Delaware in the Control: Why, for tea partiers, the outcome really matters

posted at 3:35 pm on September 15, 2010 by Patrick Ishmael

When William F. Buckley endorsed Joe Lieberman for the Senate in 1988, the Connecticut Republican Party was in the midst of a deep rift with the Republican incumbent, Lowell Weicker. As Buckley wrote as he remembered the episode in 2006,

Senator Weicker aroused such animus among alert conservative citizens of Connecticut that a few of us took solemn oaths to work against his reelection in 1988–when he was opposed by Joe Lieberman.

Members of my family were no doubt influenced by Senator Weicker’s reluctance to admit brother James Buckley, elected U.S. Senator from New York, to membership in the Republican caucus in the Senate. Weicker made the point that Senator Buckley had been elected not on the GOP ticket, but on the Conservative Party ticket. A committee was formed (BuckPac) arguing that a vote for Lieberman was a vote for ideological decontamination of the Republican Party, Lowell Weicker having, by 1988, emerged as the weepiest liberal willow in public life. Moreover, he had perfected a self-infatuated pomposity that made voting against him a carnal pleasure.

Lieberman would go on to win the seat, telling Buckley: “You have reason, Bill, to take part of the credit for this, I won by less than one percent of the vote.”

Readers of this episode could take away at least three starkly different morals-to-the-story.

The first: “It’s okay to unseat an incumbent as a warning to Republicans who get too liberal.” The RINO hunting approach to choosing the Republican nominee has been very popular — and very successful — in this election cycle. Pennsylvania, Florida, Alaska… red and even purple state Republicans can afford to choose more conservative nominees without it necessarily reversing electoral fortunates to the Democrats in this electoral environment. Making an example or two out of Republicans out of step with at least 50%+1 of the state population is a necessary, and admittedly highly entertaining endeavor, for conservatives.

The second: “You can vote support a liberal and still be a conservative.” The notion that a shadowy Ruling Class © picks our candidates is absurd, and just slightly more absurd than the idea that one’s ideological purity and reliability is dependent on doctrinaire support of only the most doctrinaire candidates. Sometimes ideological objectives are advanced through strategic support, and sometimes strategic support means getting behind people who don’t believe exactly as you do about the role of government, but can get elected.

The third: “If you do unseat an incumbent party-mate, there will be consequences, most importantly in policy.” The most glaringly obvious outcome of Lieberman’s victory in Connecticut is that Joe Lieberman is… still representing Connecticut, over two decades on. Whether his predecessor would have been a 100% reliable partisan to the Republican Party is speculatory, but one thing is certain: that he would have been a Republican. Lieberman’s a moderate, but he’s not our moderate, and that makes a difference when you’re voting on Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and a whole host of social programs that can only be curbed by a larger Republican caucus.

Now that the race in Delaware has concluded with a Christine O’Donnell victory, let’s lay some facts on the table that apply to these three interpretations. First, anti-”establishment”-ism was a major factor in the Tea Party’s determination to unseat Mike Castle. Mark Levin’s farsical Facebook posts in support of this cause encapsulated the worst of it — petty, petulant, and prejudiced against legitimate criticisms of his candidate from the Right. Levin’s rants were parodistic, but that sentiment was palpably there. Second, if Castle had been the nominee, Republicans would have almost certainly won the seat. The polling speaks for itself. Castle was a former governor and long, long-time elected official; he was likely going to win.

Lastly, if Republicans lose Delaware, it won’t be “the establishment’s fault.” This is where I think O’Donnell hyper-partisans tried to spin last night’s reality check after the NRSC publicly (stupidly) refused to support her in the general (which they’ve since reversed themselves on.) The intervention of the Tea Party Express, Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, and others into the Delaware primary was important because if successful, it was going to actually be detrimental to GOP chances of taking the Senate, and thus detrimental to GOP legislative objectives. Delaware went from “sure thing” to “holy hell what happened” overnight, and the reason isn’t “poor candidate selection by the RINO beltway crowd.” It’s because Tea Partiers by-and-large chose to support a candidate not because of her credentials, her character, or her electability, but solely because of her avowed conservatism.

