Conservatives Split on O’Donnell (UPDATED)
UPDATE 9/12: I guess it turns out that I shouldn’t trust DeMint on these matters. Christine O’Donnell is a lying, greedy, evil nutcase, and no conservative has any business supporting her. That’s all I’m going to write on this.
UPDATE 9/10: Christine O’Donnell has now been endorsed by Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, the NRA, and Rush Limbaugh (basically). As a conservative, I now find it very difficult to hold to the position I articulated a week ago in the space below, especially since I don’t live in Delaware and can’t follow all the twists and turns in this race. If those esteemed individuals have checked O’Donnell out and are satisfied, then I have to be as well. In particular, I trust DeMint and don’t think he would make this endorsement without spending a lot of time investigating. Since O’Donnell is now likely to beat Castle for the nomination, I sincerely wish her the best and hope that she doesn’t embarrass us.
One of the more shocking things about this election cycle is the number of establishment GOP figures who have been upset by outsider, Tea Party candidates in party primaries, especially in U.S. Senate races. Joe Miller’s win over Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was preceded by Ken Buck’s win over Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, Sharron Angle’s win over state GOP Chairman Sue Lowden in Nevada, Rand Paul’s win over Kentucky Sec. of State Trey Grayson, Mike Lee’s win over Utah Sen. Bob Bennett, and Marco Rubio’s pushing Florida Governor Charlie Crist out of the GOP primary (because Crist knew that he would lose).
If you had wanted to bet me a year ago that the Tea Party outsider candidates would have won more than one of those races, I’d have glady taken that bet and wondered if you were drunk.
There have now also been three races where an establishment GOP candidate has prevailed over the Tea Party candidate. In Indiana, Dan Coats had been a reliably conservative former senator, so he consolidated a lot of conservative support and prevented Marlin Stutzman from gaining enough momentum. In Arizona, Sen. McCain easily defeated J. D. Hayworth after video emerged of Hayworth in infomercials pushing a scam system to get government money. And in California, Chuck DeVore was largely seen as unelectable in a general election in such a blue state, and California Republicans thought that Carly Fiorina could win and was conservative enough.
In Delaware, we see two of those three situations above, and they indicate that Christine O’Donnell will not (and should not) upset Congressman Mike Castle for the GOP nomination.
Like Hayworth, O’Donnell has questionable baggage. John McCormack of the Weekly Standard interviewed her, and she comes off as a complete nut, with wild claims that Castle’s people have broken into her home and stalked her for years. She also admits to using campaign funds to pay her rent, which doesn’t look good, whether it’s legal or not. She also flat-out lied in a radio interview recently in saying that she won two of Delaware’s three counties in her 2008 race against Joe Biden.
As in California, there are serious doubts whether someone as conservative as O’Donnell could win in a relaibly blue state like Delaware. Allah and Ace expound on this at length today, and both are worth reading. (You can read Dan Riehl if you want a contrary opinion.)
As a movement conservative, I want each House and Senate seat to be represented by as conservative a member as it can elect. We live in a republic where citizens elect their representatives to reflect their own political views, and I have no problem with congressmen listening to the voters of their districts and voting in accordance with their wishes. I therefore don’t believe in measuring congressmen by how ideologically pure their voting records are, but rather by how conservative they are compared to the electorates they represent. We conservatives should be thrilled with Congressman Cao in New Orleans, as he is probably the single most valuable GOP member of Congress to the conservative cause, because his district went for Obama over McCain by a ridiculous 75% – 23% margin. On the other hand, Sen. Hatch in Utah, Sen. Graham in South Carolina, and Sen. Lugar of Indiana should all face primary challenges in the future, because none of them are conservative compared to the very red states they represent.
In a state as liberal as Delaware, I am forced to conclude that a RINO like Mike Castle is a good value for the conservative cause, and Christine O’Donnell appears to be a poor candidate. I believe that Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, the Family Research Council, and the Tea Party (which is planning to spend $600,000 on her campaign) are making a mistake in supporting O’Donnell. I hope Castle wins.
UPDATE: Jeffrey Lord in the American Spectator has a good piece defending O”Donnell and discussing the conservative movement’s tendency to beat ourselves up. I don’t agree with it, but it’s worth reading.
Here’s another item worth reading: Jim Geraghty goes into more detail about why O’Donnell is a disaster.
Mike Castle voted in favor of Cap and Trade, and he also voted against ending Obama's offshore drilling moratorium.
There is no value in a Mike Castle in the Senate. He's 70 years old and he's worthless to the conservative cause.
O'Donnell is no Joe Miller, Ken Buck or Mario Rubio. She's not even a Sharron Angle. But the best thing that can happen is for O'Donnell to beat Castle in the primary – even if that seat goes Democrat as a result. Castle's political career can't end fast enough.
I would rather have 49 or 50 seats after this term than 51 with Castle, who will turn his coat on all the key issues. The GOP will have the House and they'll need 60 for an effective majority in the Senate anyway. The real election for the Senate is 2012.
Mike Castle voted in favor of Cap and Trade, and he also voted against ending Obama's offshore drilling moratorium.
There is no value in a Mike Castle in the Senate. He's 70 years old and he's worthless to the conservative cause.
O'Donnell is no Joe Miller, Ken Buck or Mario Rubio. She's not even a Sharron Angle. But the best thing that can happen is for O'Donnell to beat Castle in the primary – even if that seat goes Democrat as a result. Castle's political career can't end fast enough.
I would rather have 49 or 50 seats after this term than 51 with Castle, who will turn his coat on all the key issues. The GOP will have the House and they'll need 60 for an effective majority in the Senate anyway. The real election for the Senate is 2012.
Every RINO in both houses of Congress voted against Obamacare. If we had only had a few more RINOs in place, 18% of our economy wouldn't be in the process of being taken over by government bureaucrats. I must disagree with you that Castle is worthless, because the Obamacare vote should have taught us that an "R" behind the name matters.
Even though Delaware is as blue as the sky, Christine O'Donnell might have had a chance to win (a la Scott Brown) if she were a great candidate, and I was initially inclined to support her. Now, it appears that nominating her would simply set us up for future scandal. The quality of the person running matters, not just his or her views.
To any Delaware readers, I would say: Vote for the RINO: it's important.
RINO's like Castle lend credence to the narrative that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats. They dispirit conservatives who otherwise can generate wave elections which would create policy possibilities the country needs.
Purging the party is difficult work, but it must be done if we're going to successfully fight the socialists on the other side. Castle is a traitor in that fight; in fact, he might be the worst Senate candidate the GOP has this year ideologically speaking.
Here's hoping O'Donnell wins the nomination. If that means she can't win the general, that's too bad. Nominating Castle is a surrender of principles we don't need to make in this of all years.
I'll go further than that with Castle. I think he'll be the worst U.S. Senator on our side, to the left of the Maine women. I also agree with your general principle of purging RINOs when possible — i.e. when said RINOs are to the left of the GOP voters in their states. In my world, that means getting rid of Dick Lugar but not Scott Brown.
But you can't beat something with nothing, and I want to beat the Castle's of the world with candidates who have a chance to win. And the last thing the GOP needs is a candidate with significant ethics problems. If you want to talk about dispiriting conservatives, try giving the Democrats another ethics scandal to beat us over the head with and see what that does for our morale.
Anyway, we disagree on the lesser of two evils here. There are no good options and that's the sad truth.
We don't know that O'Donnell has ethics problems. We know she stinks with her finances and we know she's a little kooky.
We kill ourselves when we attempt to make these distinctions on electability. Conservatives should support conservatives in party primaries; if we don't, we'll never control the GOP and we'll never be able to further an agenda.
A Castle in the Senate will likely take a committee position which would otherwise be occupied by a conservative. He would also increase Mitch McConnell's standing as the Republican leader in the Senate; thus increasing the likelihood of McConnell cutting deals with Obama that will sell out conservatism and hurt the country. That is a real danger; better to have a GOP in the Senate which is united around a filibuster than a leadership pushing for more bailouts and stimulus schemes.
Every RINO in both houses of Congress voted against Obamacare. If we had only had a few more RINOs in place, 18% of our economy wouldn't be in the process of being taken over by government bureaucrats. I must disagree with you that Castle is worthless, because the Obamacare vote should have taught us that an "R" behind the name matters.
Even though Delaware is as blue as the sky, Christine O'Donnell might have had a chance to win (a la Scott Brown) if she were a great candidate, and I was initially inclined to support her. Now, it appears that nominating her would simply set us up for future scandal. The quality of the person running matters, not just his or her views.
To any Delaware readers, I would say: Vote for the RINO: it's important.
RINO's like Castle lend credence to the narrative that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats. They dispirit conservatives who otherwise can generate wave elections which would create policy possibilities the country needs.
Purging the party is difficult work, but it must be done if we're going to successfully fight the socialists on the other side. Castle is a traitor in that fight; in fact, he might be the worst Senate candidate the GOP has this year ideologically speaking.
Here's hoping O'Donnell wins the nomination. If that means she can't win the general, that's too bad. Nominating Castle is a surrender of principles we don't need to make in this of all years.
I'll go further than that with Castle. I think he'll be the worst U.S. Senator on our side, to the left of the Maine women. I also agree with your general principle of purging RINOs when possible — i.e. when said RINOs are to the left of the GOP voters in their states. In my world, that means getting rid of Dick Lugar but not Scott Brown.
