Krauthammer: Palin’s and DeMint’s endorsements of O’Donnell are destructive, capricious, irresponsible

posted at 8:06 pm on September 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via the Right Scoop. There’s nothing here that you haven’t heard before, but since “true conservatives” are in RINO-stomp mode towards Paul Mirengoff and John McCormack and Jim Geraghty and a bunch of other people who were conservatives in good standing as of, say, four days ago, let’s make sure the stealth liberal known as Charles Krauthammer takes his licks too. The only part of CK’s monologue that I disagree with is the “capricious” part: I’m sure Palin and DeMint made their endorsements with due deliberation, knowing how much it would please their base. (They certainly took long enough to pull the trigger.) And from a philosophical point of view, endorsing O’Donnell is a win/win/win for them. If O’Donnell beats Castle and then shocks Coons in November, they’ll get all the credit; if Castle pulls it out and sends O’Donnell packing, they can at least tell their base that they were on the side of the angels; if, as is most likely, O’Donnell beats Castle and then gets steamrolled by Coons, well, the beauty of “true conservatism” is that the highest priority is defeating RINOs, not Democrats. They won the important fight, and without Castle in the Senate, the GOP brand will remain pure and principled and therefore well positioned for the eventual “true conservative” takeover of Congress. Like the man said, better 30 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters.

Real Clear Politics is noticing tonight that most other prominent Republicans — Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty, just for starters — have yet to endorse either way here. They’ll be hammered for that by the same people who’ll hammer Krauthammer for this and duly threatened with punishment in the primaries over it. Might happen, but when CK describes the Palin/DeMint endorsements as “destructive,” I don’t think he’s referring simply to the GOP’s chances in Delaware. This has been a clarifying moment in terms of showing how conservatives prioritize differently: Some demand a stand on principle even if it means Democratic control, some demand an end to Democratic control even if it means compromising sometimes on principle. Romney et al. will suffer among the former group — and Palin and DeMint will suffer among the latter. This is, very much, a two-way street. Now, here’s Krauthammer. Be gentle.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9 10

She is being an adult. She is also trying to explain her reasoning.. you aren’t giving her a chance.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:11 AM

I gotta go to bed man – but the bottom line is the woman seems to think that the old guard that sank this party can save this party – and that’s just not logical.

I don’t care for O’Donnell much – hell I sure don’t care for Coons – but I’ll take either of them before I send any more food or water to the Ayatollahs in the Senate who were in charge for 6 years of the Bush administration and only helped the Dimmocrats to bankrupt my kids.

Yeah – I’m pissed about this. I just don’t have a lot of patience for people who think that we can use the old Ayatollahs and their impotent half measures to save this nation.

HondaV65 on September 14, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Please tell me WTF you think a traitor is?

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:11 AM

that would be a capitalist that sells the rope that hangs his mother…

nothing wrong with being a capitalist nothing wrong with selling rope for hanging and nothing wrong with having a mother but when you put the combination together you have problems…

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Wait Castle voted to impeach Bush?

IS THIS TRUE?!

If so, we have no business supporting, voting for or even considering Mike Castle as anything Republican. There was a lot of running away from Bush IN THE MIDDLE OF A FRICKEN WAR!!! By REPUBLICANS!!!

JonPrichard on September 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM

You can take a principled stand on issues and engage in good faith debate without being an arrogant ass. Manners matter.

dakine on September 14, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Only to the people who are losing the argument. ;)

HondaV65 on September 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM

But if O’Donnell takes the primary and then in November we wake up on the Morning After with 50 seats, O’Donnell not among them, the recriminations are going to carry right on through 2012 at least.

JEM on September 13, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Ha! ha! ha! The RINO “party strategists” are getting desperate – want to be part of the in-crowd again? The Washington power brokers?

Let me repeat this: conservatives are NOT salivating at the prospect of a McConnell/RINO-led GOP majority – we are perfectly happy to have a vibrant minority now and build towards a Jim DeMint/Marco Rubio majority the next cycle. Conservatives will NOT accept big government policies again whether it comes from Pelosi/Reid or McConnell!

TheRightMan on September 14, 2010 at 12:16 AM

I’m suggesting that O’Donnell is a godawful candidate who doesn’t have a prayer of winning, nor is there any reason why anyone should vote for her. Were I in Delaware (ha! fat chance) I doubt I’d bother voting.

radar g on September 14, 2010 at 12:17 AM

So have any of the proponents of Rep. Castle answered why the Delaware Republicans thought Ms. O’Donnell was fine to run against V.P. Biden in 2008 but now she’s part of the “nuts & sluts” brigade?

Cindy Munford on September 14, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Please tell me WTF you think a traitor is?

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Someone who labels himself and being on one side but who acts in the interest of the other side, for example, Mike Castle calling himself a republican and voting with the democrats.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:18 AM

that would be a capitalist that sells the rope that hangs his mother…

nothing wrong with being a capitalist nothing wrong with selling rope for hanging and nothing wrong with having a mother but when you put the combination together you have problems…

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:14 AM

so what you are saying is that you are the accomplice to the murder of your mother via the rope you sold to the person who killed her?

not a good explaination.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:19 AM

IS THIS TRUE?!

If so, we have no business supporting, voting for or even considering Mike Castle as anything Republican. There was a lot of running away from Bush IN THE MIDDLE OF A FRICKEN WAR!!! By REPUBLICANS!!!

JonPrichard on September 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Question: On Motion to Refer
Bill:H RES 1258
Vote description: The Kucinich Privilege Resolution
Vote type: Recorded Vote (Help)
A standard vote that requires a simple majority for approval or passage of the legislation.
Result: Passed, 251-166, with 16 not voting.
Date/time: June 11, 2008, 3:08 p.m.
Republican majority opinion: No (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Republicans. “None” means an equal split between “Yes” and “No.”
Democrat majority opinion: Yes (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Democrats. “None” means an equal split between “Yes” and “No.”
Vote totals
By party | By state/territory | By region | By boomer status | By gender | By astrological sign

Click to list individual members.

Yes No Not Voting
Aquarius 19 17 1
Aries 24 6 1
Cancer 30 16 1
Capricorn 16 14 3
Gemini 19 26 4
Leo 26 10
Libra 23 19
Pisces 16 7
Sagittarius 14 14 3
Scorpio 20 12 1
Taurus 19 8
Virgo 25 17 2

Yes No Not Voting
Female 48 19 1
Male 203 147 15

Yes No Not Voting
Midwest 53 41 6
Northeast 66 15 2
South 73 74 6
West 59 36 2

Yes No Not Voting
None 8 4
2008 243 162 16

Yes No Not Voting
Alabama 2 5
Alaska 1
Arizona 4 3 1
Arkansas 3 1
California 34 18
Colorado 4 2 1
Connecticut 5
Delaware 1

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Someone who labels himself and being on one side but who acts in the interest of the other side, for example, Mike Castle calling himself a republican and voting with the democrats.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:18 AM

no, that is called being disengenuous. That is not a traitor.

excuse the typos I am tired and waiting on the back to call me.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM

He has lost me. What a total RINO.

griv on September 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM

IS THIS TRUE?!

If so, we have no business supporting, voting for or even considering Mike Castle as anything Republican. There was a lot of running away from Bush IN THE MIDDLE OF A FRICKEN WAR!!! By REPUBLICANS!!!

JonPrichard on September 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM

JonPrichard:
=========================================================

Michael Castle on War & Peace

*Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
=======================

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Michael_Castle.htm

canopfor on September 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM

excuse the typos I am tired and waiting on the back to call me.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM

bank not back

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM

But if O’Donnell takes the primary and then in November we wake up on the Morning After with 50 seats, O’Donnell not among them, the recriminations are going to carry right on through 2012 at least.

JEM on September 13, 2010 at 11:42 PM

And if castle takes the primary and then in NOV we wake up on the morning after with 50 seats and Castle is not among them, the RINO’s are toast forevermore

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:22 AM

So have any of the proponents of Rep. Castle answered why the Delaware Republicans thought Ms. O’Donnell was fine to run against V.P. Biden in 2008 but now she’s part of the “nuts & sluts” brigade?

Cindy Munford on September 14, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Because that’s how electoral politics work – Biden had virtually no chance of losing, and thus no legitimate candidate was willing to run against him. Losing elections tends to be an anchor on a political career, and there’s much to risk. So O’Donnell filled a sort of Alan Keyes “well, SOMEONE’S got to run” role.

radar g on September 14, 2010 at 12:24 AM

So have any of the proponents of Rep. Castle answered why the Delaware Republicans thought Ms. O’Donnell was fine to run against V.P. Biden in 2008 but now she’s part of the “nuts & sluts” brigade?

Cindy Munford on September 14, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Cindy Munford: Thats a H*llavu good question!:)

canopfor on September 14, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Mike Castle voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.

Rocks on September 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM

You can take a principled stand on issues and engage in good faith debate without being an arrogant ass. Manners matter.

dakine on September 14, 2010 at 12:13 AM

LOL…you have no place to talk about manners. Seen you in action many a time here over the past few years.

Christien on September 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM

bank not back

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM

upinak: I feel your pain!:)

*(Kidding)*—————–:)

canopfor on September 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM

So O’Donnell filled a sort of Alan Keyes “well, SOMEONE’S got to run” role.

radar g on September 14, 2010 at 12:24 AM

And when the Dem-lite GOP man rolls into town the little lady should just go make him a sandwich or somethin.

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM

no, that is called being disengenuous. That is not a traitor.

excuse the typos I am tired and waiting on the back to call me.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM

dis·in·genu·ous (dis′in jen′yo̵̅o̅ əs)

adjective

1. not straightforward; not candid or frank; insincere
2. slyly deceptive or misleading, typically by means of a pretense of ignorance or unawareness

trai·tor (trāt′ər)

noun
a person who betrays his or her country, cause, friends, etc.; one guilty of treason or treachery.

