Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    How Mike Castle Brought Down The Delaware GOP

    How Mike Castle Brought Down The Delaware GOP

    There is a nice bit of revisionist and self-congratulatory history at FrumForum, in a piece titled How Christine O’Donnell Brought Down The Delaware GOP.

    I’ll save you the trouble and high blood pressure of reading the article, here’s the story line:

    Christine O’Donnell singlehandedly caused Republicans down the line, all the way to dog catcher, to lose to Democrats in Delaware state elections.

    The proof?  None, other than that Republicans lost.

    So why is O’Donnell to blame?

    Why not Mike Castle, the loser in the primary who took his ball home, played the part of spoiled brat, and took the rest of the Delaware GOP machine with him?

    Why isn’t it just as justifiable to blame Castle and the Delaware Republican Party for not backing the primary winner, sniping at her, and demoralizing Republican voters?  While unity may not have resulted in an O’Donnell win, perhaps it would have avoided down the line disaster.

    The FrumForum article is more establishment nonsense from people who are unwilling to admit that their guy in Delaware destroyed the state party because of his ego and hurt feelings.

    ——————————————–
    Related Posts:
    The Murkowski-Castle Senate Would Have Been A Disaster
    Memo to the Right: “The Lombardi Rule” Is In Effect
    Japan Won WWII and The Tea Party Lost The Mid-Terms

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Jean, Mike Castle voted for Crap & Tax, the DISCLOSE Act, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, etc., etc., etc.

    And you're right, of course, Castle is no RINO. He's an admitted NINO (NoLabels in Name Only). The fella doesn't even want to label himself as a Republican.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Van Halen | January 3, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    I'm going to put forth additional arguments against RINO candidates here and explain why I supported the candidates I did:

    Do you think the Left put up with this compromise crap? No! They didn't. Move On took the party over and put in solid Liberal candidates who got things done. There was no compromise. None. Look at the impressive list of wins for the Left in the last four years. Wow. I wish MY SIDE could say as much. Only since November has my side shown that they might at last be on board – and it was the PEOPLE who did it, not the stupid leadership.

    I will not lay like a dog on the floor begging for scraps at the GOP table. It's time the GOP learned that they are in this for ME. Not the other way around. I want results, not compromise.
    Where I disagree with the GOP establishment is that a once in a while vote is not something we want. We want consistency. The current GOP is like a cheating spouse. How many of you stay in a marriage for decades with a cheating spouse? But we're told we should stay in a party with cheating representatives and leadership.

    Now, apply the 'once in a while' vote mentality to the following:
    marriage
    business
    your employees
    war
    religion
    your friends
    your auto mechanic
    your auto
    your surgeon
    your investor
    your doctor
    your parachute

    Does once in a while success count there? No! Because it would be a disaster. You need certainty. But many of you are perfectly willing to let a 'once in a while representative' slip through because somehow if he/she votes with us once in a while, we'll win in the long run. That's patently false. My proof? Look where we are today. And it's so bad we're almost out of time to get anything fixed.

    You're going to get some bad choices in the TEA Party candidates once in a while. But I have to laugh when we're slammed for putting up a Golisano or O'Donnell by the very RINO GOP who have given us an impressive list of 40 YEARS of worthless candidates.

    Van Halen, you do not turn blue states red overnight. You turn them purple first. I'll take the most conservative candidate who can win. THIS TIME. Then I'll see about pushing things a little further right next time.

    "RINOs vote with Liberals MOST of the time."

    Wrong. Let's take Castle as an example — he had a lifetime ACU score of 52. Now, that's the mark of a moderate, and I'd never argue otherwise. But it's a lot better than what Coons will be, and it certainly doesn't mean he votes with liberals MOST of the time. Half the time, yes. As jeannebodine pointed out, Castle left us on some important votes. But as Jean pointed out, he stuck by us on some important votes, too.

    "Big Bird would have been a better candidate than Mike Castle."

    Now that's ridiculous. Get some proportion, man.

    "But [Murkowski is] better than a Liberal Senator – how?"

    Well, if we're talking in terms of voting record, once in five votes is better than a liberal would give us. However, your point is well-taken in Murkowski's case. Alaska is a solid-red state, and we should do better than her. That's why I donated money to Joe Miller. Delaware, by contrast, is a solid blue state, and I maintain that a Senator Castle would have been the best possible outcome there. Comparing Alaska to Delaware is like comparing ripe apples to rancid blueberries.

    "Now, look at the other great RINO candidates who helped Obama take victory lap over victory lap these last few weeks."

    So what? You'd rather throw out the (admittedly very inconsistent) Maine ladies, and replace them with party-line Democrats who will never help us on any issue? Would you rather have Martha Coakley than Scott Brown? Personally, I was happy to have all three of those votes in the healthcare fight. Maybe you like ObamaCare a lot more than I do. Would you rather have Alexi Gianol…Giannil…Mobster-Buddy than Mark Kirk? That is, would you rather have a man obviously involved in shady activities sitting in the Senate instead of an inconsistent Republican?

    Yeah, I don't like half the votes they take. But I wouldn't like ALL the votes of the alternative. So I'll concentrate on shifting the body's composition as far right as I can, on a seat-by-seat basis. When I can get a Mike Lee instead of a Bob Bennett, I'll take him and be happy. When I can get a Marco Rubio instead of a Charlie Crist, I'll be ecstatic. And yes, when I can get a Christine O'Donnell instead of a Mike Castle, I'll take her without a moment's pause, no matter what the knocks on her. BUT WE COULDN'T GET THAT. And Castle > Coons. I'm sure you'll call that compromise. I'm sure now, in your mind, I'm a squish, despite the fact that I bet we agree on 95% of issues. So be it.

    You want to change the NY GOP, good luck. I hope you can. If you know of some way I can help from here in the middle of the country, I'll be happy to do it if I can. I hope the DE GOP can regroup too. The fact that Castle was the most electable candidate we could produce was not a good thing. But we go to war with the army we have, and we take the victories we can get. And I see no way, no way at all, in which throwing away a certain half-win for a certain loss is a victory.

    "And from me there will be no compromise. Not now. Not ever."

    Okay, Rorschach.

    "But I have to laugh when we're slammed for putting up a Golisano or O'Donnell by the very RINO GOP who have given us an impressive list of 40 YEARS of worthless candidates."

    Now this is your best argument. I understand your mistrust of the establishment. They haven't had a great track record at giving us solid conservatives in red states, and that's me being nice. I am very happy the TEA Party did a lot to change that, and I was pleased to help where I could, to the small degree I could, in that effort.

    But that doesn't mean they're always wrong, and Delaware is the shining example of that. When it comes to the red states, don't take the establishment candidate if you can find a better. Whoever's picked will win anyway. But when it comes to blue states, they're better at knowing what will play than you.

    Your analogies fundamentally don't work — because the name of the game, at the end of the day, is crafting policy. That's how we get the most conservative agenda possible, and it's done by hundreds of people with their own agendas. Requiring the same perfection from it as you would a machine is ludicrous. The choice in Delaware was between a moderate and a liberal to be the next policy-crafter. I picked the moderate by backing the moderate; you picked the liberal by backing an unelectable conservative.

    "Do you think the Left put up with this compromise crap? No! They didn't. Move On took the party over and put in solid Liberal candidates who got things done. There was no compromise. None. "

    You apparently reside in some alternate dimension where Evan Bayh, Max Baucus, and the entire blue dog caucus never existed.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend