Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Campaign Spot

Election-driven news and views . . . by Jim Geraghty.


Print   |  Text
 

Which Side in This Fight Goes Straight to Attributing Corrupt Motives?

A lot of Delaware talk in this Monday edition of Morning Jolt

Might as well address this, even though the topic has turned me into Snidely Whiplash in some corners of the conservative blogosphere. If Public Policy Polling is right, there is an excellent chance that Christine O’Donnell will be the Republican nominee for Senate in the state of Delaware…

Ian Lazarian at Conservatives for Palin contends he knows who deserves the credit: “The pollster found Governor Palin’s endorsement to actually be more helpful in Delaware than New Hampshire, despite the fact that Delaware is a more “moderate” state with fewer primary voters that identify with the Tea Party. 47% of Delaware conservative primary voters were more likely to vote for O’Donnell because of Palin’s endorsement and O’Donnell’s lead stems from her 62-31 advantage over Castle among Delaware conservatives. In fact, it’s difficult to argue that O’Donnell would be in such a strong position without Governor Palin’s endorsement. O’Donnell leads Castle by an 83-13 margin among those more likely to vote for her because of Palin’s endorsement. Castle is winning among everyone else but O’Donnell’s ability to win over those more likely to vote for her because of Governor Palin’s endorsement by such an overwhelming margin is what has her in the lead.”

Over at the Weekly Standard, fellow apostate John McCormick writes about O’Donnell’s $6.5 million lawsuit against the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a conservative non-profit based in Delaware in 2005. He notes “sought $6.95 million in damages. In a court complaint, she extensively detailed the “mental anguish” she suffered after allegedly being demoted and fired because of her gender. And, although she didn’t have a bachelor’s degree until this year, O’Donnell implied she was taking master’s degree classes at Princeton University in 2003.”

Doug Ross contends there’s nothing sufficiently shocking in the article, dismissing it as work from “Mike Castle’s Beltway cocktail buddies.”

Mark Levin griped about Paul Mirengoff; Mirengoff responds, and John Hinderacker adds a footnote, “Mark Levin has done some great work for the conservative cause, so it is disheartening to see him playing so fast and loose with the facts. There is an unfortunate tendency among some on the right to adopt the view that no one is a *real* conservative except for them and a handful of their friends or followers. This sort of divisive, exclusionary attitude is a sure ticket to perpetual minority status, and should be avoided by all conservatives.”

Notice which side in this debate adopts the left’s tactic of going straight to motive, and attributing sinister or corrupt motives to those who disagree with them. If you don’t like Mike Castle, or he’s too much of a squish for you, I can’t blame you. If you prefer Christine O’Donnell because her stances are closer to yours, your logic is perfectly sensible.

If you listen to the pro-O’Donnell folks, the two words most often cited are “principle” and either “ideology” or “conservative.” I would be a fool to argue that ideology shouldn’t be important when writing to a conservative audience. Indeed, perhaps the pro-Castle folks put too much stock on electability; a well-known candidate that runs primarily on “inevitability” deserves to be called insufferable. (In retrospect, Mike Castle should have debated O’Donnell, both as a political tactic and as for the health of the party.)

But doesn’t judgment and character belong up there, too? The list of… questionable behavior and decisions on O’Donnell is long and clear. She told blatant, easy-to-check lies on the campaign trail. Her associates recorded a video alleging, without proof, that Mike Castle had gay affairs. She left employees of former campaigns unpaid for their labors. She lapsed into paranoid conspiracy theories, with her campaign suggesting the Rasmussen poll results were influenced by the long tentacles of the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senate Committee. She may have committed a crime by offering false information on her Senate financial disclosure form, reporting $5,800 in income for 2009 but later saying she had more that she wasn’t required to disclose (the exceptions are few and limited to amounts less than $250). (She somehow managed to pay $11,744.59 in back taxes in a year she reportedly earned about half that.)

Finally, experience may be overrated, but accomplishments aren’t. A three-time candidate never elected to any office, O’Donnell has no record of managing or governing at any level. The very first line of her campaign biography identifies her as a “marketing and media consultant to various clients, including: Icon Pictures’ The Passion of The Christ.” I’m glad she was there to help promote a vivid, unsparing, epically moving and controversial movie about the most important event in human history, otherwise it might not have found an audience. She really deserved a share of the residuals.

Most of O’Donnell’s defenders refuse to seriously acknowledge or rebuke behavior that would have been instantly denounced coming from any Democrat, instead offering variations of Ross’ “you just want invites to all the Beltway cocktail parties” sneers or angry demands to look into bad behavior on the part of Castle.

Levin writes in his latest response to Mirengoff, “Campaigns are waged over a period of months if not years.  You try to influence your fellow citizens to your position.” This is the closest I can see to a strong argument for taking a risk with such a flawed candidate, coupled with an earlier observation from Jeff Lord, last seen laying out why I’m part of the Ruling Class or a pawn to their will: “But when is a lost election really a lost election? If the conservative agenda is to move the country away from the nightmare of the Obama-era’s left-wing fanaticism, isn’t any kind of a showing by a conservative in Delaware a victory for the larger cause?”

Is the idea is that if Christine O’Donnell can get a respectable share of the vote in a general election, we should imagine what a sterling conservative without all this baggage will do in a future cycle?

How about we skip this step and find that sterling conservative without all this baggage? If elected, Mike Castle isn’t going to be spending a lot of years in the Senate. Is there no Joe Miller in Delaware politics?

Tags: Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, Mike Castle

New on The Campaign Spot. . .


COMMENTS   9

EXPAND  

   09/13/10 09:20

“Is there no Joe Miller in Delaware politics?”
Amen Jim…that we can both agree on.

However, even with her personal baggage, I think I’m still leaning toward O’Donnell as opposed to Cap and Tax Mike Castle.
Mike Castle is so bad; he makes John McCain seem like Jim Demint. According to the American Conservative Union, Castle has a lifetime rating of 52.49. For comparison, McCain has a lifetime rating of 81.97. In 2008 Mike Castle scored a 28 out of 100 for voting for conservative causes.
External Link 

Oh, incidentally, it seems Cap and Tax Mike Castle has some baggage too as an elected official with his corrupt sweetheart lobbying deals.
External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/13/10 09:36

Jim, when should I expect to get my Morning Jolt via email? I'd prefer to get before my third cup of coffee....

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/13/10 09:46

Dan Riehl has some good commentary here:
External Link 

Riehl: "I realize tensions are high over the Delaware Senate primary. I was glad Mark Hemingway and a few others and I were able to have a reasonable debate on the topic last night via Twitter. If both sides try to understand one another better, it may be easier to come together after tomorrow. And it's imperative we do that. I'd ask the opposition to calmly consider a few facts and arguments from this side of the debate. This is not about conservative purity within the GOP."

"While our emotions often become focused on one another as individual pundits, according to PPP's latest, close to, if not more than 50%, of Delaware Republicans feel that Castle would not represent them well. While I, or Mark Levin, may or may not speak for some of them, is it wise for a political party to basically try and anoint a nominee so disconnected from its base of support? Why no criticism for the GOP here? Many on this side of the debate believe they made an imprudent choice given the way the country is trending right now. And a serious look at the practical politics defeats the argument that Castle is a must have to do everything we can in the Senate, on ObamaCare, or anything else."

"While we're being told of Castle's 50% ACU rating, there is much more to it than that. And his rating shot up from about 28% just the year before. Perhaps Delaware Republicans are reacting to that? Those voters know Castle better than we do and they are rejecting him? Why is that? Let's not fall into the trap of thinking those voters aren't thinking for themselves in rejecting Castle. I assume they are."

"Castle scores a horrendous 43% from CFG for 2009. Again, since his announced Senate bid he has been much more conservative than previous years. In 07 and 08 he earned a 35% and 26% respectively. In every year, Castle has had the most liberal voting record of any member of the 175+ Republican caucus. So in 2008, when Arlen Specter scored a 44%, Mike Castle scored a 26%! The CFG ratings give us more of an idea of how much of a statist the member is than the ACU."

"The usually prudent Jay Cost offered up an offhand remark about needing Castle to repeal ObamaCare. But that doesn't hold up. For Cost's analysis to ring true, the GOP would have to run the table in 2010 and 2012 in the Senate. Not only won't that happen, if it did, you can bet there would be Blue Dogs backing repeal, too. Why can't we put Democrats on defense in that manner for a change? Does it always have to be only about pressuring Republicans to cave? If we win everything, as Cost asserts, except DE - rest assured, the votes to repeal ObamaCare under a GOP president in 2012 will be there."

