When characterizing the Giffords shooting, my above headline is so unfair that most RedState readers probably cringed when they saw it.  Indeed, I cringed when I typed it. Yet as inaccurate and unfair as it is, it’s much more accurate than any of the drivel being spewed on the left, shamelessly trying to tie 22-year-old Jared Loughner to the tea party.

Backing my headline is the fact that this schizophrenic shooter listed the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books.  And as Jonah Goldberg masterfully proved in Liberal Fascism, even a tie to Mein Kempf could bolster the argument that an individual is a man of the left.  And as for my describing Giffords as a champion of gun rights?  Well, that’s how she characterizes herself (though somewhat disingenuously).

And what can the opportunistic vultures on the left point to?  The fact that Giffords is a Democrat.  That’s it. Nothing else.  Zilch.

Of course, we all know that this shooting had nothing to do with Giffords’ gun positions or Loughner’s politics, and everything to do with the fact Loughner is schizophrenic.  We all know that correlation does not prove causation. And so we’d never write a shameless headline like the above or make that kind of insinuation, unless to illustrate a point.

But this is because we’re conservatives.   Conservatives are proponents of truth.  Conservatives have shame.

And all of the above put us at odds with the mainstream media.

Okay…there’s almost no way to take these guys seriously anymore.  Check out Item #4 at the following FoxNews link:”Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts.”  Oft-quoted Princeton scientist and climate-change advocate Michael Oppenheimer speaks of a 65% margin of error in their temperature predictions.  If that’s the standard these guys are using, then everything they say is completely meaningless.  I could probably make 20 climate predictions while singing “Ring My Bell” and pruning my azaleas and be within the margin of error!

First, the Republicans reward Michigan Rep. Fred Upton for banning the light bulb, by putting him in charge of energy.  Now they reward Illinois Rep. Tim Johnson for voting against farmers’ property rights, by putting him in charge of–-you guessed it–-farming.

Tim Johnson will head the Rural Development Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee.  While this is far from a stellar position, the irony is just as palpable as in Upton’s case.

The bill Johnson voted against, an overhaul of the Endangered Species Act (HR 3824, 109th Congress), would have reimbursed property owners when the ESA infringes on their ability to develop their property.  And as Nancy Marano and Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation point out, the bill also would have done away with “flawed critical habitat designations, strengthening scientific standards, and returning decisions to the state and local governments that are better suited to address them. As well, [the bill] would serve landowners by increasing openness and accountability across ESA processes and improving the protection of private property rights.”  The American Conservative Union listed this legislation among its “top 25″ watershed votes of 2005.

Despite Johnson’s turning his back on such a fundamental liberty as the right to own property, the Republican establishment apparently sees nothing wrong with putting Johnson in charge of a subcommittee that, as stated in Illinois’ News-Gazette,  “deals with issues such as rural development programs…and family farming matters.”

On the surface, it’s mind-boggling that anyone, let alone a Republican, could vote against such an innocuous piece of legislation.  But if you’re looking for motive, here’s an interesting tidbit.  According to Marano and Liberman, one of the many benefits of the legislation is that it would result in fewer lawsuits.

And according to opensecrets.org, guess who was the number one donor to Johnson’s 2004 campaign?  You guessed it.  Lawyers.  $32,458.

So thank you, GOP Establishment, for taking the power of the Tea Party mandate and squandering it on still another hollow-souled, Tuesday-Group moderate.

What is it about S.C. RINOs?  In 2009, the (soon-to-be “primaried”) S.C. congressman Bob Inglis voted to censure fellow South Carolinian Joe Wilson for yelling “you lie” at Obama.  And now we have Lindsey Graham calling his colleague, Jim Demint, a “loser” and suggesting he is selfish for helping conservative candidates.

Well Murkowski, Crist, Scozzafava, Raggio (ad nauseum) have proven that when it comes to RINOs, it’s all about themselves.  If you want to know the likely motivator behind Lindsey’s resentment, look no further than a Rasmussen poll taken in late 2009, a poll that most of us have forgotten about, but a poll that I can guarantee you Lindsey remembers as if it were yesterday.  Of all SC Republicans, Demint has an 18% advantage over Graham, when it comes to whom they feel the GOP should pattern itself after.  AMONG ALL VOTERS (yes, this includes the DEMs), 6% more think Republicans should be more like Demint than Graham.

One small poll for Man.  One giant wound for selfish RINO.

Who should a Republican vote for—Mike Castle or Christine O’Donnell?  By now, the arguments on both sides are as tired as a death-penalty debate in a freshman English class.  So I’ll cut to the chase.  Who should Republicans vote for?  O’Donnell.  Republicans should vote O’Donnell.  It isn’t even debatable.

All you have to do is look at the best-case scenario of a Castle win and contrast it to the worst-case scenario of an O’Donnell win.   And if you’re conservative, an intellectually honest probe can lead to only one conclusion: a worst-case O’Donnell victory is far better than a best-case Castle victory.

Let’s start with the worst-case for O’Donnell. O’Donnell beats Castle and then loses in November.  While there’s every reason to believe O’Donnell’s momentum could carry her to a November victory –for our purposes, we’re sticking only to the worst-case scenario.  In fact, let’s make the worst even worser–O’Donnell defeats Castle, then loses in November and the G.O.P. misses a Senate takeover by a single seat. Would this lessen our chances of reversing Obama’s destruction? Would this upend our conservative momentum?  The answer is an obvious “no.”

Certainly, the lack of Castle’s presence in the Senate would not be the difference in repealing anything—because Obama will veto anything that reverses his “legacy.”  And Castle would not give us a 60^th vote enabling an override.  Again, this isn’t debatable. If anyone thinks we’re headed for a veto-proof congress, they’re fooling themselves. And who first made this observation?  None other than Castle himself: “While this president is in office,” he said, “repealing this full law [health care] is not realistic and not the best use of our efforts.”  That hardly speaks to the need to have Castle in office to advance Republican reforms.

So does a worst-case O’Donnell scenario hurt conservative momentum?

Hardly. How does it hurt our momentum when a conservative beats a liberal former governor in a Delaware primary? A one-seat deficit keeps us hungry, a one-seat surplus give us a false sense of being full.

On the other hand, consider how it hurts morale when we have “bipartisan” cap and trade, “bipartisan” gun bans, “bipartisan” tax hikes, card check, sanctuary cities, pork bills, light-bulb bans,  10-commandment bans, drilling bans; “bipartisan” auto takeovers, cash for clunkers, de-funding of missile defense,  granting of drivers licenses to illegals (are we getting demoralized yet), “bipartisan” Bush impeachment investigations, in-state tuition for illegals, votes of no confidence in the surge (hardly a morale-boosting stance), “bipartisan” campaign-finance reform, TARP legislation, a “bipartisan” Disclose Act,  extension of McCain/Feingold to the Internet, doubling of S-CHIP,  a “bipartisan” tax-dollar giveaway to Planned Parenthood…and believe it or not, we’ve barely scratched the surface.  The list goes much further–and all of the above is from Castle’s record of just the last three Congresses.   Indeed we could go much further and still stay within those sessions (if  you’d like to do just that, please click here: Remove Castle).

So now let’s take a look at the other side. What’s the best-case scenario if Castle wins?

Castle tops O’Donnell then defeats Coons, and this gives us a one-seat majority in the Senate.

We’d gain Committee chairs. This would make parliamentarian wonks happy.  We’d be little better off in making actual reforms (see above), but, again, the wonks would be happy.  Better legislation would see the light of day—before being buried in the darkness of Obama gridlock.  And Republicans would be in a better position to send pork home—which would mean, of course, giving up Tea-Party support in 2012.

We’d have a little more clout—which would make it much easier for Obama to find a scapegoat (“It wasn’t me–the Republican majority did it”); despite the fact that this Republican majority wouldn’t be able to truly do anything before 2012.

That’s pretty much it.  I’ve exhausted the good in a best-case scenario with Castle.  So let’s look at what’s bad in the same scenario.

What message will be sent if, come Wednesday, the New York Times’ presumptuous, gleeful boast from an August 5 article is proven true: “Eight House Republicans, After Carrying Climate Effort Last Year, Fend Off Attacks.” Because all cap-and-traders are still standing. And they’ve whooped a slew of conservatives in the primaries.  Any way you look at it, if Castle—the last cap-and-trader to face a primary opponent—wins on Tuesday, then rather than teaching the RINOs a lesson, the RINOs will have taught us conservatives a lesson.   And what’s this lesson?  We’re almost powerless against the liberals in our own party.   Liberal special interests can influence their votes. The media can influence their votes.  We cannot.

Indeed, why should these guys listen to Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter, when they can obey Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd and still make the Washington dinner circuit?

Moreover, here’s an interesting tidbit.  As the basis for its House rankings, RemoveRINOs chose 73 votes dating back five years–73 of the most crucial, watershed votes for conservatism as determined by the American Conservative Union.  Again…we’re not talking about a vague composite of overall “career votes with party.”  These were the biggies, the non-negotiable issues, the cap-and-trading, tax-raising, speech banning, open-border, gun-confiscation kinds of votes.

When it comes to the 73 ACU votes chosen (hardly a small sample), Castle voted with the Dems 72% of the time. This means he voted with the Republicans only 28% of the time on the issues that matter. Twenty-eight percent.  Take a good look at that number.  Let its image burn itself into your retina.  On the core ACU conservative issues, Castle votes with Pelosi 72% of the time.

What kind of message would a Castle victory send Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and the other weak-kneed  Republicans the next time they face a cap-and-trade bill or a recall of stimulus funds or a repeal of the healthcare monstrosity?

By contrast, what kind of message would Castle’s defeat send these fence-sitters?

Because…my goodness…72% of the time with Pelosi on the ACU issues?? And this is a best-case scenario??

Recently, at RemoveRINOs.com, we posted a response to a column by Bruce Walker: “Of RINOs, Moderate Democrats, and Men.” In Walker’s column, he argues that the G.O.P. should target red-state RINOs, while giving blue-state RINOs a pass.  His premise is familiar– in a blue state, a RINO is the best we can do.

Now on the one hand, it’s not difficult to shoot down Walker’s case using simple logic. Likewise, it’s not difficult to shoot down his case citing a few simple facts. But unfortunately, when it comes to the political class (and in a larger sense, I don’t mean to impugn Walker), it seems logic and facts are never enough. And in view of a poll that National Journal recently published, revealing that nearly a third of Beltway Republicans (i.e., political consultants, not the lawmakers themselves) would “most like to silence” Sarah Palin’s voice within the party–nearly three times more than the second place Michael Steele–it’s clear that facts and logic bear constant repeating.

The danger to Walker’s line of thinking is that if we apply no pressure from the right, our RINOs will only feel pressure from the left.  And we simply can’t afford to cede our people to the left, no matter how liberal their constituents are purported to be.

Case in point, in February, MOVEON ran ads pressuring Collins and Snowe to support the stimulus.  Not surprisingly, these two RINOs gave in.  So should we make excuses for Collins and Snowe because they weren’t able to hold up under MOVEON’s pressure? The next time a big vote comes up, should we go easy on them and just concede from the outset that only liberal organizations can “really make a difference” to a senator from Maine?

The bottom line is this–if we’re afraid to bring consequences to Republicans from liberal states, then we cede all power to the liberals of that state.  Because we might be afraid to threaten an Olympia Snowe with real consequences, but leftist groups such as Moveon.org will not be.  The only way we can hope to have true representation in blue states–in particular, in the Northeast–is to put forth a pressure that is equal or greater to that imposed by the left. We can’t do this when we are afraid to hold our own members accountable for their own actions.

The first thing the G.O.P. is going to have to do is take an intellectually honest look at what it’s facing.  And this means taking a good hard look at the word consequence itself.  By any measure, it’s an ugly word.  Consequences can mean only one thing in the vernacular of politics–and that’s defeat. In the case of intra-party consequences: primary defeats.

If we’re afraid that defeat in the primaries will bring defeat in the generals and if we let this fear keep us from making our members face consequences, then we’re ceding all persuasive powers to the left.  And on a grand scale, this is exactly what we did in both ’06 and ’08–before and after the elections–we ceded all power to the left.

Now let’s go a little further with the stimulus votes.  At the time of the stimulus debate, a Rasmussen poll showed that 50% of Americans thought the stimulus would hurt the economy more than help it.  In light of that kind of public skepticism, Snowe and Collins should have been able to oppose the stimulus with little, if any, political risk.  If these two Republicans were unwilling or unable to articulate such fundamental party principles as the need to not print 800 billion dollars to fund the opposition’s pork projects–then the G.O.P. should make them face consequences.

The bottom line is that a party needs discipline.  It ensures the bare minimum of unity that a party must have in order to call itself principled.  Likewise, it ensures the bare minimum of unity that the base requires before it will turn out to vote.

And sometimes, party discipline can be a maverick’s best friend.  Sometimes, it can save candidates from themselves.  Had McCain received a little party discipline along the way, who knows–he might have won in 08.  But that’s speculative.  Let’s look at a few things that are not.

At RemoveRINOs.com, we’re engaged in constant analysis of ACU data, and we’ve come across some interesting Republican tidbits.

In 2008, three House Republicans lost seats in the Northeast–Kuhl, English, and Shays.  Were these guys punished for being “conservatives in liberal states?” It doesn’t look like it.  All three got beat after taking notable turns to the left.  Randy Kuhl’s lifetime conservative rating going into his final term was 88.  The year he lost his seat, 2008, his rating was only 79. Going into his final term, Phil English’s lifetime rating was 77.  The year he lost his seat, his rating was 52.  And then there’s Chris Shays.  His lifetime rating going into his final term was 46.  The year of his defeat–32.

In fact, during the 109th and 110th sessions (the sessions leading up to the ’06 and ’08 defeats), the G.O.P. saw 74 House members move 2 points or more to the left on their LIFETIME ratings.  How many moved two points or more to the right?  Only 19.  Of these rightward-moving candidates, only one lost a seat.  Of those moving to the left, we lost 9.  It’s almost as if once Bush fell out of favor, these people were without a daddy; and in the lack of any semblance of party discipline, their conservatism experienced a free-fall.

Does the above indicate that it’s as easy for a conservative to be elected in New England as in the South? Certainly not.  But it’s a pretty good indication that we’re not shooting ourselves in the foot by demanding our blue-state Republicans uphold certain core principles.  And it’s also a pretty good indication that we’re shooting ourselves in the heart if we do not.