« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mike Castle Ain’t Backbone

By: hogan (Diary)  |  September 13th, 2010 at 10:33 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“For those who think getting a Republican majority back in the Senate is the solution to our problems, you miss the naked reality that we had a sizable majority and it was liberal[s] … like Castle, and the supposed conservatives who empowered them, who drove the Party and the nation into a ditch, handing the reins to nutjob leftists in the process.”

Much has been made of late of the Delaware Republican Primary for U.S. Senate. I honestly wasn’t paying much attention to it a few weeks ago and probably wouldn’t have but for the absolute hysteria coming from establishment and “we just gotta get the majority” Republicans that O’Donnell would be a disaster and we must simply “hold our nose” and support Castle.

As a result of this hysteria and my reasonably in-depth understanding of the way the Senate works, it is clear to me that whatever Ms. O’Donnell’s faults, putting Mike Castle in the Senate would be a mistake.

Liberal and establishment Republicans have corrupted the entire Republican Conference in the Senate. Other than a very few stalwarts, most Republican Senators (whether they are supposedly “moderate” or “conservative”) simply do not IN ANY WAY stand for the principle of limited government – they like to spend money, they want to be seen as “reasonable” more than principled, and they get together in their little Senate club and drench themselves in the kool-aid of “getting things done” for the American people (which is code for sticking it to the people). That remains true today. They look at the Tea Party movement and what is happening in primaries around the country with dismay and disdain. They want it to go away.

Adding Mike Castle, a veteran liberal Republican, to the Senate would add another voice to the room of the need to moderate our tone. He would be a voice for compromise and reaching across the aisle. He would give lip-service about voting to repeal Obamacare, while at the same time demanding that Republicans “replace” it with something reasonable, which would undoubtedly be God-awful policy. He would be a poison in meetings of Republican Senators, where they like to talk themselves into nonsensical positions based on some mix of polling, overpriced consultants and most of all, stupid group-think.

Today, we are seeing the American people draw a line in the sand. They are tired not just of Obama and company, but gutless Republicans. This is not about Republicans being better than Democrats. As a rule, they are. This is about taking back the Republican Party so that we may actually save this country from statism. If Ms. O’Donnell has problems, I simply cannot care at this point. We are at war to save this country, and the only way to win is to make sure that the line in the sand remains crystal clear.

Maybe O’Donnell cannot win the general election. So be it. For those who think getting a Republican majority back in the Senate is the solution to our problems, you miss the naked reality that we had a sizable majority and it was liberal pukes like Castle, and the supposed conservatives who empowered them, who drove the Party and the nation into a ditch, handing the reins to nutjob leftists in the process.

It is not enough to have “less bad” policies or merely to improve what Obama and company have given us. We need a wholesale reversal and re-structuring, and we need it now. That will only come with a Republican Party with backbone – and Mike Castle ain’t backbone.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Marcus_Traianus

    the most measured and articulate recitation of what’s at stake in this race.

    • audax

      “….At RedState we have always and will always be conservative in primaries and Republican in general elections….”

      Hhere

      • nepanyrush

        I understand the “For Castle” people. Their view basically equates to: “Trust the Polls. The true conservative cannot win in Delaware. Ends justify the means. Vote pragmatically rather than according to principle.”

        I just never thought that I would see people on Red State advocating for Castle, where I, like you, thought the overriding principle was “At RedState we have always and will always be conservative in primaries and Republican in general elections”. That gets thrown out in the quest for a Republican majority.

        Sorry, Castle lovers. I got talked into supporting Arlen Specter here in PA instead of Toomey. All the same reasoning was given. And it was conservatives like Santorum telling us minions to support Specter. I regretted within 2 months of the election — after listening to Specter blast conservatives and conservative principles and supporting liberal policies. To me, it was worse having a very liberal Republican being used by the media to support the liberal Democratic policies and undermining the Republican than it would have been if a Democrat was in there.

        For now one, it is only voting on principle for me, not voting based on some poll telling me the liberal Republican is the best option to win the seat.

        • cordpt

          I don’t care for Castle. I don’t care much if he wins or loses in November. I’d rather him to win, because he’s way better than a radical far-left socialist like Coons, but I really don’t care that much.

          Castle biggest merit is that he doesn’t claim to be a conservative. So whatever he does won’t hurt conservatives and conservatism.

          The reason I support Castle is because I don’t O’Donnell out there claiming to represent conservatism and being pointed out as representative of conservatism.

          I’ve had enough of bad conservatives. Those guys are more dangerous do conservatism in America than the most radical liberal like Alan Grayson or the most ardent moderates like Castle or Snowe.

          • edintexas

            And you believe the statist media won’t use him against Conservative Republicans? Have pigs started flying in DE?

  • calgacus

    The problem w/ Castle and others like him is they are a bad influence on the other Republicans. For some reason or another, he might drag them to the left. It may indeed be better not to have him, since we already have 41 and should have a majority by 2013. But at the same time, he is not absolutely awful, a modern day Lowell Weicker. He opposes Obamacare which is a must repeal, a battle that will be defining. I still support Castle, because there is no way O’Donnell will win. But I understand what you are saying; it might actually be better not to have Castle around because he is a bad influence.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      and you should too.

      • audax

        I hereby give you an “A+” in spelling!