That electoral outcome costs money which rank-and-file, grassroots Republicans (and not just the NRSC) would rather spend on harder-to-win races instead of races, like in Delaware, that should have been closer to a cake-walk.

If Tea Partiers want to make a point about the fecklessness of the establishment, it shouldn’t bother itself with opining about one of its chief sponsors being hesitant to help O’Donnell, and should donate directly to her, keeping this in mind: If O’Donnell does not win in November, fellow Republicans — specifically conservatives that supported Castle to get Joe Biden’s seat and a Senate majority, and moderates more inclined to vote for him anyway — will use the loss as a cautionary tale to rank-and-file members in the future, which will harm Tea Party causes.

This will be the purest referendum on the Republican/conservative purity movement in the Tea Party Era. Again, if you care about care about taking the seat in Delaware and care about O’Donnell Republicans getting nominated elsewhere, you want to make a donation. Probably several.

Indeed, Republicans can afford to lose this seat more than the Tea Party can.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 2

Forgive me for reposting my comment from when this article was in the GreenRoom:

Nike didn’t scratch Tiger Woods because they thought he was going to start losing tournaments. When they found out he was fooling around on his wife, I’m sure they’d have been delighted if Woods had had an endorsement contract with their competitors instead of with them. Similarly, if the Delaware seat is going to be voting for a bunch of government cheese, we should be relieved that he’s wearing a Donkey emblem on his lapel, not an Elephant.

This country MUST move sharply toward fiscal restraint — not just a tax-and-spend machine that benefits a different group of people, as happened during the Bush years. And in our system, you HAVE to work within one of the major parties if you actually want to accomplish anything. That’s an utter impossibility with the Democrat party, so fiscal conservatives MUST take back the GOP! Call it a “purity” movement if you like; but the GOP brand has to stand for fiscal responsibility and personal liberty. It has to court candidates who stand for those things. It has to persuade voters of the NEED for those things. Any other result will, literally, doom this country to total destruction within most of our lifetimes. I don’t know if we can pull it off or not; but if we don’t, we’ll all die in the wilderness.

RegularJoe on September 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM

This post is a joke, right? I keep reading, looking for the punch line.

If O’Donnell does not win in November, fellow Republicans — specifically conservatives that supported Castle to get Joe Biden’s seat and a Senate majority, and moderates more inclined to vote for him anyway — will use the loss as a cautionary tale to rank-and-file members in the future, which will harm Tea Party causes.

That’s the exact opposite of what you should be taking from this. Tea Partiers won’t be despondent if we lose this seat.
We’re showing the GOP establishment that they must listen to us, and there are penalties for not doing so.

“Moderates” should take from this that we’re willing to lose a seat to replace them, so they need to move to the party roots.

If the GOP wants our continued support, they’ll stop trying to force feed us candidates like Castle and will let US choose who we want to represent us, and will support OUR decisions, not expect US to support THEIRS.

Chris of Rights on September 15, 2010 at 5:03 PM

The People have spoken!
The Establishment Good Old Boys have spoken!

We The People won this battle …Next!

dhunter on September 15, 2010 at 5:06 PM

note to RINOs allow a real true conservative to show you how to lose an election with honor:

Ovide Lamontagne has conceded the Republican U.S. Senate primary to Kelly Ayotte.

At a news conference at the Legislative Office Building, still in progress, Lamontagne began by saying he would “humbly accept the verdict” of voters.

He said he will not seek a recount.

His announcement came after the Secretary of State’s office certified that Ayotte had won the election by 1,667 votes.

unseen on September 15, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I honestly cannot comprehend what I continue to witness in these Delaware threads. It absolutely defies logic. This is not healthy debate. It is counter-productive. It is self-defeating. And worst of all, it is encouraging to the other side.

For those in the Castle camp, this idea of taking your marbles and going home because you’re sure this battle is now lost does nothing but guarantee your belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your very actions will make it so.

The primary is settled. It is time for the name calling and antagonism to end. All the energy being expended on this internal conflict could be re-directed and be so much more beneficial.

anglee99 on September 15, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Christine’s contributions over $500,000. Next target $750,000.

scrubjay on September 15, 2010 at 5:16 PM

But you’re not a Castle supporter?

sharrukin on September 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM

News flash: recognizing that a candidate has a good chance to win versus others does not make you a supporter of said candidate.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 5:16 PM

I honestly cannot comprehend what I continue to witness in these Delaware threads. It absolutely defies logic. This is not healthy debate. It is counter-productive. It is self-defeating. And worst of all, it is encouraging to the other side.

For those in the Castle camp, this idea of taking your marbles and going home because you’re sure this battle is now lost does nothing but guarantee your belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your very actions will make it so.

The primary is settled. It is time for the name calling and antagonism to end. All the energy being expended on this internal conflict could be re-directed and be so much more beneficial.

anglee99 on September 15, 2010 at 5:12 PM

So how long you been posting on HA ?
If you took away the name calling and antagonism what fun would there be.
This place would be like a hippie commune or something.

kangjie on September 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Where do I get me one of those future-vision crystal balls from?

gryphon202 on September 15, 2010 at 5:01 PM

It’s this store called Watching Polls And Researching Candidates.

If Castle was such a great candidate he shoulda won in a cakewalk against such a flawed candidate!

dhunter on September 15, 2010 at 5:01 PM

I never said he was a great candidate. I said he had a better chance of winning the general. Just amazing how many people remember me saying things that I didn’t say.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 5:19 PM

News flash: recognizing that a candidate has a good chance to win versus others does not make you a supporter of said candidate.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 5:16 PM

So do people who pay their rent with political contributions, dodge their own words, and multi-millon-dollar gender discrimination lawsuits against conservative outfits.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Unethical doesn’t have to mean criminal, and using political contributions to pay your rent is the former. As for false equivalencies, tell that to all the people comparing her to Sarah Palin, who has nothing even close to O’Donnell’s baggage.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Yeah, you’re an impartial observer. /S

sharrukin on September 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM

So how long you been posting on HA ?
If you took away the name calling and antagonism what fun would there be.
This place would be like a hippie commune or something.

kangjie on September 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have actually commented, but I am a longtime lurker! :)

Where these threads are concerned, though, the degree of hostility exceeds what should be considered acceptable. At best, it’s not helpful. At worst, it’s positively destructive.

P.S. No thanks on that hippie commune!

anglee99 on September 15, 2010 at 5:27 PM

O’donnell should save all these new donations she is getting so she can afford to live till the next midterm cycle.
PrezHussein on September 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM

She just got 40-something thousand from the “establishment”. Maybe she can use that to put in a nice pool at her house um, campaign hq. It’s “technically” legal, right?

Vyce on September 15, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Yeah, you’re an impartial observer. /S

sharrukin on September 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM

News flash: disliking a candidate due to their tendency to lie, mismanage finances, and file multimillion dollar lawsuits doesn’t mean you like their opponent any better. A bad candidate is a bad candidate, whether there is an alternative or not.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 5:31 PM

This is insane.

No, an O’Donnell loss will not damage the Tea Party’s credibility. Why? Because obviously, victory in the general election was not the point of their (our) support of O’Donnell. The point, as many have repeated said (both in pride and in frustration), was to put moderate Republicans on notice that they are NOT safe, and they’d best start listening to the people unless they want to end up like Castle. RINOs are no longer to feel safe just because they “have the best shot” in a blue state – AHEM, Collins and Snowe – but understand that they need to vote conservative, or they’ll be shown the door.

Yes, it may mean a loss in the short term (though that’s far from certain), but long-term, it’s a strategy for victory. This is what the Tea Party understands that the Republican Party does not: it took decades to get the country where it is, and it’s going to take just as long to turn things around. A commenter made the analogy last night to playing a chess game, and I think it’s an extremely apt comparison: sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece to advance.

All that aside, O’Donnell very well may win. We’ve seen deficits bigger than hers turned around in less time in states that are just as blue, and that’s BEFORE the Dems dropped to the polling depths where they find themselves today. Even Obama, who won Delaware handily, is underwater there. Don’t tell me it can’t be done!

Animator Girl on September 15, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Sorry…totally disagree. Even if she doesn’t win in November, how the mask has come off the Republican elite is a much greater asset to the future of the party than any harm that will be done by a Dem winning the seat. It is plainly obvious now that they see themselves as a ruling class and we need to just sit down and shut up and do what they tell us.

miConsevative on September 15, 2010 at 5:45 PM

The first: “It’s okay to unseat an incumbent as a warning to Republicans who get too liberal.” The RINO hunting approach to choosing the Republican nominee has been very popular — and very successful — in this election cycle. Pennsylvania, Florida, Alaska… red and even purple state Republicans can afford to choose more conservative nominees without it necessarily reversing electoral fortunates to the Democrats in this electoral environment. Making an example or two out of Republicans out of step with at least 50%+1 of the state population is a necessary, and admittedly highly entertaining endeavor, for conservatives.

Alaska, Florida, and Pennsylvania are three vastly different states, and require different approaches.

Alaska is a decidedly Republican state, where Sarah Palin, as a former Governor, wields a huge influence. She campaigned against the corruption of Governor Frank Murkowski’s administration, so that Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed to the Senate by her father, narrowly won re-election in a year when George W. Bush got 61% of the vote, and voted far to the left of her state, was a natural target for Palin and the Tea Party. Some Republicans may object to Palin injecting herself into out-of-state primaries, but Palin is very familiar with Alaska politics, and knows what she is doing there.

Pennsylvania and Florida are both swing-states, in which elected Republicans betrayed their party. In PA, Pat Toomey had campaigned against Arlen Specter in the 2004 primary, which Specter narrowly won with support from conservative Sen. Rick Santorum on the basis of “electability”, then Specter betrayed his party by becoming a Democrat shortly after Obama’s election to give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. Voters from BOTH parties are now disgusted with Specter, who then lost a Dem primary, while Toomey now leads in general-election polls against Sestak. Toomey needs to be careful not to lean too far right (which cost Santorum his seat), since Philly is full of knee-jerk liberals, and Toomey needs to win the swing suburbs to win the state.

In Florida, Gov. Crist would have been a shoo-in if he had stuck to his former Republican principles, but he cozied up to Obama after the 2008 election, thinking that Obama’s election was part of a new wave toward the center, rather than a massive deception by the Left. Rubio saw Crist veering left while the state’s voters were veering right AGAINST Obama, and seized the opportunity to become the “real” Republican in the race. Rubio is an exceptionally good candidate for Florida–he’s a calm and effective speaker, smart, a solid conservative, good-looking, likeable, and Hispanic to boot, and later in his career could advance beyond the Senate.

But Delaware is not Pennsylvania or Florida, and certainly not Alaska. It’s a decidely left-leaning state, with 46% registered Democrats and only 30% registered Republicans, so that any Republican needs to “run the table” of centrist Independent voters to have a chance of winning. O’Donnell may have been the darling of the Tea Party activists feeling their strength, but she got less than 30,000 votes in her primary, or less than 5% of the registered voters in Delaware. If half the registered voters turn out in November, that’s only 10% of the vote–where do the other 40% come from? Castle, on the other hand, was a good fit for Delaware, since he was elected statewide many times, and could have kept a Senate seat in Republican hands for 6 years. Instead of going for ideological purity to please 10% of the voters, why not pragmatically vote for the rightmost-candidate-who-can-win?

As for the trade of Weicker for Lieberman in CT, it was virtually a wash. Weicker had become so liberal that he was a liability for Republicans on committees, due to his seniority. Lieberman is a Democrat, but votes somewhat to the right of his party and his state on some issues. As a conservative, I voted for Lieberman in 2006 because his hawkish foreign-policy record was much better than Ned Lamont, and the Republican had no chance. It was the first time I voted for a Democrat in 30 years, but it was a pragmatic rightmost-candidate-who-can-win vote. This year, Linda McMahon is far to the right of Lieberman, and Blumenthal is much further left, so McMahon gets my vote, and she just might win.

Tea Partiers, wake up! The message might please a majority of Americans, but not in all states! The Senate is based on a majority of STATES, not voters, and a party majority trumps a minority, even if the majority includes a few RINOs! Different strokes for different folks, and different candidates for different states!

Steve Z on September 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM

The attacks against her seem platic and scripted. But everything I’ve seen from her go against the smears, so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. And listen to her on the issues. For now I’m glad to support her as a way of supporting the movement while the iron is red hot. Let’s go people. Contribute Now!

mike_NC9 on September 15, 2010 at 5:49 PM

I agree on general principle that in liberal states you should run liberal candidates, but I’m not so sure why the conventional wisdom is that Christine O’Donnell can’t win in Delaware, and I’d love to see that fleshed out. Nobody would have dreamed that Scott Brown could defeat Martha Coakley, nor that Chris Christie would demolish Jon Corzine, and even Ronald Reagan wasn’t given much of a chance against the Democratic machine. And at least in the first two cases, the poll numbers quite close to the election were worse than those facing O’Donnell. So I’d like to hear some analysis deeper than “she’s ten points down in the polls against whatzisname.”

I say this as someone who supported Castle, on general principle.

Let me also point out, on general principle, that any group of people who repeatedly sent Joe Biden to the Senate would demonstrably elect any idiot. So O’Donnell has an excellent chance on that fact alone. She may be flawed as a candidate (but who isn’t?), but she’s not an idiot.

Of course, if Delaware voters PREFER idiots, there’s an Obama-supporting alternative.

Zumkopf on September 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Shame on O’Donnell for using “technically legal” (known to everyone but her political foes as “legal”) means to support herself while running for office. We all know that only very wealthy people who can afford to take a year off of work, or current office-holders whose salaries will be paid by taxpayers whether they work or not, should be allowed to run for office.

Remember, that money came from people who want her to be the next Senator from Delaware — which would be pretty damn difficult if she’s living under a bridge and eating out of trash cans. If they’re not complaining, why should anyone else?

RegularJoe on September 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 5:31 PM

News flash: You’re attempt to pass yourself as a ‘concerned conservative’ rather than a partisan commenter isn’t working.

sharrukin on September 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM

…the reason isn’t “poor candidate selection by the RINO beltway crowd.”

I’ll agree that’s not the only reason; but are we calling Castle “Brilliant candidate selection”?

“poor candidate selection by the RINO beltway crowd.” certainly didn’t help matters any.

gekkobear on September 15, 2010 at 6:24 PM

News flash: You’re attempt to pass yourself as a ‘concerned conservative’ rather than a partisan commenter isn’t working.

sharrukin on September 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Yeah, I was really partisan during NY-23. Really partisan during the ’08 election. Really partisan when it came to Michael Steele.

News flash: Most of what you know about me isn’t so.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Tossing Castle off the bus might matter to me if I was still a republican. For many of us here, the republicans left us a long time ago. I’d hazard a guess that most of the registered republicans feel the same way I do. I could care less about the republicans “brand”.
 
I’m also tired of hearing about how conservatives can’t be elected… Solid, energized candidates who can articulate the conservative message can win, even in blue states. Given that the blue states are experiencing the ultimate result of their last vote, now’s a perfect time to come at them with a conservative message.
 
Beware entrenched RINOs, we’re coming for you.

ClanDerson on September 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

News flash: Your showing yourself as a concerned conservative rather than a mindless wingnut makes me mad!

sharrukin on September 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM

FTFY.

Dark-Star on September 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM

FTFY.

Dark-Star on September 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM

That you don’t know what pacifism means doesn’t make us pals.

Kay?

sharrukin on September 15, 2010 at 8:13 PM

I never said he was a great candidate. I said he had a better chance of winning the general. Just amazing how many people remember me saying things that I didn’t say.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 5:19 PM

You will just never get it. who cars whawt letter is behind his name if all he does is vote with the Democrats. That is all he did. WHO CARES? I don’t a moderate as you call it anymore because from my standpoint I am the moderate and are all the progressives taking us down the line to destroy the country. It doesn’t matter the letter behind the name.

Noelie on September 15, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Tossing Castle off the bus might matter to me if I was still a republican. For many of us here, the republicans left us a long time ago. I’d hazard a guess that most of the registered republicans feel the same way I do. I could care less about the republicans “brand”.

I’m with you. The Letter behind the name doesn’t matter to me since all our squishy Rino types are just voting Democrat anyway.
I want finally fair and equal representation and I will do what I can to cause discomfort to the likes of Castles and Madison Conservative until I get it. Let them worry about the letter that makes no difference anymore

Noelie on September 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM

This post misses the entire point to the tea party. The tea party isn’t about republican vs democrat, it’s about how fed up the people are with lying, cheating, weasel politicians who have led us down this path in the first place. It’s about the destruction of our economy, and our way of life, over a period of decades. Sending the message that you’re either with us or you’re against us and the letter in front of your name is irrelevant IS THE POINT. We’re tired of voting for Republicans who only move us down our current destructive path at a slower pace then the democrats.

We’ve already seen what voting for the party gets us, and we’re living the consequences. Time for a paradigm shift in politics.

FireDrake on September 15, 2010 at 8:23 PM

You will just never get it. who cars whawt letter is behind his name if all he does is vote with the Democrats. That is all he did. WHO CARES? I don’t a moderate as you call it anymore because from my standpoint I am the moderate and are all the progressives taking us down the line to destroy the country. It doesn’t matter the letter behind the name.

Noelie on September 15, 2010 at 8:18 PM

It matters as to who controls Senate committees. Then bills like Crap and Tax would be dead before they even got to a vote.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 8:27 PM

As a follow-up to my earlier thoughts:

I’ve said many times that the big reason the Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 was because they lost support of conservatives. We weren’t motivated to get out and vote. We weren’t motivated to donate. We weren’t motivated to help out local campaigns. As Rasmussen says, we were on the wrong end of the “enthusiasm gap”.

Duh. That part’s obvious, and yes, I know there were other reasons too.

But, what should also be obvious and yet somehow keeps getting missed is WHY there was so little motivation on the conservative side.

The MSM kept saying that the Republican party needed to move further to the center to attract independents. That was always a losing proposition. Why would anyone vote for “Democrat-lite” when there’s a real Democrat on the ticket. MSM either doesn’t care, or is too stupid to see that.

However, in spite of that, they were already moving to the center. Apparently, the establishment Republicans still pay too much attention to the MSM. And that’s what cost them the conservatives. I voted for John McCain but without Palin on the ticket, I would have had to hold my nose to do it. And I promised myself that would be the last time. Mitt Romney will NEVER get my vote.

Conservatives are enthused this election. Because we have a chance not to reclaim Congress, but to move the Republican party back to the right. We see solid conservatives doing well in blue districts. We see more real conservative candidates out and running hard. We want to be part of that. And Christine O’Donnell is part of that. If she loses, she loses. But she’s still likely a net positive. People motivated by her campaign but living in Nevada, or Ohio, or West Virginia won’t be able to go door-to-door for her, but they’ll be motivated to go out and do something. And they’ll go door-to-door for their local candidate.

