-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Among the many good points in Jeff Lord’s morning blog post on the Delaware Republican primary is one implication that lacks some context. Namely, Lord suggests that John McCormack’s Weekly Standard reporting on the conservative candidate Christine O’Donnell is a “hit piece” and that McCormack is to be blamed for the lack of muckraking done on the liberal Republican Mike Castle.
Most likely while working on assignment, McCormack dug up some damaging facts about O’Donnell. That the article weakens O’Donnell’s candidacy is O’Donnell’s fault, not McCormack’s.
Maybe McCormack could have looked into Castle’s record and found some similar misdeeds and scandals. Think about it, though, from the perspective of a Weekly Standard reporter. Why bother? We already know what Castle is: a liberal Republican, bound to support bills like cap and trade that are in themselves scandals.
McCormack’s credentials as a non-“Beltway,” non-“establishment” conservative are not really in doubt. It’s regrettable that his reporting might boost Castle’s profile by making O’Donnell look bad, but don’t blame him — he’s only the messenger.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/13/dont-shoot-the-messenger
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
TruthSayer| 9.13.10 @ 11:31AM
McCormack never describes Castle as a liberal but calls him a 'moderate' and thus is clearly disembling. Every candidate has skeletons, but this is meant to be a hit job. Your pathetic attempt to defend a 'reporter' who clearly has an agenda is laughable. You establishment types can go straight to heil.
Mike| 9.13.10 @ 1:45PM
I don't know if I'd go that far, but the facts boil down to this:
1. It WAS a hit piece and it was intended to be.
2. Castle is a RINO.
3. He's anti-Second Amendment, a Warmie and pro-Obama.
4. The Delaware GOP is RINO, too.
While it is high time we started hanging these East Coast elites from lamp posts - they deserve it for betraying their country- we will do it the civilized way, at the polls.
This year begins the battle, but in 2012, the message will be even more clear: Get in bed with the Democrats and we will end you.
Dan| 9.13.10 @ 11:50AM
To the contrary, in this instance it is a case of the messenger being the problem.
What has been "exposed" heretofore about O'Donnell's past didn't warrant an "expose" treatment. Any attorney is aware that accusations made in the lead complaint don't always square with reality. They're always going to be 100% accurate. Nor is a bit of hyperbole wholly out of place. That law suit complaint was drafted by her lawyers, and she simply signed off on it. That's how that works.
Her financial problems actually indicate that she's one of the people, who also have financial problems. Take a gander at Castle's financials by contrast. He's a lifetime politician, who somehow has earned MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, while never spending any real time in the private sector.
Now how do you think that happened?
Influence peddling anyone? Availing himself of inside information?
Such is just par for the course anymore in Washington.
Some have suggested that it's better to have Republicans in charge of committees.
Wasn't McCain in charge of a committee while he pushed campaign finance reform?
Wasn't Lott majority leader while one huge and bloated budget was passed after another?
Supreme Court nominations? The Republican MAJORITY voted out of committee the counsel for THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. How much more radical of a nominee could you get than the creature from the ACLU?
And who here thinks that a Republican majority in the Senate would have voted against our "wise latina woman?" Or who here thinks for half a second that the demonstrably non-qualified Elena Kagan would have been rejected had Republicans the majority on the judiciary committee?
Right now, there isn't a single radical nominee to the Supreme Court that the Republicans would find the nerve not just to question, but actually to vote down. They didn't even have the nerve to delay Kagan's nomination till after the mid-terms.
I think it's best for the Republican party if men like Graham and McCain, Voinovich and Lugar stop providing political cover for a deeply injurious democrat agenda.
The people don't know who to hold accountable while all this "bipartisanship" is going on.
Let the parties stand and fall along clear and decisive lines.
Let the GOP be the party of American Exceptionalism. Let the Democrats be that of internationalists, let them be the party of ambiguity.
And let's see what the electorate prefers.
Dan| 9.13.10 @ 11:56AM
And let's be blunt.
Much of this is about sodomy and abortion rights.
Some Republican Rockefeller types get all uncomfortable like opposing sodomite marriage, and would prefer anything to actually getting serious about the issue of abortion.
They think that those who oppose culturally norming sodomy are going to go down in history as the equivalents to the Jim Crow Democrats. And they don't want to be caught on the "wrong" side of that issue. Yet they haven't the nerve to come right out and say it, for that would betray their deep sympathies with the Democrats, AND NOT JUST ON THAT ISSUE. For that issue is something of a canary in the coal mine.
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 12:01PM
Hey Media Messenger !
Message this .
The Club for Growth Rates Castle
Castle scores a horrendous 43% from CFG for 2009. Again, since his announced Senate bid he has been much more conservative than previous years. In 07 and 08 he earned a 35% and 26% respectively. In every year, Castle has had the most liberal voting record of any member of the 175+ Republican caucus. So in 2008, when Arlen Specter scored a 44%, Mike Castle scored a 26%! The CFG ratings give us more of an idea of how much of a statist the member is than the ACU.
Booger| 9.13.10 @ 12:25PM
After a careful review of both Rs in this race, I have only one question: Is it too late to give Delaware back to Great Britain?