      • davesinsanantonio

        the whole loaf is a soggy, moldy mass of corruption. It is better to have a person operating on moral conservative principles than a RINO operating on go-along-to-get-along, you-spend-other-people’s-money-on-my-project-and-I”ll-spend-other-people’s-money-on-your-project kind of don’t-rock-the-gravy-train mentality. We have had that reach-across-the-aisle b*llsh*t for far too long!!!
        When you compromise with evil, you are evil too! And, taking other people’s money to feather your own nest IS EVIL! No matter how good your “intentions” supposedly are.
        It is time we stand on principle, vote for people who stand on principle, and if the voters elect someone, or a whole Congress full of people, who are evil, well then, “each people gets the government they deserve”! But, I do not believe that the majority want, or deserve, evil representation. So, let us stand on moral principles of freedom and property rights, and give them a real choice, not the choice between evil and evil-lite!!!

  • zornorph

    It wasn’t Mike Castle who was running the house when the GOP was in the majority, it was supposed ‘conservatives’ like Tom Delay who were too interested in crap Terry Shiavo and not in controlling spending. I would much rather vote for Mike Castle than Tom Delay. And O’Donnell is crazy – were I in DE and (God Forbid) she won the nomination, I would vote for the Libertarian candidate.

    • cordpt

      The idea that the problem were solely the centrist republicans like Castle and not the big-government, pork-addicted, corrupted “conservatives” like Ney and DeLay is pure revisionism.

      • Ned Ryerson

        I would rather have 45 conservatives in the senate, than 55 Republicans like Castle, Lugar, Lott, Snowe, Collins. Look what that got us? Sent straight to the minority, where they deserved to be. Is O’Donnell a good candidate? I don’t know. How do we know if Miller will be good? Or Rand Paul? We don’t know until they show up and start performing. NO RINO’s. I think Castle is to the left of a RINO.

        • zornorph

          I don’t accept that it was moderates like Lugar, etc, that caused the GOP to lose the majority. I think it was conservatives who did not want to act fiscally conservative. Certainly that was the case in the house and I think the Senate as well. When people like Newt and Kasich were running things, the spending was controlled and there was a surplus. When they left, the people who took over blew the budget wide open. I think that was the biggest failure of the GOP in decades and very much the reason they were sent into the minority. Castle is not my ideal choice for a Senator, but he won’t be in there long term and he’s well worth it if he can get us to the majority. He’ll be with us most of the time when we need him. O’Donnell won’t be because she’ll never be elected. And she’s crazy.

          • cordpt

            I’d take a Dick Lugar over a Bob Ney every day and twice on Sunday.

            The problem were the ones who claimed to be conservatives. Not the Castles of the world.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

            In other words, Delay and company were big government Republicans like George W. Bush. They damaged the “Conservative” brand leaving Constitutional Conservatives and Classical Liberals no label at all, having had both Liberal and Conservative stolen from them by big government statists of either political party, with the active connivance of the Pravda media. That’s why TEA Party has proved so useful in re-defining conservatism as actually conservative.

          • cordpt

            republicans, how can you support O’Donnell?

            What am I forgetting here? O’Donnell was a compassionate conservative with a hard stance on social issues her entire political “career”. I mean, before being elected guys like DeLay and company also said they were true, small-government conservatives in favour of fiscal responsibility and limited government.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

            Oh, sorry, did I say Arlen Specter? I meant Mike Castle.

          • Flagstaff

            It’s divisionist crap.

            Tom Delay is not the issue. Neither is Bob Ney.

            Mike Castle’s “out-of-touchness” and the NRSC’s refusal to back its own candidate is the issue, now that the “crazy” O’Donnell has won. In a small state like Delaware, the help of the NRSC can make the difference for her, but it sounds like some leading Republicans want to take their money and go home. Next election, let’s help them get there–home, that is.

          • eburke

            The problem wasn’t the Mike Castle’s of the world.

            I mean, I can handle and understand the Dan’s and Martin’s of the world who are arguing that we’re better off with a liberal R like Castle than we are without him. I disagree…but I understand their premise and POV.

            But Castle isn’t part of the problem?

            I didn’t realize that the Club for Growth was in the habit of reserving it’s lowest score in the entire GOP delgation for a fiscal conservative.

            Who’dve known?

          • JSobieski

            Any Castle supporters who don’t acknowledge that fact are fooling themselves.

          • The_Rebel

            in party affiliation if Castle becomes Senator. What I’m most concerned with is if he just squeaks by, that he will be vindictive toward his conservative colleagues and will wreak havoc with our agenda.

            He may be the weakest link, but he could also be one with a lot of power if the Senate is 50-50 or 51-49, power that may not be to our liking.

          • JSobieski

            I’m just saying that there is always a weakest link, and it will be Castle if he is in the Senate. The idea that we can avoid having a weakest link is fantasy. THere will always be someone like Lindsey Graham who decides to play games—the history of mankind tells us this.

            Every foreign occupation had collaborators.

          • cordpt

            Those who give conservatism a bad name – and that’s the “problem” we are discussing, if it was guys like Lugar who gave conservatism a bad name – are not the liberal/centrist legislators. Rather proclaimed conservatives who forget the conservative principles and don’t uphold the ethic values that conservatism advocates ought to have.

            I hope this is clear enough.

            I’ve never claimed Castle is a conservative. That’s just a strawman you keep using for the lack of a better argument I suppose.

          • eburke

            So…pork addicted Representatives who claim to be conservatives hurt the GOP brand and cost us the majority, but pork-addicted liberals like Mike Castle (who is the lowest rated GOP congressman by the CFG) didn’t?

            Seriously?

            I have absolutely zero time for those who claimed to be conservatives and then went on to spend like drunken sailors, and that includes GWB and they absolutely deserve part of the blame for us losing our majorities and I’ve never said otherwise.

            But to somehow absolve moderates and liberals of not being the ones to tarnish the GOP brand when they are they spent even more money than the faux conservatives is just mind-numbing in its ignorance. You’re upset with ‘conservatives’ for spending too much money and costing us the majority when you’re guy has the worst spending record of any Republican in Congress. And he’s not part of the problem?

            Wow…just wow!

            (and to be a strawman, a point must first be raised. So since I never mentioned in my point that you believed Castle is a conservative, I guess that makes your strawman, well, a strawman.)

          • cwilson

            Social conservatives — as opposed to political hacks — vote for more fiscally responsible legislation than those who claim to be “socially moderate but fiscally conservative” (e.g. the self-proclaimed “fiscons”).

            Here’s the evidence:
            A Friendly Reminder

            the best indicator of whether a Senator is likely to support anti-pork measures like the Coburn amendments, is whether they also opposed government-funded embryo destruction or supported a constitutional amendment for the traditional definition of marriage.

            also:
            Don’t Blame Me, I Voted Conservative

            Not a single Republican Senator who opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment voted for the Coburn Amendment. Not a single Republican Senator who co-sponsored the latest Embryo Destruction bill voted for the Coburn Amendment.

            If you want a fiscal conservative, in general vote for the socon. These so-called “socially liberal/moderate but fiscally conservative” unicorns do not exist. They are just trying to camoflage their actual liberalism behind a smoke screen of “fiscal conservatism” — but when push comes to shove they are just as eager to spend your money as the Democrats. It’s just easier for them to hide their fingerprints in the gargantuan budget bills.

          • AceInTX

            it was Republican Senators and Congressmen….Conservatives didn’t agree with…nor did we support the K Street project and the big government statist policies forwarded by Delay and Boehner and the GW Bush….They did what they did despite conservatives not because they were conservatives….

            I would say it was you that is guilty of revisionism…Conservatives are for smaller, less intrusive government…those who pushed bigger government on us weren’t conservatives just because they called themselves conservative.

          • cordpt

            Guys like DeLay weren’t conservative just because they claimed to. They were big government social conservatives.

            They’re more dangerous than moderates like Snowe & Co (or Castle), because by claiming to be conservatives, they’re able to taint conservatives with their actions.

            Why is O’Donnell a conservative again? I think I remember her supporting pretty much every item of the Bush agenda.

          • calgacus

            It was exactly two things, and two things only

            (1) In 2006, it was Iraq

            (2) In 2008, it was the Wall Street collapse

    • vmo335

      conservative in the primary, republican in the general.

      • zornorph

        Well, yes, I’m not in DE so it’s academic. I would have to look hard at O’Donnell and see if I could support her. There are some people who really would disqualify themselves from my vote, though – not because of ideology but because of sanity. There are simply some people who I consider too crazy to vote for. I’m not sure she’s at that level, though.
        As for ‘conservative in the primary’ it depends entirely on who the supposed conservative is.

        • vmo335

          We all have qualifying criterion with which we want our candidates to meet before supporting them. The inherent weakness to that ideal is when neither candidate meets our standard, at all levels. I’m not a DE resident either, but this election afftects me as it does you. in VA-05, my primary guy lost, and now i am volunteering for Hurt. regardless of who wins in the primary in DE on Tuesday, the republican nominee has to have the suppport of both camps. which one of the candidates will vote against another Obama supreme court nominee? which one will vote like Lindsay Graham? which one will fillibuster?
          after tuesday, it is onward to November, and republican in the general. That, we can both agree on, correct?

    • eburke

      Wrong site, dude.

      The door’s over thataway ———–>

  • dforston

    Amen.

    The good ol’ boys club is now terminated!

  • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

    .

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      By looking for a “Donate to O’Donnell” button.

  • A_Texan

    As of a week ago, I was very reluctantly pro-Castle, but am now somewhat reluctantly pro-O’Donnell. (Of course, I am a Texan, so I have only a voice, and not a vote).

    I believed, and still believe, that Castle will win if nominated, and O’Donnell is likely to lose. O’Donnell is well below average in administrative competence OR communication discipline.

    Three things have tipped the scale for me.

    1. Castle sicked the FEC on her for alleged violation of rules (e.e.g, coordination of campaigning) that are very difficult to follow and, for that matter, are unconstitutional.

    2. The usually reliable conservatives of the Weekly Standard are lining up a little too lock-step for me–and I’m getting the same vibe I got in October 2008 when all the smart people concurred that the government needed to go further into debt to bail out the allegedly indispensable, too-big-to-fail financial giants.

    On top of that, has been the unfair assumption of DISHONESTY, when she has said things that aren’t accurate. The evidence seems overwhelming to me that she is a decent woman who has got serious problems in getting her story straight. Her errors are easily falsifiable–which suggests not lying, but not getting her act together.

    3. A further reflection on “voting with us 50% of the time.” What does that mean? If what is meant is that you count up number(s) of votes, it’s meaningless. The important question is whether he will be with us when it counts.

    *On the one hand, yes, as of January 2011, he will likely still be a vote for a Republican majority leader, but will that last? Do we have any reason to believe he won’t pull a Specter when convenient? Specter did, and Lincoln Chaffee would almost certainly have done the same.
    **On the other hand, there is good reason to believe he would vote FOR all types of crazy liberal policies, would probably vote against a solid conservative on the COurt (he’s still non-committal on whether he would have voted for Alito) and would almost certainly vote for each and every liberal activist that Obama would nominate.
    ***Each one of those bad votes is much worse than a Democratic vote, because he provides partisan cover for Democrats AND muddles our message AND demoralizes conservatives. (Imagine the state of conservativism had McCain been elected).
    ****Anyone who thinks that butchering unborn children is a right–even a constitutional right–has a very perverse sense of both the Constitution and what is right and cannot generally be trusted.

