| Former County Commissioner Will Molnar has switched parties. His letter to the editor of the Oakland Press is below the fold.
Oakland Politics has two points. First, Molnar has turned from maverick to downright weird. We can't envision how this move helps Will, and must strongly condemn it as both dumb and a betrayal to those in the Republican Party that stood by him. Second, while Molnar's betrayal defies logic or sense, as Republicans we must remain open to internal disputes. It is 100% Molnar's fault that he has allowed himself to take the political winds of fortune personally, but his arguments on why he left should at least be taken note of.
Molnar ran for County Commission in 2004, when then-Commissioner Marty Knollenberg ran for State House and lost. Molnar surprised opponents in the primary and went on to win the Troy-Rochester commission seat. In 2006, when term-limited state representative Bob Gosselin withdrew from the State Senate contest, he ran against Molnar in a brutal race and won. As a matter of Party success, Oakland Politics disapproves of any term-limited State Representative "coming down" and running against a Republican-incumbent for County Commission. Long-term success in an era of term-limits means continuing to build a "bench" - and as such, we understand Molnar's ire in that situation.
Molnar seems to have taken that defeat too personally, and holds a grudge against Gosselin. But Molnar appeared on a reasonable track, considering a run for John Garfield's term-limited seat and actually moving from Troy to Rochester to prepare for it. Then, earlier this year, he filed a surprise campaign for a Lapeer County state house seat, as a Republican. Now he's declaring himself a Democrat, and blaming social conservatives - contradicting his previous commitments to others and proving he's no less of an opportunist than he alleges Gosselin to be. While Gosselin's decision to run against a Republican incumbent was a small but significant sleight, in hindsight Molnar has proven himself to be unstable and not worthy of the previous position or advancement. Politics requires (at least some) patience - Molnar could have had far more influence in the Republican Party despite his social views if he had patience and worked from within. Now, he'll never be trusted in either party. Nor should he be.
I also believe his assertions that the Republican Party is monolithic in its pro-life stance are both wrong, and misguided. Rudy Guiliani is the leading polling candidate in the Party with a pro-choice position - and while that's not the norm, it proves something. While I don't endorse Guiliani or pro-choice positions, I do believe the party should be careful not to totally exclude anyone based on a single issue. As such, Molnar raises a serious issue - - but its clear its just an excuse, given Molnar's refusal himself to be "comfortable" with the possibility others might be pro-life and his own past willingness to be politically opportunist when it suited him. His argument about over-population is about as stale & immoral as one could get - if pro-choice is merely a policy convenience driven by a policy necessity to reduce population rather than a women's right, that hardly weighs against the right to life of a child. At least if you make the argument that a women's rights override the undeveloped fetus' your making an argument based on some moral principle (choice, or weight of rights) - but when you bring it in for population control you draw dangerously close to Hitler-ian eugenics.
Thus, Molnar blows it - intellectually, and politically.
Postscript - A reader commented "If population control is an expedient reason to do something, why not just kill millions of people to get your population down?"
The abortion debate hinges on a seemingly simple single point - whether the fetus is a human person - if it is, even the otherwise important right to control one's body becomes hard to justify in unlimited terms since another person's rights are involved. The answer to that question is no doubt hard - but it is the only question.
As to Mitt Romney and Mormonism, which I didn't address, I've heard more of that load come from either the media or the left - and I'm sure Mitt wouldn't endorse the idea of leaving the Party because because he loses. And if Mitt wins the primary, will Will find comfort in his fellow Democrats attacking Mitt - and they will - for his Mormonism?
Second postscript: Dave Lambert comments here. |
