« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Christine O’Donnell for U.S. Senate

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 28th, 2010 at 01:20 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I have to be honest with you, I think Christine O’Donnell’s bid for the United States Senate will be difficult. She’s a conservative in Delaware.

But she has my full support.

The thought of Mike Castle in the United States Senate makes me sick to my stomach.

There is one practical reason to support Mike Castle. People tell me he will vote for the Republicans in the Senate leadership contest, potentially putting the GOP in the majority.

But therein lies the problem with Castle. The man is to the left of Lincoln Chafee who himself was to the left of Arlen Specter. There are no guarantees when you combine a six year term with his age.

People say Christine O’Donnell cannot beat the Democrat. These same people said Marco Rubio could not beat Charlie Crist in the Florida Republican Primary. These same people said Bob Bennett would never be defeated, let alone Mike Lee elected.

Maybe they are right.

But I tell you the truth whether you like it or not. If “these people” are right, I would still rather a Democrat I can oppose than a Republican who will oppose us.

Mike Castle is a disgusting bottom feeder of a Republican politician and does not deserve anybody’s vote. Better a Democrat than Mike Castle.

But this is one of those unique election years where anything can happen. “Anything”, in this case, is Christine O’Donnell getting elected. It could happen. I want to help make it happen. But at the end of the day, as long as Mike Castle loses I’m good.

Don’t give me the “he’ll vote for Mitch McConnell” nonsense. What good is getting back the leadership with Castle’s vote if he then spends the next six years selling us out not on one or two issues, but every single issue from abortion to cap and trade to Obamacare (yeah, he voted against it in the House, but wants to keep most if it now), etc.

If O’Donnell can’t win the general, better still the Democrat than Mike Castle.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • earlgrey
  • shadowtax

    I would hope that the tea party/9-12/conservative grassroots would have a disproportionate impact..

    I heard Christine O’Donnell on Mark Levin’s radio program last week. The topic was Castle’s support of DISCLOSE. She impressed me.

    I agree with most of what you said except “Better a Democrat than Mike Castle.”

  • chihank

    Christine O’Donnell is a fine woman, but I doubt she can win in DE. She is more taylor made for Central PA. Castle is a proven winner in DE. Governor and then DE House At Large. There hasn’t been a GOP Governor in DE for over 16 years. However Castle makes Arlen Specter look like Marco Rubio.

    Thus conservatives have a choice. Lose with O’Donnell or win with Castle who will probably promote the Obama agenda.

  • hoyasaxa

    That Castle is to the left of Chafee?

  • Bryan McCarthy

    Christine O’Donnell would be a far stronger candidate than ultraliberal incumbant Mike Castle. For those living in the past, with their eyes closed, Castle might be a “proven winner.” But in Delaware as everywhere this year, he is a sure loser. He is responsible for all that is wrong in this country. Nobody is buying the lame talking point that Christine can’t win. Republicans, Democrats and Independants will rightly hold Castle responsible for current state on the nation. Good bye Mike.

  • supadupabuck

    it won’t take that much to get her to beat Castle..according to her on Levin. She said something like she only needed 300 G’s and 20,000 votes to beat him in the primary. I believe Castle co-authored/sponsored the Disclose Act, partially to save his own skin. Dudes gotta go.

  • bhjets

    and Chris “The One” Christie (bow your heads), anything can happen. Heard Christine O?Donnell on Mark Levin last week and immediately sent her $50. She was very impressive…..keep pushing her.

  • bhjets

    and Chris “The One” Christie (bow your heads), anything can happen. Heard Christine O?Donnell on Mark Levin last week and immediately sent her $50. She was very impressive…..keep pushing her.

  • ktsub

    In these ultra blue seats, conservatives should put their fire into electing a vote for majority leader. Outa principal nominating Christine (who is a great person), but no way she carries Delaware general, so that is a net loss. Creating this diversion in a tricky state for any Republican does no good.

    Delaware is not Utah or Florida or even Nevada…this is a different animal that screams RINO. Sorry we need to call the “Scott Brown Rule” here, best we gonna get…the DE GOP has seen an upkick recently, pick up in State House, serious candidate for US House seat, shot at taking legislature. A RINO in DE and MA, RI (how has that RINO’s loss done) are conservative compared to their ultra liberal competition. But any potential in DE will see serious shatter if their standard bearer is taken out, by all means pro-primary, but we must seriously consider the final outcome.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    …with McConnell leading 49 rather than 51 [which would include Castle (DE) and Kirk (IL)]. In the Senate when facing Obama’s re-election bid, leading a strong minority is much preferred to leading a completely weak majority.

  • red_oakster

    Delaware is a very blue state. If O’Donnell can win the primary, more power to her. But I will take Castle as an organizing vote for the GOP over any Democrat.

    Hey Erick, how about a little focus on Malpass in New York? He is better than Scott Brown (who Red State helped immensely) and a heckuva lot smarter.

    Candidate like Malpass and even Huffman in Oregon represent huge swings in favor of the conservatives. They replace Democratic senators who vote against us almost 100% of the time with folks who will vote the right way at least 60% of the time (often 80%-90%). That’s a 160 point swing. I like a Ken Buck over Jane Norton, but Buck represents only a marginal gain over what Norton would do. Again, that’s an excellent reason for supporting Buck, but don’t lose sight of the fact that those 160 point swings are tremendously important for conservative legislation.

