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 7 8 9 10

If O’Donnell is so nuts, why did the Delaware Republican Party nominate her to run against Joe Biden just two years ago?

Umm…gee, that’s a hard one…how about because no credible Delaware politician wanted to waste their credibility and their money on a 60 point loss to Biden?

Jaibones on September 14, 2010 at 7:54 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

Yep. They are the Obamabots of the GOP. Willing to believe averything some fairly good-looking candidate with no experience at anything says. If she were a Dem candidate they would be the first to laugh at her and her supporters.

Deanna on September 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Why do I have the feeling that this thread has a shelf life of at least another week?

beatcanvas on September 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

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.

Ummm, the DE-GOP is running Castle.

[The fact that more than half the polled GOP electorate now support O'Donnell, whom you and the GOP establishment regard as a twit, should tell you something about how Castle is supported by the GOP electorate in Delaware. Personally, I'd probably support any warm body against Castle, after seeing what the Establishment has tried to do to her here. They used her two and four years ago as their representative in elections, and now, all of a sudden, they try to maker her out as a twit. Like I said, they are the self-serving ones, and 47% of the Delaware Republicans saw it in the latest PPP poll.]

dtestard on September 14, 2010 at 8:00 AM

I live in Delaware. I’m voting for O’ Donnell. Voted for her last election. Castle is a fossil.

womball on September 14, 2010 at 8:10 AM

Ummm, the DE-GOP is running Castle.

dtestard on September 14, 2010 at 8:00 AM

Maybe I’m splitting hairs, here, but Castle is running Castle, and the party leadership, for lack of a viable alternative, has supported his candidacy. Because they thought it would be fun to hold the Senate seat for the first time in 100 years, or whatever.

Instead, the conservative primary voters — in their infinite wisdom — seem to be hellbent on keeping that seat in the hands of a discredited, radical left Democrap party.

Or are you somehow clinging to the bizarre notion that Delaware is going to send Christine O’Donnell to the Senate?

Jaibones on September 14, 2010 at 8:12 AM

Wormball… are you saying we have no business in Delaware?

GW_SS-Delta on September 14, 2010 at 8:13 AM

Wow. Emotions are running high, even in the early morning,well for me anyway I’m on the West Coast. Just a question.Did Castle actually vote to impeach Bush? I don’t remember when that came up. Just asking.

sandee on September 14, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Big red tidal wave or no, the word from the Kraut and his Beltway buds right up until the Castle-O’Donnell battle-royale emerged was that Republicans weren’t going to pick up enough seats to take back the Senate.

That prediction, very recent, was predicated on Castle being Delaware’s next senator, you’ll recall.

So if O’Donnell wins the primary and loses the general, how does that ruin everything?

I say let the Dems have the Senate seat. Some of the same voices claiming we’re not going to win back the Senate even with Castle in it are also asserting that 2012 is the year we will in fact regain that chamber — and with the nation sending even more true conservatives to it.

The country’s not going to perish if the best we can do this time around is add enough solid new conservative blood to filibuster the Dems for the next two years.

FlameWarrior on September 14, 2010 at 8:14 AM

I live in Delaware. I’m voting for O’ Donnell. Voted for her last election. Castle is a fossil.

womball on September 14, 2010 at 8:10 AM

In the general election on November 4, 2008, Biden defeated O’Donnell by 65 percent to 35 percent.

As AP would say, swell…

Jaibones on September 14, 2010 at 8:15 AM

If you can’t vote you don’t. Castle voted for Tarp and bailouts. I rather have a democrat than RINO.

womball on September 14, 2010 at 8:16 AM

For a supposed smart guy, Charles frequently gets the big questions wrong–especially when it comes to domestic politics. Time and again he has demonstrated that he has no sense whatever for what is going on with voters. On election stuff, he is a follower, just a reader of talking points with a better than average delivery.

james23 on September 14, 2010 at 8:20 AM

Let the flogging of the ruling class Republicans commence.
The beatings should continue until they can demonstrate that they get the message.

exceller on September 14, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Yep. They are the Obamabots of the GOP. Willing to believe averything some fairly good-looking candidate with no experience at anything says. If she were a Dem candidate they would be the first to laugh at her and her supporters.

Deanna on September 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

How nice … people who disagree with Deanna are Obamabots.

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Krauthammer / Will / Noonan / Parker …….

The “Conservatives” that the PANTLOAD media loves.

PappyD61 on September 14, 2010 at 8:23 AM

The RINO 3 step plan for victory:
1–ignore your miserable record, claim electability
2–???
3–Lose supposed slam dunk election.

Actually, there is a fourth step:
4–change parties after loss

james23 on September 14, 2010 at 8:24 AM

All I can say is that it is a new day. We aren’t putting up with the Establishment anymore. They said they would protect and defend the Constitution and absolutely none of them have done so. That is our only demand. Adhere to the Constitution. That is way too difficult for any of Congress to do so they must be dumped. It will take a few more election cycles to make them all disappear, but finally they will get it.

BetseyRoss on September 14, 2010 at 8:28 AM

The “Conservatives” that the PANTLOAD media loves.

PappyD61 on September 14, 2010 at 8:23 AM

Actually George Will has written some great columns lately. Complete opposite of what’s her name.

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 8:31 AM

Or are you somehow clinging to the bizarre notion that Delaware is going to send Christine O’Donnell to the Senate?

Jaibones on September 14, 2010 at 8:12 AM

Yeah, you probably thought Murkowski would win too….

You’re mis-calculating the national mood. This is real. Maybe by this time tomorrow it will have set in.

Just maybe, if O’Donnell beats Castle, the Republican Establishment will “wake up” (Boooo!! Did I scare ya?) And that will be good for the country, but bad for the “Republican” (in quotes) deadweight that now lives off of the political system. (We need to seriously downsize the deadweight.)

dtestard on September 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM

I refuse to support anyone with questionable ethics, or who lies openly about things easily checked. There’s not even any useful guile there . . . just some idiot who has always relied upon the kindness of strangers . . .
`
`
What is most galling is people are trying to argue “principle” while simultaneously turning off any ethical radar.

Adjoran on September 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM

1) Once you nominate and elect someone they are an INCUMBENT. They are very hard to get rid of. They get reelected at +90% rate. Be careful who you make an incumbent.

2) If we really are in an existential crisis in this country then old rules go out the window. Maybe it’s time for “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” in this country. No one seems to get it that there is a national insurgency presently in the GOP. Either the GOP comes to grips with that or the insurgency will go elsewhere. The insurgency has all the vigor and intensity, the old GOP is moribund and like the Democratic Party superfluous.

Viator on September 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM

What was CK’s prophetic record for the last election? Didn’t he support the RinoMaverick then too? Brilliant men can be dead wrong folks.

Don L on September 14, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Brilliant men can be dead wrong folks.

Don L on September 14, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Yes they can … especially if they’ve lived in the bubble called “Washington DC” for any extended period of time. People tend to lose touch with the rest of the country. That’s not a slam, that’s just the way it is. It takes a concerted effort not to.

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 8:41 AM

I refuse to support anyone with questionable ethics, or who lies openly about things easily checked.

So you’re not voting, ever? (I mean, assuming Palin doesn’t run.)

dtestard on September 14, 2010 at 8:42 AM

Rush did a talk recently about the “Ruling Class”, both Dems and Repubs, and how they look down upon those who are not “one of them”–the Elite. The disdain they hold for us “backwoods, rural types” who still believed in the citizen representatives and small government of our forefathers is snobbery at its worst. He theorized this snobbery was starting to spread to the voting class who are starting to believe the propaganda that the Lame Stream media is using to attack people such as Christine, Sarah, Miller, Ayotte and company. These comments here are making me think Rush’s diagnosis is valid.

Herb on September 14, 2010 at 8:44 AM

It’s not her turn. That’s how they think, oh, and she’s not a member of the good old boy club. Protesters here claim Sarah’s a liar and poison for America. If you say someone’s a liar bring out the facts. They never do.

Kissmygrits on September 14, 2010 at 8:44 AM

or who lies openly about things easily checked.

Or did I misunderstand your ethics? Sorry.

Dan Rather said it best:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/21/farewell-to-connie-chung-and-dan-rather/

dtestard on September 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM

“destructive, capricious, and irresponsible”

Funny, that could apply equally well to Krauthammer saying Palin is “not a serious person,” and that in any serious discussion, “she should leave the room.”

I appreciate Krauthammer for what he is, but it’s hardly news that he’s a lot more comfortable with the RINO wing of the Republican party, and quite dismissive of more conservative Republicans.

And in this case, I think fueling the schism by applying such strong language to candidates he doesn’t like is unnecessarily divisive.

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 14, 2010 at 8:47 AM

Have some courage people. What better time to push hard to elect real conservatives? Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Metanis on September 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM

This is the one area where Charles is just as lost in the DC power structure as is the Weekly Standard. Rush has the situation exactly right.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091310/content/01125107.guest.html

Love Charles, but he just is not capable of understanding the Palin thing or Christine thing or several things that are basic to the average American. In this case I would quote Thoreau to CK:

“Be careful of thinking someone half witted when it may be that you can only appreciate one third of their wit”

georgealbert on September 14, 2010 at 8:52 AM

I rather have a democrat than RINO.

womball on September 14, 2010 at 8:16 AM

huh.

I’da thunk that everything that’s happened since 2008 would have cured anyone of that preference.

Thanks for Obamacare, balls.

And Porkulus.

And Sotomayor and Kagan.

And all that the Democrat future holds for us.

Troll Feeder on September 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM

I voted for McCain. My views have changed a bit since than.

womball on September 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM

A conservative can only win if you vote for one.

faraway on September 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Krauthammer appears uneasy about the demise of his comfortable little world within beltway enclave and probably also sees the diminishment of his credibility and influence . . . although, I have always liked and respected Krauthammer and will continue to do so.

rplat on September 14, 2010 at 9:00 AM

There goes the neighborhood

Did Krauthammer ever change his tone towards Palin, or is he still holding out?

maverick muse on September 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Michelle Malkin has exposed the fact that Castle is a co-founder of an organization supported by Soros. That alone disqualifies Castle in my opinion.

KickandSwimMom on September 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Well worth repeating. It should be enough to disqualify him.

Castle is a perfect example of a RINO. He broadly agrees with the Democrats, but just wants to “improve” their ideas and make them more reasonable and better managed.

What we need is someone who rejects the Democrats goals entirely.

We’re coming up on a huge realignment, when Reagan conservatism can reshape this country. Castle won’t be part of that, whether elected or not.

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 14, 2010 at 9:04 AM

If O’Donnell is so nuts, why did the Delaware Republican Party nominate her to run against Joe Biden just two years ago?

Umm…gee, that’s a hard one…how about because no credible Delaware politician wanted to waste their credibility and their money on a 60 point loss to Biden?

Jaibones on September 14, 2010 at 7:54 AM

I see a parallel argument aligning O’Donnell’s campaign with a possible ’12 Palin potus campaign based on having “earned” the right by running a valiant effort last time.

But was O’Donnell’s effort against Biden actually valiant last run?

maverick muse on September 14, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Castle’s association with Soros should be the nail in his coffin.

RINO is too good a term for such a saboteur of America.

maverick muse on September 14, 2010 at 9:06 AM

I sincerely didn’t see anything horribly wrong with O’Donnell. She survived a smear campaign. That says a lot. Castle blew it by not focusing on what voters really care about.

If he squeaks it out, it’ll be only due the success of his negative campaign. And if he doesn’t, it’ll be due to the reality that people backlashed against that.

We’ll see.

AnninCA on September 14, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Krauthammer expresses his views so well that he absolutely enrages those who disagree.

But you can’t fault him for his opinion.

maverick muse on September 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM

The Kraut is just another elite who just does not get it.

apoole on September 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM

The ruling class defending the ruling class. Who knew?

faraway on September 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Krauthammer is right on the money.

keepinitreal on September 14, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Yep. They are the Obamabots of the GOP. Willing to believe averything some fairly good-looking candidate with no experience at anything says. If she were a Dem candidate they would be the first to laugh at her and her supporters.
Deanna on September 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

I made a similar point yesterday. The “true conservatives” are essentially the same the far-left idealogues who worshipped Obama two years ago – they’re not interested in ANY criticism of their chosen one, no matter how rational it is, and will viciously attack anyone who does.

I’ve been wondering why so many cons have chosen O’Donnell to make their ridiculous stand against the “GOP Ayatollahs”, and I have to figure it was because “Mama Grizzly” endorsed her. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me, as to why peoe would choose so flawed a candidate to go all-in for, and that’s what I come up with. An attack on O’Donnell, even a well-reasoned and fair one, is thereby an attack on Palin, and lord knows, we can’t EVER have that.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 9:15 AM

I made a similar point yesterday. The “true conservatives” are essentially the same the far-left idealogues who worshipped Obama two years ago – they’re not interested in ANY criticism of their chosen one, no matter how rational it is, and will viciously attack anyone who does.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Wait a minute now … the same can be said of the Castle supporters. I see no difference. People are just voicing their opinions and arguing for and against.

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 9:22 AM

An attack on O’Donnell, even a well-reasoned and fair one, is thereby an attack on Palin, and lord knows, we can’t EVER have that.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Would you rather people who support Palin not defend her?

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Then you need to find better standardbearers than serial liar and deadbeat Christine O’Donnell.

I’m all for “citizen politicians.” I’m from Kentucky, and I am tickled to death that Rand Paul is going to be its next Senator. But we do our cause no good when we rally around bad people like Christine O’Donnell just because they mouth the right words about the Constitution. She isn’t a citizen politician anyway. She’s a professional candidate who apparently hasn’t had a real job for quite a while and is paying her bills with campaign funds.

rockmom on September 13, 2010 at 8:46 PM

So on the one hand, we have a flawed candidate who may not be worthy of the trust of being elected Senator.

And on the other hand, we have a Republican who parters with George Soros and votes for articles of impeachment against a Republican president.

You know, I wasn’t convinced either way, but it seems very obvious to me that a faulty conservative is better than voting for someone who wants to destroy the country.

And no, Castle hardly intends to destroy the country, but that’s exactly what the leftist agenda will do if not checked. More socialism in the middle of a recession will push us into a second Great Depression.

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 14, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Miss O’Donnell was and is profoundly humiliated by this demotion of being asked to perform clerical and administrative tasks, after appearing on national television as a media and public relations expert and spokeswoman, for a man who was hired straight out of college as ISI’s receptionist and clerical assistant, and whom she had been asked to train previously.

Caiwyn on September 13, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Lawsuit overstates case. News at 11. Yawn.

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Hm, Aug. 20th Malkin endorsed O’Donnell along with Hannity.

