Green Room

Memo to the Right: “The Lombardi Rule” Is In Effect

posted at 9:00 am on September 19, 2010 by

We have heard so much about the supposed Buckley Rule, which Charles Krauthammer and other Mike Castle supporters over-simplistically synthesized as follows:

“Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.”

The Buckley Rule is for primaries.  The Delaware primary is over.  To paraphrase Krauthammer, Castle supporters didn’t go to Delaware and make it happen.

The choice now is between Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons.

Yet some of our leading bloggers and pundits are on a mission to prove that they were right, and that O’Donnell was not the best pick.  To that end, they regurgitate every snippet of gossip and every tape from the 1990s without context or reflection, much less waiting until the O’Donnell campaign has a chance to respond.

They must have a pretty dim view of the voters in Delaware to think that some sophomoric videos from the 1990s outweigh the national issues hovering over the race, not to mention Coons’ recent problems, like multiple tax increases and an exploding budget deficit in his county.

Do these bloggers on the right think that someone whose job just got shipped to China because of our excessive regulation and taxes gives half a crap about whether Christine O’Donnell “dabled into witchcraft” when she was younger?

Do our self-appointed guardians of “the Buckley Rule” think that the tens of thousands of Delawareans who will be forced off their private health plans, whose businesses will be decimated by cap-and-trade, whose 2nd Amendment rights are under attack, whose right to be left the hell alone is about to evaporate, really care that when Christine O’Donnell was young and irresponsible, she was young and irresponsible?

Does high blog traffic trump our collective national desire to see our kids grow up in a nation in which the state is the servant not the master (h/t Margaret Thatcher)?

To those on the right playing into the Think Progress and Media Matters playbook because they think it makes them look wise, don’t you see the game? 

The left is doing to O’Donnell exactly what they did to Sharron Angle — swamp her with accusations and nonsense in the days after the primary to keep her from organizing her campaign.  The Nevada primary was months ago, so Angle had a chance to recover.  O’Donnell doesn’t have that luxury of time given the late primary.  She needs to integrate millions of dollars in new cash, gear up with staff, and plan her attack. 

With each of your self-righteous columns and snide blog posts, you become part of the problem not part of the solution.

The woman (at the time, a young woman) went on MTV and Maher and who knows where else, and said somethings that she would not say now.  For that sin you are ready to toss her overboard so that you can declare yourselves to have been wiser than the unwashed voters who elected her in the primary?

And we call the Democrats elitist snobs?  Stop being so damn selfish.  November is not about who was right or wrong in the primaries.  If Castle had won, O’Donnell supporters would have rallied around him, or at least kept their mouths shut.

Quin Hillyer and Mary Katherine Ham have advised that there not be a conservative blog war, because we have more important things to do right now.  Fine, the perps have been called out already and it is time to rally around the effort.

Now that the primary is over, so too is the Buckley Rule.  Please take notice that the Lombardi Rule is in effect:

“The object is to win fairly, by the rules – but to win.” 

So [names of conservative blogs and pundits still dumping on O'Donnell deleted], get over it and get to work defeating Democratic rubber-stamp hack Chris Coons.

Because, as Hillyer says, “[w]e are fighting for our country here.”

And winning that fight in November is all that matters.

Cross-posted with updates at Legal Insurrection Blog.

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

Do these bloggers on the right think that someone whose job just got shipped to China because of our excessive regulation and taxes gives half a crap about whether Christine O’Donnell “dabled into witchcraft” when she was younger?

It’s not the bloggers I’m worried about. It’s guys like Karl Rove who see their power as political advisers slipping away.

Does high blog traffic trump our collective national desire to see our kids grow up in a nation in which the state is the servant not the master (h/t Margaret Thatcher)?

Sure looks like it, doesn’t it? Then again, even here at Hotair, certain beta male bloggers never let principle get in the way of a good pot-stirring story.

If Castle had won, O’Donnell supporters would have rallied around him, or at least kept their mouths shut.

That’s ancient history now, isn’t it? For the first time in my life, I can understand people’s disgust with the Republican party.

gryphon202 on September 19, 2010 at 9:15 AM

“The object is to win fairly, by the rules – but to win.”

But, but, she did stupid/silly things when she was 22.

Seems like it is more important for “some” bloggers/commenters to prove she sucks as a candidate than to win the seat.

katiejane on September 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Thank you Legal Insurrection. That is essentially what I have been saying, only in a more aggressive manner. To quote myself:

Dear Tea Party and Social Conservatives,

COD will lose the general election, we will make sure of it! All you people who voted for her will be responsible for her loss even though we are trying our best to torpedo her chances. Then we can say “I told you so” when she loses. Why? All for the sake of unity of course (now shut up and do what you’re told).

Sincerely,
Moderate Republicans and Your Intellectually Superior Conservative Punditry

All we want is for the friendly fire to stop. If they want to go ahead and openly support Coons instead, that’s fine. At least they would be honest. Sniping O’Donnell while pretending to be on her side is devious. Doing it just to be able to say “I told you so” when she looses is downright childish.

Pattosensei on September 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM

I think it’s the Al Davis rule that’s in effect, now that the primaries are over.

Just win, baby.

Chris of Rights on September 19, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Why do you presume it is conservatives who are dumping on O’Donnell? Because they claim to be conservative?

Skandia Recluse on September 19, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Well said! Especially the Margaret Thatcher part, which can never be emphasized enought IMHO. There is also the Reagan rule of We win, they lose.

txmomof6 on September 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM

That’s actually what the people still attacking O’Donnell are trying to do. Since she has little chance of beating Coons, any money diverted to her away from other candidates will actually increase the number of seats the Democrats keep. Additionally, if she is not criticized, they she will be taken to be the face of the Republican party by independents around the country, causing them to shy away from the GOP candidates they might have otherwise voted for.

Count to 10 on September 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Count to 10 on September 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM

So you are purposefully trying to torpedo her chances at winning. I’m just glad you finally admitted to it. Now we can have an honest debate. If you need her to lose, why not just openly support Coons? I think that would make you seem a lot less sleazy.

Pattosensei on September 19, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Well obviously Coons and Castle were the results of negotiations between the two party professionals. Castle would be the nominal republican seat holder who would clearly vote to support Obama’s socialist agenda while coons would appear to be a choice that the voters of Delaware could feel good about rejecting. In the off chance that the voters were not paying attention and coons wins the seat, the democrat machine would be re-enforced.

What upset the negotiated deal were the angry voters who went with an outsider against the political machine.

The results are the howling mad rabid dog democrat supporters of the negotiated deal demonizing O’Donnell as described in the Alinsky playbook. Castle was a democrat in disguise, and everyone knows it. Which is why the Delaware voters went to the republican candidate this year.

Skandia Recluse on September 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Count to 10 on September 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Hmm – let me get this straight from the perspective of O’Donnell supportrs

A fellow GOPer is trashing my preferred candidate who won her primary because they think my money should be provided to one they think is more important.

Yup – that tactic is really going to influence me.

katiejane on September 19, 2010 at 10:33 AM

The left is doing to O’Donnell exactly what they did to Sharron Angle — swamp her with accusations and nonsense in the days after the primary to keep her from organizing her campaign.

“The left”? They don’t have to. People in the GOP are doing well enough at that already.

ddrintn on September 19, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Keep in mind that for some O’Donnell supporters, it hasn’t been sufficient that critics have pledged their grudging support. They want affirmation that this was the bestest decision EVAH, and that anyone who questions it is no better than a Democrat.

Some of the bloggers’ bizitching amounts to, “NO I am not a RINO because I won’t drink the Koolaid!”

Even Rove is doing what he can to help her win. Take what you can get, and if you demand more—maybe that’s your problem.

Sekhmet on September 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM

So you are purposefully trying to torpedo her chances at winning. I’m just glad you finally admitted to it. Now we can have an honest debate. If you need her to lose, why not just openly support Coons? I think that would make you seem a lot less sleazy.

Pattosensei on September 19, 2010 at 10:20 AM

It’s just a strait calculus, but it does rely on the evaluation that her chances of winning are small enough that the extra money don’t effect it much, such that the expectation value of Republican seats gained goes down as more support is given to her.
I don’t really have the information to know if the evaluation of her chances is accurate, but the logic is sound. (though I did originally state that in a more one-sided manner just to see what kind of reaction I could get. :) )

Count to 10 on September 19, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Yup – that tactic is really going to influence me.

katiejane on September 19, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Well, you aren’t the type of voter that needs to be influenced.

Count to 10 on September 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on September 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM