Unity over: DeMint rips GOP establishment in fundraising e-mail

posted at 9:13 pm on September 16, 2010 by Allahpundit

So be it. Jedi.

“They say she can’t win and that by supporting her, I’ve helped lose the seat for Republicans,” DeMint said. “Well, I’ve been in the majority with Republicans who didn’t have principles, and we embarrassed ourselves and lost credibility in front of the country. Frankly, I’m at a point where I’d rather lose fighting for the right cause than win fighting for the wrong cause.”…

“National Republicans are not going to invest real money in this race and her primary opponent, Rep. Mike Castle, is refusing to endorse her,” DeMint wrote to supporters of his political action committee, the Senate Conservatives Fund.
“The dirty little secret in Washington is that the establishment is quietly rooting for Christine to lose so they can continue to peddle their discredited line that conservatives cannot win.”…

Republicans say DeMint is giving himself too much credit for O’Donnell’s victory, given that he only threw his support behind her 72 hours before voters went to the polls and after she surged from enthusiasm from tea party activists.

“Anyone who writes down that he had a significant impact in that election is smoking crack,” one senior Republican aide said.

Much more at the link above, including a reminder that DeMint himself was preaching the gospel of unity in the name of victory literally yesterday. To be fair, this is hardly a case of him picking a fight; GOP Beltway types of all stripes, from senators to aides on down, snipe at him regularly (and usually anonymously) for pushing principle to the point where, they believe, it detracts from electability. O’Donnell’s win was the paramount example of that, which is why this is all coming to a head. His point about people rooting for O’Donnell to lose because they believe conservatives can’t win is cheap, though, notwithstanding the fact that it’ll be greeted rapturously by “true conservatives” ever eager to believe the worst about their enemies (and RINOs are the enemy this week). Of course conservatives can win. They’ve been winning for years, and in a cycle as disgusted with Democrats as this one is, they can win even in bluish states. The question isn’t whether conservatives can win, it’s whether they can win at all times, in all places, irrespective of the quality of their candidate. Most “true conservatives” think they can, which is why if O’Donnell loses in Delaware or Angle in Nevada, etc, it is and can only be (a) the fault of the damned RINOs, just like everything else in the world, and/or (b) because America’s not quite ready yet to elect 60 Rubios. Supposedly we’ll get there — eventually. I’m wondering, though, what Palin thinks about that because here’s what she said just a few weeks ago about Scott Brown:

Palin, in an interview on Fox Business Network, was asked whether the Massachusetts Republican was “on notice” for siding with Democrats on several key votes.

“Well, you know, take the consideration, though, that that’s Massachusetts,” Palin said. “Perhaps they’re not going to look for such a hard-core constitutional conservative there, and they’re going to put up with Scott Brown and some of the antics there.”

Yeah, perhaps not. In which case, what do we do now? Support a centrist like Brown or keep nominating Jim DeMint types until the People’s Republic of Massachusetts finally sees the light? If the answer is the latter, then riddle me this: How come Sarahcuda supported centrist Carly Fiorina instead of Chuck DeVore in the deep blue state of California?

Here’s video of DeMint on Fox yesterday emphasizing that he doesn’t want a Republican majority if it doesn’t stand for anything. I agree — but define “anything.” If a majority of Republicans agree that Congress needs to repeal ObamaCare, balance the budget, and reform Social Security and Medicare, does that qualify as standing for something, or do we stand for “nothing” if we fail to agree with DeMint on everything? Maybe, as a friend suggested on Twitter, I’m reading too much into this and DeMint’s fundraising e-mail is really just a clever way of playing good cop/bad cop, beating up on the Beltway RINOs with their tacit approval in order to kick up a little extra money for O’Donnell in Delaware. Could be, but I take him seriously when he gives these lectures about principle. Scott Brown wondered at yesterday’s caucus meeting whether there’s any room for moderates to disagree on issues anymore; I’m sure that DeMint would say yes but I’m not sure why he would say yes except for the fact that, deep down, he worries that “true conservatives” in some states can’t win without RINO votes. (That’s probably the case for Rubio in purplish Florida, at least.) If you guys want the RINOs out because they’re holding conservatism back, they’re a cancer on the party, blah blah blah, that’s fine but be forthright about it. The sooner this shakes out, the better for everyone.

Update: DeMint’s office sends along this op-ed from last year in which he calls for a “big tent” in the GOP. Like I said above, I don’t doubt that when pressed he’ll say he welcomes moderates in the party. Any smart vote-seeking politician would say the same. But what does it mean in practice?

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems…

Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.

Serious question: Does that last bit mean that Scott Brown, who voted for financial reform, and Paul Ryan, who voted for TARP, are out? Is Chris Christie out for supporting a path to citizenship for illegals? How many deviations from the principles laid out by DeMint here are tolerable? I’m not asking for infinite leeway — just read my posts about Charlie Crist or Arlen Specter — but are we now at the point of zero tolerance? Here’s a quote for you about TARP: “Every person who voted for it is going to have explain if not apologize for their vote on it.” That’s not from Jim DeMint, it’s from … Mike Huckabee. Is Mike Huckabee, of all people, now setting the litmus test?



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 3 4

AllahPundit calling posters names. Classy, AP. Classy.

mwdiver on September 17, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Tell the RINOs to go vote with the Democrats.

Allahpundit on September 16, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Isn’t that the point? We don’t have to tell them. They already do.

SouthernGent on September 16, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Bingo

brtex on September 17, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Submitted as still further evidence that — when it comes to butching up, post-primaries, and standing foursquare behind the duly elected party nominee — it’s the RINOs, plainly, who might benefit most from a little remedial instruction in the fine art of Going Along to Get Along:

It’s Sad When TPM Is More Honest About Christine O’Donnell Than FrumForum

Kent18 on September 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Some of Mike Castle’s more notable votes on key issues, as compiled by the Club for Growth:

Voted YES on TARP
Voted YES on Cap and Trade
Voted YES on Cash for Clunkers
Voted YES on the auto bailout
Voted YES on bailing out Fannie and Freddie
Voted YES on SCHIP (w/ tax increase)
Voted YES to increase taxes on oil and gas companies
Voted YES to increase the minimum wage
Voted NO to open up ANWR
Voted YES on the pork-infested 2005 Highway bill
Voted NO to restrict eminent domain abuse
Voted YES to increase funding for PBS
Voted YES on the Medicare drug benefit
Voted YES on No Child Left Behind
Voted YES on McCain-Feingold
Voted NO to end milk subsidies
Voted NO on waiving Davis-Bacon labor rules

Yes. If you are still busily lamenting the party’s “loss” of this human offal, to the point where you are still posting obsessively over O’Donnell’s faults — and nothing at all, re: those of Coons — then, yes: YOU. ARE. THE. PROBLEM.

Kent18 on September 17, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I’m a RINO who will be donating to the Rubio campaign. I also hope O’Donnell loses. She’s an absolutely terrible candidate, and, yes, Castle would have been better. If people can’t manage their own finances, they shouldn’t be the GOP nominee. The only way to balance the Federal budget is to understand how to balance a budget.

thuja on September 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Yes. If you are still busily lamenting the party’s “loss” of this human offal, to the point where you are still posting obsessively over O’Donnell’s faults — and nothing at all, re: those of Coons — then, yes: YOU. ARE. THE. PROBLEM.

Kent18 on September 17, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I’m a RINO [...] I also hope O’Donnell loses.

thuja on September 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Point proved. Thank you.

Kent18 on September 17, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Kent18 on September 17, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Bizarre huh? Perhaps we have a window right here into what’s up with Karl and Charles.

slickwillie2001 on September 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM

If people can’t manage their own finances, they shouldn’t be the GOP nominee. The only way to balance the Federal budget is to understand how to balance a budget.

thuja on September 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM

That’s right by dammit! ALL GOP NOMINEES NEED TO BE TRUST FUND BABIES. That’s why McCain, and Romney are … AWESOME!!

GO ESTABLISHMENT! BEAT THE MASSES!

Why do even have these bothersome primaries anyway? Why not just let John McCain, Scott Brown, and Lindsey Grahamnesty pick who we can vote for on the ballot?

YAY TEAM!

So exciting.

Uh …

Yawn.

HondaV65 on September 17, 2010 at 11:50 AM

No, just tired of “true conservatives” beating around the bush in refusing to tell RINOs they’re not welcome in the party anymore. If that’s what you believe, say it loud and proud that you don’t want RINO votes anymore.

Allahpundit on September 16, 2010 at 9:30 PM

In this case … RINO does not equal moderate. RINO means progressive. I don’t care whether a progressive has an R or a D behind their name, that progressive is bad news and needs to be defeated.

The progressive votes with the Left to advance the progressive agenda, be it runaway spending, higher taxes and/or more government control. I’ve disagreed with Sen. Brown on some of his votes, but I’d much rather have him there than Martha, Martha, Martha. His presence forced the Democrats to ram health care down our throats with the “deemed passed” method which exploded in their faces with the American public.

This is a battle that had to happen sooner or later. The conservatives are trying to rid the GOP of the progressives, the Obama Republicans that are helping to advance the progressive agenda in the name of “bipartisanship,” which we all know means Republicans caving to agree with Democrats.

pdigaudio on September 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Time for a Hot Air name change: Rino Review with Allahpundit

ncjetsfan on September 17, 2010 at 1:20 PM

It should be obvious to everyone by now that Allahpundit has displayed RINO tendencies and flat out supported progressive agenda ideas for some time now. This is easily visible in this snarky, disrespectful, actually worthless post.

Allahpundit is a middle of the road centrist/”independent”, just like Scott Brown and Mike Castle. In the face of anything adverse he crumbles and starts putting words in peoples mouths and writing posts like these. The only reason he has a job here is because he can occasionally write and make funny observations. Problem is that there are thousands of other writers that are funny and observant and I bet theres a couple that actually adhere to conservative principles.

I remember a post a year or so ago when Allah was surmising all the situations he would find it acceptable to kill an unborn child; when a commenter confronted him and totally destroyed him, he quickly retracted and edited his post to proclaim his new found morals.

He will do this on anything. He doesnt stand for anything. All he is is a writer for a political blog. He needs to go write for the Weather Channel where he wont have to pretend anything anymore. Just make funny observations on weather patterns.

This post of Allah’s was useless. Hard to follow, spiteful, insulting.

Allah here is a fun fact: No one cares to read the transcript of your thought process.

dip it in cider on September 17, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Time for a Hot Air name change: Rino Review with Allahpundit

ncjetsfan on September 17, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Given the freakish frequency with which readers here are assailed with the natterings of such “conservative” stalwarts as Brooks, Frum, Meghan McCain and (evidently) every last leftist diehard listed on the Politico masthead, entire… that WOULD definitely qualify as truth in advertising. ;)

Kent18 on September 17, 2010 at 1:26 PM

The Republican Party is suffering a hostile take-over by the Tea Party. The Establishment Republicans are having fits.

The rank and file are grabbing the party back from the Establishment Republicans for the first time since Teddy Roosevelt.

Progressivism is slowly being squeezed from the party.

When you hear sour grapes coming from a Republican, you can now ID them as a Progressive.

ajacksonian

Pretty much THIS

The ones doing all the whining about these primary victories are the ones that need to be booted out the door. They are the Republicans that helped to create the financial disaster we’ve had over the last few years. They are also the ones that are keeping the party from changing to more conservative stances.

The only litmus tests I care about are financial conservatism and being pro-life. I’ll let anything else on the social side slide but I can’t give on that one point.

Benaiah on September 17, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Christine O’Donnell is a completely unimpressive candidate. Apparently credentials and ability do not matter anymore as long as you are a “true conservative.” AP noted yesterday that a commenter stated that he would prefer O’Donnell to Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan is clearly a tireless worker and one of the few politicians able to articulately and convincingly argue a conservative fiscal position. Christine O’Donnell (or Sarah Palin for that matter) cannot. We need more Ryans and fewer O’Donnells and Palins.

Also, anyone who thinks we will ever get 60 Marco Rubios, with the changing demographics of the country, is delusional. Enjoy having 30 Marco Rubios and unopposed Democratic legislation.

LuckyLuciano on September 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Allahpundit is a middle of the road centrist/”independent”, just like Scott Brown and Mike Castle

Scott Brown may be a centrist/moderate, but Mike Castle was a pure progressive/lefty. His CFG rating was 28, his ACU rating slightly higher. There may be Democrats with better numbers.

Republicans that help advance progressive issues and the Obama Regime’s agenda need to go. Period. That includes amnesty for illegal aliens.

pdigaudio on September 17, 2010 at 2:05 PM

I think the Tea Party is going to rescue the GOP, including RINOs, from political oblivion. It seems unreasonable to expect the conservatives to just line up behind all the RINO candidates, when it’s the RINOs who would otherwise be losing elections without the support of the conservatives.