We’re (conservatives) are on the right side of the enthusiasm gap this time, and O’Donnell’s (and Joe Miller’s and Sharron Angle’s, and, and, and…) campaign can only help further in that regard.

She may cost us a seat in the Senate. She may not. That remains to be seen. But she might turn 40 House seats into 50, or might make it easier for Sharron Angle to pick off Reid. Whatever, she’ll be an asset to the Tea Party view through November, and likely beyond.

Chris of Rights on September 15, 2010 at 8:41 PM

It matters as to who controls Senate committees. Then bills like Crap and Tax would be dead before they even got to a vote.
MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 8:27 PM

If you ever want the Republican party to get back to it’s roots and to truly get our economy, government, and society back to it’s roots then now is the election cycle to send that message. Strategically this cycle means nothing in the Senate as Obama will veto any republican legislation anyways. Why not send your purity message in 2010 to help ensure more conservative politicians for 2012 when we have a chance to get someone who won’t veto the repeal of Obamacare and the downsizing of government. Having more people like Castle in the party will hurt us in 2012 more than having the majority in the Senate it’ll help us in 2010.

FireDrake on September 15, 2010 at 8:45 PM

FireDrake on September 15, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Strategically it’s critical to stop any further socialist legislation from getting passed through Congress, as well as fighting any radical appointees to the Supreme Court. Messages are all well and good, but we’ve got a radical leftist in the White House who won’t be hindered by any damned message, but by a Republican-controlled Congress.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Strategically it’s critical to stop any further socialist legislation from getting passed through Congress, as well as fighting any radical appointees to the Supreme Court. Messages are all well and good, but we’ve got a radical leftist in the White House who won’t be hindered by any damned message, but by a Republican-controlled Congress.
MadisonConservative on September 15, 2010 at 9:04 PM

You don’t need full control of the Senate for that, a close Senate is a deadlocked Senate as far as judicial appointments go, and you can bet there won’t be any conservative justices retiring in the next 2 years. I contend that even if you get to 53 votes in the Senate, if a Liberal jurist leaves SCOTUS you’ll find enough Tepublicans will vote for a new liberal justice simply because the person is qualified by education and experience for the position.

Having control of the house is enough to stop any legislation you don’t like.

FireDrake on September 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM

Does anyone else think that, just maybe, we might all be getting a little tired of the guy who says “Hey, the British aren’t so bad…” and “Coffee’s pretty nasty stuff. Paying a little extra for tea isn’t the end of the world…” and “Look, Parliament’s already got it all figured out. We’d make a real hash of governing ourselves, anyway. Let those who know better take care of us.”

Yeah… thought so. When did we decide that compromising with an unengaged aristocracy is a good thing?

creekspecter on September 15, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Whoa, O’Donnell’s already raised $820,000? In less than 24 hours?

Take that, GOP. I told you I can’t trust you to invest my money in conservative candidates – we need you to manage our money about as much as we need the Feds to suck our wallets dry and toss us a few crumbs in return.

Boy, I am steamed at Rove and all the pussy RINOs – but it’s a pure, clean fire. And it’s going to burn for a long, long time.

disa on September 15, 2010 at 10:59 PM

You have to run a liberal in a liberal state.

Which is what we were told to justify Lincoln Chaffe for years. Well, in 2006 Chaffe was defeated, by a Democrat running to his right! I guess his state wasn’t so liberal after all. But the only way to find out is to try running a more conservative candidate.

And Reid has just said of Coons:
I’m going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate…

Dear Lord, the ad just writes itself. Run a clip of that, make the general a referendum on Reid, and Coons is in for the fight of his life.

LarryD on September 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM

x

Luka on September 16, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2