« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Kaboom, part one: O’Donnell over Castle

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  September 13th, 2010 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Castle O'Donnell

I said twice before that Christine O’Donnell’s big challenge in the Delaware Republican primary for Senate was that she needed to give the voters a reason to vote for her over the popular Mike Castle. For the whole primary season, she’d failed at that.

Judging by the new PPP poll, she’s very recently had great success. She leads.

First off, PPP now has Castle underwater in favorability at a 43/47/10 split, bringing him down to near parity with O’Donnell’s 45/41/14 split. I said she had to find a way to overcome his personal popularity, and she seems to have succeeded by eroding his popularity among Republican primary likely voters.

So that brings us to the top line itself: O’Donnell 47, Castle 44 (MoE 3.8). That makes this a 65/35 race, by my analysis of this poll, with O’Donnell on top.

Key stat: conservatives are backing O’Donnell 62-31, and moderates are backing Castle 69-21. O’Donnell has made this a battle of party factions, and not one of Castle’s personal popularity vs the world. That’s made the race competitive.

From Unlikely Voter

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Mary Beth
  • deano64

    bump from last week.

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

    Levin has been advocating for O’Donnell for weeks. Recently Mark took on Paul Mirengoff (and to a lesser extent John Hinderaker) over this issue. As usual, he gives no quarter.

    You can read Levin’s argument on his Facebook page here:

    http://tinyurl.com/2ufwjcx

  • cordpt

    of electing staunch conservatives like Tom DeLay and Bob Ney.

    Give me a non-conservative moderate republican over faux conservatives with character issues that give conservatism a bad name every day.

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

    No fuss.

    No muss.

  • izoneguy

    http://christine2010.com/blog/163-pamela-geller-endorsement/

  • IJB

    I think whoever wins this is going to win this 51%-49%.

    I also suspect DE GOP Primary turnout will be *way up* – way more than the 20% number quoted around here for previous elections.

    (Side-question: Are DE Primaries closed, or are they open to Indie voters too?…)

    But, just to confound everyone, I have a sneaking suspicion that this result may be the mirror-image of the AK result (i.e. more like AR D SEN than PA D SEN):

    Based on all this, I suspect Castle pulls this out 51%-49%.

    Now whether that result would hurt him or help him in the General election is anyone’s guess….

    Guess we’ll see if I have egg on my face in a couple of days.

  • cordpt

    n/t

  • cordpt

    Only registered republican voters allowed. If not, O’Donnell would have this on the bag with the tactical vote from Dem leaning Indies. Being closed to republicans, I think Castle will pull it out.

  • coolidgefan

    Let’s win the battle and lose the war. That seems to be the rallying cry of the “true” conservatives. I wonder how each of you will feel when a Democrat wins the seat and ensures either Reid or Schumer as Majority Leader. Let’s see how the “true” conservatives feel when Obama judges get a free pass from Leahy. Let’s see how “true” conservatives feel when the gadfly loses by 30 points.

    Mike Castle is no one’s idea of a conservative, but we’re talking about Delaware. We’re not talking about Alaska, Utah, or my state of Kentucky. Castle is the best we can do in that state or have the “true” conservatives not been paying attention to the electoral results there for the last 20 years?

    I know the purists will say this argument was used in KY and PA, but there was a big difference. All polling showed Paul and Toomey winning the general election. No poll, except for ones taken from O’Donnell’s imaginary friends, show her with a lead.

    O’Donnell will lose. She will lose and assure a Democratic majority. Rush and his queen bee, Palin, can talk about conservatism all they want, but they don’t have to govern. Governing is what we want Republicans to do. Without the majority, they can’t don that and O’Donnell ensures that.

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

    Oh, wait…nevermind.

  • JSobieski

    but if O’Donnell wins, this along with Florida and Nevada will be the most widely covered Senate races this fall.

    The DNC will put as much heat as possible to force as many slipups as they can, and will try (to some degree of success) to use Christine as a club against the other upstarts.

  • jeffreywturner

    Democrats would be idiots to nominate someone like Barbara Boxer to run for Senate in Utah.

    Likewise,the GOP would be foolish to nominate someone like Jim Demint to run for Senate in Vermont.

    This is the same thing,only more foolish, because not only is O’Donnell out of step with the state as a whole, she isn’t even a heavyweight like the names I mentioned above.

    Conservatives are spending time and money here when they should be focusing on races where we have a chance to actually ELECT conservatives, like Nevada or Pennsylvania. We may indeed end up NOMINATING a conservative in Delaware, but we will not ELECT one.

    I hope and pray that I end up eating my words on election night in November. Those would be the most delicious ones I have ever eaten, but something tells me I won’t have to.

  • Right Reason

    you’ll hang up your big “Mission Accomplished” banner. The only ones who consider the election to be the war are the party hacks.