"Frankly, if a GOP establishment that picked badly in Castle wasn't trying to destroy O'Donnell now, I'd be far from convinced she can't win the general given the way the nation is going. And I am still unwilling to concede the seat, if only everyone comes together post-primary and fights the good fight."

"But even if we lose this year, the seat is up again in 2014, not 2016, as some claim. If we have to wait to win DE with a genuine moderate in 2014, so be it. Again, this is not about purity. It is about the most electable Republican within a state. And I have never gone for the, you have to take the lesser of two evils argument. Give us people we can support, or don't expect even reasonable conservatives to show up. I believe it's imperative for the GOP to get that message, now. By 2012, it could be too late."

"Finally, the only valid argument for Castle is, we must have a GOP majority in the Senate. Why? The real action will be in the House where funding is controlled and 49 or 50 Republicans can stop anything in the Senate, even with Biden as a tie-breaker. So, the GOP has let fiscal conservatives down for years. They picked a liberal for Delaware because it was best for them, not their constituents. And for that, they deserve to be rewarded with a majority??"

"Sorry, no sale. Not here on this blog, anyway. Note to the GOP - earn it, stop taking us for granted, before it becomes too late for us all. And Delaware is not the be all and end all you are trying to make it out to be. So, back off and stop trying to destroy a young woman, no matter what you think of her. Based on this latest poll, I don't think voters think much of you for doing it. And they weren't so fond of you to start with. Get the message while there's still time. And stop shooting the messenger. That's ultimately a losing play for you in the grand scheme."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/13/10 10:10

This last-second Weekly Standard attack on Christine O'Donnell causes me to rethink my former position that Mike Castle, while insufficiently conservative, was importantly less flawed as a candidate in this key Senate race; for after all the unnecessary and counter-productive mud-slinging, Republicans have now hurt their chances for victory in Delaware so badly that Delaware conservatives might as well vote their heart.

Go, O'Donnell.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/13/10 12:52

There's a difference between *questioning* someone's true motives and *attacking* someone's genuine motives.

To say I support Castle because I want to be popular at my cocktail party next week is to *question* my motives, to an absurd and laughable extent. You have removed yourself from the conversation and have embarrassed yourself irreparably.

For me to say that you support O'Donnell out of a misguided drive to elect a deeply flawed and woefully unqualified candidate is to *attack* your genuine motives. Sure, you want a more conservative candidate than Castle. But your motives, however genuine, are bad for the party and bad for the country. O'Donnell losing 40/60 instead of 35/65 (like in 2008) doesn't help anyone.

And in fact, if you support O'Donnell losing, over Castle taking the seat, I will go ahead and call you a RINO. Because you are a Republican only so far as you would rather send a message to the party than elect its members.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/13/10 13:26

This isn't South Carolina, it's Delaware. Electable Republicans will tend to look more like Scott Brown than DeMint or Inhofe.

Looking at the big picture, a Republican majority will include some moderates (just as the Dem majority has included moderates.) It is just not realistic to hope for 60% or even 51% DeMints in congress. A ruling coalition will probably be more like 45% DeMints and 10-15% Castles. Which is better than 45% DeMints and 55% Pelosis, isn't it?

A strategy for GOVERNING (as well as winning) needs to take into account that there will ALWAYS be moderates in congress. I'd prefer to see moderates elected that will not vote for Speaker Pelosi.

But then I'm no conservative idealogue -- just a pragmatic libretarian. Above all I want to see these big-gov "progressive" neo-McGovern Democrats massively repudiated.

It is just as important that Republicans are able to govern if they win however -- this isn't an ideological purity test, there's some very serious stuff to deal with such as 10% unemployment. There will be no progress til Pelosi and Reid are out of power (and Obama in 2012 "inshallah!") Their moronic economic policies simply do not work, we must change course. "Sending a message to RINOS" and leaving Dems in power (or even with a shred of their dignity intact) won't cut it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/13/10 13:53

Via The Right Scoop:
Rush: “A Senate full of Mike Castles isn’t going to get us anywhere”
External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/13/10 15:12

When the Delaware Republican Party picked a side (FEC complaint) it was time to pick the other side (O'Donnell) by making a contribution. The party must stop interfering in primaries. This establishment, elitism must cease. If not for that, I would have been content to sit back and enjoy popcorn from a distance.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/13/10 18:30

So...By the standards of Mark Levin, and Dan Reihl (Both who I liked much of what they write.), the guys at Powerline and Ace of Ace of Spades are not 'true conservatives'?

Really?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact