies and gentlemen, The Game is over.