Connect the direct financial link of Castle to Soros funded interests.

maverick muse on September 14, 2010 at 9:46 AM

…just addin’ to the total…

Knott Buyinit on September 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 14, 2010 at 9:29 AM

And no, Castle hardly intends to destroy the country, but that’s exactly what the leftist agenda will do if not checked. More socialism in the middle of a recession will push us into a second Great Depression.

Yes. America has been socialist since the 1930s and the deal was cinched in the 60s. It happened while Americans still TRUSTED our government and were conned into thinking that their good intentions would improve society if legislated into governmental bureaucratic programs. AS IF ANY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM ISN’T COMPLETELY RIFE WITH CORRUPTION. Look how governmental involvement has destroyed family integrity amongst the black population gone onto “welfare for their own good”.

So we are no longer naive. We are no longer complacent. And we are completely enraged with those who entrench us FURTHER into an authoritarian federal Marxist state.

Manners over Matter?

maverick muse on September 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Wait a minute now … the same can be said of the Castle supporters. I see no difference. People are just voicing their opinions and arguing for and against.
darwin on September 14, 2010 at 9:22 AM

No one who “supports” Castle is in love with him. There isn’t a cult of personality built around him like O’Donnell. We’re not delusionally thinking we’re waging some sort of existential war for the soul of the GOP (the end result of which, is continued Democrat majorities for the forseeable future).

We’re abiding by the Will principle that Krauthammer references. Support the most conservative candidate who can be elected. That’s NOT O’Donnell. Half of the “true cons” are deluded enough to think she can win the general, no matter how many polls show otherwise. At least they’re not as dangerous as the other half, the “better 30 Rubios….” crowd, because those individuals will do nothing but ensure that the GOP remains marginalized for years to come, while Democrat majorities continue to destroy the nation. But hey, the true cons will have their ideologically pure GOP, for all the good it does them.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM

I don’t think y’all understand what “Be Gentle” means.

motionview on September 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM

But hey, the true cons will have their ideologically pure GOP, for all the good it does them.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Their points are as valid as yours. What I find disagreeable is the propensity to label people as “cultish” or “bots” when all they’re doing defending their positions.

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

In my experience, if you have to quantify something you’ve just said as not being sexist…….it usually is.

And so are you.

Shame, shame, Charles.

David2.0 on September 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM

DE voters will make their choice today. I realize everyone wants to win but personally I’d rather not be in the majority if it means being dependent on squishy Republicans who will end up going along with the Dem agenda anyway. If they are going to vote with the Dems we will end up with the same garbage but the GOP will carry the ownership.

I also agree that CK has a problem with Palin and some of it seems personal. I wonder whether he would side against her regardless of what position/endorsement she has. He has made his disdain for her very clear.

katiejane on September 14, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Would you rather people who support Palin not defend her?
darwin on September 14, 2010 at 9:24 AM

They can defend her.

If they can do so rationally. So many of the Palinistas here can not.

And by “rational”, I mean, acknowledge her flaws and weaknesses, and counter or defend them. Most Palinistas here can’t do that. Any criticism against her is dismissed as some sort of bias or conspiracy against her. Oh, AP posts a poll showing she’s unelectable? It’s cause he’s a RINO. Criticize her for bailing as Governor? You must just be a liberal, and maybe a woman-hater. Don’t lime how she’s co-opted the Tea Party to increase her own power and influence? You must be an establishment schill.

There’s no rationality left anymore. This O’Donnell candidacy is just where it’s reached critical mass. She’s a TERRIBLE candidate, but if you even fairly criticize her for her flaws, you’re a RINO or not a true conservative. How DARE you disagree with the choice of Mama Grizzly?

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 10:10 AM

This is quite a pity – he had a beautiful mind.

molonlabe28 on September 14, 2010 at 10:10 AM

And by “rational”, I mean, acknowledge her flaws and weaknesses, and counter or defend them. Most Palinistas here can’t do that.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 10:10 AM

So unless their arguments meet your standards they’re nuts, cultish and Palinistas?

What you’re asking is that people agree with you. Why should they do that if they don’t agree?

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Their points are as valid as yours. What I find disagreeable is the propensity to label people as “cultish” or “bots” when all they’re doing defending their positions.
darwin on September 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

It’s the manner in which they defend those points. There is a reason Obama’s most strident supporters were labelled “zombies”. They drank the koolaid and ceased to engage in rational thought, even when presented with the flaws of their candidate.

The “true cons” are acting in such a manner here. Nevery criticism of O’Donnell – EVERY criticism – is dismissed as a lie or some sort of dirty trick being used by “RINOs” (RINOs now apparently being used to define anyone not in the O’Donnell camp) to misrepresent her. It’s ‘bot behavior if I ever saw it.

The Castle “supporters” don’t have that disconnect. We acknowledge he’s far from an ideal choice, but he’s almost a lock to win if nominated. We’re making a strategic choice, and for that, some of you are eager (probably were all along) to have your own Night of Long Knives and purge all non-”true cons”.

Ed can say things “choose message over strategy”, but frankly, if the “message” can’t be translated into actual political action (by gaining a majority to enact it), then in all practicality, it’s worthless.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Ed can say things “choose message over strategy”, but frankly, if the “message” can’t be translated into actual political action (by gaining a majority to enact it), then in all practicality, it’s worthless.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

You’re taking a chance with Castle in my opinion. Some of the Obama’s bills such as financial “reform” never would have passed if it wasn’t for some Republicans like Snowe and Collins. That’s exactly what people don’t want … to get their hopes up thinking Castle will vote Republican only to have him turn around and vote against defunding or repealing ObamaCare.

I think some people would rather have someone who they know wouldn’t vote with democrats instead of another Snowe or Collins.

But in the end, it’s their opinion. Whether you like the way they deliver that opinion is really beside the point isn’t it?

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

All of this is making me dizzy. Heading over to YouTube to watch Buckethead play Hendrix’ “Machine Gun”. God, I love Buckethead. Buckethead for President!!!!!!

adamsmith on September 14, 2010 at 10:41 AM

And on the other hand, we have a Republican who parters with George Soros and votes for articles of impeachment against a Republican president.

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 14, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Castle did not “vote[] for articles of impeachment”.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/09/027220.php

Troll Feeder on September 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM

I think some people would rather have someone who they know wouldn’t vote with democrats instead of another Snowe or Collins.
But in the end, it’s their opinion. Whether you like the way they deliver that opinion is really beside the point isn’t it?
darwin on September 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

The thing is, for us Castle “supporters”, we know he’s going to be lime Snow or Collins. Which is problematic, but they DO side with the party far more than a Democrat would, and can be browbeaten and cajoled into siding with the party on important legislation if necessary.

This is contrasted with Coons, who WILL beat O’Donnell if she’s the nominee, as he won’t vote with the GOP on anything except bills that have VAST bipartisan support (making his vote superfluous).

We know that’s the choice going in. That’s always been the rationale for Castle. Elect someone who will side with you just enough times, or allow someone who won’t vote with you ever win the seat. The “true cons” seem to want the latter, and demonize those of us who have rationally chosen the former. Maybe their purity will comfort them as a Democrat-controlled Senate continues to help Obama turn us into Europe-lite. Liberals love to play up persecution / victim status, maybe the true cons can get in on some of that action themselves.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Castle’s association with Soros should be the nail in his coffin.

RINO is too good a term for such a saboteur of America.

maverick muse on September 14, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Agree. Castle is quite a bit to the left of your average RINO.

Missy on September 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Who cares what the Delaware GOP electorate thinks of Castle? They’re, like a quarter of the vote. A quarter of the vote doesn’t get you anywhere beyond a win in the primary.

If O’Donnell wins, that will be a Democrat seat in perpetuity. If Castle wins, we at least get six years of someone who agrees with us on a lot of stuff.

Oh, but I forgot. We need to “send a message”. And then head back to our cocoon fantasyland where O’Donnell can get elected and the pixies and unicorns shall shower us with skittles. Good Lord, what a bunch of morons (not meant in the affectionate Ace HQ way). Oh, I forgot, Ace is another RINO who sells out to get invited to cocktail parties. Silly me.

Urquhart on September 14, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM

It’s outta our hands now. We’ll just have to do the best with what we get.

darwin on September 14, 2010 at 11:07 AM

I don’t see too many “This is the last straw” against Krathhammer like I do when other politicos make a decision the HA gallery doesn’t like.

scotash on September 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM

RINOs like Castle only give cover to Dems who can take that RINO vote and claim bipartisan support for their progressive agenda. Better to have a Dem in that seat than a RINO.

BrianA on September 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM

As an outsider looking in, I think that instead of both sides attacking each other (Mr. Krauthammer falls into this trap as well when he uses expressions such as “capricious” etc)they ought to realize that this is an example of where reasonable men/women/people may differ.

I think it would be preferable (though perhaps Pollyannaish to hope for in an era of talk television) that the two sides discuss, reasonably, the two perspectives. If some change their opinions, fine. If not…it’s a free country.

I think Allah forgot the other “win” in the situation, however. While it leaves in place the Democrat/Media narrative of Republican civil war, this should beigin to defuse the “Tea Partiers” as racist Republican anti-Obama agitator narrative…clearly they are outside the RINO “corral”, and that’s a good thing.

Blaise on September 14, 2010 at 11:31 AM

CK stepped over the line. He could have simply said that he thought Castle was the better candidate and should have refrained from the trash talk. His comments added nothing to the discourse. He dove into the ditch with those who trade in character assassination rather than debating the issues. CK disparaged the character of both Palin and DeMint by his choice of words. He comes off looking the fool.

NoNails on September 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM

If O’Donnell beats Castle in the primary and then loses in the general is it okay to say the GOP got rooked?!