    • Jonas Parker

      To make change requires change !!! Duh !!! with the number of conservatives that will be elected this year, we need to start getting rid of RINOs. Even if it costs us the majority. As many have said, having RINOs in office has resulted in pursut of the same agenda, substantially, as the left would pursue (only slower paced). Regardless of outcome in Senate, the changed numbers will result in the inability of the left to get it’s program through. Plus, the undoubted takeover of the House by the Reps will further insure same.

  • Brian Darling

    SPOT-ON!

  • jonreagan

    Probably most here would agree that Ronald Reagan is the greatest President in modern history, and surely the greatest leader most of us have ever seen. But what made Ronald Reagan a great and uncommon man was not just his conviction and his belief in conservative principles, but his basic decency and integrity. It wasn’t something learned, or something that he practiced occasionally; it was part of his DNA.

    Things like lying about one’s background, or stiffing another individual (i.e., vendor) to whom you owe money, were so foreign to Ronald Reagan, that he most likely just wouldn’t understand them. Whether you were a foreign head of state or a doorman at a hotel, you received his kindness, his decency, and his respect.

    There may never be another Ronald Reagan, but that doesn’t mean each of us can’t aspire to be like him, and to emulate his values, his integrity, and his character. And we should also demand that of the candidates who asprire to public office, especially those who would brand themselves as “conservatives”.

    Christine O’Donnell is no more like Ronald Reagan than any of us here are like Bill Clinton. Our leaders have always been honest, decent people of integrity and character like Jack Kemp, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. The liberal icons have been those who don’t care that much about character—-people like Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards……men who made a profession of lying and cutting corners.

    Christine O’Donnell is a serial liar and a deadbeat, one who has more in common with those liberal icons that I just listed. Let’s not sully the conservative tradition of President Reagan and others by sending her to the United States Senate.

    • Aaron Gardner

      I mean, surely he matches up better with Reagan right?

      • jonreagan

        If Donald Duck announced his candidacy, and endorsed each of your little conservative talking points, I think many here would probably line up behind him, and say, “let’s go!” He’s alive, he has a pulse, and he’s a conservative,… so what the heck!

        Most of the guys in talk radio are like sheep, and following along with the “go Christine” boomlet. Erick Erickson acted like a true leader, and withdrew his endorsement once ugly facts began to surface about this woman’s background. Thinking people usually change their opinions and judgments once new facts come to light.

        Mike Castle has never had a scintilla of scandal or corruption during his career in public service, and in that sense, he’s very much like Ronald Reagan . And for anyone to call him a “liberal” shows that they have a fairly feeble grasp of the political landscape in Washington today.

        • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

          nt

          • jonreagan

            Mike Castle voted against the government takeover of health care, and against an $862 billion “stimulus” plan. While I would have preferred that he oppose Cap and Trade, I’ll take two out of three, especially given the political landscape in Delaware.

            O’Donnell has never had to cast a vote, but she’s endorsed a lot of talking points. Talk is cheap.

          • cordpt

            throughout her political career.

            She used to run as a big-government social conservative but apparently she recently discovered her conservatism and her inner Tea-Partier.

        • Aaron Gardner

          Erick Erickson acted like a true leader, and withdrew his endorsement once ugly facts began to surface about this woman

          • pilgrim
          • Aaron Gardner

            But that shouldn’t stop him from lecturing us on integrity. Truth be dammed.

          • DavidS1787

            to jonregan yesterday.

            Erick’s response to jonregan.

          • jonreagan

            Someone makes a mistake on a blog, and you conflate it with lying about getting a college degree, walking out on debts, etc??? I’m sure the vendors who got stiffed by Mrs. O’Donnell would disagree with you.

            Take a course in ethics sometime; maybe you’ll start to grasp the difference.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Maybe next time you should pay attention to what is actually written instead of what you wished had been written.

        • eburke

          a fairly feeble grasp of the political landscape here in Washington today.”

          Let’s see:

          Anti-First Amendment (co-sponsored the DISCLOSE Act)
          Anti-2nd Amendment (F rating from the NRA)
          Anti-Life (F Rating from the NTRL)
          Lowest rating of any Republican in Congress from Club for Growth
          Ambivalent at best about Constitutionalist judges (won’t take a position on the Alito nomination)
          Millions of dollars in campaign contributions received from the entities who benefitted from TARP

          For you not to consider that record to be liberal, especially the top 3 items, tells us all we need to know about the feeble grasp you have on the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’.

          • A_Texan

            Alright, it’s clear to me–I’ll be cheering an O’Donnell victory tomorrow.

    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      Putting aside the fact that the campaigning Reagan was not the same as the Governing Reagan…pragmatic and compromising where opportunities to accomplish MOST of what he was after in exchange for a little that he would like to have avoided…these candidates are all rank amateurs in comparison.

      And we’re talking about the Senate, not the Oval office.

      I don’t live in DE, and beyond sending cash, I have no other real say-nor does anyone else outside of DE. Having said that, we are faced with competing priorities in the fight to take back the Country AND push Conservatism deeper into the process behind how it’s governed. Sometimes one must come AFTER another.

      Personally, I’ll take a losing NON progressive Republican over one that lies about their Conservative positions long enough to get elected and then caucus with the enemy.

      Delaware will decide on its own which matters most in the short term…in the longer term, keeping these clowns accountable for what they promised they’d do if they got elected will be the next battleground.

    • cbc80

      Castle is a leftist. To be a leftist is to be a dishonest deadbeat and lack integrity.

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

    n/t

  • indylawyer

    If Delaware had Massachusetts’ method of filling a senate vacancy, Obamacare would not have passed because Castle would have been elected to be the 41st vote to stop it sometime in Spring 2009. Electing Democrats over moderate Republicans gets that sort of result.

    And as much as I disliked the over-spending of the Hastert congress, it played only a minor role in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Much bigger reasons for our defeats were the Iraq war and the economic collapse right before the 2008 elections. And also a series of ethical problems by GOP congressmen, few if any of whom were RINOs.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …with any complaints whatsoever in 2011 and 2012 about a (hypothetical) Republican Senator minority caucus’s inability to stop bad judiciary picks.

    We will now pause while people vehemently deny any such thing. Have fun, but mind your manners.

    • IJB

      …I see no reason to believe that a GOP caucus with 51 or 52 will be any more likely to stop Obama judicial (or executive) nomination than they will be will 50 or 49.

      There are still more than enough Grahams (who is on the judiciary committee, and has already conclusively shown that he will vote out of Committee *any* Dem nominee in the name of “comity”) and Lugars and ME twins (not to mention the likely addition of Kirk) that there will still be enough votes to confirm *any* Obama nominee.

      IOW, this argument would be more compelling if we were talking about 56 vs. 54, rather than about 51 vs. 50 or 49…

    • indylawyer

      51 votes means we can stop judicial nominations simply by delaying their hearings indefinately or voting them down in committee. How many of those are RINOs won’t matter unless one is on the judiciary committee.

      • IJB

        His name is Lindsey Graham.

        • indylawyer

          But if you believe both that it is better to elect Democrats than RINOs, and that “RINO” includes 80% conservatives who stray on a few issues like Lindsey Graham, then I don’t see how the GOP can ever get close to a majority.

          I’d love to get upgrades on guys like Graham or Lugar in their next primaries, but if Lugar gets re-nominated I’ll certainly vote for him over anyone the Democrats might put up, even if its a relatively moderate one like Evan Bayh or Brad Ellsworth. Graham has a stronger desire to work with Democrats than I’d like, and he believes strongly about a few things where I disagree with him. But even on those he’s a lot more sensible than most Democrats, and isn’t going to vote for a terrible bill just because Reid and Obama demand it.

          • IJB

            *That” is my point. The argument was made about nomination votes, not legislative votes.

            People here can pretend the Senate is just like the House, but it ain’t – 218 is all that matters in the House; in the Senate, the actual governing differences between 49, 50 and 51 aren’t nearly so stark.

            The fact is, to actually bottle up and/or defeat Obama nominees, we’d need at least 54. And even I, optimistic as I am, can’t get us to 54 (or more) in 2010…

          • indylawyer

            But I’d still rather have Obama looking for judges who would satisfy Lindsey Graham than Pat Leahy. And Graham is likely to move rightward to try and avoid or win a primary challenge these next few years.

            Moreover, I am optimistic enough to think 54 is realistic: potential gains in North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Penn, Colorado, Nevada, Wash., Wisconsin, Cal., Illinois, WV, Conn., Win those and Delaware becomes No. 54. Also wouldn’t surprise me if another seat or two suddenly gets competitive in the next few weeks.

            And who knows what the situation will be in 2013.

          • eburke

            that the Tea Party movements are a bunch of yahoos and that he appeals to those people who have triple-digit IQs?

            I think I’ll pass.

            The Republicans couldn’t even find the ‘nads to stop Kagan and Sotomayor, two radical and emminently unqualified nominees. To think that Castle would stand as a firewall against those types of nominees (he won’t even comment as to whether he would’ve voted for Alito which is a fairly no-brainer question), or that a 51-49 GOP senate would stand in the breach against a radical nominee is, based upon history, nothing more than pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.

  • texicanstar

    Conservatism wins every time it is tried.

    • IJB

      Look, I’m sympathetic to Hogan’s argument, but let’s not kid ourselves – this DE, a D+7 state: it’s not going to be making a habit of electing Republicans, either “moderate” or “conservative”. At least, not any time soon…

      • cordpt

        I could see a quality conservative winning in Delaware.

        On the other hand, I think O’Donnell would lose even in Utah or Montana.

        • cbc80

          Here’s the problem. With much appreciation at being provided by Michelle Malkin.

          We can’t afford clowns like this in the Republican party. For that matter…neither can we afford those who support them.

          CONSERVATISM…is the only way to save our country!!

          FYI: Michael Castle on Energy & Oil

          * Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
          * Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
          * Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
          * Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
          * Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
          * Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
          * Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
          * Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
          * Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
          * Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
          * Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
          * Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
          * Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
          * Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
          * Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
          * Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
          * Rated 33% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence. (Dec 2006)
          * Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
          * Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)

          Michael Castle on Environment

          * Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009)
          * Voted YES on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009)
          * Voted YES on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008)
          * Voted YES on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)
          * Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
          * Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
          * Voted NO on deauthorizing

          • cordpt

            Are you saying that just because there are moderates nobody who claims to be a conservative (even without a voting record to prove those claims can be trusted) should be criticized?

            We can afford RiNOs. We can’t afford anymore CiNOs though.

          • cbc80

            Only a RINO or leftist would consider Castles voting record moderate. Castle just WROTE a bill…joining Chuck “Schmucky” Schumer to basically overturn the Supreme Court ruling free speech rights in the constitution allows corporations to spend money on advertising in political campaigns. Something leftist unions have done forever.

            He’s joined the loons in trying to stiffle the free speech of conservatives…

            There’s NOTHING moderate about this guy!

          • cordpt

            Coons will have a liberal voting record. It’s irrelevant though, you’re missing the point.

            His biggest merit is that he doesn’t claim to be a conservative.

            Even if he were a liberal, he’d be preferable to those who claim to be conservatives and arent’ able to make a defense of conservatism or to behave as conservatives. Don’t you agree?

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

            Castle is no moderate. He is a progressive. He is another Arlen Specter and he will stab Republicans in the back for a handful of magic beans.

          • Scope

            According to votesmart.org, Castle supported the interests of the AFL_CIO 73% of the time in 2008. Also in 2008 he supported the interests of AFSCME 57% of the time, and he supported the interests of SEIU 83% of the time. His record of union support only improved slightly in 2009. He has consistently gotten donations from the SEIU for his campaigns since 2000.

            http://freedomist.com/2010/08/22/mike-castle-from-seiu-to-the-afl-cio-castle-supports-unions-and-their-agenda-election-2010/

            I don’t know all of Castle’s votes with respect to national security, but, he voted AGAINST the Iraq surge.

            Castle voted for the Financial Deform bill.

            I don’t know that there is one important issue that Castle has been a reliable Republican on, let alone Conservative.

  • Right Reason

    Castle wins us the battle, but loses us the war.

  • http://aposematic.wordpress.com aposematic

    This piece describes the Republican party to a T. It certainly seems the old guard hates the idea of a Conservative controlled Republican Legislature. The Republican Party had become the Democrat Lite Party and the big spenders don’t want to loose their power. As more RINOs go down in primaries the old guard are fighting tooth and nail to keep themselves in power even if it means beating up on Republican Primary challengers. Neither Party gives a hoot what the people want. Everything is all about keeping personal power over the people; not for and certainly not by the people. If Republicans do not take both the House and Senate, it is the old guards fault.

  • Mary Beth
  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdpaasch Brian Paasch

    “It is not enough to have

  • crosley

    O’Donnell has a long shot chance to win the general, and Castle is nearly a lock, why risk it in such a blue state?

    No doubt Castle is not my idea of an ideal conservative, but Delaware is not my idea of an ideal state.

    Castle voted against ObamaCare and Obama’s Porkulus, that gives him enough credibility in my eyes that he would be a good addition to the team.

    Liberals will be jumping for joy if O’Donnell wins this primary, they’ll get to keep this Senate seat for another generation. Let’s not throw Democrats another lifeline.

  • eburke

    …you miss the naked reality that we had a sizable majority and it was liberal pukes like Castle, and the supposed conservatives who empowered them, who drove the Party and the nation into a ditch, handing the reins to nutjob leftists in the process”

    There are not enough 5′s on my keyboard to signal my whole-hearted assent to this comment.

    Game. Set. Match.

    • http://stixblog.com Black River Wolf

      Most of the anti-Odonnell attacks are about personal stuff that should not matter to whether she would be a good Senator or not. And I see Castle with a very Statist resume. the same bunch that got us run out of the CONgress in the first place

      If we as Conservatives want to take back the GOP,we need to stand behind Conservatives, and not say well we can win with the Liberal Republican.

      If castle wins the primary, then we must get behind the lesser of evils, but in the primary, I would rather go for a “not the greatest conservative” than the Leftist/Statist Republican that has ties to Unions/Soros/Tarp recipients.

      This is the same fight we had in Michigan with Dr Dan, but Castle is even worse.

      Either we take a stand or get out of the way and let the GOV get more involved with our every day life.

      • eburke

        If Castle wins this tomorrow, I will send my dollars and GOTV efforts to other Republicans who more closely share my ideology, but I will cease pointing out his flaws, will call out others who don’t cease, and, if I lived in DE, would drink a bottle of Jack and go vote for the guy (hey, it worked on McCain :-) .

        One of the troubling things to me is that I don’t see many of the Castle shills saying the same thinn about O’Donnell.

        • davesinsanantonio

          Which candidate, if he or she was to lose the primary, would be more likely to switch parties, or run as an independent? That should tell you 1. who is the more principled candidate, 2. who is the more principled person. We must support those who are principled persons first, who are also principled candidates. None other are acceptable for public office. We have for too long had persons in all levels of public office who lie, cheat, steal, etc. who then sell their municipality, county, state, or country down the river for their own aggrandizement. We can no longer afford them either economically or morally as a nation!

          • http://stixblog.com Black River Wolf

            But I see it as the lesser of 3 evils if it is Castle. Will he bolt the GOP, maybe, but I do not know for sure.

            I agree we must back those with principles, but after the candidate is picked I will go with the one that is more closely aligned with me. And that would be Castle over Coons

            I am not from DE, but this does have national stakes in it. And I think the people of DE will sort it out. And I hope they will pick O’Donnell.

  • Scope

    hogan- There aren’t enough 5′s in the universe for how highly I rate your diary.

    Too many Republicans are forgetting that this election is all about the far radical Progressive policies and legislation that has led to what just MAY be the biggest landslide Republican election, for the house at least, far surpassing the winning majorities in 1994. It is also important to remember that , even though the Independents are running away from the Democrats in droves, they are only running to the Republicans, because they are currently the lesser of the 2 evils. The Republican party truly has a chance for redemption, if they show they have learned their lesson, at least fiscally, and show an effort to shrink government programs, and government period. The next 2 years are going to be a tremendous test for Republican leadership, whoever it is, and what they do to earn back the trust of the American people. That will be difficult enough with Snowe, Collins, Graham and McCain. Adding Castle to the mix only adds to the burden.

    It appears that many have jumped on the bandwagon of winning at all costs, in 2010, in the Senate, with whoever it takes to accomplish that. I want the Republicans to win the House in 2010, by as big a margin as they can get. That is where Obamacare will be defunded, hopefully as well as some of the other Progressive legislation. I actually would prefer to see the Senate remain, by a very slim margin, in the Democrats hands, until 2012, when there are 20 Democrat Senators, 2 left voting Independents, and if I am mistaken only 10 Republican Senators up for re-election.

    The biggest majority the Republicans can hope to gain in the Senate in 2010, would be 51. Some say it may be doable. Maybe, maybe not. Holding 51 seats will not be enough to override the 5 unreliable Senators I named above. Shoot, some of them voted for Elena Kagan, for Financial Deform, the Jobs bill, and, some other very important Progressive must have legislation. The only bill that no Republicans voted for is Obamacare. Some mentioned above, you know would rather tweak Obamacare, and “make it better” than just repealing it in full.

    Snowe is up for re-election in 2012, however, Collins, Graham, McCain, and if Castle wins,they are in the Senate until 2014 and 2016. We are stuck with these Senators that are once again, not reliable, even with the most important legislation. I could care less if they vote to name the post office in their town in their honor, but, I do care when they can be bought off with special deals for their states (Snowe and Collins and Brown with Fin. Deform) in order to buy their votes. I do care that they have bought into the Cap and Trade agenda (Graham, McCain and Castle).

    As I said above, in 2012, if the Republicans act like conservative Republicans for the next 2 years, there is a perfect opportunity to win enough of a majority in the Senate to ignore the RINOS, let them go their way with their votes, and still have the ability to pass rational, reasonable, fiscally sound legislation, with hopefully a Republican President in office. For the next 2 years, whatever the Republicans manage to pass, it will immediately be vetoed by Obama. He is not Bill Clinton, he will not moderate his positions. He is willing to see his own party members sent home in 2010.

    I prefer to see the Democrats still held at least partially responsible for the “do nothing” Congress for the next 2 years. The Progressives cannot pass anything else after Jan. 2011, with the Republicans holding a large majority in the House. If the Republicans have the majority in both houses, they will be once again seen as the losers. Not many will hold only Obama responsible. Any ideas, or policies, or agendas the Republicans may come up with over the next 2 years, will not see the light of day in the Oval Office. Our only chance of stopping the Obama legislation for the next 2 years, will be with the House doing everything they can to defund every Progressive program out there, and with Issa beginning his investigations, with subpeona power, the day the new congress takes their seats.

    It took us the last few elections to be put in the wilderness, it will take the next few elections to crawl back into the majorities. I would prefer to see it done right, rather than to act desperately, and send anything with an R after their names back to doing more of the same.

    I guess the saying “perfect is the enemy of the good” can be applied to both candidates in DE. I would prefer to see someone who doesn’t already have a very Liberal voting record in the Senate in 2010.

  • nancylee

    is, unfortunately, only the first step. If we wind up with fifty-one Mike Castles we might as well give up. All those “thoughtful” RINOS aren’t going to reverse any of the madness of the past two years. We need Conservative “bomb-throwers”, who believe in liberty and the free market.

    If you want to follow the conventional wisdom, go for Castle. The guy won’t rock the boat at all, and we’ll wind up with Obamacare, government control of the markets, (for our own good, naturally) and all the other Liberal wet dreams that Reid, Pelosi and Obama have inflicted on us. If you want liberty, Castle isn’t the guy for you.

    I know who I’m going to choose. ODonnell isn’t perfect. I strongly doubt the country’s founders were, either. Not that I’m equating her with them, but the fact that she has been under such vociferous attack from the Republican establishment tells me who they fear. I want the Republican establishment to fear the people, so my support goes to ODonnell. I think I’ll drop over to her website now and donate another 20 bucks.

    • Scope

      That was exactly my point above. What good does it do the Republicans to gain a Senate majority in 2010 with people like Castle, Snowe, Collins, Graham and McCain still keeping their seats warm. Having a one vote majority would actually be harmful to the Republicans, as at least one of the above can be counted on to reach across the aisle, to make legislation “bipartisan.” In 2012, when we actually have a chance of gaining a much bigger majority, and having a Republican President, is the only time we can really shake Washington to it’s very roots.

      I really want Castle to lose big time because of his voting record, but, I also want to see another major message to be sent to the NRSC. Hopefully by 2012, DeMint’s Conservative Caucus will have overtaken the idiot Cornyn.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        Speaking as a Party hack, no, a one-vote majority in the Senate will not be detrimental to the goals of Republicans. It will be detrimental to the goals of Republicans aligned with Jim DeMint, which is not precisely the same thing.

        • Dan McLaughlin

          that “conservative” and “Republican” are not the same thing.

          I think there’s very doubt that voting Castle helps Republicans as such; as I noted in my own post, the closer question is whether voting O’Donnell helps conservatives.

          • Scope

            and if I am going to be called on the carpet by the both of you, please also target those that are on the side of those opinions that I favor. All comments should be considered equal.

            If I understand you correctly Moe, you are saying that the DeMint wing of the Republican party is not a good thing?

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Mostly because I am as subtle as a claymore mine going off when it happens.

          • Scope

            I am of the female species. Believe me, I know when you really call people on the carpet. I’ve been there.

            Is there any chance that you might consider some others that have argued there positions for the conservative issues, without citing particular conservative commentors? What is it in particular that I have said to incite your ire?

            I really am curious about your comment, seemingly against the Jim DeMint Conservative Caucus. Do you think he is in a losing position?

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Sorry: my bad. Strike “Dude” and substitute “Scope.”

        • Achance

          That was true even before this primary season. As I remarked in the diary I did back at our State Convention, Sen. Murkowski sounded far more angry and conservative than I had ever heard her, and I know her from her days in the State Legislature. Dealing with the unbounded arrogance and deceitfulness of Democrats in full song had really changed her attitude towards “comity.” And that was when she was the incumbent senior Senator with a seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls.

          I don’t know that the “blow stuff up” group, as Dan describes them can become the leadership and I’m not at all sure some of them should, but I believe whoever becomes the Republican Caucus leadership, whether in the Majority or Minority, will be a lot less accomodating to their “friends” across the aisle than has been their wont in the past.

      • Achance
      • minncon

        Since you once took a cheap shot to dump on my thinking that “tax cuts won’t fix our economic woes, but that getting rid of Obama and his Congress-o-rats WILL”…

        Allow me to take an opportunity to respond in kind, and dump on your NON-thinking, that “a one-vote majority in Congress might be “harmful.”

        What? Huh?

        P.S. You should check your spelling and punctuation before you post if you want readers to take you seriously.

        • catt

          She said a one-vote majority would be harmful *if enough members of that majority were undependable that it didn’t function as a majority*. It’s a recipe for the sort of “bipartisanship” that greases the wheels of bad legislation.

          It’s also worth considering that, as a general rule, you get more of whatever behaviors you reward. Reward RINOs, you’ll encourage more RINOs to run as RINOs with the expectation that they’ll get a boost from “elctability” arguments just like Castle. Conversely, the more RINOs who get thumped for being RINOs, the less attractive RINOrocity starts to look in future races.

          • minncon

            But to use an old bar joke to illustrate my feeling that – at this particular moment in history – even a weak Republican majority is better than a certain minority…. let me say:

            “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.”

  • Scope

    He said that he does not remember a time when there was such major fighting going on within the Republican party. It is between the conservative and the moderates. May the conservatives prevail, and lead in Washington for decades. Doubt anyone will vote for Communism ever again.

    • A_Texan

      Like D’Amato beating Javits in the primary and then in the general.

    • JSobieski

      None the candidates were all that good, and there was a lot of really intense arguments over the lesser of many evils. Seemed like everyone got back on the wagon pretty quickly even though McCain was almost nobody’s first choice.

      The Michigan primary for governor this year was pretty heated as well.

      I don’t recall what the 1994 primaries were like.

  • A_Texan

    She’s currently 10-points down and I thought she was a goner in the general.

    But she may have a prayer if she can goad Coons into several debates or make capital of his refusing to do so. I was just looking at his political ads–gosh, he’s about as charismatic and Beta-maleish as I am. She’ll do very well, and he won’t.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3wA_kenbRw
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkbs58-HdQ&feature=channel

    • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

      Considering how much money Mike Castle is spending to do nothing but trash her.

      The sad thing is, if she does win, the state GOP will have a hard time walking back what they are saying about her, and that’s not her fault.

      Unity, my eye.

      • cordpt

        From PPC:
        -In Delaware Chris Coons polls 26 points better against Christine O’Donnell than Mike Castle.http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/delaware-and-nh-general-election-number.html

        Look, I don’t care that much for the DE seat. Castle is better than a radical socialist like Coons, but I’m not spending money or energy because of such a choice.

        The problem here is that O’Donnell is such an awful candidate for the general election voter – not because of her ideology, mind you – that she’ll drag down excellent conservative candidates all over the country: Paul and Toomey, Angle and Rubio.

        The MFM will make O’Donnell the generic republican candidate;, every Tea-Party backed candidate will become a clone of O’Donnell. It won’t be about ideology any more, but about the qualities of a candidate like O’Donnell.

        This is a risk I’m not willing to run.

  • Scope

    and that the Maine Twins are the best you can do in Maine, and that Scott Brown is the best you can do in Mass., and that Castle is the best you can do in DE, you probably won’t like this poll-

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/13/nearly-two-thirds-of-maine-republicans-say-olympia-snowe-is-too/

    • cordpt

      From Delaware to Maine.

      Conservatives like O’Donnell can’t even win in Utah or Texas.

      • cordpt

        in states like Delaware in the future.

        Because when she loses badly, people will blame the ideology. It’ll be presented as prove that “true conservatives can’t win in the Northeast” and all that stuff. When the reality is that candidates like O’Donnell can’t win anywhere regardless of their ideology.

        That’s one more reason why nominating O’Donnell is such an ill-advised decision from a conservative perspective.

    • ffc99

      All it tells us is that a majority of the minority party in Maine thinks Snowe is too liberal. It says nothing about whether a candidate more conservative than her could actually win a general election.

    • JSobieski

      They are just saying that between O’Donnell and Castle in 2010, Castle is the best we can do in DE

      I think the difference is important.

  • gunslingr45

    wonder if we win at all. I get my R.S. report dated the 14th and nothing but articles from the 13th.
    What’s that old saying about being a day late and 30 trillion short?