IOW, it was bound to happen this way.

tom on September 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Christine O’Donnell is a completely unimpressive candidate.

Compared to whom? Joe Biden, a man who thinks “jobs” is a three letter word? Bela Pelosi? Bawney Fwank? The narcissistic petulant Man-Child in the White House?

Paul Ryan is my congressman. I’d love to have more like him. We don’t need R’s if they are going to help advance the Obama Regime’s agenda in the name of “bipartisanship.”

As for your perception of Sarah Palin, once again, I must ask you to whom you are comparing her to … Barack Hussein Obama? The Worst. President. Ever. Arguably Palin was more qualified than McCain, Obama and Biden in 2008. At least she had executive experience.

The political elites — state-run media, lefty pundits and GOP establishment hacks — are saying exactly the same things about Sarah Palin and reacting to her the same way they did about someone else … Ronald Reagan.

Remeber what El Rushbo tells us: the Left will tell us who they fear, and they fear Sarah Palin. Why? Because if they didn’t and if she were the intellectual lightweight and gaffe machine SNL and the establishment has caricatured her as, they’d ignore her.

She’s a real threat to them, and they know it. So are other citizen-legislators like O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Rand Paul.

pdigaudio on September 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Frankly, I wouldn’t have cared for either of them, but we now have O’Donnell and have to lie in the bed that’s made. Get the big guns down there as Krauthammer says and have them do their damndest to get her elected. NOT the time to equivocate and NOT the time to lament about what might have been. Time to fight like he$$.

jeanie on September 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Ohoh–temporarily forgot that the Senate is for 6 long years(senility?)but even at that, better 6 years with her than 6 years with Coons(or what ever his name is).

jeanie on September 17, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Time for a Hot Air name change: Rino Review with Allahpundit

RINO in cheif ALLAHPUNDIT

dip it in cider on September 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Late to the thread (like always), but WOW!!

AP throws an absolute fit, purposefully insults a good portion of the readers here and then acts like the spoiled little kid who, when the other kids don’t want to play “his” game, takes his ball and goes home.

All the time AP was whining about no longer feeling “welcome” in the current version of the Republican Party, crying about having RINO’s vote with the Dems, and so on, and so on and so on . . . claiming that “true conservatives” are somehow mistreating RINO’s (Self-identifying??) by not going “big tent” and supporting “electable” RINO’s

All I could think about were those wonderful R leaders like:

Crist
Murkowski
Castle
etc – etc – etc

All of whom displayed the kind of “big tent” support AP insists “true conservatives” are denying folks like him, when they lost their primaries and led by example by getting behind the “peoples” choice and supporting the Republican candidate – as AP insists “true conservatives” do . . .

OR, did they??

Hmmmmm

Fatal on September 17, 2010 at 3:08 PM

thuja on September 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Yeah, O’Donnell is a bit of a mess here and there–but, she’ll be like so many on Dem side who knee jerk vote with their Party without even bothering with any analysis or detail. Could be useful.

jeanie on September 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

How come Sarahcuda supported centrist Carly Fiorina instead of Chuck DeVore in the deep blue state of California?

The miss here is not comparing DeVore to O’Donnell, it’s comparing Firiona to Castle. If Castle were anywhere close to being Firiona, Palin probably would have supported him over O’Donnell if Castle had been nicer (more of a gentleman).

But here is where Rove is right and should have focused instead of repeating the lies about O’Donnell: Castle wasn’t just left of conservatives. He wasn’t a RINO. He was worse. He was for cap and tax, a huge redistributionist boondoggle that will put us in permanent depression and competitive kneecap until removed. He is a socialist in GOP clothing, not just squishy on a couple of issues.

Firiona can win. She has name recognition, CEO experience (however debatably poor she did), and is right wing compared to Castle.

The only thing you can argue is that she should have stayed out of the Delaware race. But picking Firiona is far, far, far better than picking Castle. They are opposites.

PastorJon on September 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM

I’m a RINO who will be donating to the Rubio campaign. I also hope O’Donnell loses. She’s an absolutely terrible candidate, and, yes, Castle would have been better. If people can’t manage their own finances, they shouldn’t be the GOP nominee. The only way to balance the Federal budget is to understand how to balance a budget.

thuja on September 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Who said she couldn’t manage her own finances or balance a budget? If you are low on income because of a change in income and start to lose your house, that disqualifies you? If you have hard times financially, that disqualifies you?

Man, I guess I should toss aside my dreams of being in politics. I nearly lost my house to the housing bubble and being unemployed, guess that means I can’t represent the people. My IQ, business experience and common sense conservatism be damned, what matters is that I’ve never had financial issues or trouble paying back my $50,000 in school loans . . .

Thank about your measure for service. Abraham Lincoln would have never been president . . .

PastorJon on September 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM

When is Allahpundit going to admit that he’s throwing a temper tantrum, enraged that we won’t join his rant?

“Unity Over” says allahp, making a self fulfilling prophesy, taking his marbles and going home.

10points behind at the onset. And there goes Chicken Little, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling!”

A snide and revolting characteristic from some pundits is the refusal to labor for a most important win, a most important bill, etc.

If O’Donnell WINS, she’ll be seated in time to vote against Cap and Trade. The other candidates would vote for it. That alone and of itself is reason to unify for her success. Conservatives voted for McCain on the potus ticket, and again voted for McCain’s senatorial race. Time for the neocons to get behind Republican candidates who won primaries with the Tea Party movement.

Any “split” in the party will be determined by the neocons, whether they are willing to tolerate conservatives.

maverick muse on September 17, 2010 at 6:22 PM

The only way to balance the Federal budget is to understand how to balance a budget.

As in voting down any more federal spending:

CAP AND TRADE!

maverick muse on September 17, 2010 at 6:25 PM

PastorJon on September 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM

You’re right. There is no sensibility in the intolerant rants.

maverick muse on September 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM

thuja on September 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM

You have to ignore quite a few facts about Castle to determine that O’Donnell is worse IMHO.

hawkdriver on September 17, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Christine O’Donnell is a completely unimpressive candidate.

LuckyLuciano on September 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Uh, doesn’t that depend upon the comparison?

Because …well, maybe you weren’t so impressed with her compared to Castle (for whatever the reason: I don’t care what), and maybe you think you had a point then.

…but if you’re comparing her to Coons – which is, btw, what the voters will be doing – now , you’ve a completely unimpressive argument.

And anyways, Mickey Kaus earlier today destroyed that line of reasoning.

She won, dude. It’s done. Get over it.

davisbr on September 17, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Uh, doesn’t that depend upon the comparison?

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it does. The blueblood countryclubbers, the Bush/Rockefeller Wing of the GOP only wants its own. If the GOP were Caddyshack, they’d be Judge Smails and we’d be Al Czervik.

Remember: this bunch hated Ronald Reagan, and many still do even while trying to corrupt claim his legacy

pdigaudio on September 17, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Most “true conservatives” think they can, which is why if O’Donnell loses in Delaware or Angle in Nevada, etc, it is and can only be (a) the fault of the damned RINOs, just like everything else in the world, and/or (b) because America’s not quite ready yet to elect 60 Rubios.

Duuuude! I had my response thought out, here with my wet hair and all, and you throw in that phrase? For that, I am gonna go rubia tonight ;)

ProudPalinFan on September 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Uh, doesn’t that depend upon the comparison?

davisbr on September 17, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Nope. I believe there are some objective standards to determine whether someone is deserving and/or capable of being one of 100 US Senators. Which O’Donnell doesn’t meet. I would vote for her over Coons. But just because the Democrats suck doesn’t mean we should as well.

LuckyLuciano on September 17, 2010 at 10:11 PM

If Ryan admits he made a mistake voting for TARP, and Palin admits that AGIA was a mistake, I will support them both. Hell, if Brown votes to repeal Obamacare he’ll have my support again too.

AshleyTKing on September 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM

DeMint gets my contributions. The rest? not so much. QED

Caststeel on September 18, 2010 at 2:58 AM

Christine O’Donnell is a completely unimpressive candidate.

Compared to Coons?

h0mi on September 18, 2010 at 3:05 PM

To all the RINO’s (and That includes AP) that have enjoyed the last decade of dragging the GOP to the brink of oblivion and now can do nothing but whine about how the Tea Partiers are taking over: STFU! And Deal with the cards your delt!

If that isn’t clear enough, hows this: Get on board or get the hell out!

opusrex on September 19, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4