But you can't beat something with nothing, and I want to beat the Castle's of the world with candidates who have a chance to win. And the last thing the GOP needs is a candidate with significant ethics problems. If you want to talk about dispiriting conservatives, try giving the Democrats another ethics scandal to beat us over the head with and see what that does for our morale.
Anyway, we disagree on the lesser of two evils here. There are no good options and that's the sad truth.
We don't know that O'Donnell has ethics problems. We know she stinks with her finances and we know she's a little kooky.
We kill ourselves when we attempt to make these distinctions on electability. Conservatives should support conservatives in party primaries; if we don't, we'll never control the GOP and we'll never be able to further an agenda.
A Castle in the Senate will likely take a committee position which would otherwise be occupied by a conservative. He would also increase Mitch McConnell's standing as the Republican leader in the Senate; thus increasing the likelihood of McConnell cutting deals with Obama that will sell out conservatism and hurt the country. That is a real danger; better to have a GOP in the Senate which is united around a filibuster than a leadership pushing for more bailouts and stimulus schemes.
Every RINO in both houses of Congress voted against Obamacare ONLY BECAUSE they knew their votes wouldn't make a difference. Look at the vote for Kagan instead. THAT is a much better indicator of who MAY BE worth keeping.
Every RINO in both houses of Congress voted against Obamacare ONLY BECAUSE they knew their votes wouldn't make a difference. Look at the vote for Kagan instead. THAT is a much better indicator of who MAY BE worth keeping.
The point isn't that O'Donnell is such a great candidate. The point is that Castle is JUST THAT BAD.
Polluting the GOP brand with a loser like Castle means you're actually worse off at 50 senators without the Delaware seat than you would be with 51 and Castle in tow. Because on all the key issues he's going to be against you, or at least he'll require a substantial bribe in pork or position to be with you. That's not what the country or the party need.
Castle is pure ruling class. O'Donnell is not. Easy decision. If she can't win in the general, we'll get our majority somewhere else – either this year or in 2012.
My concern is that the GOP hurt itself in the past with ethical lapses with Delay/Abramoff, Mark Foley, Mark Sanford, etc. I remain concerned with O'Donnell's obvious and pointless lies and her financial improprieties. We need to be careful to nominate ethical candidates, as a scandal can do as much damage to the conservative cause as a RINO. As I said, though, I trust DeMint on this. I don't discount the electability factor in the race, but I was for O'Donnell initially in spite of it.
The point isn't that O'Donnell is such a great candidate. The point is that Castle is JUST THAT BAD.
Polluting the GOP brand with a loser like Castle means you're actually worse off at 50 senators without the Delaware seat than you would be with 51 and Castle in tow. Because on all the key issues he's going to be against you, or at least he'll require a substantial bribe in pork or position to be with you. That's not what the country or the party need.
Castle is pure ruling class. O'Donnell is not. Easy decision. If she can't win in the general, we'll get our majority somewhere else – either this year or in 2012.
My concern is that the GOP hurt itself in the past with ethical lapses with Delay/Abramoff, Mark Foley, Mark Sanford, etc. I remain concerned with O'Donnell's obvious and pointless lies and her financial improprieties. We need to be careful to nominate ethical candidates, as a scandal can do as much damage to the conservative cause as a RINO. As I said, though, I trust DeMint on this. I don't discount the electability factor in the race, but I was for O'Donnell initially in spite of it.
Mark Levin worked under Reagan for eight years and has written the definitive book for conservatives.So, if he endorses O'Donnell,that's all I need to know.
I enjoyed Levin's book myself, but Levin is already ready to attack his fellow conservatives personally when they disagree with him. He's great at articulating the conservative position, but I don't respect his judgment in these matters.
Mark Levin worked under Reagan for eight years and has written the definitive book for conservatives.So, if he endorses O'Donnell,that's all I need to know.
I enjoyed Levin's book myself, but Levin is already ready to attack his fellow conservatives personally when they disagree with him. He's great at articulating the conservative position, but I don't respect his judgment in these matters.
Everyone interested in this issue should read this piece by Dan Riehl, which frames the discussion perfectly:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conserv…
I disagree, because Riehl only frames the debate on electability. He doesn't at all address whether we have an obligation to support candidates of ethical character and sound judgment. I totally get the argument that Castle is too liberal to support, and I'm sympathetic to it, but I would advise those people to do what Erick Erickson did and wash his hands of the affair instead of telling people to actively support O'Donnell.
And for Riehl to tell those of us who care about honesty and integrity to "back off and stop trying to destroy a young woman" is outrageous. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that she reported just over $5000 in income last year while somehow paying over $10,000 in taxes, or the fact that she filed a frivolous lawsuit that claimed her employment prevented her from attending a masters program at Princeton when she hadn't even completed her undergraduate degree. What is outrageous is claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that your opponent is secretly having gay affairs. That's "destroying."
Needless to say, I prefer Jim Geraghty's take on the topic: http://tinyurl.com/25f9ssn
Everyone interested in this issue should read this piece by Dan Riehl, which frames the discussion perfectly:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conserv…
I disagree, because Riehl only frames the debate on electability. He doesn't at all address whether we have an obligation to support candidates of ethical character and sound judgment. I totally get the argument that Castle is too liberal to support, and I'm sympathetic to it, but I would advise those people to do what Erick Erickson did and wash his hands of the affair instead of telling people to actively support O'Donnell.
And for Riehl to tell those of us who care about honesty and integrity to "back off and stop trying to destroy a young woman" is outrageous. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that she reported just over $5000 in income last year while somehow paying over $10,000 in taxes, or the fact that she filed a frivolous lawsuit that claimed her employment prevented her from attending a masters program at Princeton when she hadn't even completed her undergraduate degree. What is outrageous is claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that your opponent is secretly having gay affairs. That's "destroying."
Needless to say, I prefer Jim Geraghty's take on the topic: http://tinyurl.com/25f9ssn
If anyone wants a balanced, thoughtful (and long) post on the topic that weighs the pros and cons of both candidates, I recommend this piece in Redstate today:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2010/09/13…
If anyone wants a balanced, thoughtful (and long) post on the topic that weighs the pros and cons of both candidates, I recommend this piece in Redstate today:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2010/09/13…
Neither candidate is of ethical character and sound judgement. Given that fact, we're reduced to choosing whether we'll support someone who will vote with us – or not. Castle is the worst RINO in Congress; he will do damage to the Republican Party in the Senate. O'Donnell won't improve the party in the Senate much, that's for certain – but at least she'll be a reliable conservative vote should she win.
And if she gets the nomination and loses in the general, so be it. We'll have four years to find a better candidate and perhaps win then.
Do you really think Castle as a 50th or 51st vote in the Senate will do much for the conservative movement? I submit he will not. He won't be reliable against bad judges, tax policy or energy. One could argue that it's better to wait until 2012 and elect a true conservative majority behind a better leader than Mitch McConnell anyway.
I don't know how anyone could conclude that O'Donnell would be a reliable vote for anything. I don't know how anyone could possibly trust a single word coming out of her mouth.
I'm just glad I don't live in Delaware and don't have to actually hold my nose to vote in this race, because I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils.
For your answer, you'll have to ask Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint. They're not in the business of endorsing non-conservatives. Although my guess is both endorsed O'Donnell for the purpose of keeping a cancer like Castle out of the Senate GOP caucus.
Well, I can think of several possible motives for both Palin and DeMint to endorse O'Donnell, but I'm not going to go there. If she wins Tuesday night, I'll be 100% behind her.
I also think that Krauthammer is wrong to call Palin and DeMint "capricious," which impugns their motives.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/13/krauthammer…
We shouldn't be attacking each other on this. Good conservatives like Mark Levin and Charles Krauthammer should be able to disagree without the name-calling and personal put-downs.
Neither candidate is of ethical character and sound judgement. Given that fact, we're reduced to choosing whether we'll support someone who will vote with us – or not. Castle is the worst RINO in Congress; he will do damage to the Republican Party in the Senate. O'Donnell won't improve the party in the Senate much, that's for certain – but at least she'll be a reliable conservative vote should she win.
And if she gets the nomination and loses in the general, so be it. We'll have four years to find a better candidate and perhaps win then.
Do you really think Castle as a 50th or 51st vote in the Senate will do much for the conservative movement? I submit he will not. He won't be reliable against bad judges, tax policy or energy. One could argue that it's better to wait until 2012 and elect a true conservative majority behind a better leader than Mitch McConnell anyway.
I don't know how anyone could conclude that O'Donnell would be a reliable vote for anything. I don't know how anyone could possibly trust a single word coming out of her mouth.
I'm just glad I don't live in Delaware and don't have to actually hold my nose to vote in this race, because I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils.
For your answer, you'll have to ask Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint. They're not in the business of endorsing non-conservatives. Although my guess is both endorsed O'Donnell for the purpose of keeping a cancer like Castle out of the Senate GOP caucus.
Well, I can think of several possible motives for both Palin and DeMint to endorse O'Donnell, but I'm not going to go there. If she wins Tuesday night, I'll be 100% behind her.
I also think that Krauthammer is wrong to call Palin and DeMint "capricious," which impugns their motives.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/13/krauthammer…
We shouldn't be attacking each other on this. Good conservatives like Mark Levin and Charles Krauthammer should be able to disagree without the name-calling and personal put-downs.