Bradky on September 14, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I usually agree with Krauthammer, but not this time. At some point Conservatives must stop rewarding the fake Republicans. They WILL get the message. I’m happy to have contributed to O’Donnell’s campaign.

tgillian on September 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Blaise on September 14, 2010 at 11:31 AM
NoNails on September 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Good points. I too would like to see a stronger attempt at reasonable disagreement. These last few days at Hot Air have been rather unpleasant. I got sucked in, too.

Missy on September 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM

An attack on O’Donnell, even a well-reasoned and fair one, is thereby an attack on Palin, and lord knows, we can’t EVER have that.

Vyce on September 14, 2010 at 9:15 AM

You do know Palin is attacked all the time, right? Both here and elsewhere? So I’m not getting your point.

It’s the manner in which they defend those points. There is a reason Obama’s most strident supporters were labelled “zombies”. They drank the koolaid and ceased to engage in rational thought, even when presented with the flaws of their candidate.

The “true cons” are acting in such a manner here. Nevery criticism of O’Donnell – EVERY criticism – is dismissed as a lie or some sort of dirty trick being used by “RINOs” (RINOs now apparently being used to define anyone not in the O’Donnell camp) to misrepresent her. It’s ‘bot behavior if I ever saw it.

The Castle “supporters” don’t have that disconnect. We acknowledge he’s far from an ideal choice, but he’s almost a lock to win if nominated. We’re making a strategic choice, and for that, some of you are eager (probably were all along) to have your own Night of Long Knives and purge all non-”true cons”.

I think you are misrepresenting O’Donnnell and have been for days. Is that really your definition of ‘bot behavior’? I have never called you a RINO or any other name, and I am a fan of O’Donnell’s. Am I a ‘bot’?

I dissagree with your characterization of Coons as a ‘lock’ to win against OD. I think if the GOP would stop spending so much money to slime her and start spending that money to refute the slime, or if they hadn’t spent the money in the first place, her numbers would look a lot better. I do not believe these positions are irrational. I also do not think she is a perfect candidate, she is merely better than the other guy.

Besides, didn’t you say a couple of days ago that you’re not a GOP member? Do you even get to vote?

Who cares what the Delaware GOP electorate thinks of Castle? They’re, like a quarter of the vote. A quarter of the vote doesn’t get you anywhere beyond a win in the primary.

Urquhart on September 14, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Uh, yeah. This is the primary. We’re trying to win it. Keep up.

alwaysfiredup on September 14, 2010 at 11:50 AM

The same media who is trashing O’Donnell is doing the same to anyone who dares to take on the RINOs in other states. We have posters on this board repeating the same old talking points of the nutjob left about O’Donnell. I don’t have a dog in the hunt so I’ll be influenced by Palin and Demint when they go against a total scumbag like Castle. Sorry Charlie, we just agree to disagree on this one.

volsense on September 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Rush is on a tear against Castle right now.

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Has anyone put the “O’Donnell has problems and is therefore unelectable” tact into the perspective of “how many problematic, unelectable Democrats win their races to serve in office”? Spare the “oh, but it’s different for Dems” excuse.

Lockstein13 on September 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM

A conservative can only win if you vote for one.faraway on September 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Bravo.

Lockstein13 on September 14, 2010 at 12:14 PM

“When voters are fed up with socialism & the direction the country’s going, vote for the most conservative candidate. Period.”

- Rush Limbaugh

The “Limbaugh Rule” just set out on the air moments ago, in contrast to the “Buckley Rule.”

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

From The Other McCain:

“OK, how crazy has the Delaware GOP Senate primary gotten? Crazy enough that it prompted one ill-informed reader to send Michelle Malkin an e-mail accusing her of supporting Mike Castle and — wait for it — also saying that Allahpundit is her husband.

Never mind the absurdity of that last one. The ill-informed reader’s assertion that Malkin is a RINO-hugger contradicts all known facts about The Boss Emeritus. Not only did she endorse Christine O’Donnell two weeks ago, but Malkin is so hardcore that she was one of the very few prominent conservatives who supported J.D. Hayworth against John McCain in the Arizona GOP primary.

Malkin doesn’t usually make a big deal out of stuff like that because she seldom engages in Red-on-Red action, preferring to concentrate her fire on Democrats. By contrast, Dan Riehl has spent the past two weeks going after Castle and Castle’s supporters with a bloody vengeance. Over the weekend, however, things got so crazy that even Dan urged everybody to calm down.

Let’s be clear who is responsible for this vituperative environment: Mike Castle, his campaign consultants, Delaware GOP chairman Tom Ross and the national Republican Establishment.

Just as when they tried to fix the Florida primary for Charlie Crist — “Those treacherous bastards!” — the Establishment’s cliquish favoritism angered and alienated the grassroots. O’Donnell’s candidacy thus became a rallying point for those who have tired of the top-down control approach to politics that became standard operating procedure for Republicans during the Bush administration, when the Rove-Mehlman axis called the shots and expected everyone to fall in line.

Such centralization of political authority might have been tolerable if it had actually led to the promised “Permanent Republican Majority.” Instead, it gave us Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid in 2006, then gave us President Obama in 2008.

