When is a strictly ideological Republican who refuses to compromise a good thing? When he's a liberal.
The New York Times endorses incumbent Sherwood Boehlert for Congress in the Republican primary. (Aside: isn't there something a little presumptuous about the Times presuming to endorse candidates in Republican primaries? Why would the Times' editors think that any self-respecting Republican would want their opinion?)
Of course, one would expect the Times to endorse liberals; that's not the point. The point is the reasons they cite for their analysis:
Occasionally a politician comes along who follows his own principles instead of harkening to the pollsters or the party hacks.Get that? Politicians who hold positions the Times likes are "following their own principles." Politicians who believe differently than the Times are merely "harkening to pollsters" or (even worse) "party hacks."