In what must be the stupidest article in the history of the American Spectator, I’ve officially been named and denounced as part of “The Ruling Class.” Well, now that this has been clearly established, the first order of business under my rule is everyone stop calling me and denouncing me as part of the Ruling Class.
I guess the Ruling Class ain't what it used to be....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe article does have a point.
There seem to be a clear distinction between the "Beltway Right" (NRO, Weekly Standard) and the "New Right" (Levin, Rush, Malkin) when it comes to the Delaware race.
Not sure if I would use the term "ruling class" though :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMe thinks Jim is a little touchy. If you want to push Castle as the best candidate (which he obviously is not if you want a real Conservative and not a go along to get along one) then you too become one with your candidate.... especially if the alternative is a Conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe article at American Spectator is not stupid... it is right on and too bad Jim that you have become what you say you are against... look in the mirror.
Maybe its too much for Jim & others here at NRO to take a serious look in the mirror and engage in some really serious self-evaluation in the middle of this campaign. But it needs to be done. Lord is making some uncomfortable points very well and labeling his carefully written and reasoned article as "stupid" really doesn't cut it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe article at American Spectator is all fratricidal emotion and devoid of reason or common sense. It's the sort of friendly-fire vindictiveness that is typical after the magnitude of losses the GOP took the last two election cycles. Emphasis on *after*. (Although AmSpec *did* lead the "let's teach the GOP a lesson" charge that helped kick away majority control in '06 - how smart does that "purity" look trillions of dollars of debt later?) *Not* before, and certainly not in a GOP wave cycle where regaining majority control of the Senate is an actual possibility.
Let's reiterate: it's not about who is the "true conservative" in the Delaware primary. It is about, yes, *electability*. Do you want Mike "Half A Loaf" Castle (leads the Democrat by 11 points) to get you to 51 seats and put the agenda-setting and committee gavels in the hands of "true(r) conservatives," or do you want Christine O'Donnell (trails the Democrat by 11 points) to keep that seat - and perhaps the Senate along with it - in Donk hands, and Harry Reid or Chucky Schumer calling the shots?
In short, it's about more than this one primary. It's about changing the direction of the country, which we all seem to agree is pretty important. In this particular instance, unless somebody can show me a credible and up-to-date poll that gives O'Donnell a burp's chance in a tornado, that's far more likely to happen with a Senator Mike Castle.
Methinks "true conservatism" is better served being in power with the unavoidable handful of "blue" state RINOs ("red" state ones are a different story) it takes to get there than out of power polishing its collective halo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can totally sympathize with not wanting a 52%-level conservative in the Senate, but the arguments being made against Castle and anyone who backs him completely ignore reality, context and precedent.
The context is Delaware, one of the ten most liberal states. I believe that at the moment Scott Brown is the only Republican from those states, and that it was all-Dem for several years before that. The electorate is simply too leftist to expect a solid conservative to win. Scott Brown is to the right of Castle, but I have a strong sense that if he serves for very long is ACU rating will be closer to 52% than 100%, if you know what I mean.
The polling numbers bear this out. Not only is Castle leading by double-digits in polls on the general election, but O'Donnell is behind by that amount, *and falling*. She's a problematic candidate.
Conservatives have to tolerate squishy Republicans in the handful of dark-blue states if we want to keep out Democrats who will have 0-12 ACU ratings year after year. The place to fight the battle over purity isn't Delaware, but the 80 Senate seats to Delaware's right. Things like Toomey over Specter and Rubio over Crist are examples of fighting the good fight; both are perfectly electable, both are good candidates, both are clearly more conservative.
If the right can't have an ounce of pragmatism, we're going to leave a lot of winnable seats in the hands of the left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd if Castle jumps ship like fellow RINO Jim Jeffords in VT? Given his voting record, he would be more likely to caucus with Democrats than a GOP rejuvenated by new strong conservatives like Miller, Angle & Co.
Sorry, I don't buy this "half-a-loaf" theory. If the GOP has to depend on Castle for their majority, it would be a lost cause anyway. Castle would betray the conservative cause in a heartbeat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou may choose to believe what you want about Mike Castle.
But please do not deify Christine O'Donnell BECAUSE you dislike Castle. She has, potentially, major flaws and problems as a candidate that makes it a big question mark on whether she will win. She has as many flaws and problems as Dan Maes (Apparently including indulging in conspiracy theories.), with the key difference that a conservative Republican will it easier to win in Colorado versus Delaware under most circumstance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they weren't complaining about Castle, they would complain about Kirk. Let's face it, with the states that have possible Senate seats that the GOP can capture and the current size of the Dem majority, the geography is against the GOP. Even so, we still might regain control. The geography will look better in 2012 and we will have a better chance to pick up seats from generally conservative states (and even purple rather than blue ones). For the next two years, I would rather have tenuous control rather than leave the sure Obama rubber stamp Senate in place. GOP control for now; conservative control later.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo paraphrase WFB and RWR: "52% my friend is better than 20% my friend." And I can't imagine Castle would caucus with Dems in the current environment (especially if Crist goes down). There will always be moderates in congress on both sides, deal with it! The most important thing is getting Pelosi and Reid out of their leadership positions.
And for the record, NRO doesn't seem that "beltway" to me (unlike Weekly Standard which definitely is) -- rather this site represents a popular strain of American conservatism that has been around for awhile and isn't "neo" or "new" anything: call it "Buckleyism"!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, Lord was pushing it when he accused NRO of having gone Beltway, but there is more than a grain of truth there. As for the electability issue, how do you explain the conservative Brady well ahead in blue Illinois for governor while the RINO Kirk is tied against a mob banker!? Or Toomey being up by 10 pts in neighboring only slightly less blue Pennsylvania? James Buckley, in 1970 with absolutely zero experience in elected office, ran against the approved, Rockefeller appointed congressman, won the Senate primary, and against the predictions of virtually the entire THEN ruling class, actually won a six year term as senator of NEW YORK! Now, I'll grant you O'D is no Toomey, or Brady, or Buckley, but then again Delaware is no Pennsylvania or New York either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The most important thing is getting Pelosi and Reid out of their leadership positions."
Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLord makes some pretty good points. Of course it would require some
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesemblance of intellectual rigor on your part to actually evaluate and refute what you don't like, but alas the article is "stupid". Great defense there Jim. It surely won me over. Much like Castle has convinced me he is the only candidate for the job. He is indispensable for a conservative governing majority. Oh wait he'll be the same guy that refuses to ditch his cap and
tax dogma, has a whopping 52% ACU rating and can be counted upon to leave the Rs in a lurch when needed most. Kinda like Jeffords, Graham, McCain, the dunces from Maine, and everybodys favorite Arlen Specter. Yeah Toomey can't win the general, Paul can't win, Angle can't win, etc. Time to look in the mirror and conduct some honest self evaluation. You're stuck with Castle as your guy now. He's the only one who can win right? Just like you pounded Angle as unelectable (not as big a slam dunk as you assured us a couple of
months ago), you'll get the same treatment when Castle jumps ship and screws conservatives in the name of a cause; namely his vanity and self importance. That is, if he actually wins the general which isn't a given. Does Murkowski ring a bell about now? Even better massive RINO Kirk in a deadheat with a freaking banker that Al Capone would love. Tell me again about electability.
JA Smius....
"electability" got you Republicans spending like Democrats. I'm not interested in a Republican-controlled Congress doing its best impression of acting like a Democrat-controlled Congress. Oh yeah, they're different now..... We have as much evidence for that as we do for Lucy not snatching the ball away again before Charlie Brown can kick it.
If the Republican Party is bent on missing the Tea Party moment in American electoral politics for more of the same old-same old they can do it without my dimes.
As to NR, I'm sure they've given more than the passing thought to their support of Romney, and then McCain, and how that support appears, if only in hindsight.
There is a not invalid sentiment among conservatives that they are tired of taking the long view in tolerating non-conservative Republicans. They'd rather remain the party of "No!" than be a bland frappe of imitation flavors, the result of a blending with electable, and interminable, spendthrift and liberal Republicans.
...and this just in...
Independent voters are looking for a refutation of the sentiment that, "they're all the same" regarding Dem's versus Rep's. I'm ever so encouraged by a party and advocacy journalists bent upon proving them correct.
I don't know about Ms O'Donnell for nothin', but I hardly see the need to encourage the likes of a Mr. Castle. I've been forced to digest Fred Upton in my district for nigh onto 25 years and see no reason others should be swayed by other Republicans just conservative enough to achieve re-election.
Holders of opposing viewpoints will bring up the necessity of a majority to govern. I'd answer by reminding them of what that governance looked like, using the same inclusive recipe, the last time out. The last two elections were blatant referendums on Republican incompetence in governance. (After the War on Terror, name one thing Republican governance stood for...) Those people should consider Theodore Dalrymple's observations on the ubiquitousness of the prisoner's lament that they just fell in with the wrong crowd, oblivious to the fact that they are themselves the wrong crowd. An Upton here, a Castle there, and pretty soon you are the wrong crowd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am curious...
How has O'Donnell proven that she can win a general election? Making the argument that 'I'm not Mike Castle!' will strike some people as insufficient. Making the argument that 'I'm not a Democrat!' might strike enough Delaware voters as insufficient.
Pat Toomey has demonstrated he can run and win in the general elections - witness his congressional career. He is also a good advocate (In terms of living and advancing in personal and professional conduct.) for conservatives. His resume is well known.
What is the similarity there? Beyond 'I'm not the other guy!/I'm not the Democrat!'?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, that explains why you've been wearing the wig and high heels so much lately. I was beginning to wonder. Also, it means you can hang out with Baron Hill more often.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim and National Review supported McCain, basicially parroting McCain's talking points about JD verbatim in their hit piece. If National Review wants conservatives to stop thinking they are elitists, RINOs, etc, stop promoting RINOs and other non-conservatives. Stop hiring liberals like David Frum and Kathleen Parker and David Brooks. The dumbest thing I've seen at the American Spectator was some of their guys also trashing JD per McCain's talking points, and the bizarre defense of a callow liberal reporter few people have heard of in Dave Weigel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am sad to see that the National Review I first subscribed to in the late 60's while in high school has morphed into a version of the Weakkneed Subtandard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think conservatives of good will can agree to disagree on this one.
Given the chance, I myself would vote for O'Donnell, except for a couple of her ill-conceived 'over-the-top remarks, which damaged her own campaign unnecessarily. Thus Castle seem the better choice, although I dislike RINOS intensely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are not a conservative if you vote for Castle. I think we can agree to agree you are intellectual dishonest when you say you are a conservative but you will support Castle.
This O'Donnel woman has the endorsement of Palin, DeMint, the NRA. I think Rush, Levin and Hannity have all endorsed or supported her in their own way. It doesn't seem like her campaign is going downhill as the previous poster tried to characterize it.
McCain has a lot of character flaws, including his involvement in the Keating 5. Jim and National Review endorsed McCain over JD Hayworth...they actually seemd to be more enthusiastic about that endorsement than the endorsing McCain over Obama. Teh heh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse