-
Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd
June 18, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Hannity: Secure the Border First
June 17, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Charles Krauthammer and The Limbaugh Theorem
June 14, 2013 | 27 comments
-
GI Told He Can’t Read Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh
June 7, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Will Christie Appoint a Conservative?
June 6, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
My friend Quin Hillyer — and he is indeed my friend, we just disagree on this one — has this line in his latest post:
Sometimes it is a matter of avoiding the choice of somebody who has no class, in the sense of no classiness.
To which I can only say…bingo! With respect, George McGovern was one of the classiest people on the planet. Nancy Pelosi has class. Barack Obama has class. This is never, to me, never ever a reason to vote for anybody. For anything. The old Buckley quote saying he’d rather be governed by the first X number of names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard faculty made this point succinctly. This line of reasoning goes straight to the heart of the Ruling Class v. Country Class argument. Indeed, Rush quoted at length from a post by a William Jacobsen that the severely negative reaction by some is really about status, not issues. And that opposition to a Palin or O’Donnell or Angle and others is really about a perception of status or the lack thereof in supporting these people. Again, this is Jacobsen’s argument, and alas I can’t at the moment find a link. But Rush thought the point worth considering, and I agree.
Quin also says:
And not EVERY battle between a conservative and a moderate is a choice between the country class and the ruling class.
We disagree on this. Moderation in the sense we are meaning it here is the very essence of saying in some fashion, as Rush was saying just this afternoon: “I’m reasonable. I’m not a bad person. I’m not crazy. I’m not a racist-homophobe-Islamophobe. Etc. etc. etc.”
It is, to me at least, code for saying “those conservatives are just idiots and really, truly, I’m not one of them. I’m a nice guy.” Rush was dead on in making this point, and I’ve seen this approach up close and personal countless times. It is defensive, unnecessarily so. And can show, again to me, anything from ideological bewilderment (Castle?) to a degree of sly calculation (Specter?) that is utterly bereft of principle. In either case, its not good. As Ronald Reagan used to say, this is not a social club, it’s a political movement. And Mike Castle has a record that self-evidently is not about furthering the conservative movement. Rush again: this is not about making somebody a Senate committee chair.
My point on the Weekly Standard piece is simple: if this is just straight reporting, then where has all the straight reporting been on Mike Castle? There are complaints out there that he was not a man of great wealth, spent his entire career as a politician, and is now a millionaire. True? Untrue? No idea. But if the Weekly Standard has this devotion to straight reporting on the Delaware Senate race, this would have been a huge story to investigate if in fact Castle, à la say, LBJ, morphed into a millionaire on the public payroll. A decided question of character gone un-investigated. I just think it is amazing that this zinger on O’Donnell surfaces two days before the primary. It cannot possibly be an accident. I’m certainly not attacking ISI. I have nothing but the greatest respect for Ken Cribb. But the fact is that I have no idea what went on between ISI and O’Donnell, and the time to sort this out was long ago, not 48 hours before the votes are cast. If character matters — and yes, it does — then what about the look at Castle’s character? There was none. Zero. Zip. Which is what gives the article every appearance of a hit piece.
This, as I said, is to me not even about Castle and O’Donnell. This is about the future of the conservative movement. These arguments are not new. They are, in fact, ancient. No one, least of all me, is suggesting anyone is a “traitor” to the conservative movement. This is just a straightforward disagreement on how to move the ball forward. I’m not alone in believing this, either.
Rush has pointed out, and I agree, that it is amazing O’Donnell is not being attacked on her positions but on personal things. The moment I see that kind of approach, in general, I confess to a bit of alarm. This is the approach some have used with Sarah Palin. It was used with Sharron Angle. It was used with Rand Paul. The list of people attacked this way — conservatives one and all (Dan Quayle, Reagan, Goldwater, WFB etc.) is stunningly long.
Nobody is suggesting my friend Quin is not a conservative. That is lunacy. Nobody is suggesting O’Donnell is the second coming, that she can win hands down. As mentioned, could she lose the general? Sure. But is the objective to hand out Senate chairmanships or promote the conservative cause? Clearly, Castle has no intention whatsoever to do the latter.
This discussion is simply a good-faith conservative family disagreement about how to move the ball forward. There’s nothing to take offense to here. It is a plain and simple difference on how to move. That’s it, that’s all.
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/13/odonnell-again
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Weiner and Women
- The Mole in Don Draper
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
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
CalMark| 9.13.10 @ 6:25PM
In general, a very good post. Where's all the hyperventilating investigative reporting on Mr. Castle?
But some things I DO disagree with:
"Nancy Pelosi has class." (The hell she does--she's a hack. Asked if what Congress was doing was Constitutional, she sneered, "Are you kidding me?!?")
"Barack Obama has class." (The hell he does. Asked why he won't cooperate with Republicans, "I won." And he never told his surrogates to stop the vile attacks on Palin's children.)
Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 9.14.10 @ 12:53AM
Point taken: Even Larry Flynt and Michael Moore have class.
;-]
SoCon| 9.14.10 @ 1:04AM
Ran, really? Those two "men" are a couple of the most vile, disgusting human beings on the planet.
Ugh!!
Ed| 9.14.10 @ 1:49AM
Q: "Where's the hyperventilating investigative reporting on Mr. Castle?"
A: Castle had the extra campaign dough to blow on paying investigators to dig up a bunch of personal dirt, O'Donnell did not. That's it in a nutshell. I dearly hope it backfires on Castle.
Jeremiah| 9.14.10 @ 1:57AM
Me, too; the ruling class needs a good kick in the ass.
mike castle| 9.14.10 @ 12:35PM
Quin, please don't mention that i voted to impeach george bush....along with sheila jackson-lee and jim mcdermott etc etc....
thanks forever...mr rino
Siegfried X| 9.13.10 @ 6:27PM
I agree. Arizona just re-elected John "I was never a maverick" McCain, who (post-Vietnam) has the worst character in politics. O'Donnell is being held to an artificially high double standard which is not applied to RINOs.
The other problem is that we won't have an independent investigation of the allogations against O'Donnell by tomorrow's election. It very well may turn out that her character is unacceptable. Considering the situation I'd rather gamble on voting against the RINO machine instead of just giving in.
While I write this, Democrats are scrambling to dig up the 60th vote for a number of left-wing bills. All they need is one RINO. Each time we elect a RINO it comes back to hurt us.
To be honest, the name "Republican" has no attraction for me anymore. All Democrats are bad because they are bad on the issues, and the same is true for RINOs.
Booger| 9.13.10 @ 6:35PM
Did she ever drown anybody in Chappaquidick? Did she ever benefit from a shady Nevada land deal? Has she ever made a fortune on cattle futures? If not, then how can she possibly be qualified for the US Senate?
Siegfried X| 9.13.10 @ 6:40PM
"this is just straight reporting, then where has all the straight reporting been on Mike Castle?"
Where was the reporting about John McCain (and many other candidates in the past few years)?
It wasn't there because the Republican Party had turned into a RINO machine, with conservative voters asleep, RINO politicians elected without opposition or examination, and routine Democratic victories by cross-over "maverick" / "bipartisan" votes.
That is why I decided that I must vote against RINOs, hopefully just in the primary, but if the party forces me, in the general election too. Losing a few battles is worse than losing the war, which is what would happen if the "progressives" complete their take over of the Republican Party.
albert constantine, jr.| 9.13.10 @ 6:40PM
During much of his congressional career, the implied slogan for Castle to his Republicans in Delaware has been "Vote for Me Because I Can Win", and his appeal to the independent vote has been "Vote for Me Because I'm Not One of Them". In the absence of a primary in any of his prior races, this strategy has never been tested. Some of the good will that Mr. Castle enjoys stems from not having to resort to mudslinging, as he hasn't had a serious challenger in a general election for 25 years, either. Mr. Lord's coverage of this race has provided a good counterbalance to some of what I've read in TWS and NRO. In the end, though, it is what Castle has (or has not) done in office, along with O'Donnell's clear positions on the issues important to me, that helped me decide to cast my vote for O'Donnell.
SoCon| 9.13.10 @ 6:59PM
I agree, Jeffrey--Quin is kidding himself if he thinks O'Donnell v Castle isn't country class v ruling class.
It most certainly is.
SoCon| 9.13.10 @ 7:01PM
Quin's a Conservative, he's just a little squishier than I am.
Tish | 9.13.10 @ 8:10PM
Neither His Oneness nor Our Lady of Perpetual Dissatisfaction have class. No Chicago politician does. George and Laura Bush have class, as do the Bushes, Sr. A lot of politicians think they have class, but they have only the trappings of the powerful elite. It is how you treat people who can neither help nor hinder you that tells.
Maya Maughmer| 9.13.10 @ 10:53PM
I second that. Well said!
Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 12:49AM
I gotta say I am utterly shocked that Jeffrey Lord thinks Pelosi and Obama have class.
Pelosi's walk to Capitol Hill after passing the murderous Health Care Bill, carrying that giant gavel and taunting tea partiers - that was class? Please tell me, Jeffrey, aside from the fact that she's well put together for a septuagenarian, when has she demonstrated a scintilla of class?
As for Obama, you sound like David Brooks, confusing a crisply-creased pantleg for presidential gravitas. I'd say one of the most obvious symptoms of Obama's deep and multi-faceted pathology is is utter lack of class.
What the hell are you smoking??????
Mimi| 9.13.10 @ 8:47PM
I don't get the "class" thing...Who cares??? As time goes on...if she wins and is the Honorable United States Senator from the state of DELAWARE....Thats enough class for me. By the way in the post revolutionary days....Did those farmers and country store owners, who went to the early congress to SERVE their new country...To them and their family a sacrifice. Think...DID THEY HAVE CLASS???
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 9:12PM
It depends on your definition of class, dont'cha know?
Class = GW.
Ruling Class = Obama.
Class = Sarah Palin 2012.
Ruling Class= The Democrat of your choice.
Siegfried X| 9.13.10 @ 10:03PM
This "ruling class" thing ONLY applies to politicians in Washington. It comes from an American Spectator article and book.
The point is that many Democratic and Republican politicians in Washington DC are buddy-buddy, hang around with each other, and deep down have many of the same left-wing ideas. And those ideas are different from the people, the "country class".
Patriot| 9.14.10 @ 12:30AM
I believe you could include some of the "Commentariat" to the ruling class. I think that's why Quin is so touchy regarding the issue--Beltway Fever and all.
Siegfried X| 9.13.10 @ 10:05PM
"Did those farmers and country store owners, who went to the early congress ..."
That's the whole point. The early legislators were "real" people. Many of today's Washington DC politicians are raised and work together in a different environment from the people. They're professional politicians, not citizen legislators.
Walt Gilbert | 9.13.10 @ 9:11PM
"No one, least of all me, is suggesting anyone is a "traitor" to the conservative movement. "
That is a howler. You may not be suggesting as much, but to say that no one is -- well, it's ridiculous. Limbaugh himself suggested as much just today.
Yosemeti Sam| 9.14.10 @ 12:54AM
" ...Nancy Pelosi has class. Barack Obama has class...."
You did mean - CRASS, right?
Andy| 9.14.10 @ 5:31AM
What I don't get at all is this idea that one either has to side strongly with either Castle or O'Donnell in this thing. Castle sucks. O'Donnell may suck more. Or less.
Patriot| 9.14.10 @ 11:29AM
O'Donnell is a real conservative--Castle's not. We're sick of RINOs.
Andy| 9.14.10 @ 12:48PM
How do you know she's a real conservative? By what she says? By that standard, then so was McCain in his primary.
The difference is that we know McCain is a RINO because he has a voting record to point to. O'Donnell has none.
One thing she does have is an apparently frivolous lawsuit she filed that is anything but conservative.
This election is the choice between the lesser of two evils. And that's probably O'Donnell. But the idea that she's suddenly the "True Conservative" next coming of Reagan is just ridiculous.
Patriot| 9.14.10 @ 2:49PM
No one said anything about a Reagan comparison but you, Andy; that makes you ridiculous. McCain is a proven liar and O'Donnell isn't, as you stated yourself.
What is the point of your rant anyway?
james wilson| 9.14.10 @ 12:11PM
Finally, finally, finally, many of the conservative opinion makers--Levin, Limbaugh, the Mick, are getting it--winning elections with Rino's in the tent is only giving the left the breather they need from their excesses, and leaves the party with McCain's and Steele's to hold the reins for the left. Castle is toxic to a conservative brand. Attention Newt: We don't want to make Washington work, we want to make it stop.
Response, Mr. Lord? | 9.14.10 @ 12:24PM
What does Codevilla’s book have to do with the Castle-O’Donnell fight and our friends at the WSJ and NRO? Uncomfortably, I think, plenty. ~Jeffrey Lord
The Codevilla book is based on the long essay American Spectator ran earlier this summer. Codevilla’s essay didn’t interest me much when it came out, mostly because Codevilla distinguished himself during most of this decade as a raving “super-hawkish” lunatic. Admittedly, I jumped to the conclusion that whatever he had to say wasn’t worth reading, and I don’t really trust someone so fanatically militaristic to be a reliable advocate for political decentralization here at home.
For his part, Lord has made some of the worst arguments of recent years. A few years back, he tried to tie opposition to the Iraq war to his endless obsession with liberal racism, and then last year was one of the most irrational critics of the Sotomayor nomination because of the same obsession, so I have a hard time taking either of them seriously. It is more than a little funny that Lord has become a champion of Codevilla’s recent work, since Lord’s anti-racist crusading makes for a slightly odd pairing with Codevilla’s obvious contempt for all other peoples of the world, but I am told that the “country class” is heterogeneous and hard to define. Lord’s impulse to make a largely irrelevant Delaware Senate primary race into a great moment of truth for all American conservatives doesn’t help matters.
As it happens, I sympathize with the desire to defeat Castle in the primary. If Republican primary voters in Delaware want a conservative nominee, they should vote for O’Donnell. Personally, I usually prefer supporting hopelessly outmatched underdogs and normally would rather vote for third-party candidates than accept the pragmatic argument of electability. Then again, I also don’t expect them to win.
Of course, it’s possible that Delaware voters don’t want a conservative candidate, which may help explain why Castle isn’t a conservative and why it is taken for granted that he is the most viable statewide candidate the Delaware GOP could field. As I have been saying all year, the main mistake Republicans have been making for the last two years is demanding candidates who show loyalty to a national agenda rather than addressing the interests of their constituents. That will work in Senate races in Utah or Alaska, but it won’t work in Delaware. O’Donnell enthusiasts should have no illusions about what they are trying to do. They are arguing that the GOP should throw away a virtually guaranteed pick-up of a Senate seat for a toss-up race that might result in a Democratic hold, and they are doing it on behalf of a fairly weak candidate. Naturally, more partisan outlets that are interested more in maximizing Republican gains are going to prefer Castle.
This primary fight in Delaware reminds me of the effort the Club for Growth launched to try to defeated Lincoln Chafee in the primary in Rhode Island. Everyone, including the Club for Growth, knew that the challenger Lackey would have no chance in a Rhode Island general election, but decided to fritter away resources there anyway to “send a message.” On the whole, the only message that was sent was that the Club for Growth was not very smart in choosing their battles. As it turned out, 2006 was such a bad year for Republicans that it didn’t matter whether Chafee was the nominee or not, but the primary challenge itself seemed certain to result either in a weakened nominee or an easy Democratic win in the fall.
Delaware is a different case. Even though this promises to be a good year for Republicans, the main reason why Delaware is a likely pick-up for the GOP is mainly because of the personal appeal and record of Castle. Take him out of the equation and suddenly the NRSC would have to work overtime to make it a close race. That potentially diverts resources away from other competitive races, and it could cause the national party to give up on Delaware entirely as the RGA has already given up on the hapless Colorado gubernatorial nominee.
http://www.amconmag.com/lariso.....s-warfare/
Response, Mr. Lord?| 9.14.10 @ 12:25PM
PS
The link is to the original post, of which I am not the author.
News and Technology | 11.6.10 @ 9:45PM
i ilke this post