Green Room

Swords of Delaware

posted at 1:06 am on September 14, 2010 by

You couldn’t ask for a more vexing political conundrum than the Delaware Senate primary.  It’s like something a poli-sci professor dreamed up to torture his students.  Mike Castle is the kind of liberal seat-warmer that should be trimmed from a Republican Party getting into fighting shape for the battle of its life, against a dying super-State that will be immensely difficult to bring under control… but he’s got a far better shot at winning the general election than his more conservative primary opponent.  The Democrat, Chris Coons, is loony and Marxist enough to qualify for a position as one of Obama’s czars.  As bad as Castle might be, it’s not difficult to make the case that putting Coons in the seat would be far worse.  However, while putting that case together, bear in mind that Castle co-founded a group with George Soros.

Castle’s conservative primary challenger, Christine O’Donnell, received the coveted Sarah Palin endorsement recently, but current polling shows her losing to Coons by double digits.  This polling is consistent with the overall mood of Delaware voters, who appear ready to be part of the GOP wave in November, but don’t want to ride the crest on the edge of a surfboard.  As Palin points out, O’Donnell has the right stances on a number of critical issues, but that won’t make much of a difference if she can’t get elected.  She’s got some bizarre behavior in her past, and no significant legislative experience.

As the poli-sci class is wrestling with the situation, the professor smiles wickedly and drops the final bomb: control of the Senate might just hinge on the outcome of this race.

It’s a tough call… but many pundits seem unwilling to acknowledge that.  Some, like Michelle Malkin arguing for O’Donnell or Baseball Crank laying out the case for Castle, are commendably willing to concede the difficulty of puzzling out the race, before offering their most carefully reasoned opinions.  Many others act as if the correct choice is obvious, and disagreement is either stupidity or treason.  People are drumming each other out of the conservative movement, pointing at formerly solid allies and doing the Invasion of the Body Snatchers howl.  Promotion to the “ruling class” has become so easy that I’m thinking of endorsing Castle just so I can join the aristocracy.  I’ll settle for a barony.  I’m a cheap date.

The outcome of tomorrow night’s primary is not the only reason so many swords are being drawn over Delaware.  There are deeper issues reflected in both of these elaborately damaged candidates.  Supporters of O’Donnell fear the prominence “reasonable, moderate” Republicans like Castle would gain through the media, after the GOP takes control of Congress.  The ghost of Jim Jeffords rides through their backyards each Halloween, tossing its severed head between its hands.  Cleansing the party of people like Castle isn’t just a mindless obsession with purity.  It’s part of presenting a coherent message to voters, and offering a real contrast with the bankrupt lunacy of the Democrats.  It will be tough for the party to deliver a rousing St. Crispin’s Day speech to voters while the media’s new favorite Republican capers in the background, waving his Strange New Respect award and calling them extremists.

Castle supporters, on the other hand, are tired of losing on principle.  They understand every race presents a different battlefield.  Joe Miller is a mighty oak in Alaska, but he would wither and die in the thin soil of Delaware.  Furthermore, Christine O’Donnell is no Joe Miller.  The argument for stubbornly throwing races to the Democrats, until the country grows utterly sick of them and seeks rescue from conservative knights in shining armor, is drowned by the deafening crack of America’s back breaking under Obama levels of debt.  The cost of losing our way to victory is more than the nation can bear.

I don’t find either of these viewpoints dishonest or foolish.  Intelligent arguments have been made for both.  I also understand why so many people are getting worked up over this conflict.  Every shift in balance is alarming when you’re perched on the edge of a cliff.  To overcome the massive inertia of the system that produced Barack Obama as our national undertaker, we’ve got to play a perfect game for the next couple of years.  There is little margin for error available to individual candidates, the Republican Party, or the conservative movement.  People start screaming when they’re watching you defuse the deficit bomb, and they think you’re about to cut the wrong wire.

I’m not from Delaware, so I have no vote to cast tomorrow night.  If I did, I would find myself reluctantly persuaded by the argument for Castle.  It’s a pity O’Donnell isn’t a better candidate, and Delaware isn’t an easier state to win over.  Good Republican leadership in the Senate should be able to keep Castle on board for the really important votes, and he might just be the leverage that puts the Senate into their hands.  The damage being done to the country by Obama is so horrific that I can’t consign us to another two years, if the chance exists for a fully Republican Congress to slam on the brakes… even if leaving a divided Senate under nominal Democrat control until 2012 might be tactically preferable for the next Presidential campaign.

Having said that, I disagree with Charles Krauthammer that Palin and Jim DeMint’s endorsement of O’Donnell is “destructive” or “irresponsible.”  They’re big-picture idea people.  Their honest endorsement of a candidate who vocally supports their ideas is not damaging.  On the contrary, it proves they mean what they say, and intend to put serious muscle behind the positions they view as critical to getting America back on track.

I would have been disappointed if Palin and DeMint acted any differently.  I just don’t think O’Donnell can do what they need her to do.  Such are the strange mechanics of the Delaware race that I hope they’re right about her, and I’m wrong.  If she wins the primary tomorrow night, I’ll upgrade that from a hope to a prayer.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

Doctor Zero: Year One now available from Amazon.com!

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Where are you getting that Mike Castle co-founded a group with George Soros? I followed all those links and found that Castle was once a board member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, which is a policy group of little consequence, and it never took any money or anything from Soros.

rockmom on September 14, 2010 at 1:29 AM

I don’t care if Castle ever got a dime from Soros.

He is not a conservative by anyone’s sane description. He is anti-conservative.

If not voting for Castle means Reid is the leader of the Senate then I can live with that.

What I can NOT live with is Castle getting into the Senate for five years of voting with the Dems and one year of voting with the Republican progressives.

I lived in Delaware. I know Mike Castle’s voting record.

Coons is bad? Castle is worse. What is worse than Dems running the Senate? Dems running the Senate with Snow and Castle voting with them.

Make the bastards pay. Be they Republican RINOs or Democrats make them all pay.

Mike Castle must find himself unemployed to make sure the rest of the RINOS wake up and smell the coffee.

Hyunchback on September 14, 2010 at 1:55 AM

Doc, you are so often right it’s painful to point out when you are wrong.

ANY support for Castle is dead wrong. He’s poison. He MUST pay for every RINO betrayal he has committed in the House. He MUST pay for every RINO betrayal EVER!

All the kindoms of the earth are not worth the price, Doc.

Make the bastards pay. Today. Make them pay today so they listen in 2012, Doc.

They must pay. Today.

Hyunchback on September 14, 2010 at 2:02 AM

For those of us still clinging to the frail reed of sanity in this tempest….especially those who cannot actually vote in Delaware…..

Let’s hope that support forms around whoever comes out of this primary and that the party’s nominee wins the seat in November.

cthulhu on September 14, 2010 at 2:09 AM

It’s a shame there’s no way to look into the future and see how the Senate make up without Delaware is going to look on Nov. 3. If you were dead-solid certain that the Republicans would have 50 other senators as of that day, and that Castle can beat Coons while O’Donnell can’t, the case for Castle becomes much stronger — not so much for what he can or will do, but for the ability to shift control of the Senate committees from the ‘D’ to the ‘R’ column (none of which presumably would be chaired by Castle, though you’d still have the Maine sisters and Lindsey Graham among others to worry about).

Unless Obama changes his ways, or the Republicans really manage to screw up over the next two years more than the president and his party have, odds are the Democrats’ position in 2012 isn’t going to be looking very good, based on the large number of Senate seats from the 2006 election they’re going to have to defend. Which means if the GOP doesn’t take over the Senate in January, they’ve still got a pretty good shot at doing it in 2013 … though even a two-year reign of Senate Majority Leader Schumer or Durbin coupled with President Obama can still cause a lot of problems.

Castle’s ideologically flawed, while O’Donnell’s more likely to vote with the conservative majority, but has a past history that could make her an ongoing train wreck, public relations-wise, from the Dems and a big media that will have no qualms about pointing out her flaws in a way they never do for senators like Al Franken. If you think Castle’s election will provide the +10 gain the GOP needs to win control of the Senate, then Mike’s probably worth holding your nose and voting for. But if he’s not going to be that 51st vote, the GOP might be better long-term not having to worry about him becoming the next Arlen Spector if the party does add 3-4 seats in 2012 to get a working Senate majority.

jon1979 on September 14, 2010 at 2:24 AM

If not voting for Castle means Reid is the leader of the Senate then I can live with that.

I hope you will at least have enough shame to keep quiet when it does not become possible to investigate and defang the Obama machine, because the GOP doesn’t control either house.

YehuditTX on September 14, 2010 at 3:13 AM

From the Baseball Crank post linked above:

The Democrats, lacking control of the Senate, will lose the jobs of a lot of staffers; they’ll lose access to corporate and lobbying money that (as we all know in the real world) flows to the party in power. They’ll lose the ability to recruit candidates on the promise of joining the majority (recall that in both 2012 and 2014 the Democrats will be defending twice as many Senate seats as the GOP, so unless we see a repeat of the 2006 and 2008 Democratic waves, it’s not likely they’ll gain seats and highly likely they’ll lose more). The GOP will gain these things. If you think that shifting more power and advantage to the GOP over the Democrats is a good thing, you would presumably support Mike Castle.

I think this is worth 100 infuriatingly RINO backstabbing votes on whatever.

YehuditTX on September 14, 2010 at 3:29 AM

For what it’s worth, Doc, I appreciate the lack of name-calling over this matter. It’s remarkable that this should be noteworthy, but it is, sadly.

Kensington on September 14, 2010 at 4:18 AM

If not voting for Castle means Reid is the leader of the Senate then I can live with that.

Hyunchback on September 14, 2010 at 1:55 AM

While I don’t make it a habit of impugning the motives of my fellow conservatives, I believe your emotion is clouding your judgement. You will sleep well at night knowing you did “the right thing” while our republic crumbles around us.

It’s a tough call… but many pundits seem unwilling to acknowledge that. Some…are commendably willing to concede the difficulty of puzzling out the race, before offering their most carefully reasoned opinions. Many others act as if the correct choice is obvious, and disagreement is either stupidity or treason.

Guess which column I’d put you in?

gryphon202 on September 14, 2010 at 4:50 AM

Perfect assessment, Doc. The word “vexing” is quite apt. If control of the Senate weren’t a possibility, I think many of us would push ideology over party. Even then, I’d still hope for a better candidate than O’Donnell.

I hope you will at least have enough shame to keep quiet when it does not become possible to investigate and defang the Obama machine, because the GOP doesn’t control either house.

YehuditTX on September 14, 2010 at 3:13 AM

Yep. This will require solid conservatives + numbers. I don’t like saying it, but a leftist wearing R clothing just might be the “seat warmer” we need to push our own agenda, namely repeal.

It’s an awful choice, but that’s where we are. No pressure, Delaware! :)

Bee on September 14, 2010 at 5:57 AM

I hope you will at least have enough shame to keep quiet when it does not become possible to investigate and defang the Obama machine, because the GOP doesn’t control either house.

YehuditTX on September 14, 2010 at 3:13 AM

Will you have the shame to admit your error?

Castle will not side with the Republicans to investigate or defang the progressive agenda. His past is his prologue. He will vote with the Dems.

This is becoming like the abused spouse who keeps going back because “he/she promised things would change”.

Hyunchback on September 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM

If it’s a tough call you go with your principles and values.

tarpon on September 14, 2010 at 8:49 AM

The only reason this decision is difficult is because O’Donnell is such a terrible candidate. If O’Donnell had a better resume and no skeletons in her closet (for me, the major turn-off is her crazy employment discrimination complaint against her former employer – a not-for-profit conservative outfit), this would be a no-brainer, as I think even DE is ready to jump on the tea-party bandwagone this year.

Unfortunately, I think it likely that O’Donnell is not going to be able to win the general election. That may not be a reason to vote against her in the primary, as in a lot of cases, I am willing to prune out the really bad RINOs.

I am also concerned, based on the stuff in her background, that O’Donnell is nothing but an opportunist who will prove to be a RINO if she were to win the general.

Monkeytoe on September 14, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Unfortunately, I think it likely that O’Donnell is not going to be able to win the general election. That may not be a reason to vote against her in the primary, as in a lot of cases, I am willing to prune out the really bad RINOs.

Monkeytoe on September 14, 2010 at 9:44 AM

The problem with swords and principles is that sometimes our principles require us to fall on our swords.

gryphon202 on September 14, 2010 at 10:45 AM

The problem with swords and principles is that sometimes our principles require us to fall on our swords.

gryphon202 on September 14, 2010 at 10:45 AM

I would emphasize “sometimes”. I’m not convinced this is one of those times. I really don’t perceive O’Donnell as being worthy of falling on one’s sword for. Like I said, I believe – based on all the stuff coming out about her background – that she is nothing more than an opportunist.

