-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I have to say I’m amused at the scurrying by Castle supporters on the discovery that Castle voted to support sending the Dennis Kucinich-sponsored Bush impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee.
The folks at Powerline are somewhere other than reading their own posts. Here’s what they say:
Was a vote for this referral resolution tantamount to a vote to impeach President Bush, as Dan Riehl and, reportedly, Mark Levin claim? That certainly isn’t what left-wingers thought. Here is how the web site Impeach Bush covered the vote:
Q: Is it a good thing that it (the Kucinich Resolution) was referred to the Judiciary Committee?
A: Yes. The mainstream media is saying the resolution was “scuttled”. But referral to Judiciary Committee is the normal process for moving forward with an impeachment resolution. Now HRes 1258 can be fine tuned while we build support in Congress and with the public. But there is a danger. If we cannot convince John Conyers to schedule time for HRes 1258 then it could die.
Which, of course, is what happened. So Congressman Castle voted, as the media reported at the time, to “scuttle” Kucinich’s impeachment resolution.
Stop.
Hello? The post clearly and correctly says “referral to the Judiciary Committee is the normal process for moving forward with an impeachment resolution.” It goes on to say that now that the Resolution is referred to Judiciary it can be “fine tuned while we build support for moving forward with an impeachment resolution” — unless Chairman John Conyers chooses not to schedule it.
Triumphantly, Powerline then says, “which, of course, is what happened.”
But what if it hadn’t happened? By voting to send this Resolution to Judiciary all those who voted “Aye” were taking the chance that Conyers, who has been introducing impeachment resolutions on Republicans since Nixon (and in that case long before Watergate) would not act. This, presumably, is exactly why 166 Republicans voted against sending the Resolution to Judiciary. They didn’t want to give Conyers the chance to “fine tune” it.
The tell-tale fact here is that 166 — that’s 166 Republican House members — voted no.
Riehl and Levin have this right. Powerline has it wrong. Castle was doing what he could, when he could, to help this impeachment move trundle along. Or, plain and simple, he would have voted no with the 166 Republicans.
My friend Quin Hillyer says I should have checked the other names of the 24. I did so at the time. I saw David Dreier’s name, and of course said in my post that this vote could have been executed this way for parliamentary reasons. I wish people would actually read what was written! I allowed for the possibility. Having worked in the House, as has Quin, I checked the other names.
But Quin makes exactly my point, so let me quote his latest post:
With Dreier on board, it is CLEAR, circumstantially but with overwhelmingly obvious logic, that those who voted to send it to committee were doing so in the knowledge that this move would likely scuttle the bill.
Say again: Quin says ” circumstantially…likely.” Not real comforting words when dealing with a far left-winger like Conyers who has a taste for impeaching Republican presidents.
Which is to say, Dreier and company were, unless evidence surfaces to the contrary, guessing — gambling — that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who, again, has a taste for impeachment resolutions, would do nothing. They could have easily been wrong.
More to the point, when someone like Castle is on board it lends absolutely to the idea that he was hoping Conyers would actually do what Conyers likes to do — not that he wouldn’t do it. If you wanted a reliable Republican to venture out with you on something this risky — would you pick Mike Castle?
I don’t think so.
It just isn’t that complicated.
Sorry.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/14/powerline-gets-it-wrong-levin
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
matthew s harrison| 9.14.10 @ 5:45PM
Am I the only one other than Levin and a few others who KNOW that Castle is not a Republican? There are no real conservatives who are pals with SEIU. There are no real conservatives who voted to impeach Bush-those were all RINOS, which means they aren't republicans, which means Castle is a fraud-and anyone who backs him is a fraud as well! Lets collectively as CONSERVATIVES realize what a conservative is-and clear out the so called "moderates from the party and take it back. This country is in deep doo doo and guys like castle are going to make damn sure it gets worse for us, if given even half the chance. WAKE UP CONSERVATIVES! Geeze!
Walt Gilbert | 9.14.10 @ 6:03PM
Jeffrey, you've reduced yourself to being a pathetic lickspittle to a born loser of a candidate with no demonstrable history of having accomplished a single thing to advance the cause of conservatism. In order to sink any lower, you'd have to be caught tapping a traveling Fuller Brush salesman's foot under a men's room stall of a Greyhound station in East St. Louis.
O'DONNELL 2010!| 9.14.10 @ 6:14PM
Pathetic lickspittle is something a loser troll like you would know a lot about.
CalMark| 9.14.10 @ 6:16PM
How about stopping the name calling and ad hominem attacks--"pathetick lickspittle," "born loser," "to sink any lower...[etc.]."
How about answering to the question posed by this post--the substance of Castle's vote. It's legitimate to speculate why Castle--or any other Republican, for that matter--voted "Yes" when the GOP House leadership urged a "No" vote and 90% of House Republicans did so.
Walt Gilbert | 9.14.10 @ 6:33PM
How about a little bit of analysis from the time the vote actually went down?
http://www.boston.com/news/nat.....each_bush/
It only takes half an idiot to figure out the substance of the vote. But, it's been seized upon by a menagerie of simps like you folks (and Jeffrey here) as an opportunistic "gotcha" point.
If this insipid gang of prattling intellectual palookas is the best O'Donnell has to offer up in her defense, I look forward to the incisive post-mortem they'll have to offer up come November 3, if she should squeak by Castle tonight.
O'Donnell 2010!| 9.14.10 @ 6:40PM
Why attack O'Donnell if your guy is supposedly going to smash her in the general? Doesn't make sense.
Walt Gilbert | 9.14.10 @ 6:48PM
Because it won't be "my guy" that beats her in November if she gets by Castle. It'll be Senator-elect Coons.
Anybody willing to make a wager on whether or not O'Donnell will be the new senator from Delaware. Do even her most die-hard supporters have the courage of their convictions?
Of course not. This is all an exercise in catharsis, and a particularly stupid one at that.
O'Donnell 2010!| 9.14.10 @ 7:02PM
Liar. Only a fascist liberal could be as nasty as you. But if you really are a 'republican' I hope O'Donnell destroys your worthless RINO candidate more than ever.
Walt Gilbert | 9.14.10 @ 7:07PM
I'll be looking forward to your mealy-mouthed excuses for the trouncing on 11/3.
O'Donnell 2010!| 9.14.10 @ 8:54PM
Castle is the mealy-mouthed loser and so are you.
GO CHRISTINE!!
CalMark| 9.14.10 @ 9:56PM
You're not even a RINO.
A RINO would at least hold their nose and work to get the Republican elected.
If you are registered GOP, you are a leftie turncoat. Because no loyal Republican would surrender immediately to the Democrats as you just have.
If Castle had won, your kind would be crowing and screaming for conservatives to "get in line" and vote for "the good of the party." We've been doing that for decades, for all the good it's done us.
Double standards, anyone? Begone, Walt--if not from the GOP (which you claim to be part of) then from AmSpec.
greghawk| 9.15.10 @ 8:45AM
Walt works for the White House in the cyberwar efforts. Clever - maybe from Chicago.
Patriot| 9.15.10 @ 11:49AM
Walt's not so clever; his astroturf efforts are transparent. Maybe that's the transparency Obama the corruptocrat was talking about.
O'DONNELL 2010!!| 9.14.10 @ 8:59PM
Hey, Walt--looks like O'Donnell kicked your boy's butt. Guess you need to start looking for a job! Haha.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 9.14.10 @ 9:22PM
I didn't think this race would be called tonight, I thought it was going to be too close, but it turned out to be a huge blowout!! Wow!! The Tea Party's got no pull, huh? Yep, nothing to see here!! Ignore us at your own peril!! The GOP better learn its lesson, and learn it quick!! Now the big question is, who's next? There's blood in the water, and the Tea Party's circling.
SoCon| 9.14.10 @ 9:27PM
Yes, we are the hunters now and RINOs are the hunted!
Quartermaster| 9.14.10 @ 9:31PM
At 9Pm castle was declared the loser. With 75% of precincts reporting he was down 54-45%. There was no way he could make up the difference.
Looks like Jeff isn't much of loser here. We could argue a bit more about the Lickspittle part, but I seriously doubt that would stick either.
Say goodbye to another RINO. I just wish we could have tacked McCains nasty hide to the shed beside Castle, Bennett and Murkowski.
I hope Grahamnesty is feeling a bit of heat about now. It's gonna be rising over the next couple of years.
SoCon| 9.14.10 @ 6:11PM
Castle has an "F" NRA rating; do we really need to know anything else about this liberal RINO?
How could any "republican" stand against the 2nd Amendment?
"... an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson
Liberal RINOs like Castle are precisely our problem; the GOP will not respect Conservatives until we draw a line in the sand.
Walt Gilbert | 9.14.10 @ 6:13PM
So, you think that by sending a purported conservative to lose by 30 points in the general, the GOP will somehow come to the conclusion that it's wise to do so again.
Sterling analysis there.
Tim*| 9.14.10 @ 6:49PM
First , We Tea Party Rebels are purging RINO-CINO's From The Republican Party .