Traitor fits Mike Castle much better.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:27 AM

so what you are saying is that you are the accomplice to the murder of your mother via the rope you sold to the person who killed her?

not a good explaination.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:19 AM

for instance if you sell say China the arms and give China the money and means to build an army that comes and destroys your country when you had no idea how china would use those arms, nor the money but had strong facts to tell you they were not exactly you BFF than you are a traitor.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Hey, it’s not my fault that Delaware can’t find someone better to run against Castle than a dunce who files a ridiculous mental anguish lawsuit. Take it up with them.

radar g on September 14, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Traitor fits Mike Castle much better.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:27 AM

yet we all watched him vote…

so does that mean we are part of his treacherous coup on the Nation?

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:28 AM

The Argument Against Mike Castle
January 25, 2010
====================

The biggest argument against current U.S. Rep and U.S. Senate candidate Mike Castle (R-DE) is that he is part of the establishment. Congressman Mike Castle has been on the government dole since 1967. Here is a breakdown of his elective office career:

http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/the-argument-against-mike-castle/

canopfor on September 14, 2010 at 12:30 AM

yet we all watched him vote…

so does that mean we are part of his treacherous coup on the Nation?

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:28 AM

No.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:30 AM

What if O’Donnell wind the primary & loses the general? What’s so awful about 50 GOP senators w/o Castle vs. 51 including Castle? As I understand it, he’s unreliable on the big votes. Are committee chairmanships during 2011-2012 so critically important that we should look the other way when it comes to Arlen Specter 2.0?

With 50 senators (and no Castle, which will increase the ballsiness of the caucus) the GOP can gum up the left’s statist pushes until 2012. Then we can add more senators & hopefully dislodge Obama.

Of course, this assumes O’Donnell doesn’t win. Don’t rule her out; this is a tsunami year.

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 12:31 AM

The only part of CK’s monologue that I disagree with is the “capricious” part: I’m sure Palin and DeMint made their endorsements with due deliberation, knowing how much it would please their base.

They couldn’t have deliberated; not thoroughly, anyway. They seem to have pondered the potential political upside for a few minutes, and decided. They couldn’t have considered the broader ramifications…they simply wouldn’t have done what they did had they actually thought it through. CK’s assessment is correct.

ernesto on September 14, 2010 at 12:32 AM

That the Repub establishment won’t take its well-earned beating like a man just says so much about the little power addicts. At some point, however, additional pain might prove incredibly…instructive. Let the beatings continue until morale improves.

Christien on September 14, 2010 at 12:34 AM

so does that mean we are part of his treacherous coup on the Nation?

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:28 AM

there are many in the Gop RINO wing that laugh at the entire idea of a nation. they think the idea of nations is outdated and that we should have a new world order. that borders should be open and goods and people should travel across those “lines on the map” like any other place in the world.

so if you believe the idea of nation/sovereignty is outdated and call those who believe in such things nativists and think other countries should have a right to control your domestic policy are you not a traitor to that nation?

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:34 AM

for instance if you sell say China the arms and give China the money and means to build an army that comes and destroys your country when you had no idea how china would use those arms, nor the money but had strong facts to tell you they were not exactly you BFF than you are a traitor.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:27 AM

yet that is what we have to wonder about voting for any of the loons vying for a seat. And let’s face it, they are all loony for running! Some woprse then others.

No.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:30 AM

Actually yes! We are ALL responsible for those who are elected. You see one of those who are elected and they are screwing up…. and you don’t call or bring up the problem to others. Then yes, you are a part of it.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:34 AM

Krauthammer has been wrong about Palin before, and he wrong again now. But Krauthammer, is a blueblood. So his stance is expected, and probably wide.

Kini on September 14, 2010 at 12:35 AM

so if you believe the idea of nation/sovereignty is outdated and call those who believe in such things nativists and think other countries should have a right to control your domestic policy are you not a traitor to that nation?

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:34 AM

Don’t we have those in now unseen? Obama comes to mind.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:36 AM

they simply wouldn’t have done what they did had they actually thought it through. CK’s assessment is correct.

ernesto on September 14, 2010 at 12:32 AM

yeah that’s why they waited so long. do you think before you post?

the reason Palin and Demint choose to act when they did was because of the escalation of the RINOs due to their fear over lisa’s lose.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Don’t we have those in now unseen? Obama comes to mind.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:36 AM

the entire establishment comes to mind both dems and REPs.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Check that, the vote was to refer it to committee to die.

Rocks on September 14, 2010 at 12:37 AM

yet that is what we have to wonder about voting for any of the loons vying for a seat. And let’s face it, they are all loony for running! Some woprse then others.

No.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:30 AM
Actually yes! We are ALL responsible for those who are elected. You see one of those who are elected and they are screwing up…. and you don’t call or bring up the problem to others. Then yes, you are a part of it.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:34 AM

I can agree with that. In fact it is why I am not a fan of any incumbant. The longer they ar ein office the less I like them no matter which party.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:39 AM

radar g on September 14, 2010 at 12:24 AM

The “problems” she has now, she had then only now they want to add loser to the list but your telling me they picked her because she couldn’t win. But time after time on these threads the people who want to vote for her, even though they are being told it is impossible for her to win, are being label disingenuous. I have a real problem with what is being done to this woman’s life, by her “own party” just because she is the impertinence to run. I will be switching back to “non-affiliated” as soon as possible.

Cindy Munford on September 14, 2010 at 12:39 AM

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:36 AM

There’s no need to make excuses for them. All they had to do was spend 5 seconds thinking about this.

“Do we want a Republican senator from Delaware?”

That’s it. Had this thought crossed their head for more than a freakin’ minute, they wouldn’t have bothered with this.

ernesto on September 14, 2010 at 12:40 AM

your telling = you’re telling.

Sorry.

Cindy Munford on September 14, 2010 at 12:41 AM

“Do we want a Republican senator from Delaware?”

ernesto on September 14, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Most of us don’t care.

If he’s a socialist Republican then he is worse than a socialist Democrat because he is in a better position to do harm.

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 12:42 AM

Actually yes! We are ALL responsible for those who are elected. You see one of those who are elected and they are screwing up…. and you don’t call or bring up the problem to others. Then yes, you are a part of it.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:34 AM

You are merely a self-hating and self-destructive person if you knowingly vote for someone who has a record of constantly betraying your interest.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:42 AM

ernesto on September 14, 2010 at 12:40 AM

yeah that’s it. /s

and People on the right still wonder how a no name, no acomplished hal-term term senator could beat the GOP in 2008.

If anyone is still wondering the ideas behind the backing of Castle by the GOP is the reason the GOp lost in 2006 and 2008.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:47 AM

You are merely a self-hating and self-destructive person if you knowingly vote for someone who has a record of constantly betraying your interest.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:42 AM

lol.. I think it is you who does not understand how voting and keeping track of your person who is the voice of your state.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:49 AM

If the actions occuring in the GOp primaries in 2010 would have occurred in 2004 and 2006 there is a good chance that the Gop would still be in power. but the establishment locked out primary challengers and the party rotted form within.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 12:49 AM

Delaware Senate Race: A Kamikaze Republican and the Tea Party

ABC News is calling O’Donnell nasty names in thier headline. That word is not from any quote in the story. The left will always tell you who they are afraid of. That is one more reason to vote for O’Donnell.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:53 AM

lol.. I think it is you who does not understand how voting and keeping track of your person who is the voice of your state.

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 12:49 AM

Ungrammatical. Please rephrase.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:55 AM

ABC News is calling O’Donnell nasty names in thier headline. That word is not from any quote in the story. The left will always tell you who they are afraid of. That is one more reason to vote for O’Donnell.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:53 AM

Are you saying that ABC news doesn’t have the rights best interests at heart? /S

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 12:55 AM

I’m tired of the establishment GOP election strategy. Let’s try taking a longer view than two years, for once.

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 12:56 AM

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14042

ninjapirate on September 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM

This does a good job of summing it up.

Thanks for that!

But one point commentators are missing, I think, is the reason conservative primary voters may be willing to risk defeat in November for principle in the primaries. It is because of the leadership of the Republican Party in Washington.

If conservatives trusted that a Mike Castle, say, would be kept in line by the official GOP in Washington, they would be more willing to hold their noses and vote for him. But for conservatives, “pragmatism” is often the victory of hope over experience.

Is it really the case that Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republican leadership will pull Castle to the right, or that Castle will pull them to the left? Whatever side you’re on, I think the experience of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins – even on the fiscal issues on which they are supposed “conservative” – makes the answer unclear.

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 12:57 AM

Ungrammatical. Please rephrase.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:55 AM

LOL…you noticed that, too.

Christien on September 14, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Only to the people who are losing the argument. ;)

HondaV65 on September 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM

A 48 year old with the maturity of a know it all college student who’s about 10% as smart has he thinks he is.

dakine on September 14, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Jeez another rant by a squish as to how CK is right. Sarah sure scares beta males and elitests for some reason. RINOs want us to forget how they tried to toss Conservatives under the bus when McCain was running for the nomination. Now they are whining they are being picked on. DUH! Too much of the dem-light ways of voting and spending were because of RINOs and look where that got us. Now the RINOs want to try the same losing strategy for the third time- move to the left. Considering the mood of the electorate towards such individuals, that is beyond insane. They are as bad as the dems. They just want to get into power and be part of the elite ruling class again.

Yes I understand the need to be pragmatic. I supported Brown in MA knowing full well he was at best a Conservative dem and would vote against us on some crucial issues. However, I do not want to give power to too many RINOs who will use their coveted votes to stab us in the back repeatedly. Too many RINOs are bad for the GOP. Sure they may vote with us 50% of the time, but when they screw us over on the most important votes and vote exactly like a dem as they tend to do, it almost makes one ask why we even bothered to try and put an R there in the first place.

Hard Right on September 14, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Is it really the case that Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republican leadership will pull Castle to the right, or that Castle will pull them to the left?

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 12:57 AM

The weak links always limit the the ideological strength of the party and invariably pull it to a weak and diluted stance. There is no doubt that Castle would pull the GOP conference to the left.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 1:04 AM

Ungrammatical. Please rephrase.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:55 AM

LOL…you noticed that, too.

Christien on September 14, 2010 at 1:01 AM

ugh I am usually in bed by now. screw it!

upinak on September 14, 2010 at 1:05 AM

There is no doubt that Castle would pull the GOP conference to the left.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 1:04 AM

It also gives the Democrats cover with the claim of bipartisanship.

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 1:06 AM

What if O’Donnell wind the primary & loses the general? What’s so awful about 50 GOP senators w/o Castle vs. 51 including Castle? As I understand it, he’s unreliable on the big votes. Are committee chairmanships during 2011-2012 so critically important that we should look the other way when it comes to Arlen Specter 2.0?

With 50 senators (and no Castle, which will increase the ballsiness of the caucus) the GOP can gum up the left’s statist pushes until 2012. Then we can add more senators & hopefully dislodge Obama.

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Precisely.

A stiff spined deadlock or slim (51/49) minority without Castle is actually more desirable than a majority or deadlock with him.

Sets up 2012 for another bigger gains and gives Obama and the Dems nothing to blame the GOP for; Obama isolated can blame everything on the GOP congress for two years and it just might be enough to squeak out another four years.

Obama with a Dem Senate or deadlocked Senate with Biden casting tie breakers that directly put the administrations finger prints on bad Senate bills makes Obama and the Dems even more toxic in 2012 when all those ’06 squeaker Dem senators are up for re-election in blood red states…

Attrition is the winning strategy here.

SuperCool on September 14, 2010 at 1:07 AM

CK is a terribly bright man and I have loved his analyses in the past. But his positions have grown erratic over the past year or so, especially the part of his brain that deals with Palin… I am losing confidence in his judgement in general…

fabrexe on September 14, 2010 at 1:07 AM

This is exactly what a party primary is for; gettin all scrappy. Both the RINO’s & True Conservatives are in the fights of their political lives, so I expect some big punches to be thrown. It’s how we behave after the winner is delcared that can make a real difference.

TN Mom on September 14, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Here’s an example

Kini on September 14, 2010 at 1:12 AM

CK is a terribly bright man and I have loved his analyses in the past. But his positions have grown erratic over the past year or so, especially the part of his brain that deals with Palin… I am losing confidence in his judgement in general…

fabrexe on September 14, 2010 at 1:07 AM

I’m starting to think its about sexism more than anything else.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 1:17 AM

Palin 2012!!!! Woohoo!…Another Palin thread…:)

dec5 on September 14, 2010 at 1:17 AM

I’d have a problem voting for O’Donnel if she was the only option. She’s like Gingrich loaded with personal and ethical lapses and questionable judgment.

jusstjones on September 14, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Obama with a Dem Senate or deadlocked Senate with Biden casting tie breakers that directly put the administrations finger prints on bad Senate bills makes Obama and the Dems even more toxic in 2012 when all those ’06 squeaker Dem senators are up for re-election in blood red states…

Attrition is the winning strategy here.

SuperCool on September 14, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Thank you. You said it much more effectively than I did. We need to look past the next 2-year cycle. Weakling RINOs running the Senate for two years will be worse (in the long run) than building a more reliably conservative leadership. We don’t need majority control of the Senate this year so desperately that we must put another Specter in there. Until a month or so ago, how many of the GOP’s All-wise leaders were even dreaming of taking control of the Senate? None of ‘em. The only reasons why they can now indulge their fantasies of cushy committee chairmanships are: 1) the radical statism of Washington politicians, and 2) the resulting energetic pushback by average Americans. The GOP establishment suddenly thinks it can snap up those juicy chairmanships, and that’s clouding their judgment.

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 1:30 AM

I’m starting to think its about sexism more than anything else.

unseen on September 14, 2010 at 1:17 AM

Ye, you’re probably right, anybody who doesn’t think Palin walks on water is probably a sexist. Just like anyone who thinks Obama is a clown is probably a racist.

Dreadnought on September 14, 2010 at 1:37 AM

You are just like the left.

Dreadnought on September 14, 2010 at 1:39 AM

You are just like the left.

Dreadnought on September 14, 2010 at 1:39 AM

Refusing to vote for the socialist guy and choosing principles before party is just like the left, huh?

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 1:41 AM

Mike Castle voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.

Rocks on September 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM
Why in the world would the Republican leadership consider this jerk for the Senate? This is absolutely dispicable. I can see the far left going for this guy but the thought of Republican support is beyond belief.

mobydutch on September 14, 2010 at 1:42 AM

Castle’s Record”

Including, but not by any means limited to -

Co-sponsored a bill to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens!

Was among 14 Republicans to support sanctuary cities!

Luka on September 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM

This is exactly what a party primary is for; gettin all scrappy. Both the RINO’s & True Conservatives are in the fights of their political lives, so I expect some big punches to be thrown. It’s how we behave after the winner is delcared that can make a real difference.TN Mom on September 14, 2010 at 1:08 AM

That’s what worries me the most about this race. It is so vitriolic that I am not sure the Delaware GOP can come together for the winner of the primary going forward to the general election.

If Castle wins, can the opponents, the tea party conservatives, truly say they will forgive, forget, and vote for him in order to have a Republican win? I don’t think so from the tenor of many posts here and elsewhere saying it is better to have a Democrat than a RINO.

If O’Donnell wins, are those who have called her every vile name in the book, who believe she has no fiscal sense and works out of the Deer Park, going to let bygones be bygones — just friendly political debate prior to a primary — and rush to the polls to send her to Washington?

I’m afraid at this point, either way, the Democrats will win because that great “enthusiasm gap” present elsewhere and which is the lynchpin of a more right than left Congress will have been sucked dry of all of its effervesence.

Greyledge Gal on September 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM

GRENADE PARTY!

Go for 1000 posts and permanent bad blood! Woo-hoo!

Wait, weren’t we supposed to be getting the DEMOCRATS to wet their pants?

Merovign on September 14, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Wait, weren’t we supposed to be getting the DEMOCRATS to wet their pants?

Merovign on September 14, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Sadly I don’t think there is a ‘we‘ any more.

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 1:54 AM

Sounds like with all this hand wringing… Delaware is going Dem this year.

That’s a shame. But Castle is no great loss. Sort of like losing Spector.

petunia on September 14, 2010 at 1:58 AM

Sadly I don’t think there is a ‘we‘ any more.

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 1:54 AM

Eh, you could find plenty of identical conversations with the names changed over at DailyKos or FireDogLake. Both parties have these arguments of where to draw the line on the sliding scale of purity vs. electability in various states. No real harm done.

Inkblots on September 14, 2010 at 2:05 AM

SuperCool on September 14, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Well said.

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 1:30 AM

And you say it very well, also.

You don’t have to paint someone as the next incarnation of Satan, to make a good case for voting for the most conservative candidate in every primary this cycle, electability be damned.

We’ll pick up seats, but not enough for a working CONSERVATIVE majority, so we might as well concentrate on adding CONSERVATIVES to the Republican caucus.

notropis on September 14, 2010 at 2:09 AM

I’m a little concerned at the level of whine you are displaying. Hiding behind CK in order to protect your decision is not really a mature attitude.

Why is endorsing a long shot over a “RINO” a bad thing? Are you saying playing the odds is a better way to govern? Isn’t that how we got into the mess we are in now, an entire Republican establishment trying to “out dems the dems” for the better part of the last decade? Yet, when given the chance to change your course, you jumped right back into the same old habits. And we’re the bad guys?

Seems you doth complain too much.

A person, any person, should be allowed to support who they want. No one should be above criticism, including the thin skinned on our side.

Enough already. The whining is hurting my ears.

archer52 on September 14, 2010 at 2:09 AM

Eh, you could find plenty of identical conversations with the names changed over at DailyKos or FireDogLake. Both parties have these arguments of where to draw the line on the sliding scale of purity vs. electability in various states. No real harm done.

Inkblots on September 14, 2010 at 2:05 AM

I think conservatives are beginning to realize that their votes and their cash are the only thing welcome in the GOP.

Their principles and their candidates are attacked constantly the instant they might upset the GOP elites.

Yes, there is real harm being done.

sharrukin on September 14, 2010 at 2:16 AM

Some demand a stand on principle even if it means Democratic control, some demand an end to Democratic control even if it means compromising sometimes on principle

An end to Democrat control does not always mean something better than Democrat control.

That is why there are two camps. The Kraut camp thinks going back to the Bush era, with the Senate controlled by the McCain Swing Vote Gang is good. Problem for the Krauties: Obama is President, not Bush, and half the gang loves a big chunk of the Obama platform

destructive, capricious, irresponsible

Kraut may find it destructive, or irresponsible, but capricious is an assumption

I doubt either Palin or DeMint were capricious in their decisions

Destructive, I hope so. I hope it breaks the status quo

Irresponsible. I would pin that on Castle, not Palin and De Mint. What was Castle thinking when he joined the DEMs on encouraging impeachment consideration for Prez Bush? Cap-and-Trade is beyond irresponsible. That is criminal. I call it stealing the lifeblood of a great nation

entagor on September 14, 2010 at 2:19 AM

We’ll pick up seats, but not enough for a working CONSERVATIVE majority, so we might as well concentrate on adding CONSERVATIVES to the Republican caucus.

notropis on September 14, 2010 at 2:09 AM

Bingo. Take the non-myopic view. Committees run by Castle’s buddies are not the goal. Uprooting decades of liberty-sapping statism is the goal.

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 3:00 AM

…Paul Mirengoff and John McCormack and Jim Geraghty and a bunch of other people who were conservatives in good standing as of, say, four days ago,…

They are still conservatives in good standing. I just think they are too short-sighted.
An unreformed GOP taking both houses would be worse than a split Congress. I’ll take the split with insurgents in the House and a close Senate over a 2000 – 2006 redux.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on September 14, 2010 at 3:03 AM

Exactly right, Brian.

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 3:16 AM

Taking the split house ensures that America collapses under a president who will keep the GOP from de-funding Obamacare and having the power to stop his Cloward-Piven strategy. Stoke yourselves over how “conservative” O’Donell is (and since I saw the anti-Masturbation website she posted I’d put forward she’s less a Conservative and more a crank) but don’t pretend you’ll get a do over afterward. Obama gave Billions to Brazil’s state oil company (heavily owned by Soros) and millions to Mexico’s state oil for exploration while shutting us down. Food inflation will literally begin starving Europe this winter and us by next year and we have ceded American territory to transnational warlords along our Mexican border and you people are so busy trying to out Buchanan each other you’ll let the whole country burn.

Makes sense. The only chance you have of not starving to death or dying in civil unrest is stopping Obama with veto proof majorities. But you won’t. She’ll loose, you’ll claim the moral high ground and we’ll get to read in some other thread all you O’Donnall supporters blame the GOP when grocery shelves are empty and and gas prices are $20/gallon.

I’ve said it before and I’ll sa it again, America’s over. We don’t have enough people with common sense to keep from collapsing.

Rob Taylor on September 14, 2010 at 3:53 AM

The left will always tell you who they are afraid of.

scrubjay on September 14, 2010 at 12:53 AM

I’m not sure it is fear so much as condescension. Much of the Left snootily looks down on conservatives–after all, aren’t they always the smartest people in the room?

DrMagnolias on September 14, 2010 at 4:18 AM

Krauthammer

When he’s good, he’s very very good,
………..But when he’s BAD he’s Horrid

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on September 14, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Krauthammer: Palin’s and DeMint’s endorsements of O’Donnell are destructive, capricious, irresponsible

Yep…destructive of the status quo and irresponsible in not putting Party first…

Capricious is telling someone to leave the room…

Analyze that…

Gohawgs on September 14, 2010 at 5:09 AM

Rob: Can you explain to me how we can even obtain a veto proof majority in this election cycle? As far as I know, that is impossible in the Senate, and therefore I don’t see the point of your position.

The House will be Republican; almost everyone agrees with this. Is this not enough to ensure that the Obama agenda cannot be further implemented?

On the other hand, what do you think the probability is of Castle voting against further items on the Obama agenda (e.g., Cap and Trade), given his known voting record?

Scott H on September 14, 2010 at 5:57 AM

Love ya Chuck, but you’re wrong on this one.

SueM on September 14, 2010 at 6:15 AM

From LEGAL INSURRECTION:

“The nuts part of the attack is being used against Christine O’Donnell in Delaware by the local Republican establishment, and also by two leading conservative magazines, The Weekly Standard and National Review. If O’Donnell is so nuts, why did the Delaware Republican Party nominate her to run against Joe Biden just two years ago?

If O’Donnell wins tomorrow, you can be sure that the Democrats will seize on the nuts attack from Republicans, and take it to the next step by sexualizing O’Donnell (it already has started).

By signing on to the nuts defense directed at conservative women, the Republican establishment has adopted the most pernicious line of Democratic Party attack.

I am not “anti-Mike Castle,” but I do have a problem with someone who was willing to destroy the economy by signing on to Nancy Pelosi’s cap-and-trade plan. The vigorous attacks on Castle have been focused almost exclusively on his record and policy prescriptions. Almost none of the attacks on O’Donnell focus on her policies or political agenda.”

Lockstein13 on September 14, 2010 at 6:22 AM

Is Huckabee a prominent Repub? I thought he was a talk show host on Fox. Oh yeah, I remember too that he’s BFF with John McCain.

JimP on September 14, 2010 at 6:22 AM

Like the man said, better 30 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters.

Yeah right, except for the fact that O’Donnell is not Rubio and Castle is not Specter.

I think Kruathammer is right here. And the thing that a lot of people who are refusing to acknowledge do not see is that O’Donnell is a liar. I would not vote for this woman for dog catcher and I refuse to support her for a job like this just because someone wants to go RINO hunting in a blue state…and while they may hate all those RINOs…that includes anyone who disagrees with them on anything, they damn well expect them to show up in time to drag their candidate across that finish line. They want their money for campaigns, they want their votes and their support…but that does not mean they have any respect for them.

Well, you know what? If Angle loses in Nevada it will not the be the fault of the RINOs, it will be because she is just too weird for the voters to support and the same is true with O’Donnell…only you can add dishonest and self interested to the weird part.

I think Palin and DeMint supported O’Donnell because they thought it was a good idea for their own careers. That is all.

Terrye on September 14, 2010 at 6:26 AM

Charles is good on many subjects. He’s wrong on this one.

katy on September 13, 2010 at 8:19 PM

When they nominate this nutcase O’Donnell and she loses in November and we have yet another whack-left liberal Democrat in the Senate from Delaware, I wonder what you people will say? Project for me.

Will you say it is better that they have another leftist than Castle? Do you really believe that?

Jaibones on September 14, 2010 at 6:29 AM

The House will be Republican; almost everyone agrees with this. Is this not enough to ensure that the Obama agenda cannot be further implemented?

On the other hand, what do you think the probability is of Castle voting against further items on the Obama agenda (e.g., Cap and Trade), given his known voting record?

Scott H on September 14, 2010 at 5:57 AM

Listen to this…justifying throwing away an election..

No, just taking the House is not enough, especially if Harry Reid stays where is. The Senate can kill anything that comes out of the House. We know that. And as for Castle’s voting record, he voted against Obamacare and he voted against the stimulus and we all know that the Democrat who will almost certainly win this election in November would have voted for them both and will also probably support anything Obama wants…so that means that by letting him win you are giving Barack Obama someone who will support him all the time, not some of the time.

Terrye on September 14, 2010 at 6:29 AM

When they nominate this nutcase O’Donnell and she loses in November and we have yet another whack-left liberal Democrat in the Senate from Delaware, I wonder what you people will say? Project for me.

Will you say it is better that they have another leftist than Castle? Do you really believe that?

Jaibones on September 14, 2010 at 6:29 AM

Oh yeah, they believe it. Just like they believe that supporting a woman who tells bold faced lies at fund raisers will bring us more honest government.

Terrye on September 14, 2010 at 6:38 AM

Castle did not actually vote to impeach President Bush. Actually no one did. But Castle supporters who claim there is “no truth” to this accusation are also being less than honest. What Castle voted for was to refer Rep. Kucinich’s (D) impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. Castle was one of 24 Republicans who voted “Yes”.

His supporters claim his purpose was to cause it to die a slow death in committee. I guess the other 166 Republicans who voted “No” missed the memo.

hawkdriver on September 14, 2010 at 7:25 AM

Joe Biden: “I stand with Charlie K. on this one.”

David2.0 on September 14, 2010 at 7:25 AM

What needs to change is the NRSC: it is not made to pick winners and losers in primaries but to support Republican party members in federal elections for the Senate. The NRSC has overstepped its mandate and has become an old boys club trying to find people that THEY like and not adjust to what the PEOPLE want.

The NRSC is part of the establishment that must go. There may be just enough conservatives elected to reform the NRSC and re-orient it to stop this meddling in primaries where the party MEMBERS are to have their voices HEARD. The NRSC is trying to stifle that process to get only the voices it LIKES.

This goes way beyond DE and AK, and this corrupt institution must go so that the party members get to run their own party without interference from those elected to office. That is why the Tea Party take-over starting at the precinct level has those wanting ‘majorities’ running in fear. The cozy and corrupt system is being stripped out from the inside and it isn’t a pretty sight.

ajacksonian on September 14, 2010 at 7:25 AM

ajacksonian on September 14, 2010 at 7:25 AM

It would help if laughable candidates like Christine O’Donnell were not nominated.

You can’t believe anything this woman says and she’s completely unqualified.

Other than that, she’s a terrific candidate for the Senate.

NoDonkey on September 14, 2010 at 7:35 AM

From LEGAL INSURRECTION:

“The nuts part of the attack is being used against Christine O’Donnell in Delaware by the local Republican establishment, and also by two leading conservative magazines, The Weekly Standard and National Review. If O’Donnell is so nuts, why did the Delaware Republican Party nominate her to run against Joe Biden just two years ago?

If O’Donnell wins tomorrow, you can be sure that the Democrats will seize on the nuts attack from Republicans, and take it to the next step by sexualizing O’Donnell (it already has started).

By signing on to the nuts defense directed at conservative women, the Republican establishment has adopted the most pernicious line of Democratic Party attack.

I am not “anti-Mike Castle,” but I do have a problem with someone who was willing to destroy the economy by signing on to Nancy Pelosi’s cap-and-trade plan. The vigorous attacks on Castle have been focused almost exclusively on his record and policy prescriptions. Almost none of the attacks on O’Donnell focus on her policies or political agenda.”

Lockstein13 on September 14, 2010 at 6:22 AM

Sounds like the perfect summary of why a newbie with allegedly questionable credentials is now neck-and-neck with an entrenched Party Player with 30 years of Party Politics: it seems most people who called themselves “Republicans” (in the past) in Delaware would rather have the newbie because the Republican Party Establishment now clearly opposes the will of the people (in favor of its own self-interest and preservation) on so many important issues.

This election may be the Sea Change we’ve been needing, finally.

dtestard on September 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM

It would help if laughable candidates like Christine O’Donnell were not nominated.

You can’t believe anything this woman says and she’s completely unqualified.

NoDonkey on September 14, 2010 at 7:35 AM

Bing. Finally, someone who has actually looked at the candidate.

Krauthammer is, as always, right on the money. Castle is a liberal jerkoff, so the DE-GOP should run a properly funded, educated, talented conservative against him. Not this know-nothing twit. She will never get elected to public office.

Jaibones on September 14, 2010 at 7:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9 10