Would I fall on my sword for Sharon Angle? Mark Rubio? Joe Miller? even J.D. Hayworth? Sure.

O’Donnell? I don’t think she is worthy of it.

Monkeytoe on September 14, 2010 at 11:01 AM

How ever this turns out, it is an open challenge to conservatives in Delaware (if there are any) to get up out of their chairs, and get to work to organize, make friends, encourage conservative candidates of good character, and stop waiting for someone else to do it.

Skandia Recluse on September 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM

No matter who wins the Delaware primary, the Republican voter in the First State must not stay home, nor vote for the third party candidate.

If Castle wins, the GOP leadership must provide him a reason to support the Conservative agenda. If O’Donnell wins, her candidacy must be embraced with the furor of EMS personnel trying to save a heart attack victim. Getting her across the finish line must be the priority.

itzWicks on September 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Would I fall on my sword for Sharon Angle? Mark Rubio? Joe Miller? even J.D. Hayworth? Sure.

O’Donnell? I don’t think she is worthy of it.

Monkeytoe on September 14, 2010 at 11:01 AM

I’m rather agnostic on the question. If someone were to ask me where I stand, all I could say is that I’m glad I don’t have to make this decision since I don’t live in Delaware.

To the voters of Delaware: Please don’t screw this thing up.

gryphon202 on September 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM

If O’Donnell wins the primary, Chris Coons will be elected in the general. Simple as that.

Tres Angelas on September 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I hope you will at least have enough shame to keep quiet when it does not become possible to investigate and defang the Obama machine, because the GOP doesn’t control either house.

YehuditTX on September 14, 2010 at 3:13 AM

In what scenario is it more plausible that the Senate flips than the House?

When the House flips, Rep Darrell Issa will be Chairman of his oversight committee and will have the power of subpoena, regardless of what happens in the Senate.

He will be able to appoint Chairman of the various sub-committees under his Chairmanship, and all of them can divide up what they will be investigating.

They can call hearings, and take testimony on TV, under oath. This will be happening, regardless of the outcome of the Senate races.

It is also possible that another Senate race we aren’t looking at right now may become competitive before election day, like how West Virginia was a slam dunk for the Democrat Governor, until about a week ago. Now the gap is narrowing. Connecticut is also closing up recently.

Brian1972 on September 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

The argument for stubbornly throwing races to the Democrats, until the country grows utterly sick of them and seeks rescue from conservative knights in shining armor, is drowned by the deafening crack of America’s back breaking under Obama levels of debt. The cost of losing our way to victory is more than the nation can bear.

But don’t the people of Delaware see what is happening under Democrat control? Surely they aren’t Homer Simpson all. They bear part of the responsibility.

And I did hear that Castle supported impeaching Bush. Where is the line in the sand, Doc?

disa on September 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM

Castle:
pro-abortion
pro-gun control
pro-cap and tax

case closed.

shawk on September 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM

I was split as well. But, after giving it more thought, Ive come to the conclusion that I’m done for voting for candidates because of their “electability”

Screw it.

I’d take a stand and vote AGAINST Castle if for no other reason to be part of a resurgence of folks forcing the Party to clarify it’s platform.

The “concessions” that are put forth as a yea for Castle are no different than the ones that kept being made over and over by Democrats that have resulted in the collapse of that Party and it being overtaken by radicals and far, far lefty types who are now not just little ole’ Representatives but the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE and the HEAD OF THE SENATE!

Opposite Day on September 14, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Their honest endorsement of a candidate who vocally supports their ideas is not damaging. On the contrary, it proves they mean what they say, and intend to put serious muscle behind the positions they view as critical to getting America back on track.

This is the whole reason for the Tea Party. Start getting politicians to stand on what they campaign for and stop screwing around and wasting time and money with these 2 faced Castle types commonly called RINO’s.

Herb on September 14, 2010 at 6:48 PM

disa on September 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM

He voted Yes to send the article to the Judiciary.

hawkdriver on September 14, 2010 at 6:49 PM

articles,,,

HR 1258

hawkdriver on September 14, 2010 at 6:49 PM

The only reason this decision is difficult is because O’Donnell is such a terrible candidate.

No, there are two reasons – because Castle himself is also a terrible candidate. He has a horrible voting record, one that would make Specter blush. His candidacy has been based on two things:

1) He’s “electable” and
2) scorched earth attacks on O’Donnell, aided by the state GOP apparatus.

Nothing about why HE personally would make a great senator. If Castle was a good candidate, he wouldn’t have needed to go nuclear on O’Donnell, and he still would have ran away with it. The fact that neither of those things is true tells you all you need to know about the quality of Castle’s candidacy and why so many conservatives refuse to rally around him, particularly in an anti-RINO year like 2010.

thirteen28 on September 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM

IS Castle going to run as an independant if he loses this primary?

WILL the NRSC support him in such an election?

Why do I think the answers are YES and YES?

Freddy on September 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM

As far as her being a tab bit wacky

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

Aggie95 on September 14, 2010 at 7:10 PM

The Senate is a funny kind of place.

If you have members that will vote with the party, it works like this: When your party has less than 41 votes, you have very little pull. At 41 members, your power increases exponentially. But then, from 41 to 59, there are tiny little increases in clout for each additional member, only important at the margins should someone die or retire or be tossed out. And then, when you reach 60 members, there’s another exponential increase, and you can pretty much get anything you want.

Republicans now have 41 members, some of which will vote with the Democrats at the drop of a hat. After this election, Republicans can expect to have more than 41 members that will vote with the party on all important votes. There is no chance in hell that Republicans will get 60 votes, even with the squish votes included.

And, in 2012, 22 Democrat Senators will be up, and just 11 Republicans. And unless something very odd happens, the Republicans will gain more seats.

I love to read your work, Doc, but I don’t see that this is all that important in the scheme of things.

applebutter on September 14, 2010 at 7:11 PM

How far the Republicans have fallen if they have pro-slavery candidates who need our votes.

unclesmrgol on September 14, 2010 at 7:15 PM

If it’s a tough calll You always go with your principles and values.

tarpon on September 14, 2010 at 8:49 AM

My take on the matter, FWIW.

As far as O’Donnell being a rotten candidate, wasn’t Obama the consummate candidate only to devolve into the worst of office holders (our triple forte protestations notwithstanding)?

Perhaps we should reserve judgement – after all, I was represented in the Senate by a guy who left a girl in car to die under a bridge on Martha’s Vineyard.

Rome wasn’t built in a day nor will our Republic be rebuilt in a single election.

Let’s get through this battle, reassess and see where we stand, eh?

turfmann on September 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Sorry, no I won’t vote for “electability” any more. I won’t vote for a RINO. Yeah, I’ll live with the consequences – hell I didn’t vote for Bush Sr. after he broke his no tax pledge and survived Clinton’s first couple years to see Republicans take Congress (and use it responsibly at the beginning). No chance I was voting for McCain after all his schmoozing with the Democrats, and I’m surviving that debacle to see some real conservatives being elevated in this year’s elections. Yes, I would prefer to not go through “hard times” to clean out liberals like Castle but as a grown up, I understand that sometimes you do have to sacrifice and suffer for future gain.

Over50 on September 14, 2010 at 9:38 PM

She’s got some bizarre behavior in her past

No, she’s got some fundamentally dishonest behavior in her past.

AshleyTKing on September 14, 2010 at 9:42 PM

We cannot win running imitation conservatives when the public is clamoring for the real thing. Castle has now lost, and the reason he lost is that he did not satisfy the conservative appetite that is out there, and growing in power and assertiveness.

As a fellow old guy I am sympathetic to the complaint that your opponent won on her looks. But us old guys can make up for that. We can get up on our hind legs and breathe some conservative fire, Mike, and by doing so we can be attractive in our own way, to our own demographic (there are plenty of older voters around in case you haven’t noticed, Mike, and they vote like gangbusters).

You didn’t do that, Mike, and frankly I don’t think you can.

drunyan8315 on September 14, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Now that Castle is defeated, it is all moot. O’Donnell must now fire up her A-game to the next level, and prove to Delaware that she is worthy of the people’s seat (not Biden’s seat) in November.

A vote for Coons really tells me everything I need to know about former Castle supporters.

itzWicks on September 14, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Kobayashi Maru

SaintGeorgeGentile on September 14, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Conservatives need Mike Castle in the senate like a swimmer needs cement overshoes.

Tuco on September 15, 2010 at 12:43 AM

The deal is – like NY23 – the Tea Party can make a fight out of it. They can put the fear of God into even a Democrat winner.

I say lets fight. No quarter.

MSimon on September 15, 2010 at 4:33 AM

I don’t find it particularly vexing at all. The point of voting in primaries is to choose a candidate who can win in the general election, and who will serve the most pressing needs of their state and country. We need a Republican majority now, right? Well, cheering unelectable candidates because they make us feel warm-n-fuzzy won’t get us there. The only way to make that happen is to vote them in, even the occasional RINO. Because right now that R behind their name is really really important, even more so than how they actually vote. Throwing up your hands in disgust that Ronald Reagan has not yet risen from the dead, and letting everyone go to hell in a handbasket is not a noble act of defiance. It’s just short-sighted and counterproductive.

GalosGann on September 15, 2010 at 8:06 AM

It’s just short-sighted and counterproductive.

Well no. It is long sighted and will in time be productive.

Horse race politics got us in this mess. It will not get us out.

MSimon on September 15, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Several months ago, there wasn’t a gnats chance in hell that anyone thought the GOP could take back the Senate. Then, as soon as the glimmer of hope reveals itself, the multitudes step back from their vows of “No RINO’s”, “Vote on Principle” and are back to playing politics.

We don’t need politics people, we need principals.

Sorry Doc. On this one, I disagree with you.

BierManVA on September 15, 2010 at 10:48 AM

While I don’t make it a habit of impugning the motives of my fellow conservatives, I believe your emotion is clouding your judgement. You will sleep well at night knowing you did “the right thing” while our republic crumbles around us.

gryphon202 on September 14, 2010 at 4:50 AM

There is no need to hyperventilate.

There is not a huge difference at the margins with respect to legislative outcomes for the next two years if the Republicans take the Senate with a razor-thin margin, or if the Dems hold it with a razor-thin margin.

Especially after the most recent two years that everyone has experienced, that is a recipe for total gridlock in the Senate. Whichever side is (barely) in the minority will filibuster everything of consequence, and thus nothing major will make its way to Obama’s desk for veto or for signature.

This is actually a feature because (assuming the Republicans take the House, and that is my very strong assumption), people will be able to see the legislation that passes the House, and see for themselves what sort of governance the Tea Party wing of the Republicans would offer if government was not in a divided, gridlocked state.

For two years, they will be able to compare this with one of two different options:

1. The same Obama agenda that the Dems will continue to try to push if they retain control of the Senate.

2. The same-old Republican offerings of the Mitch McConnell wing of Bipartisan RINO Squishiness (TM).

Then, come 2012, the people will be able to use that data to decide which direction they would like to take the country. It’s just not mathematically reasonable to be able to get to the point of implementing a new Tea Party direction of actual governance in this particular mid-term cycle, if only because Barack Obama will (presumably) still be the President, able to veto anything that is not veto-proof. There are not enough Senate seats running that could be flipped to get to the point of being able to veto-proof legislation in one cycle.

So the function of 2010 as I see it, is to put the brakes on further implementation of the Obama agenda, which will be accomplished handily via the Republicans taking the House, to allow the new wing to offer its vision of governance via actually passed legislation in the House, which people will be able to actually read (gasp!), and thus to offer a two-year interview for the position of “new philosophy of governance”. If the American people like it, they will have the opportunity to put their stamp of approval on it in 2012, and vote in folks who will hew to that clearly-demonstrated line.

That also gives us TIME to get active and get new candidates and local grass-roots organizations of this philosophy ready to participate very early on in the political process, so that we can offer up candidates going INTO the primaries for 2012 that closely align with that vision.

Yes, it would be cool if we could do it this year. That’s just not feasible. Better to set the table now, present the vision of governance via the new House that gets elected this year, line up new high-quality candidates for 2012 that align with that, and get a 2012 Presidential candidate who believes in that philosophy lined up and ready to go, too.

That’s the most solid and practical approach that I see… and what has been happening so far in this election cycle seems to reinforce the notion that this approach is a strong match for what the American people seem to want.

VekTor on September 15, 2010 at 3:17 PM