    For real conservtives, the war isn’t getting a senate full of R’s. The war is getting true conservative governance – at all levels. Castle will not help win that war.

  • cbc80

    …except her “imaginary” one ever taken to compare her vs Coon.

    And her imaginary one mirrored the PPP poll “within the margin of error4″ as being tied with Castle 2 weeks ago.

    The real imaginaries are those who think that a radical far leftist Coon has a chance against any Republican in this wave election.

    ODonnell will win the General.

  • eburke

    of conservatives being given a bad name?

  • Right Reason

    from the establishment hacks masquerading as the voices of reason, you’d think that Delaware is a suburb of San Francisco.

  • A_Texan

    Yes, but the problem is that Castle will be a vote for every Obama judicial activist himself, and will provide valuable partisan cover for the Democrats.

    Even more disconcerting is that he’s not a Lindsay Graham, he’s more Specter/Chafee. Even today, he won’t commit that he would vote for someone like Alito.

    http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/mike-castle-it-won%E2%80%99t-be-overwhelming-victory?page=2

    There are RINOs and there are RINOs, folks. Castle not only will be a friend to liberal judicial activists, but also a likely enemy to judicial conservatives–all the while giving partisan cover to liberals.

    Delaware Republicans–please defeat Castle, and if necessary, endure an honest liberal there until 2014, and meanwhile try to find a solid center-right candidate.

  • A_Texan

    I agree that she’s unlikely to win, but the analogy is a bit much. Delaware is not reliably liberal in the same way as, say Massachusetts, and even less than Utah is reliably conservative.

    Perhaps a more analogous state is Indiana–a state that Dems can win in the presidency only in the best of circumstances.

    Your analogy, of course, overlooks the problematic alternative.

    Del. GOP voting for Castle is like the Dems voting for Zell Miller in Indiana.

  • cordpt

    The reason why O’Donnell is a bad candidate for the GOP isn’t because she can’t win due to being “too conservative”.

    She wouldn’t be elected in Utah.

  • A_Texan

    N/T

  • cordpt

    in favor of moderates?

  • cordpt

    in Utah? Or Texas, Alaska or any other state for that matter?

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

    Running out of Republicans who change parties in midstream for an easy primary and a couple million in campaign funding? Let’s put another one in the Senate!

    Mike Castle: Delaware’s own Arlen Specter

  • eburke
  • A_Texan

    1. Running in a solid red state
    2. Running in a red year AND
    3. Running against an obvious liberal.

    E.g., if she were running for Senate this year in Utah against Chuck Schumer, she would win.

    Do you disagree?

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

    And no, she isn’t being “pragmatic.”

    http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/13/the-de-senate-gop-primary-castle-soros-a-health-advisory/

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

    SpecterCastle is going to be so good for the Democrat party if Delaware chooses him. So, by all means, choose Ephialtes for the legislative battles ahead. Emperor XerxesObama won’t mind.

  • Right Reason

    Look above:
    -”Mike Castle is no one?s idea of a conservative, but we?re talking about Delaware. We?re not talking about Alaska, Utah, or my state of Kentucky. Castle is the best we can do in that state”

    -”Conservatives are spending time and money here when they should be focusing on races where we have a chance to actually ELECT conservatives, like Nevada or Pennsylvania. We may indeed end up NOMINATING a conservative in Delaware, but we will not ELECT one.”

    The same goes for any other thread which mentions Christine O’Donnell.

  • sundesy

    Great news. Syanora Castle.

    The difference between Lib and conservatives is that, conservatives stand for core principles. I want my Senator to reflect my values.

    Small government, individual liberty and private property rights, these principles have showered America with prosperity. If those principles are to be compromised, then might as well elect a dem. We need a stark contrast. Republican party has lost its identify by electing the so called moderates who are there to take care of themselves. Moderates are for their own self preservation. I am tired of being fooled. Not this time. If I lose let me lose for the right reason.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …that I really, really think that people need to listen to.

    Guess what? You can be a ?TRUE CONSERVATIVE,? a blogger behind a keyboard, a talk show host behind a mic, a prime-time TV host in front of a camera, a Beltway pundit, or a heartland Tea Party activist and come to different, good-faith conclusions about this race. I know people in both the Castle camp and the O?Donnell camp. I?m not going to deride or disown my friends in the blogosphere or anywhere else because we disagree. That?s, well, unhinged.

    Everyone get a grip. Take a deep breath. Fight your best fight. Make your best arguments. Wait for the votes to be counted. Then march on and move forward.

    I heartily echo these sentiments.

  • sundesy

    Democrats have no value. I want republicans to get back to standing up for core conservative principles. Liberals values have made America weak in economy and military strength. Right now most people are cynical as they do not see big difference between democrat and republican. It is advantageous to Democrats when people do not see the difference.

    Win or lose stand for the values that made this country.

    There is no point in winning the battle and lost the war.

  • chipbennett

    Operating under the assumption that, since O’Donnell is ideologically too conservative to be electable in a state like Delaware, an O’Donnell primary win will result in a Coons general election win, and therefore deducing that it is preferable for the seat to be won by the less liberal Castle than by the more liberal Coons, does cause one to be “in favor of moderates”.

    Reasonable people can and will disagree, but employing logical fallacy to debate the disagreement will help nobody. Besides, two can play at that game: if you’re supporting O’Donnell to defeat Castle in the primary, then you must be in favor of a liberal winning the seat.

    (The reasoning is equally as illogical as continually claiming that anyone supporting Castle in this race must be doing so because we are a) establishment Republicans, b) RINOs ourselves, or c) otherwise want to maintain the status quo.)

    You happen to believe that O’Donnell is electable statewide in Delaware. Others of us happen to believe that she is about as electable in DE as Alvin Green is electable in SC.

  • Mary Beth

    You know, the ones who are supposed to be on our side but they “reach across the aisle” and don’t want to rock the boat… so they don’t oppose a Kagan or a Sotomayor.

    As for the polls, I’ve seen some bad for her, and some good for her like this one. I’m not sure how PPP would appreciate being referred to as O’Donnell’s imaginary friends. And yes I get that you’re using snark to continue to forward the “crazy” meme. I suggest you take a look at Legal Insurrection for the Professor’s take on that particular tactic.

  • chipbennett

    We can kill judicial nominations in committee.

    Giving up a shot at the majority just so the “more conservative” candidate can get crushed in the general election for DE-Sen is a tactical and strategic failure, by any reasoning.

  • chipbennett

    …did Reid do during this past session?

    None, you say?

    Too right – and we’ll get more of the same, if we don’t do everything we can to wrest control of the Senate majority.

    Squishy Republicans are better than jackboot liberal Democrats, 100% of the time.

  • chipbennett

    You apparently place no importance on gaining control of the Senate majority, in order to staunch the flood of liberal legislation being forced upon us.

    That position is patently foolish.

    I repeat: I will hold you responsible if O’Donnell defeats Castle, Coons defeats O’Donnell, and congress passes Cap-and-Tax, Card Check, or tax increases in the lame duck session.

  • Mary Beth

    And certainly whatever does make it through will not be veto-proof.

    Having a nominal majority doesn’t hold much meaning with a liberal president. Heck, having a majority with a GOP president got us into a heap of trouble as it was but then they weren’t conservatives so we saw big gov’t legislation and massive spending measures during their tenure. Not as much as the dems of course, but bad enough that we lost our majorities when people got fed up with their wasteful spending.

  • A_Texan

    What you say is true (1) with respect to lower court appointments AND (2) if all GOP members on the COmmittee are solid.

    Alas, Graham shows increasing signs of “moderation” in this regard. And if Castle is there as an ally, Graham will be all the more confident that his moderation will not be punished.

    In truth, if, as we hope, 2012 brings a solid conservative to the White House–and if so, the GOP is almost certainly going to simultaneously pick up enough seats to have control of the Senate. Even if Obama should win re-election, the GOP is likely to win that control.

    The victor in 2012 may very well appoint a successor to Kennedy AND Scalia. Castle’s presence in the Senate at that point will be an OBSTACLE to a conservative nominee and a HELP to a liberal nominee.

  • eburke

    no longer hammer radical judges during testimony and then vote to send them onto the floor for confirmation?

  • A_Texan

    Can we hold you responsible when Mike Castle (1) endorses Obama in 2012 (a la Chaffee), (2) switches parties to give the Dems control of the Senate (a la Jeffords/Specter) OR (3) votes so as to ensure that Justice Kennedy is NOT replaced with a solid conservative?

  • cordpt

    Do you know what were her positions on stuff like:

    - the medicare expansion?
    - Bush’s social security reform?
    - The No Children Left Behind act?

    I mean, I’ve known O’Donnell for awhile. I can’t really recall her as a small-government conservative until very recently. What am I missing here?

    Republican party didn’t lose its identify by electing the so called moderates; it lost it by electing so-called conservatives that once in Washington become big-spending, pork addicted and in some cases corrupt. People with deep character flaws that shouldn’t be supported by conservatives.

  • cordpt

    1. I’m not sure why people believe that O’Donnell suddenly became a true conservative. I remember her other races. She was always a big-government (social) conservative. That kind of “conservative” is out of favour this cycle nearly as much as liberals.

    2. Ideology aside, the candidate matters. People don’t vote on a few lines in a campaign website. Candidates need to be able to articulate their platform or else they’ll come across as hollow and be punished for it. More importantly, the personal qualities and credibility of a candidate matters. That’s why the republican electorate in Arizona (a very red electorate) in a very red year still voted for John McCain over someone like JD Hayworth.

    3. Maybe she would beat a guy like Schumer anyway. However, democrats tend to nominate more moderate candidates in states like Utah.

  • chipbennett

    Christine O’Donnell, in her own words (from her lawsuit against ISI for gender discrimination and unlawful termination):

    However, the reason that ISI demoted Miss O’Donnell and ordered her to report to a man, Doug Schneider, was because ISI did not want to allow a woman to remain unsupervised by a man and report directly to ISI’s President.

    ISI demoted Miss O’Donnell because of a three-month sabbatical by Vice President Jeff Nelson, starting in early February 2004, during which Christine O’Donnell would have been a woman standing on her own without being supervised by a man.

    This was a baby-sitting measure so that while the male supervisor was absent on sabbatical, Miss O’Donnell as a woman would have a male “minder” to look after the woman.

    As of the time that Miss O’Donnell was fired on February 26, 2004, ISI had never had a woman executive or manager who was not under the “covering” of a man.

    Because of ISI’s conservative beliefs, subscribing to a particular interpretation of gender roles, during Miss O’donnell’s employment there, ISI expressed its organizational beliefs that women must serve under a man’s supervision or “covering” and should not have authority without being under the headship and authority of a man.

    So, the staunch conservative O’Donnell blames conservative beliefs for gender discrimination.

    Yep; she sounds like a real winner.

  • A_Texan

    I mean this as a genuine question, not a challenge.

    I am not very pro-O’Donnell, and if in fact she is not reliable as a conservative, that would be a strong argument that both she and Castle are RINOs.

  • Right Reason

    help “to staunch the flood of liberla legislation being forced upon us”. He will most likelco-sponsor most of it so as to give it the veneer of “bipartisanship”.

    Castle WILL vote for Cap an Tax (he already did once). Castle will likely go along with the “limited” renewal of the Bush tax cuts, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he voted for card check.

    Why do you party apparatchiks persist with the ridiculous argument that just because Catle will have an R after his name (for now) that he will be some sort of conservative crusader?

    May I hold YOU responsible if Castle wins the seat and the 3 items you list are passed anyway?

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

    I truly hope that the same may be expected of Castle supporters should O’Donnell pull it out.

    Seriously, once the primary is over it’s time to circle the wagons and shoot the enemy. That’s why I voted for McCain two years ago. I didn’t like it but I did it.

  • sundesy

    The word ‘conservative’ is applied in a totally different context. You cannot extend this to the conservative political belief systems, that is liberals playbook.

    I read somewhere, “there are those you cannot think beyond words”.

    Anyway you slice it you can infer at this time that O’Donnell will vote for conservative principles. Castle has two more than 15 years of track record which can best be called moderate. Looking at the gravity of the situation the country needs strong conservatives.

    No means no for the following.

    1) No for Obamacare
    2) No more stimulas
    3) No cap and trade
    4) No more deficit spending
    5) No more supreme court judge who do not follow our constitution
    6) No more redistribution of wealth

  • aesthete

    she was an “outrage of the day” social conservative type. Though I’m not certain on which aspects, exactly, of her sundry beliefs she would like to codify into law, I do know that, at the very least, her focus in the past has been to involve government in correcting moral maladies (she lobbied for federal laws against pornography, for instance), and several of the organizations she has heavily involved herself with (such as Concerned Women of America) support public indecency laws, television censorship, and the Equal Rights Amendment (I don’t know which of these views she subscribes to). Several of her public statements regarding her socially conservative views range from slightly preachy fringe views (her public statements regarding masturbation, for instance) to the outright bizarre (see this odd Fox News transcript regarding the morality of cloning monkeys). She has nuggets like those sprinkled throughout her career as a talking head, and again, your mileage regarding the “big government” nature of these statements.

    Due to the nature of the public persona, I have no idea to what extent she believes what she said, or to what extent she favors using government to further her views. The fact that most of her adult life has been spent lobbying the federal government regarding “moral issues”, from college onwards, isn’t encouraging, IMO, but that is a determination which each person should make for him or herself. Truth is, no one knew what her views on small government were before this election, because her focus in the past has been on social issues, and she has not made a sufficiently bright line between societal change and governmental change.

  • aesthete

    and self-serving to cite “conservative values” (even if you’re using the term “conservative” outside the political context) as a reason for discrimination, when she not only holds many views which could be considered “conservative” (for example, she opposes masturbation and pre-marital sex), and when she joined ISI knowing full well their policies and views regarding “covering”.

    Do you know what O’Donnell believes regarding the deficit, judges, or redistribution besides vagaries? The unchecked support that O’Donnell is receiving in some quarters is truly reaching Libertarian Party levels of counterproductive.

  • A_Texan

    And so would the Founders of our country.

    I think seeking to conserve the Founders’ principles in America is by definition conservative, and celebrating the sexual revolution is, by definition, radical.

  • aesthete

    I also make my post agreeing in large part with O’Donnell’s general thoughts on the maladies confronting society, but knowing how many want to make certain aspects of her and my own personal views the enforceable law of the land.

    I would also note that Benjamin Franklin and several of our more Francophiliac Founders might dispute your notion that the “Founding Fathers” were unanimously joined on the subject of sexuality, much less in favor of laws regarding the same (though many certainly were).

  • chipbennett

    The word ?conservative? is applied in a totally different context. You cannot extend this to the conservative political belief systems, that is liberals playbook.

    Political conservatism can rightly be differentiated between fiscal and social conservatism. Of these two, the logical conclusion is that she was referring to socially conservative beliefs.

    But let’s consult the dictionary definition of “conservative”, just in case we’re overlooking some heretofore unknown context:

    1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
    2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
    3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
    4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
    5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
    6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
    7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.

    So, take your pick: which one comprises the acceptable context of O’Donnell’s statement?

    I read somewhere, ?there are those you cannot think beyond words?.

    Anyway you slice it you can infer at this time that O?Donnell will vote for conservative principles.

    And how can you infer that? O’Donnell has no experience in elected office, and thus no voting record on which to base such an inference. All you have is her word – which, as is demonstrated above, is less than reliable with respect to her opinion of conservative beliefs.

    Castle has two more than 15 years of track record which can best be called moderate. Looking at the gravity of the situation the country needs strong conservatives.

    Yes, we know who Castle is, and he is what he is.

    And among other things, what he is, is electable statewide in Delaware. What he is, is infinitely preferable to Coons.

    No means no for the following.

    1) No for Obamacare
    2) No more stimulas
    3) No cap and trade
    4) No more deficit spending
    5) No more supreme court judge who do not follow our constitution
    6) No more redistribution of wealth

    You’ll get all of those things, and more, if Coons wins the seat.

    Further, you’ll get none of those in a lame-duck session, if Castle wins the seat.

  • chipbennett

    And, by the way: “party apparatchiks”?

    Seriously? Can you drop that crap? It’s getting old.

    And where did I ever (go on,search through all of my comments; they’re available through my profile) claim that Castle would “be some sort of conservative crusader”?

    If the only arguments you have are ad hominem and outright fabrications of others’ arguments, then your argumentation skills are no better than a typical liberal’s.

    Next time, try addressing what I’m actually saying, and not what you’re imagining what I’m saying.

  • chipbennett

    Given that Castle has shown absolutely no sign whatsoever of doing any of what you just wrote.

    Besides:

    1) If Castle endorses Obama? So what. Obama will lose in 2012, regardless of whether or not Mike Castle (or any other sitting Senator) endorses him.

    2) Castle has been a Republican for – what? – 40 years? He’s flatly denied party-switch rumors.

    3) Castle will give Republicans a majority, meaning that we’ll own the committee chairmanships, and can then kill any judicial nomination in committee.

  • chipbennett

    The victor in 2012 may very well appoint a successor to Kennedy AND Scalia. Castle?s presence in the Senate at that point will be an OBSTACLE to a conservative nominee and a HELP to a liberal nominee.

    And (unless someone can come up with some credible evidence that O’Donnell is electable statewide in Delaware) somehow, you would prefer Coons’ presence on those committees, and casting those votes?

  • chipbennett

    Insofar as a) we can’t control Graham’s behavior, b) Graham isn’t yet up for re-election, and c) Coons’ votes would be even more consistently liberal than Castle’s…

  • chipbennett

    …but not in 2012.

    And even still: Castle gets us one vote closer to that goal than Coons does.

    (And, for the record: a stand-still Senate in 2011 and 2012 would be just fine with me.)

  • eburke

    that we *have* to vote for Castle because it’ll stop bad nominees from coming out of the Judiciary committee.

    Lindsey Graham is *on* the Judiciary Committee and he has already demonstrated that he will vote for a radical nominee to come out of the committee. So explain to me how voting for Castle stops him from doing that, (or how we can even depend on Castle to vote against such a nominee since he’s refused to state how he would’ve voted on Alito (which tells me he would’ve voted ‘no’ cause otherwise it’d be a piece of cake for him to just say “I’d have supported him.”)

  • Right Reason

    Castle would help to staunch the flood of liberal legislation being forced upon us. He will do no such thing. He will most likely co-sponsor the flood of liberal legislation being forced upon us – as he did with the DISCLOSE act.

    How’s that for fabrication?

  • emaberk

    Castle is the liberal choice and O’Donnell is the Conservative choice. The people of Delaware are coming to that realization and thats why we’ve seen O’Donnell’s numbers improving.

  • conservativemusician

    He has stated correctly that we are not going to change the direction of this country if we continue to take the easy road of political expedience by nominating popular RINOs like Castle because they are supposedly more electable in liberal states than a true conservative like O’Connell.

    Do we really want someone else in the Senate who is going to make us pull our collective hair out time after time wondering if he/she is going to vote the right way and then break with the consevative leadership to “vote their conscience”, especially if the margins are thin on important legislation? Have we so quickly forgotten what Specter, Collins, Snowe, and their ilk put us through on a regular basis? I think the country has had enough of this nonsense, don’t you think?

    Again, as Rush has been correctly articulating, the only value of him being there is that the GOP establishment will take over chairmanships…and in the long run, it will not help us get our country back on track. We are hanging on by a thread folks, so it is time to get serious and keep supporting true conservatives in the primaries. Of course, if Castle pulls this out, we’ll live with it and support him, but those of you in DE still have time to do the right thing and run a true conservative against the Dems, even if DE is a liberal state. Do the righ thing and vote for O’Connell.

    Good post Neil.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    on the Powerline guys as he could get.

  • Achance

    and argued for the employer in lots of labor arbitrations where gender discrimination or sexual harassment was either the case and cause or was an affirmative defense. Gotta’ admit that even in a liberal town with nigh on to communist unions, I’ve never seen it argued that way. I’ve seen some that argued that in addition to not liking her for being a woman, they didn’t like her because she was a Democrat or a liberal, or even, ocassionally, a lesbian, but I’ve never seen it argued that as some article of faith the employer believed that every woman had to have a male supervisor. In government, in over twenty years, the only time I ever had a male direct supervisor was the last three and a half years. when I was an appointee. ‘Course, then I retired rather than have a female supervisor, or at least a particular female supervisor.

  • Doc Holliday

    you need to learn more about conservatism. We don’t need saints because we don’t rely on government. We want government diminished, get it?

  • JSobieski

    Its pretty clear that the vast majority of Castle supporters at Redstate are doing so on the basis of a political calculation pertaining to electability. A few find O’Donnell to be a too large of a negative target, but I haven’t heard one statement hear saying vote for Castle because he is a squish. We all know what he is, which is nobody’s first, second, third, or forth choice.

  • JSobieski

    When I was in-house counsel, I never saw a single pro se complaint. Lots of people filed the EEOC on their own, but got counsel after that.

  • Doc Holliday

    and a gun grabbing statist.

  • JSobieski

    especially since after tomorrow, it will be time to play on the same team.

    There have been a lot of straw men defeated over the past weeks on this topic.

    Looking forward to this particular primary being over and done with—either way

  • Achance

    since thanks to silly Democrat politics long ago we had, still do, non-discrimination clauses in all our labor agreements. Of the ones I saw go on to become suits, I can’t really recall any that were pro se; you can always find a lawyer who wants to stick his/her hand in a government’s pocket. Frankly, rather than face an Alaska jury anywhere other than, maybe, Anchorage, I’d just pony up $100K as go away money usually. I’d fight them often enough that they couldn’t be sure of it, so it wasn’t an outright extortion racket, but it was pretty close. Rather give the jerk a hundred grand than have a jury give them a million and maybe find some of my principals personally responsible as well. Truth and evidence ain’t got much to do with it if the defendent is a government, and you can’t explain to twelve morons with driver’s licenses that it really is their money they’re giving to the scammer.

    I always wanted the non-discrimination clauses out because you don’t have to and shouldn’t contract to obey the law; it just gives the employee another bite at the apple with very flimsy rules of evidence and a lot of deference from the courts, but I never had a governor with the guts to tough it out when the unions started screaming, “they want the right to discriminate against us.”

  • Doc Holliday

    but I would be lying if I said it was not one sided. Castle’s statist votes are there to see. You don’t get an F from the NRA for nothing, you have to earn it.

    I don’t know a lot about O’donnell, but all I see here is innuendo and comments she can’t possibly win. To me it is just a bunch of fear mongering and Republicans scared of their own shadows.

    Delaware is not even close to the most liberal state in the nation. People are acting like this is the San Francisco mayor’s race. Last I checked, DE was strong on 2a rights and had some of the lowest taxes in the nation. If our ideas can’t win there, maybe it is not the ideas but those that claim to support them.

  • eburke
  • JSobieski

    Clear case of someone who didn’t realize that the old regime money tree was closed for business. Gave her a $20 out of my wallet and said enjoy dinner. I told her that I would try the case myself since I didn’t have enough to do, so it wouldn’t cost the company any money.

    Of course you are right that its easy for legal expenses to hit the roof pretty fast. We fired a lot of VPs in my day, and each of them were offered great severance packages. Nonetheless, many sued.

    Never had to deal with union contracts or organized labor thank God. Just low level data entry folks (the $20 settlement), a bunch ADA claims from IT people who could not longer type or read screens, and the greedy executive types who just thought so highly of themselves.

    I don’t miss those days, although they were entertaining.

  • eburke

    and past statements, numbers 3 through 6 with Mike Castle.

    Not exactly rock-solid credentials.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Here’s Mirengoff’s first deconstruction of Levin’s comments.