So this online fight in Delaware isn’t about who’s a “True Conservative.” It’s about whether we are going to let the GOP elite do our thinking for us.”

Lockstein13 on September 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Well, they are all alike.

GW_SS-Delta on September 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

“They” being … ?

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 12:33 PM

The “Limbaugh Rule” just set out on the air moments ago, in contrast to the “Buckley Rule.”

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I’d be more impressed if Limbaugh took a run at national office. See how far this gets him.

Bradky on September 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM

The same media who is trashing O’Donnell is doing the same to anyone who dares to take on the RINOs in other states. We have posters on this board repeating the same old talking points of the nutjob left about O’Donnell. I don’t have a dog in the hunt so I’ll be influenced by Palin and Demint when they go against a total scumbag like Castle. Sorry Charlie, we just agree to disagree on this one.

volsense on September 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Answer me this: Do you expect the GOP members who voted for Murkowski to vote for Miller? Why?

Now how about the O’Donnel supporters in the event she loses? Do you expect them to support Castle? Why?

Bradky on September 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Now how about the O’Donnel supporters in the event she loses? Do you expect them to support Castle? Why?

Bradky on September 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Given how they’ve been talking here, every single one of the Castle supporters should vote for O’Donnell if she wins. I mean, wasn’t their reasoning for Castle in the first place (besides his liberal voting, approving impeachment procedures, and intimate relationship with Soros) was to get the seat for Republicans? Either they live with that statement and vote for her, or they paint themselves intellectually dishonest and not vote for her.

Interesting.

Darksean on September 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM

wasn’t their reasoning for Castle in the first place (besides his liberal voting, approving impeachment procedures, and intimate relationship with Soros) was to get the seat for Republicans?

Darksean on September 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM

No.
A good deal of us won’t support Christine because she’s a fatally flawed candidate who we don’t trust.
I will not support her under any circumstances, the most compelling of which was Sarah Palin’s endorsement.
I can only assume that Sarah knows none of the details of Christine’s shady, seedy past.

Jenfidel on September 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Yeah…great idea….Let’s put up a liberal with an (R) after his name because he’ll vote against our principles….just like he’s done in the past…..um….wait a minute.

Tim_CA on September 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM

For the person who way-back-when wanted the explanation for why CK reacted so viscerally to Sarah Palin, it’s rather simple. CK is an elitist neocon. As such, Sarah’s life story combined with her obvious resonance with a large segment of the population, and her unapologetic anti-elitist approach, makes her kryptonite.

She represents a potential existential threat to the relevance of elitist neocons going forward. He’s brilliant, but he’s also human, and subject to the same foibles as everyone else. No one cheers the person that gores your ox.

As to where I stand on this whole RINO-v-conservative approach, I’m taking a very pragmatic approach. I recognize that there is only an extremely small chance that this wave could be so devastatingly large that the resulting coalition could (in the aftermath) cobble together a veto-proof coalition. I’m not even realistically hoping that we could get there this cycle.

Given that, I recognize that the most likely outcome is that the House will go to the ‘pubs, the Senate will be nealy evenly split, and Obama will still be there (most likely) for the next two years. That means that we’re looking at gridlock from a practical standpoint for the next two years. I’m fine with that… I can actually see that as a feature rather than a bug. The only things likely to pass and not be vetoed are going to be totally innocuous or so common-sense that they’ll be able to override a veto. The House will be what brings further implementation of the Obama agenda to a screeching halt.

That leaves the Senate. I actually see potential benefit from either the Dems narrowly keeping the majority, or the Mitch McConnell wing gaining supremacy. Neither case means much of anything practical, but it serves as an interesting lesson for people to watch what is passed by EACH chamber (but not implemented into law due to the gridlock). It provides an objective set of criteria by which people can directly compare the governing strategies of the different approaches.

If the Dems keep the Senate, they will keep proposing things in the Obama agenda, and possibly even pass them when the Republicans choose not to filibuster them. In the House, you will see legislation proposed from (if the wave is big enough) the DeMint wing of the Republican party, and actually passed. It won’t be implemented, of course, but people will actually be able to see IN WRITING what the style of goverance would be under the new version of the Repubs (The “Tea Party” tempered flavor).

If the people are shown enough of that over the next two years, and they like it, they’ll be more likely to shift towards a unified government rather than a divided one, in order to make the legislation being offered into law instead of a demonstration exercise. As much as conservatives would like it, I don’t think it’s possible to “fix this” in just this one cycle. We need to think more long-term. 2011 and 2012 will be a legislative dress-rehearsal for the different camps that are in place, and people will decide in 2012 which direction the would prefer the country to move.

2010 is about putting the brakes on, not about fundamentally transforming our government. The cycles don’t line up right for that, because it’s a midterm election.

If the Dems don’t retain control of the Senate, and instead there is a razor-thin margin for the Repubs, the compare-and-contrast will be between the Tea-Party style of legislation that is likely to come from the House, versus in the Senate the RINO bipartisan squishy approach that has been so problematic for so long. Nothing meaningful will get done in that configuration either, because Obama will veto everything that’s not exactly what he wants (I believe he is incapable of triangulation).

So people will get to see which of two different Republican models better align with what they want, and again, they’ll decide in 2012 what to do more long-term. If the Tea Party really is the start of a fundamental shift, the RINOs will be abandoned, and a unified government will appear in 2012 under the Tea Party model of governance.

So where does that leave us with respect to the Delaware race? Since there’s no significant shift in practical results (in my opinion) if the RINOs get control of the Senate versus the Dems retaining a razor-thin margin, it’s a question of whether at the margins we’d like to see the next two years be a Tea Party versus Dems comparison, or a Tea Party versus RINOs comparison.

Given the composition of the Senate, and the way the election cycles work for that body, I’d prefer to kick this particular RINO to the curb now, on the chance that the wave might be large enough to actually give O’Donnell a chance at beating the Dem. For all of those who think that’s impossible… that’s why we have elections, instead of just letting the punditry like CK decide for us who the members of our government will be. It was impossible for Scott Brown to win, until it happened. Likewise for Chris Christie. We ought not to foreclose on the possibility that people will put someone very different in place, just because of the past history of the location. This is a historic one-off, and we should take advantage of the possibility to strike while the iron is hot.

That’s why I consider NO candidate being offered up from the Tea Party side to be “unelectable” this year. We just don’t know. Better to send a message now, and give people the chance to have a candidate on the ballot which represents a significant change from “business as usual”. If it’s the same old choice of two nearly-identical candidates with different letters after their names, it’s hard to effectively send a message to the establishment that the people want a significant revamp away from the old methods.

That’s why I think it makes sense to offer up something other than a RINO in primaries. O’Donnell is flawed, sure… but if we don’t give the people an opportunity to say they’d prefer something other than a RINO, it will be that much harder in 2012 to get the damage more fully repaired.

My apologies for the length… but I thought it needed to be said.

VekTor on September 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM

If you’re a conservative who can’t dump your RINO in a tsunami year like this, what would it take? A voice from a burning bush?

OhioCoastie on September 14, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Krauthammer and the apologists for the GOP say it cannot be done……

Ask Murkowski….

Ask Bennett……

Ask Charlie Christ….

Ask Spector….

Ask Scozzafavva…

YES WE CAN DO IT.

PappyD61 on September 14, 2010 at 1:43 PM

I can only assume that Sarah knows none of the details of Christine’s shady, seedy past.

Jenfidel on September 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Well of course Sarah’s not nearly as smart as you are. Nor, apparently, are Rush, Mark Levin, Jim DeMint, etc. I’m amazed you haven’t taken it upon yourself to educate them, I’m sure they’d be very grateful since your intellect is so clearly superior to theirs.

Shay on September 14, 2010 at 2:09 PM

A conservative can only win if you vote for one. – faraway on September 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Bravo.

Lockstein13 on September 14, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Hear, hear!

unlisted on September 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Yep. They are the Obamabots of the GOP. Willing to believe averything some fairly good-looking candidate with no experience at anything says. If she were a Dem candidate they would be the first to laugh at her and her supporters.

Deanna on September 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Very well said! Obviously they did not do their homework. That sexual discrimination lawsuit she filed where she lied should have been a tipping point but NO, they went right ahead with their standing on ‘principle’ is more important. She has no ‘principles’ and figured out how to snow some conservatives because she said she was a conservative. Where is the evidence? Filing a lawsuit, living off campaign contributions, not paying her staff in 2008, and the list goes on — all conservative values? NO! Amazing to see conservative talk radio fall right in line.

PhiKapMom on September 14, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Why are the fiercest fights always over a choice between the two worst possible options?

It’s just like McCain vs Hayworth all over again. Two stinkers and people screaming at each other over holding their noses choosing one turd over the other.

Scrappy on September 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Of course… at least on South Park, the choice was between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. At least there’s some DISTINCTION between the two.

It’s like that movie “Moon over Parador”, where the two candidates are the dictator running on the Red party ticket, and the same dictator also running on the Blue party ticket.

Two guards are talking, and one asks the other “So, who you gonna vote for, Red or Blue?”

The other guard replies, “Hey, it’s a free election, I can vote for whoever I want, and it’s my business whether I want to vote Red or Blue!”

Two nearly-identical turds may as well be this sort of farcical situation… it’s no wonder folks get frustrated.

Giving Delaware a choice between Castle and Coons would be choosing to deliberately create nearly the same situation as well. I can’t see that being a good idea.

VekTor on September 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM

The lesson for Delaware Republicans, conservatives and Tea Partiers should be obvious… if you don’t want to be stuck with awful choices like this next time, get involved in the nomination process much earlier, and much more intensely.

Learn from this!

VekTor on September 14, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Bradky on September 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM

You make my points for me. Your objections against O’Donnell are word for word the same talking points the leftwing nutjobs are repeating over and over. You and Jenfidel need to go back to the Daily Koz. If there is no difference between the demorat and the republican, why waste a vote. It means nothing.

volsense on September 14, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10