  • JSobieski

    at least in terms of fiscal matters.

    I remember thinking I liked him better than than IL’s R Senate candidate, although I don’t remember exactly why.

  • red_oakster

    A majority gives oversight powers and a the ability to freeze bad appointments. Besides, it’s important to look at this as a two cycle game. Played well, the GOP has a chance to pick up 20-30 Senate seats through 2012. You read those numbers right. Come January 2013, we have the chance for a majority in the House and well above 60 seats in the Senate. I would rather the GOP get to 51 this year because that would help us to get get sixty-something in 2012.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I agree.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    …will totally disspirit conservatives when they look at Republicans in power.
    This will create a scenario that opens the door for Obama to limp into a second term. Brilliant!

    A strong Senate minority in 2011 (with R ownership of the House) will leave Obama and the Dems in charge but stymied. This is the position in which clear differences can be defined for the 2012 decision to remove Obama and Dem Senate control.

    Patience and wisdom will bring about significant positive change in 2010 to be completed in 2012′s election cycle. Desperately taking unworthy persons with an R behind their names in 2010 will destroy any hopes of true conservative revival. Please don’t abort conservatism with the likes of Castle.

  • IJB

    Especially when you factor in the raw numbers going into the 2012 Senate races (where the GOP could pick up possibly up to another 10 seats, based on the raw numbers alone).

    49 Senate Republicans would be able to totally bottle up, by Filibuster, almost anything Senate Dems try (but Senate Dems would still be on the hook for these “failures” because they’d still “control” the chamber…).

    Worse for them, I doubt 51 Dems could stop GOP House budget bills because there’d still be people like Nelson of NE (and Nelson of FL?…) around, who’d be running scared, and would likely sign on to GOP budgets.

    But 51-49 R-D split in the Senate with a guy like Castle (and, to a lesser extent, Kirk) would be an absolute *disaster* – guys like Castle would sign on to more than half of the Obama/Dem agenda, constantly undercutting a fragile GOP majority, and continually giving “bipartisan” ‘cover’ to the Obama/Dem agenda.

    I quite literally think we’re better off losing with O’Donnell than winning with Kirk.

    Too many people here seem to be cheerleading for the ‘R’ “team”, rather than thinking tactically and strategically about actually *implementing* a true *conservative* agenda legislatively…

  • Wine Country Dog

    an R majority he can use as a whipping boy for his 2012 re-election bid (if he makes one). I’d go with a strong Republican Senate minority with a Republican House majority to keep 0bama’s last two years as ineffectual as possible. It will make frustrate him and seriously damage his precious ego to not have the weather gauge in the 2012 battle.

  • Locked and Loaded

    someone remind me of why we can’t push for a Republican Majority Leader other than McConnell.

  • Locked and Loaded

    someone remind me of why we can’t push for a Republican Majority Leader other than McConnell.

  • aesthete

    I’m not completely confident that the Tea Party movement has as much influence in a true-blue state as it would in a red or purple state, but small states have, so far, proven to be their strength.

  • ralatredstate

    you’ve been losers for 170 years.

    (I quite literally think we?re better off losing with O?Donnell than winning with Kirk).

  • loop_block

    Morgan Philpot in Utah to replace Rep. Jim Matheson (D) ?

  • redtillimdead

    Erick’s just being a little dramatic here.

  • bob350r

    I have lived in Delaware all of my life. Mike Castle is a RINO. He will vote with the Dems on just about anything they want him to. He opposed the health care bill in the house but now wants something done. What, who knows? He also wrote the Disclose bill with a Democrat and now I hear that he is opposed to his own bill. He says he does not like the cutouts for the Unions and the NRA. Well this bill is unconstitutional but he wrote it anyway. He did not care that this Bill would hurt the Republican Party more than the Democrats. That fact right there should tell everyone something.
    Supporting Christine O’Donnell is important but she will have a very difficult time in Delaware. The Republicans that the majority of the citizens of Delaware like look just like Mike Castle.
    I will support her in the primary and the General if she makes it. But no matter what Mike Castle must go.

  • rrreaganite

    “A democrat is better than Mike Castle”. Are you serious. Republican in the general and conservative in the primary, remember! Support whoever you want Erick, but to say you would rather Coons than Castle makes you a hypocrite and completely off base.

  • redcometchar2010

    Ideally we would have 50 and they would maintain ‘control’ with Biden as the tiebreaker, but capturing the House is essential. In regards to Castle, he voted against Obamacare and will vote to repeal it if a Repub pres pressures him in 2013. Since he voted against partial-birth abortion (one of my very few lines in the sand when it comes to supporting candidates) in 2003 and against Obamacare in the House, I’m willing to give him some slack for being from DELAWARE. Winning Biden’s old seat with castle and Obama’s with Kirk (who is better than his opponent by a mile) would be a tremendous rebuke in November. Remember getting to 51 would take holding EVERY open seat and running the table which would be very difficult unless everything goes right. I see us getting ND, AR, DE (if we nominate Castle), IN, NV (probably), CO, PA (leans that way), in Wisconsin and Washington we have an outside shot, but CA will be threading the needle. If Rand Paul learns to control what he says than I’m not too worried, Kelly Ayotte looks pretty solid, but it is NH, despite the polls, come fall, Rubio will take care of Crist, MO (where I’m from) and OH are the ones that worry me the most and if not for the most recent SurveyUSA poll I’d be worried somewhat about NC. If we are disciplined and focused and we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot (like nominating someone OTHER than Castle) I say we can pick up 6-8 seats. This of course doesn’t take into account if a special election were held in WV which I doubt.

  • IJB
  • IJB

    Electing people like Rand and Angle, and maybe not people like Castle and Kirk.

    But, yeah – part of cleaning up the Senate will require new leadership.

    I think we’re all on board with that! :)

  • IJB

    While I’d grudgingly support Castle in the General, guys like him can often do more harm than good, esp. if you are thinking bigger picture and longer term.

    It’s not just about organizing votes, or even the occasional agenda vote – it’s about messaging and whether guys like Castle will constantly go ‘off message’, undermine the agenda, and make Republicans look bad.

    Castle is exactly the kind of guy who I could see going on to some ‘talking heads’ show, and accuse Republicans, generally, of being “racist” or “not caring enough about the poor” or yada yada yada…

    Not every Republican is worth supporting in general elections (e.g. if Bauer had beaten Nikki Haley in SC, I’m not sure too many people around here would be supporting him!). Most are, for sure – but not every one, in every case.

    Mike Castle is a really borderline case, IMO.

    I also think that, while winning the House at *any* margin is crucial, winning the Senate in this cycle with, at best at 51-49 R-D split, is something of a mixed blessing, especially if people like Castle, Kirk and the ME twins are thrown into the mix (along with a newly reelected John McCain, who will take Lindsey Graham by the hand, and immediately tack left), and especially considering how that would allow Obama to play off an “evil Republican Congress”…

    The fact is, Obama can be stopped just as easily, perhaps even *more easily*, with 49 or 50 Senate Republicans, as compared to 51…

  • JamesSmith130

    There are some RINOs that are so bad that it is just not worth supporting them even against a Dem.

    Tom Campbell, Mike Castle, and Bill Binnie are all in that category. Mark Kirk isn’t there yet.

  • rrreaganite

    You are cutting your nose off to spite your face, if you think that Castle would be worst than Coons. Mike Castle would be with us at least 50% of the time, granted that is low, but it’s better than the 100% of the time that Coons – the democrat would be with Obama. Christine O’Donnell cannot and will not win the General Election. That is a fact. Use Bill Buckley’s rule. Vote for the most viable conservative and in Delaware Mis. O’Donnell has already proven that she cannot win. She gave Joe Biden his biggest win ever in 2008. Some seats you need just for a majority. Would I rather have Tom Coburn in Delaware? Yes. But Delaware is not Oklahoma.

    Anyone who would vote for Coons over Castle in the General Election, is not a conservative, they are just sore sorry losers.

  • red_oakster

    As I posted earlier, with a Castle we get a blue state vote about half of the time which is better than a liberal voting against us all of the time.

    A Senate majority of 65 or 66 seats in 2012 is possible, but that will come with 7 or 8 moderates. The point is that we’ll have 57 or 58 pretty solid votes for some very conservative proposals and then you need to pick off only a couple of moderates each time. It makes it much easier to deliver conservative majorities whether its overhauling the tax code or health care or entitlement reform. The alternative is 58 seats and trying to pull a couple of democrats each time. Much harder.

  • hoyasaxa

    Is you can’t exactly guarantee we’re going to get to 49 without Castle and Kirk.

    I can see some merit to the idea that we’d be better off not having control of the Senate so Obama can’t run against the GOP Senate in 2012. I don’t agree with it because I think you can still slam an “obstructionist” minority of 49, but I understand where people are coming from.with this idea.

    However, I’d much rather have 49 with Castle and Kirk than 47 without them. Or 47 with Castle and Kirk than 45 without them.

    And in 2015, after we’ve had a chance at knocking off some of the one term wonders who were elected in the 2006 and 2008 waves, I’d rather have a shot at getting to 55 or 60 with Kirk and Castle rather than getting to 53 or 58 without them.

    Their votes won’t be consistently in our column, but they’ll vote with us a heck of a lot more than Alexi or Coons.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    The whole new egalitarianism of internet activism is becoming overbearing. If you don’t like Castle, you can ignore the race. Not every race needs to be endorsed by everybody nor does it need national involvement.

    While Republicans are beating each other up over practically nothing, Sestak has tied Toomey. Rubio has fallen behind Crist in every new poll. Even Rick Perry is struggling to shake Bill White lose. Kasich and Portman are still struggling in Ohio…

    There are plenty of fights worthy of one’s time, energy, resources and duckets.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    There is no way ObamaCare going to be uprooted once its teeth have sunk into the belly of society and we have two cycles to get that done.

    There is no way we are going to get 60+ conservative GOP Senators by 2012, and that’s what we will need, or at least something close to that.

    Even if its a moderate Republican who votes for cloture and forces some compromises, I’ll deal. But we will need some Republicans from Blue states.

    I care more about my country then I do spitting in the eye of moderate candidates or establishment candidates.

    Guys like Kirk and Rossi are hostile to ObamaCare. Castle is squishy, but can probably be bought. Overturning that sucker is too important.

  • SirGladiator

    First, thank you Erick for your awesome comments, they are spot on. I do want to challenge one common assumption in this thread however, and that is that somehow Christine O’Donnell isn’t very likely to win in November. This is a Republican year, Republicans are getting elected in Massachusetts, New Jersey, there’s absolutely nothing stopping us from winning in Delaware. Of course if you have a poll with her name in it right now she will likely be behind, simply because most people probably don’t know her yet, but once she becomes well known I have no doubt she will be HIGHLY favored to win. One of the major reasons is because, lest anyone forget, the Democrats already lost their only strong candidate in this race, when Joe Biden’s son dropped out. He’s not running folks, yes if he were running it would be hard for O’Donnell to beat him, but he isn’t, they’ve got a lesser guy running, one that any average Republican would probably beat in this Republican year, and quite frankly I think Christine will prove to be far above average, certainly she’s been impressive so far.

    So while the whole ‘Is it better to vote for a liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican’ debate is interesting, and I could definitely see the merits behind both arguments, the fact is we don’t have to worry about that so long as we elect Christine O’Donnell in the Primary. Simply by voting for the candidate we all know to be VASTLY superior to Castle, we avoid all the ‘better a liberal with an R or a liberal with a D?” stuff, certainly we know that we as Conservatives don’t win if Castle wins, we can only win if O’Donnell wins, and when she wins the Primary we not only get a real choice in November, we get a real winner, because when she wins, we win!

  • IJB

    ObamaCare *can’t* be repealed before Obama’s gone. IOW, not before 2013.

    All we can do 2010-2012 is defund it – we really only need the House under GOP control for that part. And there’s no guarantee that someone like Castle would even go along with that strategy, so I’m not even sure we could count on his vote for that.

  • JSobieski

    and that people talking about how electing democrats is a good thing are asked to leave (usually in a polite way, but not always).

    This hypocrisy should be avoided, especially in light of how many people talk about sitting on their hands or voting third party.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    which worked pretty well for the USA in the 90s version, rather than conspiring with Dem majorities to more fundamentally change America. Think it might be better than the GOP decides what legislation gets to the floor; who gets confirmed for positions; who and what to investigate; etc? Obviously.

    I can’t see a long or short tern benefit of a D instead of an R, but we certainly must be about the short term given the threat this admin is to damage the Us so severely that there will be no chance for a long term.

    The bottom line is that we can’t save America by being less able to be played off of. We have to re-take the reins. The public has sent a message and I suspect that most of the moderates will not be so quick to revert.

    But even of they did, the fact is that voting records show that the most lib repub is more conservative BY FAR than the most conservative dem.

    I really am astounded if it is true that EE is supporting the Dem or is indifferent. This whole exercise all of us are engaged in, is about the laws passed by the government, I thought. It is not about personalities. Bad laws and policies are killing America and we can’t reverse democrat laws with democrats.

    It is fundamental that we must have as few dems making laws as possible. Laws and passed or fail by PARTY, period. I have written often chastising my conservative Dem friends for empowering the left with votes for so-called conservative dems that vote for Pelosi as speaker. How much more irrational for a repub to favor a dem!

    If we are serious about saving America, then we simply must vote R.

    That I am having to preach the mission statement to EE is quite interesting.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    If simple math doesn’t make that clear, then surely the close votes in the Senate and House over 6 different fundamental change bills, including procedural votes, should have. The Dodd Bill hangs in the balance now over possibly ONE vote.

    Come on guys.

  • JSobieski

    or ” I would still rather a Democrat I can oppose than a Republican who will oppose us.” is a clear violation of the terms of use for this site.

    Many angry people in the past have been booted off this site based on the mantra of Conservatives in the primary, Republicans in the general. This diary gives each of them ammunition for center-right fatricide.

    Not good.

    Vote R so long as . . . there is still a heartbeat!

  • JSobieski

    You have to make gains in more than 1 election cycle. Only 33 seats are up at any one time. A democrat victor now in D will likely be a democrat victor in the years to come.

    So if you strategy is to hold back until 2012, I suggest you change your strategy.

    Fight with the army you have, not a hypothetical army of Kryptonians.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    we are all dead in the long run and in this case, America is in peril of dying in the short run. One of the ways democrats have re-built their majorities was by unity.

    This is not a close call and I really am stunned to see this kind of idea expressed.

  • JSobieski

    Your proposed analysis is not new. I have seen similar commentary (from the perspective of both parties) in 1994 and 2006.

    With a majority comes subpoena power, the power to actually vote down judges and other nominees, the ability to sustain a fillibuster while letting people peel off, the ability to control committees and assert and agenda, etc.

    51 with Castle is better than 50 or 49 without, and there will always be a weakest link in the chain. It might be Casle, it might be Kirk, it might be Brown—but the swing vote will ALWAYS be approached by the other side, and the swing vote will never be a Jesse Helms.

    Sometimes to much strategy results in bad decisons. Generals who capitalize on a string of strategicly advantageous losses (see Civil War) deserve to get canned.

  • JSobieski

    Purposely staying the minority is insanity.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    It is because the Dems gained power that this country is in peril. Either the dems will have power or we will, so that it is not mainly about individuals. The parties are not a close call.

  • cactusjack

    the parties with majorities, in either House, get to select the chairman of the committees. They steer or block legislation from even coming up. Would only one House had had an R leader this last session, we would have averted so much damage, regardless of the loose RINOs running about. Controlling the committees will be excellent defense against depredations yet to be committed by our mad Emperor as he rages, foams at the mouth and crowns his horse new Emperor in the dying months of his reign.

  • conservativecrusade

    “If O?Donnell can?t win the general, better still the Democrat than Mike Castle.”

    I have seen people get the famous G’bye for saying vote a dem or get threatened with a loss of their account for bringing up the possibility that a dem would be better than a republican. Now the leader of the site who has stated numerous time that this site is ALWAYS conservative in the primary, republican in the general now says a dem should win if O’Donnell Can not pull out a win.

    Dead wrong, no matter if she can or not, a wishy washy leftist republican will give us at least more votes for what is right that the no votes the dem will give us for the same. Not too mention it gives us the majority numbers in order to dethrone Pelosi and Reid. Vote a democrat, hell no and Eric should reconsider his own hypocrisy. Way too many look up to him and listen to his opinion for him to now speak out of both sides of his mouth. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

  • IJB

    I never said anything about “holding back” until 2012. That’s ridiculous.

    In fact, I’ve never said anything about not supporting Castle in the General.

    All that said, I have repeatedly expressed doubts at the worthiness of electing Republicans from deep Blue states and districts because frankly I think they’re nigh on useless – the people you get out of these districts don’t help *conservatives*. I’d rather focus on Red and Purple states and districts where you’re much more likely to get the ‘real deal’.

    I’m not interested in an “operational” Republican majority – I’m interested in a functional *conservative* majority, or at the least a functional Republican minority, and I honestly don’t think someone like Mike Castle is going to contribute to that in any meaningful way.

    I think anyone that’s counting on someone like Mike Castle to be there on the really important votes, like tax cuts, or cutting entitlements, or repealing ObamaCare is probably fooling themselves. And I think anyone counting on him to *not* vote for large parts of Obama’s agenda, if we’re still in the Minority, is also likely fooling themselves.

    (Most people making these arguments also ignore the operational realities of the Senate as well, where you really generally are better off being the 49-Minority than the 51-Majority…)

    Worse, a RMSP’er like Castle, could very well work to undermine conservative legislation and goals. And do so publicly, and vocally.

    Like I said, I’m playing ‘long ball’, and what I’m after is an actual *conservative* legislative majority. I don’t think someone like Mike Castle is going to contribute towards that. He doesn’t help us get to 50, or 60, *conservative* votes.

    But I realize that there’s population around here that’s looking for anyone with an ‘R’ after their name, and I not going to stop you guys from knocking yourself out on that…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    maximizing the possibilities of making and repealing laws that affect our lives. Some people get caught up in the individual politician too much. They get disappointed by a few RINO votes and are like a lover that catches her paramour with another. They are upset, mind you, with bad votes. The dem was already voting bad and so the spouse eliminated them as a beau from the git go. So to support the worse voting dem is really about making the voter feel better in some emotional way.

    Many elect politicians because they “like” them. That is a silly way to hire someone whose job is to vote right more often.

  • IJB

    …Which renders control of those committees nearly meaningless, unless that Majority is backed up by 60 solids votes.

    Which it won’t be after November: the Dems will be lucky to have 53-54 – they’re likely to only have 50-52.

    They won’t be able to get squat done with that…

    (But you are absolutely right about this, on the *House* end of things…)

  • IJB

    He never advocated “voting for a Democrat”. You guys are just grasping at straws here…

  • JSobieski

    You talk about strategy, but ignore so many tools that can influence what occurs in view of the public. Plus, a majority can simply vote things down and alleviate all of “the fillibuster is undemocratic” arguments that will be made after November

  • cactusjack

    one rock solid conservative gentleman or lady in one of the important House committees, can negate the effect of three or four, or even more, RINOs loose on the floor. And then the more RINOs we get rid of, in that committee’s subject jurisdiction, it’s all gravy .

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • cactusjack

    meant to say, one of those rock solid conservatives, *chairing* one of those committees…

  • IJB

    Until you guys can, until you guys can get him on the record as saying he will support not just repealing, but *defunding* it, you’re spinning scenarios without any proof they’ll play out.

    Have any of you thought how bad it would be if the GOP has 51 Senate votes, and *loses* a vote to defund ObamaCare because he won’t to defund it?!…

  • JSobieski

    and Paul Ryan is smarter than Gingrich, who was another one of those really clever strategy people who makes a really dumb play about 10% of the time.

  • IJB

    It’s the same thing.

  • JSobieski

    Are we determined to repeat 1992 and 2008? If so, let me know and I can find other ways to spend my time.

  • JSobieski

    Whether or not Castle is in the Senate, there will ALWAYS be someone who is the weakest conservative link who the Dems/MSM will attempt to cherry pick.

    That person will exist, and that person will be a RINO in the eyes of this site.

    I support conservatives in the primaries, but republicans in the general.

  • IJB

    That’s why, Priority #1, MUST be taking back the House. The House is the truly ‘majoritarian’ institution, and every vote there really *does* count.

    And I’m counting on the House to launch those investigations with subpoena powers.

    In the Senate, I’m much more dubious about just how important the ‘organizing’ power really is. Yeah, you’ll lose subpoena and investigating power.

    But trying to operate a Senate with 51 votes, just from past experience, makes the majority look horrible – they lose nearly every imporant non-budget vote there is. It might be worth it, with 51 of the right kind of GOP Senators. But… without that… eh…

  • JSobieski

    ?If O?Donnell can?t win the general, better still the Democrat than Mike Castle.?

    Unless by “better” he means “worse”—-the entire RS mantra has been turned on its head. The floodgates will now be opened!

  • aesthete

    First, she’s made her bones, up to this points, as pundit of the culture warrior variety. That would be great for somewhere like Georgia, and might even fly in the Midwestern states, but in blue states and some western states, it’s a death warrant. Pundits, due to the nature of the job and the pure volume of comments they must make, make controversial and plain silly remarks, and O’Donnell is no exception. One-note punditry isn’t going to appeal to the voter base there: Scott Brown, if you’ll recall, didn’t run a fire-and-brimstone campaign. While she has apparently cast her lot with the Tea Party folks (probably to garner some national support), and changed her focus onto fiscal conservatism, and while I’ll cut her some slack and assume that she does genuinely hold such beliefs, she’s never been known as a small government conservative in Deleware, and statements in her past will be damaging in a way that they wouldn’t be in places like Virginia. When is the last time you heard of a true-blue culture warrior win in a state like DE?

    Second, she’s a poor campaigner. Biden didn’t campaign at all in Deleware when she ran against him (it was a talking point in her campaign, as I recall), and she still delivered him the biggest victory of his political career. Ditto her other races; in the competitive primary she was involved in, she received very few votes. She still has debt from those campaigns that she hasn’t paid off. Given her repeated history of losing badly to opponents, one is hardly confident that she’ll do better in this matchup.

    We have enough races that are viable that still need help that it is foolish to waste our funds and time on Christine’s campaign.

  • IJB

    Imagine a Senate where the “weakest” Republican was not the ME twins or Scott Brown, but, say, Kit Bond – the Dems would almost *never* be able to pick him off. Yeah, sure, they’d try: but they’d *fail* about 99% of the time.

  • IJB

    Like I’ve said elsewhere, I’ll support (somewhat grudgingly…) Castle in the General. And I’m assuming Erick would too.

    But, that said, supporting a guy like Castle is a calculated risk – and he could very easily go “Chafee” on us in two years.

    As long as everyone supporting the guy is clear on that point going in to it…

  • JSobieski

    the Main ladies, Brown, Graham, et al. will hold firm. Everything is dynamic. The more RINOs you have, the less attention any individual RINO receives. If one RINO is particularly more liberal than all the others, that person will certainly fold (see former Senator from Rhode Island who was totally useless).

    You are being too clever by half–we ALREADY have a bunch of RINOs that we need to keep in line. Any one of them is poachable, and each one will have a couple of get out of jail for free cards. Adding some additinal RINO’s to the bench just adds a little manuevering room which we will need.

    Let me be clear:
    1) I would vote for Christine in the primary if I lived in Delaware
    2) My entire problem with this diary is

    ?If O?Donnell can?t win the general, better still the Democrat than Mike Castle.”

    This opens up a can of worms that was already hard to keep closed. The Third Party talk can now point to EE himself as precedent for it being “better” for a Republican to lose.

  • IJB

    The more RINOs there are, the more self-reinforcing they are, and the more “maverick-y” they’ll get, and the more “Gang of 14″ kind of stuff that will go on. (RINOs: “We’re the MODERATE caucus! You have to listen to *US*!!!1!!” Me: [gag!] )

    And this is kind of warning – if you add Kirk and Castle, to the ME twins and Brown, along with Graham and a newly reelected McCain, and, well… there could be some *problems*… :/

  • JSobieski

    There have been numerous incidents on this site where a similar comment would have been taken literally and addressed accordingly. There are a whole lot of people out there looking for the emotional catharsis of saying “throw all the bums out” and vote third party. Glen Beck and the popularity of his show is a great example of this potential danger. For that reason, it is CRITICAL that “there is not a lick of difference between the D and R” must not prevail in the mind of the public. EE’s comment makes that job that much harder, and the stakes are very high. Those are the strategic concerns that I have. A repeat of 1992 if you will, when the vast majority of Americans voted for a more fiscally conservative candidate than the winner of the Presidential election.

    I read the diary very closely and very specifically. So have many others. We may not be as “strategic” as you and no doubt we are not as clever, but we are careful readers and we pay close attention to what people actually say. But for that one sentence, I don’t think this diary would have attracted even 10% of the comments that it did—and that single sentence is the cause.

    I am not supporting Castle, I support Christine.

    In case you missed it—I support Christine, the non-Castle non RINO.

  • JSobieski

    We already have lots of problems, and I am not predicting a carefree Congress any time soon. If you want to make a bet on problems, I take the side that there will be problems regardless of what happens in Delaware.

    If Castle wins the primary, we either go with someone we know is against us all the time, or someone who is flaky, like 10% of our existing Senate Caucus. If you want to remove all the RINOs, we won’t have enough to sustain a fillibuster (I have high standards in that regard).

    I don’t even like Castle particularly, I just don’t want to see people saying “I would rather have a democrat than republican X”. That is my primary strategic concern.

  • JSobieski

    It is, in terms of tactics, easier for the Republicans to just vote things down. How many times have we heard from a US President “X deserves an up or down vote . . .”. What about judicial nominees? Many conservatives don’t feel that such an action is constitutional. Does Olympia Snowe have the guts to fillibuster a SCt nominee? I think not.

    Look, if we end up with 49 or 50, will I tout the “benefits” of that position? Sure. But it isn’t something we should want.

    “Get close to a majority but not quite so we can avoid being accountable for what happens” is not a great rallying cry. Moreover, the D’s who beat RINOs may be hard to unseat later.

    I am not saying that RINOs deserve our financial support. All I am saying is that EE is wrong, that Castle would be better than a D.

    Congress is a numbers game. To wish for fewer numbers is to wish to be outgunned in a firefight.

  • JSobieski

    but I don’t see how having a liberal Democrat from Delaware is going to help make that happen.

  • ralatredstate

    * ecent Posts
    * My Profile
    * My Diary
    * Create New Diary Entry
    * Log out

    Christine O?Donnell

    Posted by ralatredstate (Profile)

    Monday, June 28th at 9:26PM EDT
    No Comments

    If she can get the nomination, great! And maybe she can -

    http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com/2010/06/odonnell-campaign-does-it-againthis.html

    But the idea that Coons or any other Dem would be better

    ?I quite literally think we?re better off losing with O?Donnell than winning with [Castle]?

    IJB Monday, June 28th at 3:19PM EDT

    is nuts.

    There are, maybe, some rare circumstances when it is strategically better to lose, but here the second best chance [after the 1st = Castle, even if a communist, can do little real damage] is to elect a Rep gov on 2012 to appoint a decent successor if Castle dies.

  • conservativecrusade

    for both my piss poor grammer, very tired but no excuse, and for you being wrong IJB.

    More than one time Erick clearly stated or hinted at not supporting the republican should he beat O’Donnell. This goes against everything this site has stood for and what Erick has stood for. Not too mention where are the mods of this site calling this out? Had I or anyone else written this, we would have been sternly warned or even had our account banned. Now I understand that they do not have power over Erick, but their voices in this matter should be heard or it will do one of two things:

    Make their future reprimands of someone saying the similar thing hypocritical or show that they have no real opinion on this site but what Erik allows them to have. Erick or nor Erick, this site has always proclaimed to be for conservatives, then republicans, never for democrats, and not for third parties. All that rhetoric so many of supported, is not just hot air. As big of a site as this one is, it does not take much to relegate it to a nothing status. And changing your years of preaching and written in stone rules to the exact opposite will do that faster than anything else.

    Here are a few of his comments supporting the democrat if O’Donnell does not win:

    “But I tell you the truth whether you like it or not. If ?these people? are right, I would still rather a Democrat I can oppose than a Republican who will oppose us.”

    “Mike Castle is a disgusting bottom feeder of a Republican politician and does not deserve anybody?s vote. Better a Democrat than Mike Castle.”

    “But this is one of those unique election years where anything can happen. ?Anything?, in this case, is Christine O?Donnell getting elected. It could happen. I want to help make it happen. But at the end of the day, as long as Mike Castle loses I?m good.”

    “If O?Donnell can?t win the general, better still the Democrat than Mike Castle.”

    Since it seems to have been forgotten by some, this site believes Conservative in the primary, republican in the general and that is how it must be if we want to end the terror under Obama!

  • itsjoanne

    there are so many races in which we have a great chance of a conservative win…… we don’t need to get involved in them all.

    For example, Dave Westlake in Wisconsin or Kelly Ayotte in NH.

  • proudgop

    I will always support our parties nominee

    I am not thrilled about Paul in KY pulling off a win but I sent him a check anyways

    I will in Deleware and Biden’s Senate Seat is an added punch to both Obama and Biden on election night

  • proudgop

    Listen Cahfee was an Indepent ( Liberal) and then only switched to Republican when his daddy decided to not run for re-election and so he switched to Republican for political calculation and now he is back to being an Independent

    Castle has been a Republican for decades

  • ref1

    This is only one Senate seat, and we have lots of other priorities here. We need to shore up FL, OH, MO, and even NC.

    I am not a Castle fan but will support him if he wins the primary. That’s it, now on to the races I care about…..

  • rightwingdelaware

    at the Republican State Convention by a landslide, and before people start calling the delegates “elitists” and “puppets” this was a batch of Delegates that included Tea Partiers and delegates who gave her the nomination in 2008.

    The poll from “Blue Hen Conservative” that you cite had 60 people voting. The Convention had 344.

    I’m amazed at the continued endorsement on this site of O’Donnell when she’s very simply not a viable candidate in Delaware. She moved to Delaware a few short years ago to work for a conservative think tank that she ended up trying to sue for discrimination. She hasn’t held a job, despite being deeply in debt both personally and with her campaign, and she leaves a trail of disgruntled, unpaid campaign staffers in her wake after every election. She ran as a college graduate in 2006 & 2008 but an expose in the News Journal proved that she never graduated.

    I’ll take Castle and his votes against Obamacare, the Stimulus Package, the Jobs Bill and the repeal of DADT any day of the week, and I get to vote in the Delaware Republican primary.

    And then there’s this statement that she gave to the Coastal Conservative Network:

    http://thatselbert.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-email-who-is-christine-odonnell-she-wants-to-be-our-senator/

    “?I?m not rich, I?m not working, and it is perfectly legitimate for me to use campaign funds for my living expenses while campaigning?food, gasoline, etc. I can even pay myself a salary as long as I?m not working,? said O?Donnell.”

    Using campaign funds for living expenses is unprecidented in Delaware politics, as is any candidate paying themselves a salary from their campaign coffers.

    And while the companies that rented her office space and sold her campaign supplies remain unpaid, and former staffers remain unpaid, O’Donnell did manage to reimburse her boyfriend for “out of pocket expenses.”

    “As to the unusual Brent Vosher expense check, O?Donnell stated she really didn?t want his name mentioned, but it was a reimbursement to him for out of pocket expenses.”

    And then there’s this:

    http://www.simplelegaldocs.com/odonnell-faces-debt-tax-issues

    She’s a gem, Erick, please feel free to recruit her away from Delaware so she can clog up the court system in your state with frivolous lawsuits against your conservative organizations and default judgements on her monetary obligations.

  • rightwingdelaware

    at the Republican State Convention by a landslide, and before people start calling the delegates “elitists” and “puppets” this was a batch of Delegates that included Tea Partiers and delegates who gave her the nomination in 2008.

    The poll from “Blue Hen Conservative” that you cite had 60 people voting. The Convention had 344.

    I’m amazed at the continued endorsement on this site of O’Donnell when she’s very simply not a viable candidate in Delaware. She moved to Delaware a few short years ago to work for a conservative think tank that she ended up trying to sue for discrimination. She hasn’t held a job, despite being deeply in debt both personally and with her campaign, and she leaves a trail of disgruntled, unpaid campaign staffers in her wake after every election. She ran as a college graduate in 2006 & 2008 but an expose in the News Journal proved that she never graduated.

    I’ll take Castle and his votes against Obamacare, the Stimulus Package, the Jobs Bill and the repeal of DADT any day of the week, and I get to vote in the Delaware Republican primary.

    And then there’s this statement that she gave to the Coastal Conservative Network:

    http://thatselbert.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-email-who-is-christine-odonnell-she-wants-to-be-our-senator/

    “?I?m not rich, I?m not working, and it is perfectly legitimate for me to use campaign funds for my living expenses while campaigning?food, gasoline, etc. I can even pay myself a salary as long as I?m not working,? said O?Donnell.”

    Using campaign funds for living expenses is unprecidented in Delaware politics, as is any candidate paying themselves a salary from their campaign coffers.

    And while the companies that rented her office space and sold her campaign supplies remain unpaid, and former staffers remain unpaid, O’Donnell did manage to reimburse her boyfriend for “out of pocket expenses.”

    “As to the unusual Brent Vosher expense check, O?Donnell stated she really didn?t want his name mentioned, but it was a reimbursement to him for out of pocket expenses.”

    And then there’s this:

    http://www.simplelegaldocs.com/odonnell-faces-debt-tax-issues

    She’s a gem, Erick, please feel free to recruit her away from Delaware so she can clog up the court system in your state with frivolous lawsuits against your conservative organizations and default judgements on her monetary obligations.

  • rightwingdelaware

    He was there to vote against Obamacare just like he was on the House floor in the 1990s railing against Hillarycare. He voted against the Stimulus Package and the Jobs Bill and the repeal of DADT. He voted against a withdrawl date from Iraq, He voted for the Bush Tax Cuts and he voted for every provision from the Contract with America that came up for a vote.

    You can say what you want about the TARP vote, but the harsh reallity is that Delaware has more people working in the banking industry than Delaware has Republican primary voters, so Castle, as he always does, voted in the best interest of his state.

    Castle also started one of the most successful law firms in Delaware, and when he was in the Governor’s office as both Lt. Governor and Governor, Delaware saw unprecidented job growth, business expansion and prosperity.

    Castle also has a commanding lead againt the D-23%, while polling put O’Donnell in the “other” catagory with several other candidates who shared 7%.

    The choice is clear to anyone who actually wants to win back the Senate, stop the railroading through of damaging legislation, and insure reasonable Supreme Court nominees for the remainder of Obama’s one term in office.

  • rightwingdelaware

    He was there to vote against Obamacare just like he was on the House floor in the 1990s railing against Hillarycare. He voted against the Stimulus Package and the Jobs Bill and the repeal of DADT. He voted against a withdrawl date from Iraq, He voted for the Bush Tax Cuts and he voted for every provision from the Contract with America that came up for a vote.

    You can say what you want about the TARP vote, but the harsh reallity is that Delaware has more people working in the banking industry than Delaware has Republican primary voters, so Castle, as he always does, voted in the best interest of his state.

    Castle also started one of the most successful law firms in Delaware, and when he was in the Governor’s office as both Lt. Governor and Governor, Delaware saw unprecidented job growth, business expansion and prosperity.

    Castle also has a commanding lead againt the D-23%, while polling put O’Donnell in the “other” catagory with several other candidates who shared 7%.

    The choice is clear to anyone who actually wants to win back the Senate, stop the railroading through of damaging legislation, and insure reasonable Supreme Court nominees for the remainder of Obama’s one term in office.

  • rec0n

    subject again? I’m seeing bad press on O’Donnell, via posts on HotAir. I’d like RS’s opinions and background checks if we can get it.
    Delaware is looking FUBAR from where I’m sitting.

  • rec0n

    I found it.