    Here’s his follow-on to Levin’s over-the-top comments after being caught doing bad research and/or just flat lying.

    Here’s Powerline’s wrap-up through this evening.

    Here’s what Jim Geraghty has to say.

    Here’s what Patterico said.

    Levin’s on the WRONG side of this one.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    have a sinner who win in the general.

    We’ll see about this one.

  • JSobieski

    many facts about her life that involve various attempts at explaining away. No point in hashing all of that for the Nth time, but I don’t think it is accurate to simply dismiss all of that stuff in the aggregate as smears.

    Everybody has a “record”. When a person has never been an elected official, you look for whatever you can. If O’Donnell wins, I hope the NRC can help her do a better job dealing with some of those issues.

    I would suggest that 50% of the O’Donnell is not electable groud thinks she is too conservative for DE, and the other 50% (which includes me) think that she is just too flawed a candidate to win.

    I will support the winner either way. Heck, I tepidly support her in the primary (can’t vote in DE, not going to donate money).

    I voted for Steve Forbes twice, and in 2008 I voted for Fred. Given that I live in MI, the Fred vote was just as pointless as the two Steve Forbes votes. So I do vote my conscience, but . . .

  • SirGladiator

    Excellent post by Neil and by conservativemusician as well. Whenever there’s a choice between a liberal and a Conservative, I always vote for the Conservative. The idea that the liberal might have an easier time winning in November doesn’t have any appeal to me, I’m a Conservative. Its not even clear that the liberal is the better candidate in this case, ironicly enough, given that Castle’s been sinking in the polls for months now, while O’Donnell has been surging. We know that she’s a better debater than Mike Castle because Castle was too scared to debate her even a single time, he had his minions out there lying about how ‘incompetent’ she was and yet when given the chance to back up those words, he proved they weren’t true by running scared. Its quite possible that come November Christine O’Donnell will actually win by a bigger margin than Casle would have if he’d won the nomination. Of course the bottom line is that as Conservatives we can only win if we nominate a Conservative in the primary. Whatever our chances of victory in November with Christine, whether you argue they’re 70 percent or 30 percent, or any other number you want to make up since its all just speculation anyway, I know for certain what the chance is of a Conservative winning if the matchup is liberal vs liberal, and that percentage is 0.

    Happily Delaware is as tired of the RINOs as we are, Christine has already pulled ahead and by tomorrow she will probably win by a comfortable margin. Delaware doesn’t want to elect another liberal, they want real change, they want Conservative leadership, not more of the same from the left wing of either party. We’re taking our Party back from the liberals, we’re taking our Government back from the Democrats, and tomorrow Christine O’Donnell is going to send another liberal back to the Private Sector, to join his fellow RINOs Specter, Crist, Murkowski, etc. Its a great time to be a Conservative Republican, we’re winning all over the Country!

  • JSobieski

    Of course, how to apply what was learned?

  • Doc Holliday

    I do question a lot of people’s nerve at this point. All the Castle supporters (why would anyone be that?) keep talking about the 11 point margin. But we have seen Republicans come back from much larger deficits this year. I swear, I think there are too many lawyers here and not enough military men and football coaches. Crap, tomorrow the race just begins, why can’t we make up 11 points?

    btw, anyone who voted Forbes is alright in my book. He lacked charisma, but his platform was as true blue as you can get.

  • Achance

    when I became director. Hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally was sitting there and letting one of my subordinates work his/her way through the case or through negotiations rather than just kicking the chair out from under them and doing it myself.

    I’ve done some advocacy as a consultant since I retired but I’ll confess I don’t like it because I’m simply not as good as I once was; you have to do it all the time or you get slow and sloppy, and I can’t stand knowing I’m slow and sloppy. I’m still better than most even when I’m slow and sloppy simply because I’ve been around long enough to know more than most of them, but sometimes they beat you and you have to live with the knowledge that you simply got beat; it wasn’t the case, it wasn’t the witnesses, it wasn’t the ALJ or arbitrator: IT WAS YOU.

  • JSobieski

    Less formalistic than court, you could trap people into doing really dumb things—like trying demo in the court room.

    I have an IT background and used to work as a developer on IT projects, so I had a better grasp of how projects fail than then the other attorney inevitably had. Get their IT people talking, get them to make half-baked statements, and them impugn their judgment on the basis of the half-baked statement.

    Commercial arbitration–now that was fun. . .

  • JSobieski

    poll numbers should never be the primary factor in voting. Polls change. The right candidate can move the polls a lot in a relatively short period of time. Frankly, O’Donnell could be ahead in the polls at this time and it wouldn’t change my assessment.

    Forbes was the original geek candidate. I’m not too enticed by any of the currently known front runners this time around, but I will say that if Paul Ryan ran for President, I would get involved in his campaign ASAP.

    I don’t think there is a better articulator of conservative policies and principles than Paul Ryan. I prefer Presidents with executive experience, but his communication skills have to make him a factor.

