-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal editorial joined what has become a chorus at National Review whose voices rise to the inescapable, effective endorsement for elevating longtime congressman (and before that, governor, lieutenant governor, etc.) Mike Castle as the Delaware Republican nominee for Senate. This was joined by Team Pawlenty over at Powerline blog. Pawlenty, so you aren’t surprised when he sits in for John McCain in the 2012 primaries, has hired a political advisor to update and add nuance to — not abandon and explain the mistake of — his activism for Castle’s beloved cap-n-trade.
I suppose that makes it about as “official” as things can get in the establishment center-right media: you are to actively support someone for higher office…someone who supports Obamacare, cap-n-trade, using the power of the federal government to dictate what sort of lightbulb you may use, bigger government, higher taxes, fewer freedoms (as Mark Levin has pointed out, one could go on and on with such a list — see his — because the guy’s been a professional member of the political class since the '60s.)
That is, you are to actively support such a person so long as he is in your Club. Didn’t you catch that handshake?
You are to actively support them. Meaning, in a primary contest. Over someone else who does not hold those positions. Over someone who holds positions which adhere far more closely to the principles that unite you, around which you have organized.
As such, positions (I won’t wade so deep as to say “principles”) are meaningless. All abandonment of them is to be rationalized away.
Just a note first. The abandonment of principle for expedience has a very unhappy history, politically and otherwise, and is uniformly looked back upon with regret, often in sorrow.
Let me write it here first: meet the media’s new favorite Republican, Sen. Mike Castle. Keep that pancake makeup in your man-purse, Rep. Castle. Meet the Press et al. will fall all over themselves to book you regularly for your tales of just how wrong and heartless your colleagues are being. Thank goodness they will have you. That Lindsey Graham had worn so thin. You’re so much less unpredictable, anyway.
It’s no longer even worthwhile to ask is our Republicans learning? The question is can they?
Note: Yes, I’ve cleaned up some typos. Hurrying to get two little tornadoes to school can help lead to more of those than usual.
View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Chris Horner
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/09/ignore-that-first-horseman
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- The Lehrman Standard
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
dac| 9.9.10 @ 8:27AM
Question: can Republicans learn? Answer: generally, no. Most of them consider themselves the Ruling Class, just like their Demon party counterparts. In their view, we are to shut up, continue bleeding taxes, do what our betters tell us, and be good, docile little socialist sheep. They know what's best.
Not that we rebellious sheep can comfortably say all Tea Party candidates are "ours," or electable, or even deserving of election. Each individual case is different and worth scrutiny. But Rush put it well yesterday, in opposition to the WSJ and the GOP Ruling Class: a GOP majority is meaningless if it means compromise with Il Duce Negro and his Demon party hacks. The latter play a zero sum game, and if the opposition doesn't start playing the same game on the same field and isn't serious about winning (which means, the Demons lose), then the country continues to disintegrate.
Mimi| 9.9.10 @ 8:33AM
The POLS..will sit at the Tea-Party table. Enjoy the gigantic meal. Why spit on those that feed you....IDIOTS. The new game in town is principle over PARTY...What will save this nation? Oh you Pols of little faith...where oh where lays your strength and courage...How can you support Castle? It does not work...with all, WE the People are so profoundly , in great numbers telling you!!!
Teflon93| 9.9.10 @ 8:40AM
National Review continues its sad leftward drift under Rich Lowry.
Beyond that, can anyone tell me how supporting RINOs worked in 2006? Oh, right, Pelosi and Reid sailed to victory in Congress.
How about running a RINO against a hardcore leftist for President? Whoops, John McCain got his clock cleaned by somebody who had never served in the military, had just part of a Senate term under his belt, and wrote two autobiographies about voting "Present".
The question isn't, "When will Republicans learn?"
It is "When will conservative voters learn?"
Support the most conservative candidate. Period. Given that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-to-1 in every poll, you simply can't go wrong unless you listen to libs telling you conservatives can't get elected.
Hmm, wonder why they might want us to believe THAT?
kitt| 9.9.10 @ 8:51AM
Exactly!
Matthew| 9.9.10 @ 11:09AM
the problem with this is that a good portion of these "self-identified conservatives" are either lying to you or lying to themselves. They are like self-identified vegetarians who eat red meat every day or self-identified Catholics who do whatever the heck they feel like regardless of the tenants of their religion. Go to Delaware. I'll bet it won't be that hard to find a bunch of self-identified conservatives who tell you they're supporting Castle. Ask them why. Their squishy answer will really be the interesting part of the conversation.
Sheila| 9.9.10 @ 11:32AM
Spot on, Matthew. Merely read the comments at any movement conservative website such as American Spectator and spot all the faux conservatives. Decline and fall.
Jake Baker | 9.9.10 @ 9:08AM
This fall we will elect a pack or pachyderms who unlike their namesake will forget us almost immediately and go about their business as usual. Before the last hanging chad is contested, they and their Dem counterparts will be compromising, apologizing, taxing, and spending, as if nothing ever happened. And where will we be? Where we always are, working 70 hours per week to pay for unworkable socialist city programs, bankrupt union pensions, bloated bureaucrats in DC and morally bankrupt pols and their grand designs of a democratic oligarchy. I was at first outraged by their arrogance, then wearied by their continued indolence and vice. But rage has subsided, weariness dissipated, and in its place is a quiet resolve to either take over and throw them out of the tent or find a new tent. I would rather lose a thousand elections than continue to endorse the lesser of two evils or the evil or too lessers.
Siegfried X| 9.9.10 @ 9:15AM
Can Republicans learn?
Sadly no, at least not most of them. Most Republican voters are sleepy sheep who are easily controlled by their RINO handlers. The RINO handlers teach their sheep to have empty minds which can think of nothing besides:
Democrat bad
Democrat baa-aad
Just like real sheep say "bah bah bah", the Republican sheeple say "Democrat baa-aaad"
Siegfried X| 9.9.10 @ 9:25AM
This is a main reason why I am an independent conservative instead of a Republican. I ONLY vote for conservatives, never a RINO or a Democrat. If the RINO leadership and their sheeple choose a RINO candidate, then it's their fault that I vote against them, voting third party conservative instead.
I'm not alone either. The RINO in my state is tied in the polls, with 5% voting libertarian. That 5% would be enough to give a real Republican a solid lead, but the RINO will probably lose.
Siegfried X| 9.9.10 @ 10:20AM
I should add that I am in a heavily-Democratic state. In spite of that the RINO running for Senate is just tied, while the strong conservative who is running for governor has a solid lead.
Which is proof that conservatives can win in mostly-Democratic states, and run better than RINOs. As Ronald Reagan proved, conservatives can win anywhere. The idea that RINOs are "electable" is just a Democratic lie.
ncatty| 9.9.10 @ 9:28AM
I think we are seeing the birth pangs of a third party, a conservative one. I hope so.
Curly Smith| 9.9.10 @ 9:57AM
This kind of stuff is why the 20-year plan of taking over the GOP that many here advocate will fail.
Both the Dems and Repubs hope that the Tea Partiers simply fade away and leave the heavy lifting to the professionals. They'll demonstrate that it will be business as usual, irrespective of which party runs the show.
The take-over the GOP crowd misses the obvious that the Tea Partiers will turn on the GOP with a vengeance in 2011 if they don't demonstrate material change. The GOP brand is already damaged and for many the next year is the absolute last straw. The GOP can run all the true conservatives that it wants in 2012 but nobody will care, the general public won't believe them. The take-over crowd will take-over a dead party.
I'm beginning to think that the GOP leadership wants a bunch of third-parties to form because that will almost guarantee the Democratic Party vision. It would also result in the destruction of the GOP but professional politicians always take care of each other.
Scott | 9.9.10 @ 10:16AM
Oh, for goodness' sake, will you people grow the hell up? Delaware isn't Kentucky or Arizona. If I thought O'Donnell had even a 50-50 chance of winning, I'd be inclined to say go for it, but every poll and indicator I've seen plus the history of the state says that even Castle isn't a lock for that seat, so an O'Donnell win would border on the miraculous.
So Castle might be one of those Republicans who could be peeled off to support bits of the liberal agenda. Well, recent history has shown that even the regular cast of iffy Republicans have had the capacity to stay in line, but the main thing that the purists fail to comprehend is that if Castle and enough other Republicans get elected, there won't be a liberal agenda because the Republicans will be running the show. People cast the issue as "Would you rather have 40 Jim DeMints or 60 Lindsey Grahams?" The real question is "Would you rather have 60 Lindsey Grahams or 60 Chuck Schumers?"
If you honestly think something Obamacare would have passed if McConnell had been majority leader, fine, support O'Donnell. Heck, you should probably just bolt from the Republican Party completely. But if want the best chance to not see Reid, or, God forbid, Schumer from wielding the gavel come January, you go with the guy who has a real chance of winning.
Scott | 9.9.10 @ 10:17AM
Sorry about the typos; I'm in a bit of a rush.
Warrior | 9.9.10 @ 10:49AM
Saying that Castle supports bits of the liberal agenda is like saying that Nancy Pelosi has had a bit of botox injected into her face. Please stop trying to rationalize why it's better to run a liberal with an R next their name. The real question is when do we stop making excuses for republicans acting like liberals? To answer your question, it would be better to have 40 senators who work within the Constitutional framework than 60 Grahams, Snowes, Collins' or McCains. Your question is also answered by looking at the results of 2000-2006 with liberal republicans in charge of the senate, SCHIP, Medicare prescription, no child left behind, Patriot Act, etc.
Scott| 9.9.10 @ 2:35PM
I can fully understand dissatisfaction with the job the Republicans did, but you really think 2000 to 2006 was no better or different than 2007 to the present? Seriously?
How would having 40 senators working within Constitutional framework be better? You'd still have 60 senators who didn't, and, since they'd have D's after their name, they'd be even less restrained that the 60 Grahams, Snowes, Collinses, or McCains; at least those chuckleheads occasionally remember what the Constitution says. Reid, Durbin, Schumer, etc. wouldn't recognize the Constitution if you served it to them on a silver platter and said, "Here's the Constitution."
Would I like to have a House and Senate full of people who would respect the Constitution and act with the utmost restraint? You bet. If I can't get that, will I settle for half a loaf? You bet.
Warrior | 9.9.10 @ 2:56PM
What you so obviously miss is that 2000-2006 is the reason we have super majorities for the democrats. If republicans would have stood on conservative principles, there is no way we have they democratic tyrrany of the last 4 years.
So your answer is put liberal republicans in who instead of being full blown socialists who are only socialist lite. You are exactly what the liberals have wanted republicans to become, a person willing to accept only half a loaf. You keep settling and we'll keep going bankrupt. Instead of even attempting to get 40 solid Constitutionalists in the Senate, you keep rationalizing that Castle, McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins, ad nauseum is the best we can hope for. You are one of the reasons why many believe we are doomed.
Curly Smith| 9.9.10 @ 4:28PM
Or, instead of being socialist-lite, they're merely patient socialists content to shackle us one half-loaf at a time...
Scott| 9.9.10 @ 8:26PM
When the only alternative is full blown socialists, you're damn skippy I'd settle for socialist lite. I would also prefer having diarrhea to ebola and the flu to bubonic plague.
When the choices are bad and worse, go with bad. Why is that so friggin' hard for people to comprehend?
Rick V.| 9.9.10 @ 10:25AM
Mr. Horner made this observation: "The abandonment of principle for expedience has a very unhappy history, politically and otherwise, and is uniformly looked back upon with regret, often in sorrow." Alas, both parties have relied upon the "principle of abandonment" for the sake of expediency for years. It's the working citizens of our nation who are ultimately abandoned as a result.
Alix| 9.9.10 @ 11:12AM
I read that Castle voted against Obamacare and against the financial regulation bill. It that true? If so I agree with Scott -- politics is what you can get...
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 9.9.10 @ 12:08PM
Republican voters who continue to pull the lever for leftists masquerading as conservative Republicans DESERVE to have the boot of leftists like Obama, Reid, & Pelosi on their neck. A man without principles is not a man at all. He is a slave to his own stupidity. A vote for Mike Castle or any other RINO today is a vote for leftist legislation tomorrow. Rationalize voting for RINOs all you want, it won't change the fact you'll get exactly what you ask for: more slavery to liberalism. And Scott, you'll be on here ranting about Mike Castle voting with Democrats on leftist legislation the minute he crosses the aisle. Mark my words.
JASmius | 9.9.10 @ 1:00PM
When your realistic choices are Senator Mike Castle or Senator Chris Coons, suddenly Senator Mike Castle starts looking pretty good. Remarkable that you effectively prefer Senator Chris Coons.
Y'know, Chris, sometimes there's a reason for the "chorus" - it's because the guy out on the island all by himself is....wrong. Or, "It's not an abandonment of principle to acknowledge that you can't always get what you want."
Curly Smith| 9.9.10 @ 4:40PM
Why should the GOP give you what you want if you're willing to buy what you don't want? Or, to put it another way, what incentive does the GOP have to fund a Conservative if you'll vote for a Dem Clone, thereby permitting the GOP to avoid any substantive ideological discussions?
Matt| 9.9.10 @ 1:51PM
I'd rather have Sen Chris Coons than Sen Mike Castle, if Castle beats O'Donnell. At least with Coons, you know exactly what you're getting. With Castle, who the hell knows and it emboldens the RINOs of the GOP. Castle will become McCain II -- sure a few conservative votes here and there but the ones that matter... Ha!
-- A Delawarean (registered Ind a year ago but now wishing I'd kept Rep to vote 9/14)
Scott| 9.9.10 @ 2:50PM
But what about the votes that WON'T take place if the Republicans control the Senate because of Castle's presence?
Preferring Coons to Castle only makes sense if you honestly believe that Majority Leader McConnell would pursue the same agenda as Majority Leader Reid (or Durbin or Schumer).
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 9.9.10 @ 5:48PM
Scott, see my post at 12:08 p.m. I can't put it any better than that. Voting for RINOs without considering the consequences is like a condemned man putting his head into the noose for the hangman voluntarily & pulling the trap door lever himself.
Scott | 9.9.10 @ 8:52PM
Is Castle going to vote for Reid (or whoever) for majority leader? No.
Seriously, some of you seem to think that at his victory speech on Nov. 2nd Castle is going to cry out "Suckers!" and switch his party allegiance then and there. As near as I can tell, he doesn't look like the second coming of either Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chafee.
You want to get Reid's boot off our necks? Then elect enough people with R's after their names to cast him into the minority, and you elect people with R's after their names by nominating people who can get elected, not people whose only virtue is that they're sufficiently pure for your liking.
And it's funny for you to talk about not considering the consequences because that's EXACTLY what you and the rest of the Dove soap crowd are doing. The goal is to get a Congress full of the most conservative people POSSIBLE. O'Donnell doesn't look possible, and Castle is more conservative than Coons. This ain't rocket science.
Nick| 9.11.10 @ 12:44AM
Scott,
So, if Shrillary the Hut put an "R" behind her name tomorrow, you would vote for her, right?
Rich Rostrom| 9.10.10 @ 12:04AM
Castle is not a liberal. He is a centrist. I'd rather have someone with O'Donnell's philosophy. I think this year a real conservative candidate could win even in Delaware...
IF that candidate was honest, responsible, and stable. O'Donnell is none of those.
O'Donnell conceals her actual home address because (she says) she is pursued by mysterious stalkers and vandals.
O'Donnell said she carried two of Delaware's three counties against Biden in 2008. When it was pointed out that she lost all three, she accused the questioner of being on Castle's payroll.
Scott Rasmussen released a poll showing Castle leading the Democrat by 11% while O'Donnell trailed by 11%. O'Donnell insinuated that the RNC had paid Rasmussen to cook up a "push poll".
O'Donnell is apparently using campaign funds for her living expenses; she reported income of only $5,900 for 2009.
This is not a candidate who can win a real election.
"But what about Scott Brown? Nobody thought he could win!" Scott Brown is a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, a successful lawyer, and had won six elections to the Massachusetts legislature. He was somebody. Who is O'Donnell, other than a part-time talk-show personality?
Castle is somebody. And he is a centrist, not a liberal, which is what the Democrat would be. Half a loaf is better than none.
And if that half-loaf comes with control of the Senate, it's a LOT better.
Nick| 9.11.10 @ 12:51AM
Mr. Rostrom,
Castle is a stinking liberal snake.
He is a serial violator of the Constitution.
He is not "[h]alf a loaf," he is a rotten loaf.
He has repeatedly voted against the right to keep and bear arms.
I've been watching Miss O'Donnell, on political t.v. shows, for over a dozen years. Not the last two weeks. She is a well-informed, Christian conservative.