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.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Are Storming The Castle Right This Moment .
Walt Gilbert | 9.14.10 @ 7:10PM
"We Are Storming The Castle Right This Moment ."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trnG1dg8TJM
Tim*| 9.14.10 @ 8:26PM
King of Swamp Castle: Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.
Walt Gilbert | 9.14.10 @ 6:14PM
So, you think that by sending a purported conservative to lose by 30 points in the general, the GOP will somehow come to the conclusion that it's wise to do so again.
Sterling analysis there.
SoCon| 9.14.10 @ 6:15PM
Lucky us! You double-posted your imbecilic rant.
CalMark| 9.14.10 @ 6:18PM
Why are you so ANGRY and VICIOUS and full of HATE?
Why are you so obsessively anti-O'Donnell?
People like you keep calling Tea Party Conservatives unhinged and crazy and stupid. But you're the ones foaming at the mouth and calling people names and refusing to debate on substance.
O'DONNELL 2010!| 9.14.10 @ 6:23PM
It's a DNC troll, CalMark; nastiness defines liberals.
Siegfried X| 9.14.10 @ 6:21PM
I agree. On its face this seems like a vote towards impeachment. And no one has introduced any evidence showing otherwise.
Why would a Representative vote to allow a committee to investigate impeachment of a president from his own party, unless he thought there was a reason for that investigation?
If an impeachment resolution were introduced against President Obama, I suspect most Democrats would be very, very unhappy with their politicians who voted to refer it to committee.
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 6:35PM
Mark Levin is like Rush. Right 99.9% of the time. He is one of the best conservatives we have in the US of A.
Tim*| 9.14.10 @ 6:44PM
Delawarean Republicans are voting right now in a closed primary .
We Tea Party rebels are purging RINO-CINO from The Republican Party .
We dropped A Moneybomb on this Campaign and now we get to see if we took down The RINO-CINO Castle .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Stormed The Castle .
Andrew Keirns| 9.14.10 @ 6:47PM
Who will debunk O'Donnell on issues? We'll admit her character has flaws. (Of course O'Biden is not flawed!) Now suddenly flaws are a huge deal killer. Well Castle is FLAWED on the ISSUES!!
Teflon93| 9.14.10 @ 6:48PM
In a hypothetical matchup between a conservative Democrat and Mike Castle, I'd vote for the Democrat.
What the usual Fauxcon suspects often argue is that it's better to have someone who votes with you some of the time than none of the time.
It ignores the fact that the current only runs leftward in Washington. That guy who voted with us 51% of the time the first time will be voting 44% next year, 41% the next, and so on until he's voting a third of the time with conservatives. It's all that Strange New Respect they get for tacking left. Oh, they'll clean up in time for reelection, they may even vote 60% of the time that year, but of course nothing of any substance gets thru the Senate in an election year anyway.
A conservative Democrat is superior in this cast to a RINO because they are already tacking against the current. If they're voting with us 50% of the time it's because they have some resistance to the whacked-out liberals of the D.C. scene. Sure, they'll vote for a Democrat leadership but so long as there are a few seats to spare who cares? At least they won't hold the party hostage on the leadership vote like the RINOs do, pulling the whole caucus leftward to secure their one vote for control of the chamber (without which they wouldn't have those chairmanships they crave anyway).
Besides, there's always a chance a conservative Democrat will cross over to become a conservative Republican. All the momentum goes the other way for RINOs, as we've seen with Jeffords, Specter, and Chafee.
Should I get the chance to vote for a conservative Democrat over a RINO next cycle, I'll pull that lever for the (-D) for the first time in my life.
Andrew Keirns| 9.14.10 @ 7:08PM
We'll know more in a few hours ...
This site will have the results after 8:00 PM Eastern (Google "Elections dot delaware dot gov /results")
JASmius | 9.14.10 @ 7:10PM
It's not complicated, Jeff, if you exclude all the arguments that refute your own and pump your argument chock-full of emotive projection and preconceived notions.
That argument, in a nutshell:
Mike Castle is a RINO; you hate RINOs, and therefore you hate Mike Castle; so it matters not what Mike Castle actually SAID about impeaching President Bush, or why he voted on whether to sent it to House Judiciary (along with nearly two dozen "true conservatives" - are they all RINOs now, too, Jeff?), because he's a RINO, and RINOs are perfidious devilspawn, and therefore he OBVIOUSLY REALLY DID want to impeach Bush.
And I say this as a "true conservative" who actually remembers the Eleventh Commandment.
You've got too much of your ego wrapped up in this scrum, Jeff, and it's compromising both your analytical ability and your journalistic integrity. If you want to make a living writing anti-Republican hatchet pieces, I'd suggest you send a resume to Vanity Fair or Slate.
Siegfried X| 9.14.10 @ 7:17PM
I don't understand why any human being would waste time doing something totally worthless like trolling. Do you also watch paint peel?
It's the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. I feel sorry for you.
Nick| 9.14.10 @ 7:26PM
Anybody who would vote for the stinking liberal Castle, would gladly cast a vote for Al Franken, Howard Dean, or even Shrillary the Hut, if they switched, and put an "R" behind their names, just because "they can win."
You Castle cronies are very myopic. That means "short-sighted" for those of you in Rio Linda! All you care about is whether, or not, someone with an "R" is in charge. No matter what their character is.
Castle is a serial violater of the Constitution. He needs to be retired.
Teflon93| 9.14.10 @ 7:30PM
When will RINOs remember the 11th Commandment?
Seems like every one of them to lose a primary leaves the party these days----if they don't switch in a snit after being elected.
BD57| 9.14.10 @ 8:27PM
Sorry, Jeff - Powerline has it right. Levin, Riehl and now, unfortunately, you are all ascribing the worst possible motive to Castle's vote without citing any evidence that Castle wanted President Bush impeached.
You can make a case that Castle's vote wasn't the better strategy to get rid of the idiotic resolution but that doesn't make it "Castle wanted Bush impeached."
I don't like Castle's politics. Then again, I don't like Delaware's politics either, but that's the environment in which the November Senate election will be contested.
The "CW" says Castle has a far better chance of winning in November than O'Donnell. I may have missed it, but I've yet to see an argument explaining why the CW is wrong.
And, again, I may have missed it, but I've yet to see an argument explaining why losing in November with O'Donnell would be preferable to winning with Castle.
Teflon93| 9.14.10 @ 8:32PM
I provide it above. Castle will drift further left and use his vote for leadership of the Senate to hold the caucus hostage. He also is one primary challenge/snit away from becoming a Democrat.
I haven't seen the evidence that O'Donnell can't win beyond the unwillingness of the RINO lovers to support a conservative candidate in a general election.
Ivan| 9.14.10 @ 8:50PM
After 25% of precincts counted:
O'Donnell 56%
Castle 44%
It's over, it seems to me.
O'DONNELL 2010!| 9.14.10 @ 8:56PM
YAHOO!! Kick the stinking RINOs out of office.
Siegfried X| 9.14.10 @ 9:12PM
Foxnews calls it: O'Donnell wins!
RINOgeddon
Siefried X| 9.14.10 @ 9:14PM
Maybe this will stiffen the spine of the Senate RINOs to reject Harry Reid's Don't Ask Don't Tell and amnesty amendments which will be voted on next week.
Tim*| 9.14.10 @ 9:22PM
TEA PARTY Candidate Christine O'Donnell WINS !
With 85.5 % Of Precincts Reporting :
O'Donnell : 53.7 %
Castle : 46.3 %
Next We ,Tea Party Rebels Drop A Moneybomb on The O'Donnell- Coons Campaign .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Remember In November
SoCon| 9.14.10 @ 9:26PM
I knew we could do it! Someone's got to save our country.
Congratulations Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party!
SoCon| 9.14.10 @ 9:35PM
And you too, Jeffrey. Thanks for standing with us.
I know "Ronaldus Maximus" is smiling down on us.
JP| 9.14.10 @ 10:09PM
This has been quite a year. And my oh my, those Moderates have a propensity to be sore losers. From Crist to Murkowsi, Moderates sure do not act like Moderates. These suckers for the perverse (they won't fight Progressives, but they will go down kicking and screaming defending sodomy and abortion) are a strange bunch of people, indeed.
CalMark| 9.14.10 @ 10:36PM
Right on.
When RINOs, win, conservatives are condescendingly lectured (as did McCain in 2008) to "calm down" and vote "for the good of the party."
When RINOs lose, they throw tantrums and do their best to screw "their" party.
And if they stay in the party, they urge the party to move "toward the middle" (i.e., leftward) because they ran "t0o conservative" and need to be "more appealing" to those prized "independents."
When conservatives lose, however, the powers that be always declare that it's because they're right-wing wack-jobs. And we need to move "toward the center."
Even if we lose some of these Senate races, we will have exorcised a great many Democrats in Republican clothing. No regrets here; I just hope that the GOP picks up enough seats to stem the Obama tide.