Rasmussen: Castle greatly outperforms O’Donnell

Oz

Neil — Agreed …. Castle has a huge lead, O’Donnell loses.

Do we want a Republican in this seat who will be MORE conservative than the Democrat or a Democrat … that would seem to be the choice leading up to next Tuesday.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I think this race is turning on personal popularity more than anything. Another Republican with Castle’s platform might lose to Coons or O’Donnell. Heck, if Castle had O’Donnell’s platform he might still win.

rdelbov

There is no doubt that Castle’s +30 years of cultivating the middle ground of voters in DE is why he is ahead. Delaware is a small state and I suspect Castle knows every high school principal-football coach by name. That’s been his job for +30 years. He knows a lot of people,

You can’t place a value on that. If it gets us to 51 then with Castle we get a senator who votes with us +70% of the time.

Here’s my little RINO quiz.

1. Name a conservative bill -pushed by Reagan/Bush41/Bush 43 that failed because of the lack of moderate/liberal republicans.

2. Name a liberal bill pushed by Clinton/Carter/Obama that passed final passage because of moderate/liberal republicans.

Figure this out and you will see that the #1 priority is to elect more republicans.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

If we had 60 we’d have passed them.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Losing the majority in 86 Hurt.

deano64

liberal crap from happening but it won’t get a lot of good conservative things done. 60+ would be nice except for the fact we would have pack of RINOS getting all mavericky with McCain when it came down to crunch time.

Aaron Gardner

Per ACU.

Let’s not spot random numbers as fact in a thread which is premised on scientific polling.

eburke

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Aaron, ACU doesn’t count the routine procedural votes that always go the majority’s way.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

Why are O’Donnell and Castle running for the Republican Party nomination?

Because all Republicans are supposed to unite behind the candidate who wins.

This business of picking our candidates based solely on their ability to win means preemptively yielding on principle, allowing people who are not part of our party to cast our primary votes.

Bill

to the good people of Delaware! Obviously they are more blue or purple than they are red! But a Castle that may support us some of the time would be better than a JACKASS that would not support us any of the time! There will be another Senatorial Election in the next cycle, and perhaps another conservative can come forward in the meantime to stake out a position in Delaware. With Dover AFB, Philadelphia Shipyard, the state government and the proximity to DC and all its government jobs, what do you EXPECT?

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Because the winner of this election will vote on issues that affect all of us.

rdelbov

I don’t want to go all Bill Clinton on you and define the word “is” but I was careful to say “final passage”.

Bush 43 got +50 republicans to pass his 2001/2002 tax bill. He did not get 60 to overcome Byrd rule objections so yes McCain/Snowe and other RINO’s forced Trent Lott to go the “reconciliation route”.

So the RINO’s did limit the Bush tax cuts to ten years but the bill was passed and signed. So Bush got what he wanted.

Bork failed when 52 democrats voted no on his nominations. Yes there were 6 GOP senators to vote no but they did not kill Bork’s nomination.

romeg

by the Good People of DE. But anything we can do to improve their understanding of what they have in each candidate is a good thing.

And THIS cycle is the best shot we will have had in a long time to influence things in our favor.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I report what a poll says, and now I’m missing the point of having a political party?

Reading comprehension #fail

conservativemusician

Because he is not a reliable conservative vote on the issues that matter to conservatives. He will be useful only if the GOP takes back the Senate. Other than that, he is no different than the Maine twins or Scott Brown.

Aaron Gardner

I understand your point on ACU ratings and the flaws inherent in them, regardless, as a defense of Castle this is a poor argument

Castle will do the bare minimum as far as procedural votes go. Also, I am of the belief that you have a limited time of dependability that can reasonable be expected from those who compromise on half the conservative legislative choices that have passed before them.

By my watch, Castle’s time is up.

JSobieski

are unduly favored.

For example, a person like Rubio probably wouldn’t be the nominee if Republicans on a nationwide basis didn’t donate money, get excited about his candacy, etc.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

But if the ACU says 52% of key votes he went our way,then 70% sounds about right to me as his total of voting with the caucus.

He might vote with the most determined conservatives less often than that, but with the whole of the caucus to me that sounds reasonable given the ACU rating.

jb13

It sure is fun, isn’t it? I mean, what can be more fun than trying to paint a person who agrees with you 52 percent of the time as being worse than someone who agrees with you, um, well, never?

And this election season, it sure is fun to watch everyone scramble to kiss our rings for once so they can make sure they’re on a surfboard riding the wave instead of flat-footed on the beach.

But RINO hunting can be a precarious game, and especially in the Senate. Why? I’ll give you two reasons: Sotomayor and Kagan. Want to roll the dice that there will be no more vacancies on the SCOTUS? Fine. But I won’t bank on the fact that another liberal won’t resign, allowing Obama to nominate another young ultra-liberal statist to the bench — or worse, that a conservative might fall ill or (God forbid) die, allowing The One to tip the balance of the court.

And the only way to make sure that can’t happen is to win the majority in the Senate THIS cycle and get a conservative (whether as a noun or an adjective) senator installed as chairman of the judiciary committee.

And, unfortunately, the only way that can happen is if a few RINOs like Castle, Kirk and Fiorina win the Senate seats in blue states.

Time to man up, folks. Fight the battles that need fighting, but maintain a view of the big picture.

Majorities. Matter.

captkirc

for the same reason. Harry Reid was able to stop cold all Bush Recess Appointments by keeping the senate permanently in session, which as majority leader senate rules allowed him to do. Retaking the senate majority in the next congress will allow the Republicans to block any and all Obama Recess appointments, thus hoisting Harry Reid upon his own petard by employing that very same tactic.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

Perhaps the evidence in front of you is so strong that you could not avoid sounding that way.

But I think implicit in your post is the assumption that a candidate with an easier time in the general election is the better candidate. I note now that you did not say that.

ffc99

says he has voted with the majority of his Republican colleagues 87.3% of the time during the current Congress.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c000243/

http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

It’s her.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I’m still neutral in this primary. I have plenty of reason to dislike both candidates at this point.

I learned from the CA primary that outsiders sometimes badly misread a state, and so in unfriendly territory I’m inclined to let it go to the in-state people.

I was all-in against Crist, [Coats], Bennett, and yes Fiorina. Don’t think I’m suddenly infatuated with a guy on the left fringe of our party.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

I’d rather try to elect someone who agrees with me 98% of the time. Especially this year, when so much is riding on the Delaware seat.

Like Cap and Trade. Castle supports it. He’d vote for it in a lame duck session. I’d still support him in the general, because he’d at least join with the party on 48% of stuff, as you say.

Castle and judges? Please. He’d just vote to confirm, and not be a reliable vote for filibustering, even the most radical Obama crony.

rdelbov

you are so right and don’t forget Brown voted for cloture on Dodd-Franks.

On the flip side in 2011 we complain about democrats not letting GOP bills come to a vote. When the democrats have +50 senators I love fillibuster rules when the GOP has +50 senators I am not sure crazy about fillibuster and cloture stuff.

True confession time-Neil. I don’t have complete knowledge of every senate vote from 1980. Someone could say “remember such and such vote” and I would be stumped. I got the big ones down and 99% of the time the party in charge controls the senate.

So there are two points to ponder.

The President is mighty important. Bush 41-Bush 43-Reagan got their conservative bills passed and if they failed it was because democrats killed it. Lets also admit that if Bush 41-Bush 43 were not more conservative that was their fault and not others. How many bills did Bush43 veto? How many budget cuts did he submit?

Control of the senate is vital. What big liberal bills did Clinton pass from 1995 to 2001? What will Obama be able to pass after 2011?

The key lessons in RINO hunting is to elect a conservative as President and to get to 51 in the senate or 218 in the house

pilgrim

The DISCLOSE act passed when 2 RINOs joined 217 Ds to get a majority vote. The two Were Castle and Cao.

The Cap & Trade vote passed when 8 RINOs joined 211 Ds to get a majority vote. Castle again.

Castle also voted wrong on missile defense, hate crimes, and SERVE/Americorp

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I even specifically tagged this with a Rasmussen: specifically to make it clear I’m just interpreting the poll

JSobieski

a candidate is also more than a collection of policy positions

I acknowledge that O’Donnell has obviously developed some highly devoted supporters. I would however humbly suggest that there are reasons why so many people who support Rubio, Miller, Angle, Paul, and others are far more tepid if not outright neutral with respect to O’Donnell.

There are essentially two ways to deal with this. One would be to simply conclude that everyone is less conserative than you are. Another would be to question why and maybe address the issues or at least use better tactics in attempting to persuade people than simply assuming we are all worshiping at the alter of Bob Dole.

The fact that even facially neutral diaries are perceived as an attack on O’Donnell may suggest that better advocacy would be achieved by at least acknowledging and trying to address the perceived weaknesses of Ms. O’Donnell. To address someone’s concerns, you have to acknowledge them, and acknowledge the possibility that the concerns are good faith concerns.

Otherwise, people will get turned off. Frankly, this is a problem as much with Ms. O’Donnell herself as well as her supporters.

Just some honest advice, free given, with no expectation that it would be followed.

drothgery

… come November, people get to choose between who we nominate and who the Dems do (and any independents and third-party candidates, but they can largely be ignored). So if we nominate someone who’s with us on the issues 100% of the time but ineffective in persuading independents and frustrated Democrats to vote for them in the general, it’s useless.

You can’t choose candidates solely on their ability to win, but you can’t ignore it, either.

jonreagan

I’m not sure how Mrs. O’Donnell’s statements in a recent interview with The Weekly Standard—about the possibility of a 3rd Party run if she loses the primary—jive with this line in your comment:

“Because all Republicans are supposed to unite behind the candidate who wins.”

In her interview, O’Donnell wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a 3rd party run if she should lose the primary, nor would she commit to endorsing Mike Castle if he wins.

Basically, that kind of pick-up-your-marbles and go home mentality is incompatible with the very concept of a political party, where a certain amount of discipline is necessary for survival. If other candidates acted in the same immature fashion as “Christine”, the result would be chaos and party anarchy.

Grant it, we’ve come a long way from President Reagan’s 11th Commandment, and that’s unfortunate. But at a minimum, candidates who participate in a primary and/or party convention should be expected to make a loyalty pledge, or just go away.

rdelbov

that while Cap & trade plus Disclose did pass the house with some GOP votes.

Neither have been signed into law so they do not pass my RINO test.

pilgrim

Let’s use the analogy of an NFL coach who has a kicker that misses wide left on 7 out of 12 attempts. He has another guy who has no game experience in the NFL but he appears to be promising. The NFL coach is giving the rookie a shot, and he really does not give a crap about the seasoned player’s personality or how well he gets along with teammates in the locker room. He needs his kicker to deliver success for him more often than not in the game.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

From what I can tell NFL coaches are the most risk averse wimps in the world.

JSobieski

Those not jumping up and down in their support of O’Donnell don’t see a lot of success under her belt.

Taking a chance on a younger player makes sense when the player has made something of the opportunities that they had (generally at practice, scrimmages, etc).

No offense, but team O’Donnell is hardly a smooth running operation. They seem to step in every possible hole. Do you think some requisite level of achievement/competence should be required to be a Senator? Maybe just the ability to manage basic paperwork in a timely manner in running your staff?

NeoKong

At first I thought, “He’s a RINO…DUMP HIM!!! “

Now I’m sort of leaning towards…“A senate majority…oh man that would be sweet”.

If we want the Senate then we will have to tolerate a few RINOs.
It’s not like the RINOs we have now will be any better if we don’t take it but in general the party and the country as a whole will be better if we do.
So the real question here is who can win the seat.
Castle or O’Donnell…?

Which is better ?
The majority with the RINOs we have or a minority with all the same RINOs less one ?
Who do we want to be Majority leader next year ?
Schumer or DeMint ?

pilgrim

You can go ahead and continue to beclown yourself as the Charlie Brown character who just KNOWS that Lucy (ie Stupak and Castle) will hold the ball in place so you can make a great kick. Let’s just wait and see how this all works out for ya.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdpaasch Brian Paasch

1) Because they were too conservative and they ticked off the so-called middle? Or 2) because they were too liberal and ticked off the base?

I don’t know, but I’d guess option 2. RINOs hurt the brand. When given the choice of a real Dem or a fake Dem, voters generally go for the real version. When the voters, of any stripe, get ticked at the party due to brand deterioration, it hurts the whole party. I’ll concede that occasionally a RINO is tolerable (Scott Brown?), but not at the cost of undermining the overall Party. The GOP is currently viewed by its own base as the go-along-to-get-along dem lites. That doesn’t translate into GOP enthusiasm in the voting booth for people who vote on principle rather than Party. (E.g., there is no way Coats will get my vote in November. I’ll either leave it blank or else look at third party, because principle is more important to me than party.)

And yes, I know some people can and do make a opposing argument that party is more important that principle, but then let’s go back to my first question: why did the GOP lose its majorities in congress over the last few elections?

rdelbov

I agree with you now after I 1st disagreed with you.

There are a bare handful of close votes in Congress/senate every term.

The big hammer is what will the President sign as the difference between 51 & 67 is huge–not to mention 218 & 290. A conservative President stopping things kills bad bills while a Liberal President opens the floodgates.

In the senate-if you remember during the healthcare debate. It takes 51 votes to pass a bill but takes 60 votes to change a bill using the amendment process. Unless you have a vote on an agreeded upon amendment and the majority does not usually agree to that unless they have the votes to kill it. Its the rule of 51 to control. They got huge positive power while the 41 vote minority can only say no.

No one wants a 10K word essay from me on why its still important to elect the most conservative senator possible-that’s another story beyond the close vote issue-but the rule of 51 & 218 is also so vital

Aaron Gardner

I think you should have thought that one through a bit more.

If you are not sure why, it will come to you later.

JSobieski

I note that no NFL has as of yet hired someone off the street to be their place kicker, and by off the street, I mean someone without a proven record of success kicking a football or kicking a soccer ball.

Better a 50/50 kicker than a 0/100 kicker who would quickly become the poster child for D talking heads.

The fact that D political hacks compliment her (while saying nothing positive about Sarah Palin) lets you know who they fear and who they don’t.

pilgrim

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Ratings like those tend to pick and choose a few votes, ignoring a great many of them.

I’ve yet to see one that includes the vote for orgnaization, for example.

Finrod

If you had two kickers, one of which only made 5 of 12 FGs but another who had such a slow kick that they occasionally had kicks blocked and returned for touchdowns, that 5/12 kicker wouldn’t start to look so bad.

http://www.mullinslawoffices.com/ Jim Mullins

As someone who has no vote in Delaware but who will be affected by who Delaware sends to the Senate, I believe the paramount goal of all good conservatives must be to stop Mike Castle at all costs.

We should not promote the RINO King from the House to the Senate, where he will likely become Hell on wheels, emboldening Lindey Graham, John McCain, and the Maine Soul Sisters to render impotent any nominal Senate majority we might achieve this year. Conservatives would be better off having a 50-50 Senate in which Chuck Schumer is the Majority Leader thanks to Joe Biden’s tie-breaking vote than a completely impotent majority that rests upon the votes of Mike Castle, Lindey Graham, and the Maine Soul Sisters, that will not deliver for us.

When it comes time for the bare knuckles fights between Congress and Obama on defunding Obamacare, defunding the EPA’s attempts at back-door cap and trade (for which Castle voted in the House), and stopping the conformation of statist judges like Eleana Kagan who believe Congress has the power to tell you what to eat in the name on controlling federal health care costs, the voters who do not pay attention to politics full-time will expect a Republican-dominated House and Republican majority (even if only 51-49) Senate to deliver. We suffered immensely earlier in this decade when the GOP had a majority in the Senate but could not deliver on conservative causes.

Anyone who seriously believes that Mike Castle would, in any way, be an asset to us in the legislative fights that loom in 2011-12 to stop and, where possible, roll back this unAmerican, Marxist agenda that has been rammed down our throats over the last 2 years by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and their minions needs a drug test and/or psychiatric exam. Therefore, it is imperative that, above all else, conservatives must defeat RINO King Mike Castle AT ALL COSTS.

JSobieski

The Liberty rating is based on a small number of votes. I know its easier just to cite someone else’s rating (like citing Mark Levin on how great Ms. O’Donnell is) but Castle has tows the line more than 3 out of every 4 votes in which the parties are split.

Richard Mullins

simply to get the Conservative in but as thing go along, it seem that getting Christine O’Donnell is the hard road to hoe. Simply put, it would take loads of cash in the Philly and Baltimore TV markets to headwind against the Democrat. I’d rather have Castle if I want to win this and at least have large minority or better have a majority that can be built up. BTW, if Reid loses and the Democrats still have a Majority, doesn’t the Majority leader end up being the one that was the Majority Whip? In that case, it would be Richard Durbin and not Charles Schumer.

eburke

preferred her to have categorically ruled out a 3rd party run but like most criticisms of O’Donnell, Castle is just as bad if not worse. I don’t exactly think that the state GOP chairman who eviscerated Christine with caustic comments (including the ‘she couldn’t be elected dog catcher’ line) who is a Castle supporter could exactly be accused of fomenting party unity.

And I haven’t heard Castle asked to nor voluntarily decide to denounce this kind of rhetoric. So that’s a negative in both of their camps.

As for those who question Christine’s financial problems, even if the worst is considered the ‘truth’ (although I must note that most of these issues have explanations that have been posited elsewhere), those are issues that affect her personally for the most part. Castle fiscal profligacy, his endorsement of Cap & Trade, his anti-life, anti-2nd Amendment and anti-1st Amendment votes affect hundreds of millions of Americans.

I’ll take whatever flaws Christine has in a heartbeat over Castle’s demonstrated desire to negatively impact my life and the the lives of millions of other Americans.

pilgrim

In my example the other kicker had never played in the NFL. Until they play how do we know with certainty that the mechanics of their approach cause kicks to get blocked? WE don’t know. With the seasoned veteran we do know he has the stats of a 5/12 kicker.

JSobieski

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c000243/

He makes the easy ones, blows the hard ones by kicking wide to the left—a below average but nonetheless professional pro kicker

jeffreywturner

Brown voted against Kagan.

All three of them (and Castle too if elected) will probably vote in favor of the new Republican President’s conservative SCOTUS nominees come January 2013.

JSobieski

For example, if your campaign incurs expenses in 2008, you should have completed the “processing” of those invoices BEFORE starting your 2010 campaign.

I am not talking paid, I am using her own words –she is still “processing” invoices from her past campaign to determine which vendors should be paid.

As a small business owner, this is pretty damming.

So step 1, manage your own affairs (like past camaigns) in a responsible manner.

Step 2, after your on affairs are in such good order that you have leadership to offer, run for office.

In my opinion, Ms. O’Donnell needs to complete step 1. Unlike Paul, Angle, Miller, et al. Ms. O’Donnell has no record of accomplishgin anything. She is however adept at stepping on land mines that require explaining away, lke FEC violations, tax liens, college degree?, etc.

JSobieski

than a minority position.

For example, control over committees means control over committee hearings.

The phrase “at all costs” should not be applied to the loss of any Republican who is not personally corrupt or committing treason.

JSobieski

should make that kind of “dog catcher” comment in regards to a candidate who is getting a decent percentage of the vote. Its not like O’Donnell is struggling to get to double digits.

Total &@!&^&% and quite counter-productive to the entire process.

aesthete

because it limited the realistic options available to conservatives through political mobilization of Republicans. I.e., the question of who would have supported such and such bill, the political payments that would have been required, etc. made it so that various conservative agenda items never got to the floor in the first place. To analogize, one wouldn’t say that a desperately poor person in India is buying everything he needs simply because his bank account isn’t overcharged: various goals of his simply never get realized because he is constrained by scarcity.

cbc80

I don’t care what anyone says about control of the Senate. I believe the GOP will take control with or without him. Manchin gave us a gift in WV by lobbying for the interim election. I fully expect he’s going to lose anyway. His lead is already single digits.

O’Donnell is closer in the polls then Miller was the week before.

To h*ll with Castle. Go Tea Party! Get O’Donnell the win and keep the lefties OUT!!!.

eburke

I will reiterate that I believe that from a tactical standpoint, Christine missed a golden opportunity to take the high road and put Castle on the defensive by making him either accept or disavow those comments and join her in committing to support the eventual nominee.

From a philisophical standpoint, as much as I dislike Castle (jic I haven’t made that clear ), and believe that Christine can win the general in this particular election cycle, Castle is still marginally better than Coons (as long as he doesn’t pull a Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords on us) and while my money and GOTV efforts will go elsewhere, I won’t talk him down or support a 3rd party movement or any other such nonsense.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

cbc80

I don’t believe that poll. No more than I did the one against Miller.

Give me the chance for a real conservative. Or we’ll do it without Delaware.

Really it’s the same difference with Castle

NeoKong

Oh gagghhh…..

That’s even worse.

Adjoran

AND she shows signs of mental instability – such as when she got in an argument with a radio host who challenged her assertion that she “won two (of DE’s three) counties in 2008.” She actually lost them all, and was only close in one, but chose to argue the point and accuse the host of being under RNC influence.

Her campaign funds are paying her rent. Her campaign lawyer “bought” her house last year to save it from foreclosure.

She will not rule out an independent run in November if she loses the primary.

If this is the sort of person you can support, your own ethics are questionable.

chihank

Castle is no RINO. Castle is as Mark Levin says, a DIABLO.

I would like to send a message to the New England RINOs that moderation and cutting deals with Obama is unacceptable. Castle’s defeat would send shock waves to the GOP establishment.

However, I understand why the DE GOP is digging their feet in and defending Castle. The DE GOP has suffered a series of bad luck in recent years. Dems have controlled the Governorship for at least 16 years. Also Castle is the only GOPer who won statewide in DE for the past 10 years. As much as I dislike Castle, if I lived in DE, I might hold my nose and back Castle simply because the DE GOP bench is non-existant.

eburke

1) using campaign funds to pay for campaign headquarters in your own house;

2) selling your house to a qualified buyer (didn’t realize it was required that you never have met the person in order for this to be ethical)

The only valid point you have is that she didn’t rule out an idependent run in November if she loses but considering that Castle’s chief shill, the DE State GOP Chairman eviscerated O’Donnell including the opining that she wasn’t qualified to be elected dog catcher, and that Castle has neither been asked nor voluntarily distanced himself from those remarks, leaves the topic of being supportive of the primary winner as a negative on both of their campaigns.

And you may want to be careful about accusing those who support O’Donnell of having questionable ethics.

Richard Mullins

and if seems that O’Donnell can’t do without lots of money for the Philly and Baltimore TV Markets, then let it be Castle. We only have to worry if we don’t get peeps in the other races, then we need Conservative over just Republican. I understand you, but the choice is a near majority with Durbin as Majority leader or DeMint(sort hard for a senator without a lot of seniority to be Majority leader) as Majority leader.

aesthete

but good Lord, this metaphor is convoluted!

JSobieski

accept the goods and services from businesses in running your 2008 campaign, but fail to even “process” (ie review to determine which should be paid which should not be paid) invoices before getting into the thick of a 2010 campaign.

Its one thing not to pay your bills, its another thing altogether to avoid paying your bills by avoiding the review of the invoices.

Its one thing to find yourself financially under water, its another thing to continue to engage in additional unecessary spending while you ignore your past financial obligations

I’m glad I am not in the printing business and that O’Donnell is not my customer.

Richard Mullins

and Senoirity rules in the Senate so Durbin has been around longer, so He’ll be the majority leader if Reid loses and we don’t get a Majority.

LibertarianHawk

…it’s still true, either way, that Mike Castle is “as conservative as we can get” in this particular race.

Maybe some conservative candidate other than Christine O’Donnell could conceivably win. But we live in the real world, not a fairytale world. There are no other conservative candidates on the ballot.

Nominating Christine O’Donnell would be the height of political stupidity — and, yes, I’m well aware that Sen. Mike Castle will join (and thus empower) the Snowe/Collins bloc.

aesthete

There’s something to be said about an effective minority as opposed to a lumbering and cracked majority. Minority Leader DeMint is in many respects a more appealing option than Majority Leader McConnell, and given that Castle would undoubtedly vote for McConnell, there might be some merit in losing the seat to get DeMint elected as Majority Leader. It is, after all, clear that if the same sorry crew from the Bush years takes over, we’re not going to get less spending or a more federalist government, or even try moving in that direction. I don’t know if we would under DeMint, but he’d at least give it a good shot! Personally, I don’t think that the Republicans will change in 2012, but the composition of Congress might change enough by 2016 to allow for a reasonably conservative Congress to at least go in the right direction.

LibertarianHawk

Let’s not forget that Senate Republicans (including Brown, Collins, and Snowe) stayed quite united in opposition to Obamacare throughout the process.

And that unity very much impacted the way it played out — even with Olympia Snowe publicly toying with the idea of voting for some healthcare bill.

If any one of those three had been Democrats who fell in line with the party line, the healthcare debate would’ve gone much differently.

I’d much, much rather have a Republican like Scott Brown than a Democrat like Ted Kennedy. And anybody who wouldn’t needs to…well….reconsider.

Marcus_Traianus

like, I don’t know- principals.

Personally, I would rather go down in flames supporting O’Donnell then voting for Castle, just to win, fully knowing I helped build the next “Gang of Whatever”, “Moderate Caucus (read Democrats Lite)” or band of jackals for that matter.

Conservatives say they stand for something, then get all weak kneed over a race where first principals are at stake. For what? A guy who will be a utility vote at best.

I hear a bunch of trolls in this thread proclaiming conservative loyalty, then out of the other side of their mouths blathering about O’Donnell’s mental state, her rent, her speaking skills and campaign prowess. What’s next- her hair color? Does she have halitosis perhaps?

I will take what O’Donnell stands for and the way I know she will vote any day of the week over Castle. Period, full stop. I will never be a collaborator in the old-party, unprincipled, destructive politics that got us here in the first place. Never.

You folks better reach deeper for a bigger set of stones or get off here at the sissy hill.

pilgrim

CowboyUp4419

My grandpa taught me many valuable lessons in life and one of the ones that has stuck is this: A steer can try. (Google “steer” in reference to cattle if you’re not the farming and ranching type)

We could have tried to elect a Jim DeMint clone in Massachusetts and if we had we’d be have Senator Coakley right now and a whole lot more evil done to our nation. We’ve got to play the field as it’s striped and we’re dealing with a state that has a Cook rating of D+7 (MA is D+9, to give you some reference); if you’re going to wait around for them to elect Tom Coburn then you’ll be waiting for a good long while.

Tell you what; let’s ignore all the character issues O’Donnell has for a moment. Show me historical evidence that big wave elections are strong enough to put people as conservative as her in office in states as liberal as Delaware then I’ll think about getting on Christine’s bus. Until then I’ll take the sure thing and quote The Gipper: “You know, there are some people so imbued with their ideology that if they can’t get everything they want, they’ll jump off a cliff with the flag flying. As Governor, I found out that if I could get half a loaf, instead of stalking off angrily, I’d take it.”

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Personal attacks on your opposition aren’t going to win O’Donnell any help.

rdelbov

the idea that any conservative should be picked over a liberal republican. You have some minimum standard for behavior for conservatives to vote for you. ODonnell ran up debts in 2008 and has not paid them back. If you believe the guy at NRO she only reported $5800 in income in 2009. For a single gal that’s like welfare. She could beg money off the streets and earn more then that.

You don’t have to be a millionaire to be a US senator but living with relatives or friends or whoever and earning $5800 is silly.

acat

He comes across as all reasonable and helpful but … watch your back and hold your wallet with both hands if he’s in the area.

I’m hopeful he can be knocked off but .. at 18 years, he’s not going anywhere without a very strong challenger.

Mew

pilgrim

Was it Carter? Was it Mondale? Was it Dukakis? Look it up.

Jeffrey Malbis (malbis)

I was one of the ones saying that if McCain won the nomination, I wouldn’t vote. And I still can’t stand McCain and what he did–both in the past, and with his 180 spin to pseudo-conservative to win in the primary.

How could ANYTHING be worse than McCain as President?!!

Well, I think we know the answer to that one after 22 months of “The One.”

I am now firmly committed to “Conservative in the Primaries, Republican in the Elections.” And anyone who thinks that having a “conservative” or “moderate” Democrat filling a Senate or House seat is better than having a RINO Republican in that seat just hasn’t learned the lessons of the last two years.

We need everyone with an R next to their name elected in November. We need control of the House–AND the Senate. And then we need to look ahead immediately to the 2012 cycle and start working to have conservatives win in the primaries. But we have to win with what we’ve got now.

JSobieski

Nothing smart about choosing the wrong hill on which to make stand.

I am all in for Rubio, Miller, Angle, and Paul. They are great candidates with a certain level of accomplishment.

O’Donnell is different. She would have my vote (if I lived in Delaware), but I am concerned about some of the kool-aid drinkers out there who think conservative policies and pulse = a great candidate.

I am afraid you will lose all of your stones and cry like babies if there isn’t an extremely unlikely turn of events in Delaware.

Washington had stones, but he didn’t charge forward 100% into every battle. He used his brain. He thought about strategy.

Yes Virginia, candidates, strategy, and communications matter.

If simply being conservative was enough to prevail in Delaware, Delaware would be a Red state.

I wish O’Donnell was the female version of DuPont, but my brain won’t allow me to lie to myself like that. Sorry. Its not a stones issue, its a brains issue.

Nick Haynes

It’s not even an argument. It’s a proven mathematical fact, and it goes as follows:

52% (or even 28%) > 0%.

That’s essentially what Rasmussen’s polls seem to be saying–that, barring an epic turnaround on the part of O’Donnell in winning over independent and Democrat DE voters, the choice for Republicans is to vote pragmatically and vote to nominate Castle, or to vote in a “principled” fashion and vote to nominate O’Donnell. (Never mind the O’Donnell character issues that provide ads for the opposition from now until election day).

Choose pragmatism, and you might be disappointed but get more of your agenda passed. Choose principle, and you lose a lot of ground but feel better about yourself.

And that’s one of the reasons why Coburn is a favorite of mine for leadership, but not DeMint. When Jim DeMint said he’d rather have a vast minority of rock-solid conservatives than a vast majority with some moderates mixed in, it told me that he was more interested in being right than in doing right. Even if the only vote Castle voted in our favor on was for majority leader, that gives Republicans the chance to set the agenda in the Senate. That means an effective block on cap and trade, an effective check on far-left judges, and forcing Obama to either concede to working with the other side of the aisle or kissing 2012 goodbye.

Of course, what do I know? All I can do is cite William F. Buckley, who once said that his preferable candidate was “the most conservative candidate who can win. Whether it’s unfortunate or not, that candidate in DE seems to be Mike Castle. Maybe in 20 years we’ll be able to flip DE back to a swing state, but in the meantime, we play on the field in front of us and that is a field unfriendly to very conservative candidates.

CowboyUp4419

In presidential elections Delaware used to be a swing state. Up until 2000 they had voted for the eventual winner going back to 1952. Besides the presidential election and US Senate elections aren’t the same thing. The same people who gave Bush 64% of the two-party vote in 2004 gave Helmethead Dorgan 68% that year.

JSobieski

in the second half of the 20th Century. Nobody is disputing that with the right candidate, Delaware can go significantly right of center.

Just saying O’Donnell is not that vehicle.

Richard Mullins

and I know what a gas-bag(maybe that’s a bit too hard) Durbin is and why Republican’s in Illinois don’t like him. I Think that the Democrats could try to take the edge off and go with a smoother talking Senator from the South(they still have some). Hmm, the Democrats might need a person that’s like LBJ in respects to being a Majority leader. I think that Durbin as Majority leader would make it easier to knock him off in 2012.

pilgrim

I understand your problem is not with having a conservative run for US Senate in DE, but with this particular individual, O’Donnell. All I am saying is that some who post their screeds are saying that DE is too liberal for any conservative to win a US Senate seat in DE ever. I strongly disagree, and history is more on my side than on theirs.

acat

Durbin earned his nickname “Durbin the Turban” and the other one, Eddie Haskell. He’s a smooth talking backstabber. I’d call him a crapweasel, but that’s an insult to weasels.

Mew

JSobieski

For example, the phrase “radical Republicans” first referred to people in the 1860s from states like Massachussets. Doesn’t mean squat about what the state is like today.

As a generaly rule, the more against the current the state is, the better the candidate you need.

Do I think someone as good of a communicator as Reagan could today win a Senate seat in Delaware? Yes I do. Someone like Rep. Ryan could pull it off as well, but its a smaller subset. Now, in a state like Texas, I think O’Donnell could win easily as well.

RINO-ness should be evaluated on a sliding scale just as the candidate strengths/flaws also must be looked at through a sliding scale if you want to be realistic.

For example, Brown (who was and is a great candidate) would still have lost Massachussetts but for what he brought to the table above and beyond his likely votes.

We are political bloggers. For us, its 99.99% issues. For the independent/swing voters, the person and how the voter feels about the person matters a lot.

It defies logic to think of Delaware at this point as anything but a blue, albeit winnable, state.

JSobieski

By blurring the boundary of home and headquarters, you really do start to open up ethical issues that you would rather candidates avoided.

Its one thing to claim a home office deduction for the campaign portions of your house, its another to actually use campaign funds to make a mortgage payment.

Opportunistic use of campaign monies is probably the leading cause of an ethical problem with a Congressgritter. To many people have an incenstive to allow campaign funds to be slush funds. You start buying artwork for your office. New furniture, really cool computers and TVs. After the campaign is over, are the items donated somewhere? Or kept by the individual?

A strong incentive to run a perpetual campaign. You never have to give the stuff back that way. There is always the next campaign.

As a self-employed person who works out of a home office, I am all to aware of the different ways in which one can start to be more “opportunistic” when running a campaign out of a home. The fact that the house was sold to someone who is both her campaign manager and boyfriend means that the campaign can pay mortgage money, allowing the saving of a house to avoid foreclosure.

All of these transactions that are not occurring at arms length can start to add up.

eburke

I’ve never claimed Christine doesn’t have some baggage; I just believe it’s less than the baggage that Castle carries.

Just as you don’t want the O’Donnell people pooh-poohing her warts, I’m tired of people trotting out canards about Christine that have been debunked.

Christine not processing her bills (which I differeniate from not paying them; one requires money, the other doesn’t) is a legitimate beef of yours. I’ve never disputed that.

Telling half-truths about her using campaign contributions “to pay her rent and utilities” when she uses her home as her campaign headquarters which is an allowable expense per the FEC, or somehow making it sound nefarious that she sold her home to a friend/boyfriend because she couldn’t afford the payments on it (I didn’t realize that selling a house to someone you know violated some great law of ethics or morality) is disingenuous.

You happen to think that Christine’s personal lapses make her worse than Castle. I happen to think that Castle’s liberal record on matters pertaining to the Constitution, life and freedom make him worse than Castle. That’s fine. We can agree to disagree reasonably.