Dan| 9.13.10 @ 1:03PM
And statistics don't tell the whole tale.
On KEY and SALIENT issues, impacting the lives of ordinary Americans, Castle has voted with the Democrat agenda.
Which begs the question, --------------- where has Castle been since 1968? The Democrat party took a hard left turn, and Castle apparently, hasn't had much of a prob with that, for he's voted in support of much of their agenda.
And where was Castle while Barney Frank was destroying the American financial sector? Where was he on that one? Did he raise his voice to decry it? Of course not. Castle is the type of Republican who finds it bad form, and poor taste, to actually SERIOUSLY contest the Democrats on the enactment of their agenda.
We've been damaged enough by men like him, or rather, "men" like him.
JP| 9.13.10 @ 1:28PM
I actually read the hit piece. I say hit piece because I seriously doubt the reporter obtained his information by performing a non-partisan investigation. McCormack let the cat out of the bag by labeling Castle a "moderate". I have no stakes in this race other than to end the dilution of the conservative agenda through the inclusion of RINOS in the Senate.
Who knows, O'Donnel may be a fruit cake. That isn't the point; the editors of the Weekly Standard obviously covet a return of the GOP political domination no matter the costs. They see the O'Donnel canidacy as nothing more than an obstruction of that goal. The Weekly Standard some years ago was considered THE go-to magazine of Beltway politics. It's been awhile since those salad days.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.10 @ 2:09PM
Mr. Lawler
I choose not to comply.
BOOM! (croaked messenger)
Hank Archer| 9.13.10 @ 2:25PM
So what if O'Donnell is a nut - so are most of the Democrat women in the Senate. Why can't the Repblicans have one?
MD| 9.13.10 @ 2:29PM
As a Delaware resident, I must admit O Donnell appears to be a little odd. I would feel better about her had she held a few real jobs that made her more suitable to be a Senator. Still its hard to know how much one reads about her are the concerted efforts of the "Ruling Class" to protect Mike Castle and how much is true. After all Some of the basic tactic is not dissimilar to how Sarah Palin was portrayed. Still Palin was a very popular and Governor, before she was on the national stage, so the analogy is imperfect. On the other hand it is clear that the left always supports the ideological compatible candidate no matter how unhinged. (Did they have any doubts about putting Al Franken out there? ) Any talk about Blue Dog democrats is mere subterfuge ( How many voted against Obama care? Moreover Castle is a disaster, He make no apologies for the whole left wing agenda, Covering all bases, He can take the liberal position on economic policy, social issues and national security. He supports Cap and Trade, He voted against the Iraq troop Surge, He pushes for human embryonic stem cell research, He is pro abortion, he is not sure how he would have voted on Supreme Court justices Alito and Kagan, This last is surely disingenuous, or he is a Martian.. Does he really not know? Do Democratic candidates for Senate say this sort of thing? And so it goes. Enough already! O Donnell may be a lunatic but , I will take her lunacy as the price to pay for a surrogate vote in the Senate that is more in keeping with conservative views. The only real issue for a conservative Delawarean is whether O Donnell can beat the Democrat Chris Coons as with all Democrats a down the line statist ( probably not) and if she can not, whether in the long run it is better in Delaware to continue to build a conservative Republican Party or merely to have Liberals versus Slightly less liberals run things. and settle for the few votes you can squeeze out of the RINOs. Not a question that is easily answered, but after reading Angelo Codevilla's essay on the "Ruling Class", maybe its time to rebel and not just settle for the Liberal Republican because he would be better than the alternative. Maybe its time for a little revolution.
SoCon| 9.13.10 @ 5:56PM
If we don't have a "Little" revolution now, I'm afraid we're going to have a "Big" revolution later.
BD57| 9.13.10 @ 5:08PM
I've read the Weekly Standard article.
If I was in Delaware, O'Donnell's ability to win the general election would be a HUGE issue.
But ....
I have a hard time seeing the article as written in good faith. Having dealt with media-types a bit while representing a local municipality, I've seen too many cases where reporters who "ought" to know better place emphasis where it doesn't belong.
Unless O'Donnell is an attorney experienced in litigating defamation actions, there is no way the damage claims alleged in court papers should be held against her. A client hires her attorneys to represent her interests; they're supposed to tell her what damages her claims support. If the amounts claimed are outlandish, responsibility for them falls on her attorneys, not O'Donnell herself. A competent reporter interested in giving the allegations the appropriate weight and significance SHOULD know this.
Someone fed McCormack the documents and told him they were significant. McCormack should be smart enough to know whoever did it is not a fan of O'Donnell. It seems some skepticism of the documents would be in order - and that none was exercised.
The choices are "McCormack was played" or "McCormack was a willing participant." Neither is complementary to McCormack.
The issue he does raise - which ironically gets buried by the emphasis put on damage allegations - is discrepancies in O'Donnell's biography. While she'd rely on the attorneys for advice on the damages, they would look to her for the FACTS which lay out the claim. Such discrepancies would be worthy of investigation.
Unfortunately, the tone of the article suggests McCormack wrote the story he wanted to write rather than report on what he found.