    Can you imagine a Ryan v. Obama debate? Damn. . . .

  • Achance

    but there isn’t a lot of it here, at least not enough to enable me to live in the manner I prefer to be accustomed.

    I loved the “run with what you brung” aspect of it, and I and my staff usually brought more. Uniquely in the Country, we always insisted on a lay staff that did everything from holding supervisors’ hands, to negotiating the labor agreements, to sitting in with the disciplinary interviews, handling the grievances and representing the State in arbitration and labor board hearings. There is just no substitute for knowing more than the other guy. I had enough and good enough lawyers working for me, though not titled as lawyers, that as often as not we’d just do the pleadings even when things went to court and let the AG’s office make the formal appearance, but we’d have done all the work. That’s also a good way to make sure that not always trustworthy political lawyers don’t tank your case too.

  • JSobieski

    You actually kind of remind of J.J. White, who literally wrote the book on Article 2 of the UCC.

    He is probably a “bit” more polite than you in many contexts, but not in class.

  • indylawyer

    Suppose that in 2006 Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson had been defeated in his primary by a doctrinaire liberal who had never won an election or run any sizable business, and whose main claim to fame was that he/she had received 35% of the vote running as a sacrificial lamb against Chuck Hagel a few years earlier. Suppose that the race had attracted national attention as liberals argued that it didn’t matter whether the challenger had a serious chance to win because Ben Nelson so seldom voted with his party they’d didn’t care if he lost to a Republican. At least the Republican wouldn’t tarnish the Democrats’ image.

    Had this happened, Republicans would have held the Senate that year. They likely would have insisted that the 2008 stimulus include some sort of tax cut aimed at spurring production instead of just giving handouts. They would have had a stronger voice in drafting TARP. And if the 2008 elections had happened just the way they actually did, they would have still retained the power to filibuster with 41 votes. Obamacare would have been defeated because no RINO was willing to vote for such an unpopular bill to bail out a Democratic President.

    Now, maybe we never need Castle’s vote to pass or defeat a major bill. Maybe the ability to control committees and vote schedules won’t be affected by who wins tomorrow. And maybe he breaks ranks and ends up being the vote to defeat a major GOP initiative. But maybe we will need him. He says he prefers the GOP alternative to Obamacare, and that he opposes the use of a lame duck session to pass major legislation. That seems like two big issues one which he could well be in position to cast a deciding vote. It would be a shame if Chris Coons gets to cast it because conservative threw away the seat to take a stand against RINOs.

  • Doc Holliday

    he put out a plan while many are sitting on their hands. it is time for the young guys, I like Ryan a lot.

  • chipbennett

    Doesn’t see the light of day if the Republicans control the legislative agenda.

  • Achance

    my name is on the appearance line, at least to the person at the front of the room.

    I made my staff mock every case that went to arbitration or to the Board. My view was that if you could win it in the office, you could win it anywhere. We didn’t lose many. That said, a lot of bright young lawyers decided this work wasn’t for them in those office mocks. Lots of them came out of law school with a lot more self-esteem than ability and I never had or wanted a staff exclusively of lawyers. I tried to keep it about half HR types, mostly women, who’d come up through the ranks, often even with only HS educations and about half young lawyers. Some of the “HR girls” could eat young lawyers’ lunchs and make them go throw away the bag for them, and that was really hard on egos.

  • chipbennett

    That I said that you get none of those things in a lame-duck session with Castle.

    That’s all that really matters. None of those come up in 2011 or 2012.

  • JSobieski

    about trial work while in law school. Now they have litigation clinics, which are awesome.

    Lawyers tend not to want to be subservient to non-lawyers who are not CEOs or governors. A very arrogant profession . . .

  • Achance

    I inherited a staff mostly hired by Democrats owned by the unions. The administration had pretty much gotten tired of their union “friends,” so I had prety good authority to deal with things, and the first thing I had to deal with was that staff, most of which should never have gotten an interview and certainly not a job. Typical Democrats, they were into lawyers, and I wasn’t one, but I had twenty-odd years of doing the work and eating their lunch.

    One of them was a relatively young lawyer who could actually give good brief or memo, but would never give you two pages when 200 would do. I was into production work, not works of art and I rode him hard about more work. Came time for me to do his interim evaluation halfway through his probationary period. I gave him an Acceptable rating but was critical of his productivity. ‘Course, since they’d all been working for Democrats, they’d always been rated Outstanding. He refused to sign the evaluation, though that didn’t mean anything, but more to the point. came in over the weekend, the only time he’d ever done that, and hung all his diplomas and bar admissions on the upholstered walls of his cubby on the side of the office away from the windows. He was gone before long.

  • onehutu

    This is far and way the most interesting race for today. In my view the voice(s) of the people of Delaware will drive the future of the movement. Fascinating stuff!