But at least you stick to flaws in her personal life that aren’t half-truths or just downright disingenuous.

eburke

what I did above

http://pragmaticpachyderm.blogspot.com texasproud

The logic for O’Donnell is faulty because SHE CAN’T WIN. You are automatically crossing off the race off the winnable list by nominating a serial deadbeat who talks like a conservative, but is about as credible of a candidate as Alan Keyes or Mark Sanford. Mike Castle might have been wrong on Cap and Tax, but he was right on ObamaCare and the Stimulus. This asinine logic that there is no difference between Castle and a liberal democrat has about as much credibility as a Bill Clinton-led marriage fidelity class. There is a noticeable difference between both sides. This logic that the GOP needs to learns their lesson is what has led to the last two years of unrestricted liberal excess.

I know it ‘feels good’ to talk about those bad MODERATE republican RINOs who have destroyed the party and the Charlie Crists, Arlen Specters, and Tom Tancredos have done their damage, but to not realize the actual differences between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley is living in a bubble where reality does not apply. Take a step back, take a deep breathe, and start looking at the facts of the situation, and stop making rash emotional decisions. The decision is between Mike Castle and Chris Coons, not Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell. Castle and Coons are the only two that can be elected, O’Donnell is not electable. That part isn’t debatable. A last second convert to Tea Party principles in a state where, in reality, a candidate who runs on a social issues without any credibility on the fiscal issues has ZERO chance of winning, we can do better. Delaware is a DARK BLUE state where the chances of a Republican winning is rare, we have an opportunity to take a senate seat. We haven’t been able to get anything from their senate seats, and now we get to get someone who is a significant upgrade over what we have currently.

cbc80

…without an attached spine. This is the year to take our country back. The Wash Post poll today said the people prefer Republicans in control over Congress over Demorats 53% to 37%. Last I heard…Delaware was part of national polls.

O’Donnell is the only Delaware candidate to espouse conservative principles. Anyone who can’t accept this is either a pseudo-conservative…or has to grow one.

Out with the RINOs!!! I’ll accept whatever that leaves us with.

SirGladiator

Isn’t whether Christine has the ‘brains’ of DuPont, it’s whether she’s the better candidate in the race, which she is by a mile. Of course we’d all like to have the veteran leadership skills of somebody like a DuPont, but just because she doesn’t have the politicial experience that some of our other Conservatives have doesn’t mean she won’t be just as useful a vote in the US Senate. Especially this year, being an outsider like O’Donnell is actually a plus, not a negative. No doubt if all it were about was huge experience then Castle would be not just a Governor or Senator, but the King of Delaware, as his liberal voting record is decades long.

I don’t know how accurate this particular poll is, but then again I remember back in 2000, the polls showed McCain beating Gore by about 20 points while Bush and Gore were virtually tied, but that didn’t stop Republican voters from choosing the more Conservative candidate. That’s because people would rather support a candidate they agree with even if it means a tough fight to win, than winning easily with a candidate they don’t agree with. So it is in Delaware, Castle no doubt runs better in the general thanks to his huge name ID, but that won’t save him in the Primary. He’s only a few points ahead, and with the Tea Party going up with their ads its far more liklely than not that Christine will indeed be the next Joe Miller, with the Tea Party boost and the come from behind victory. Maybe it’ll be a tough race in the fall, but I tend to think that once those ads run, and Christine gets better known, she’ll be ahead of the Democrat in the first round of post-primary polling. This is our year, this is our candidate, we’re going to win this race!

Coop

I hope she sends that cap’n trade voting liberal Castle packing. And if it costs the GOP a Senate seat, I’m absolutely fine with that.

Robert Allen Leeper

to National Review’s Jim Geraghty:

?The only business that should be conducted during a lame-duck session of Congress is keeping the government running until the newly elected legislators are sworn in. I do not agree with those who say this period of time should be used for passing controversial legislation and would not play a role in helping to circumvent the will of American voters.?

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot

The lame duck session makes this seat more important than most. The fact that it’s a 4-year term makes it less.

jonreagan

At the end of the day ,eburke, we all have to make our own calls as to whether we consider a politician to be conservative, center-right, or truly a RINO. I go on three key votes this year: Obamacare, Stimulus (or sedative, based on the results), and Cap & Trade. If someone is good on 2 out of 3, I’m willing to support them if I don’t think there’s a viable and better alternative. But I respect your and others’ including issues such as the Second Ammendment, Respect for Life, and more in making your own call.

Ironically, I was in the same predicament here in Arizona last month, so I don’t judge O’Donnell’s supporters. I was for JD Hayworth, and took a fair amount of abuse from people who didn’t regard him as a credible alternative to John McCain. I’ll vote for McCain in November, although it won’t be easy. Amnesty is to McCain what government health care is to Obama: the holy grail, and his own little place in history. After the election, Obama will move on amnesty, and John McCain will be right at his side smiling, trust me.

lexington_concord

Is that Delaware’s flag is faaaaabulous.

http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

I see no upside in RS throwing Mike Castle more red meat such as what I’ve read here. There are no aspersions you can cast on O’Donnell that could not have been done likewise for Angle, Paul, Miller, and perhaps even Rubio.

Mike Castle has stated he will not support the repeal of Obamacare, he supported Cap and Tax and DISCLOSE. Lots of Americans have money problems. That doesn’t disqualify them from activism or even candidacy or taking Castle’s disastrous voting habits out of our misery.

This is a choice between principle and preening.

JSobieski

we just disagree on whether we think that is reasonably possible. In a way, we are both doing the same thing, just from different sides of the ball–i.e. trying to push some people away from very all or nothing positions that defy political rationality.

What so many of O’Donnell’s supporters don’t get is that a lot of people (the squishy independents) vote on perceived competence. They refuse to acknowledge any shortcoming by O’Donnell, and refuse to acknowledge that a candidate is more than a collection of positions.

If someone can’t understand why O’Donnell is different than Sarah Palin, Rubio, Paul,etc then they aren’t really looking at things rationally.

Similarly, if someone can’t understand the impulse to kick Castle to the curb, they are playing potentially permanent minority status small ball.

I figure that the conservative movement needs everyone it can get for as long as we can have them. I am frankly concerned that the O’Donnell bubble will pop and leave people wanting to pack their bags and go home. Since I see O’Donnell’s chances as being low, I try to be the voice of reason.

Back in 2008, I was totally in the tank for Fred. Love the guy, love his positions. However, his campaign was amateur hour in the context of a Presidential run. I blinded myself to that. Lost objectivity. Results in a lot of unecessary pain and disillusionment. Better for folks to understand and come to terms with strengths/weaknesses than to be blind to how the vast majority of voters will perceive someone.

The same democrats that hate Palin praise O’Donnell. That tells you who they are afraid of, and who they think is easy pickings. Doesn’t mean that the D’s are right about their assessment, but its worth factoring in as well.

JSobieski

I eagerly supported Miller in AK even though his name recognition was far lower than O’Donnell’s.

Nor is my point about O’Donnell’s political experience.

My point is that as of her decision to run, O’Donnell doesn’t have a record of accomplishment in anything. If she served in the military, that would be awesome. If she was a doctor serving patients, that would be awesome. No, instead, she is someone whose past campaigns still owe money, she still hasn’t even “processed” all of the past campaign invoices, she has financial issues of her own, and yet decides to run for office.

Before someone seeks to apply for responsibility over the public treasury, they should first apply responsibility over their own financial affairs.

For example, she should finish at least looking at her 2008 campaign bills before launching a 2010 campaign. This is basic personal responsibility. Physician heal thyself. Airline passengers are told to place the oxygen mask on themselves first BEFORE taking responsibility for others.

I doubt amateur hour can win in Delaware, and I have concerns that should a miracle occur, we may end up regretting it anyway.

Kyle-MI

We need 41 conservative senators to be able to block any liberal legislation the Dems may throw at us. That means 41 not counting Snowe, Collins, Brown, Graham, Kirk, and Castle (assuming those last two get elected). Any number beyond 41 is even better but not necessary. Of course, controlling the Senate would be great, but even with control of both the Senate and House, Obama still has the veto. There is no way we will get a veto proof majority in the Senate and in the House we probably have only slightly better odds. Whether we control the Senate or not, don’t expect big conservative ideas to be implemented for the next two years.

Now it is still a good political strategy to send bills to Obama that we know he will veto anyway. We can then showcase that we do have ideas and that he is a do-nothing president. The best way we can get clean conservative bills to him is to have control of both houses. Might RINO’s such as Castle undermine such bills? Yes, but at least we have a chance with them. We have no chance if Dems control their seats.

Ultimately it would be better to have 51 conservative Senators plus any RINO’s who want to ride along, but that will not happen this election cycle, even if O’Donnell should win both the primary and the general. If we play our cards right, we have a chance to achieve 51 in 2012. I think we have a better chance to do that with control of the Senate, and we have a better chance to control the Senate with Castle as the nominee. Even if we don’t gain control with him, we will still have the fallback position of the 41 (and probably slight more) conservatives.

waxmanlaw

You have to pick your hunting ground wisely. DE is not fertile ground for RINO hunting. Next week the primary in NH should be the best ground for a conservative upset. I have seen polls where Ovide has been in front of Hodes. The real consevative can win in NH. As Neil has pointed out if Castle is not the nominee then we won’t win DE. And we need Castle on important cloture votes come 2013. Castle will vote to for cloture and against bills or judges. He may retire in 2014.

Red State has picked it ground wisely so far in 2010. UT, CO, NV, AK, FL, and KY. I might have left out one or two. Imho, UT, AK, CO and FL were huge in that Red State chased well established Republicans from the race. One does not realize how big the message of don’t take reelection for granted is to the DC GOP. It is a game changer.

Looking ahead to 2012 there will be more fertile ground for RINO hunting. Some GOP incumbents better start moving to the right. Lindsay better start looking over his shoulder for 2014. I see a Palin endorsed primary opponent in his future.

JSobieski

there are really 3 magic numbers

60 – on some things, we will need to get to 60 to get past a D fillabuster. On issues that we need some D votes (and have some pluasible prospect for doing so), Castle should be a pretty safe vote–one less D we have to get. Votes that could fall into this category would be things like extending the Bush tax cuts on a permanent basis.

51 – getting control of the committees and management of the Senate floor is a victory in and of itself. Castle is a safe vote here.

41 – on some things, we will need 41 votes to sustain a fillabuster. If we are close to 41, Castle will almost certainly NOT be helpful here. This is worry about McCain/Graham territory.

Castle would be the weakest link in the Senate, particularly on an issue not relating directly to tax rates or spending. However, someone is going to be the weakest link.

http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

The kool-aid drinkers think Palin is a flake just like Angle and O’Donnell. So what?

I’m not interested in notches in the belts of prognosticators. RS got skunked on a few, too. But again, so what?

I just dropped some money on O’Donnell prior to posting this. Can anyone say the same for Mike Castle? Or is this just a derby for bragging rights for those who want to say they held their noses?

There’s no guarantee Castle will vote for (or against) cloture anything if he’s more concerned about his legacy of passing more legislation before he rides off into the sunset. Ditto for McCain.

JSobieski

“There are no aspersions you can cast on O?Donnell that could not have been done likewise for Angle, Paul, Miller, and perhaps even Rubio.”

The four people in your comparison have far more accomplishments that O’Donnell, and far less baggage,

There is something to be said for going with people who win, and avoiding people who lose. What about O’Donnell shows any indicia of success? Accomplishment?

Note I am not talking about prior political success, I am talking about some modicrum of professional success,

Start a business?
Serve in the military?
Look at your vendor invoices within 2 years after being billed?

O’Donnell is not of the same caliber of candidates as the others.

Its one thing to have money problems, Its another thing to act irresponsibly in dealing with them.

Not “processing” invoices for two years from your prior campaign (i.e. not determining which invoices are properly payable) and then screwing over your vendors by running in 2010 is not fiscally responsible or conservative in any way. She is not even TRYING to deal with those past issues in a responsible manner. She accuses center-right radio hosts as being paid agents for the Castle campaign?

Come now, this is not a person who exudes any sense of competence for a public arena in which the more conservative your are, the more likely you are going to be dinged hard by the MSM.

She is not ready for prime time. To compare her to the others is simply a refusal to objectively assess her record.

emaberk

he just acts Republican when it suits him. O?Donnell may not be perfect but will represent the Conservative position far better than Castle ever could. This is starting to sound like the standard sell out Conservative principles and values simply to win an election. We should support true Conservatives during the primaries! It is the only way to move the cause forward!

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Spend less time telling us how evil Castle is and make the case for O’Donnell. What’s her experience? What’s her track record?

waxmanlaw

Have you seen the 2012 map. The GOP should win all the seats that it can get now so that the GOP can get to the important 60 in 2012. Castle will be a reliable vote on cloture. He may vote with the Dems on the bill but will vote with the GOP to break a D filibuster. Plus he will retire in 2014.

51 is important for 2011 for the committees and floor management. Without the committees the GOP will have no power to investigate the Obama Administration except in the House.

http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

and it’s unacceptable. Objectively assess his record.

JSobieski

Why is it that so many people who supported Rubio, Paul, Angle, Miller, et al are not excited about O’Donnell?

Is it that we are the “standard sell out” but for just one candidate and for no apparent reason? I should point out that DeMint has not endorsed O’Donnell either, and he is considered to be the gold standard for conservatives in the Senate.

How is it that people who supported upstart conservatives against the GOP establishment in all other cases have decided to withhold their support of O’Donnell?

I don’t disagree that O’Donnell is far more conservative than Castle. However, isn’t a candidacy more than just a bunch of policy of positions?

http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

On everything that matters. And she’ll be one less toady of Mitch McConnell, who should be a dead man walking, figuratively speaking.

Rand Paul is no less a blank slate legislatively, nor is Ron Johnson, so it’s not about whether she did or did not vote on anything.

What were Arnold Schwarzenegger’s accomplishments worth when it came time to do the right things?

http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

are a necessary, if not sufficient condition, yes.

eburke

JSobieski

many conservatives are withholding active support of O’Donnell for reasons that Erick Erickson of RS characterized as “amateur hour”.

Everybody draws a line in terms of messenger as well as message. We all draw it differently. Many prominent conservatives and many people on this site have drawn a line in which O’Donnell is either an inefficient use of finite resources or an amateurish politician with no record of accomplishment who could very well become our version of Barbara Boxer.

cbc80

… a typical Palin basher

We don’t know what O’Donnell brings? Yes we do. She’s been plain enuf about it.

As for Castle…we have no doubt what he brings. And we don’t want it.

JSobieski

Seriously though, the celebrations are saved for after the first Tuesday in November. I do think that our discussion, which has been free of insult, substantive, and pragmatic serves a useful purpose.

JSobieski

To compare Palin to O’Donnell is to insult Palin. The same for Angle.

Palin has always been a winner.
She has many accomplishments she can point to.

eburke

And agreed w/the remainder of your post.

Thanks for the mental gymnastics. That’s always a good thing

cbc80

…and from this it can be deemed he’ll be a guaranteed cloture vote?

Where’s the rationality in this?

http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

(but reject the premise of your qualifier “many”) or their preening, or some expectation that I will have the correct adulation for the correct trendsetters.

And your arguments invariably end up with a laundry list of people with whom I should be jumping in a lake.

Your worst case scenario is worse than mine, which is that we know who Mike Castle is, another six year investment in a damager of the brand, someone who will give Barack Obama one more vote to peel off to pass the next unemployment extension or bank takeover package.

I have to make your leap of faith that Christine O’Donnell takes positions like Marco Rubio but will vote like Mike Castle (or Barbara Boxer).

That’s even more implausible than hoping Mike Castle won’t vote like Mike Castle.

cbc80

I compared your bashing of O’Donnell to the lefts bashing of Palin

JSobieski

Scharzenegger came from nothing and developed one of the most successful film careers of his generation. They spent their lives on offense. The same is true for Palin, Miller, Angle, and others.

O’Donnell has spent her life in defense. Neither Paul nor Arnold person was cited for numerous FEC violations, had liens recorded on their property (whether accidental or not–at some point, there are too many accidents), failed to even “process” bills within 2 years of being provided goods and services, etc.

In other words, before they stepped into the public sphere to take on additional responsibility, it was clear that they were already competent in managing their own lives. Say what you want about Arnold, but he didn’t enter politics to make a buck, Paul did not enter politics for lack of a vocation.

Before someone enters the public sphere, there should be some record of accomplishment. Something that says “I was a winner in X, so maybe I have some leadership I can apply in the Senate.”

I would rather vote for you for the Senate than O’Donnell. I know she has no accomplishments in her career, while I don’t know you at all–so you may.

Liberals enter politics for a source of income and a career. Conservatives enter politics to bring reason and accountability to government. O’Donnell appears to live chaos and discord everywhere she goes.

Whether its the conservative think tank she worked for, her past campaigns, radio interviews from center-right talk show hosts, accidental IRS liens, FEC citations, etc.

She is either incompetent, or has such bad luck that to fully embrace her candidacy is problematic.

JSobieski

I am citing facts about O’Donnell. In her own words she said that she has not finished “processing” her prior campaign invoices to determine which invoices were legitimate and which were not.

This isn’t a smear, its a fact. If you were a small business vendor to her campaign, it would 2 years since you invoiced her campaign, and she hasn’t even bothered to read your invoice yet. Bashing? Its a legitimate sign of being irresponsible.

For Palin the attacks are in fact, made up.

All attacks are not created equal. Some conservatives are nonetheless screwups in their professional lives.

JSobieski

Castle voted with the Republicans over 85% in the last Congress.

85% isn’t bad.

JSobieski

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c000243/

Never said he was a guaranteed anything, but you should at least get your facts straight.

pilgrim

http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

he wasn’t there when he needed to be. Two bills Nancy Pelosi did not need Republicans to pass.

I could suspend disbelief for anyone but Castle, or maybe Cao.

War is hell, dude. Save your monday morning quarterbacking on Chrstine O’Donnell until after the primary. I’d support Castle in the general, but I can’t get the heebie jeebies about Christine a week out from the primary, no matter how many right minded talking heads tell me to.

Ciao.

http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

But the winner gets to vote in the lame duck session, where nothing good can happen under the current leadership with one more RINO with nothing to live or die for politically.

CowboyUp4419

Some folks have reconsidered and still are in favor of cutting of their nose to spit their face. That is an issue.

emaberk

is a perfectly good reason for voting for their opposition. Obama doesn’t have a Republican challenger yet but I’ll sure pass judgment on his failures and already know which way I’m going to vote. Castle is the same, he supports cap and trade, he’s consistently voted against the 2nd amendment, and does not fully support the sanctity of life. O’Donnell is firmly against cap and trade, received an “A” rating from the NRA and believes in protecting life. She represents the Conservative position I can’t say the same for Castle.

Mary Beth

O’Donnell might be a flawed candidate…but I’d rather have her in than someone who co-wrote that piece of crap.

For these people to vote to the left occasionally is hard enough to swallow but to have them author or co-author liberty-crushing legislation is a step too far.

And frankly I’m a bit disturbed by how coordinated the attacks seem to be against O’Donnell. I hope “The Other McCain” is wrong and that there aren’t NRSC fingerprints all over this.

JSobieski

Do you really think the Dems would let a Republican author a bill of this type? However, as a co-sponsor, Castle is responsible for the resulting monstrosity.

Even worse than cap & trade, it gets to the heart of the First Amenment which is the heart of the country. Moreover, it passed, which also distinguishes it from Cap&Trade.

McCain and Bush betrayed us on McCain-Feingold. Then came DISCLOSE. What part of Congress shall make no law does Congress not understand?

I don’t think the attacks against O’Donnell are coordinated, but you are right about the NRSC being a bunch of stinkers.

Mary Beth

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/A-battle-between-Left-and-Right—-inside-the-GOP-1004524-99585124.html

I don’t really have a problem believing they’d want an R to be heavily associated. They always do…it allows them to shift the credit. It becomes a bi-partisan effort then.

As for the NRSC…that’s what the WSJ is saying:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/03/delawares-odonnell-stop-thug-politics/

I guess these are just my last straws in this case. As flawed as O’Donnell may be, she has not to my knowledge supported, co-authored or co-sponsored for that matter, liberty destroying legislation. She doesn’t support Cap and Tax…which would decimate our economy and our freedom. Those two things right there make her the better choice IMHO.

They’re both flawed…but I can overlook her flaws since none of them are geared to trampling over the Constitution and the consent of the governed.

In other words…I prefer O’Donnell’s amateurishness to Castle’s polished ruling class corruption.

mikerazar

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

And Schwarzenegger had no track record but to call conservatives “right wing crazies.”

renny

Nominating O’Donnelll if she has no chance to take the general election is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If Castle isn’t a perfect conservative, he would still contribute to the Rep. caucus, provide majority status for leadership, chairs, and increased staff, and by numbers alone help stall and start reversing the Obamanation agenda.
Politics is the art of the possible.

Robert Allen Leeper

What I’d like to know is why they (Rs in Congress, anyway) remain so unpopular, when their sins are almost 4 years old, whereas the Ds do worse stuff on a daily basis. I’m guessing, and I hope, that the unpopularity will fade when a new bunch takes over.

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Rasmussen: Castle greatly outperforms O’Donnell

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL