-
Obama’s Mondale Moment
April 13, 2011 | 1 comment
-
Less Loser Leadership on Libya
March 8, 2011 | 10 comments
-
Serious Question Re: Newt
March 4, 2011 | 92 comments
-
Biggest Bore?
February 20, 2011 | 9 comments
-
“Mama Grizzlies, Joe the Plumbers, and Bitter Clingers”
February 12, 2011 | 29 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Slate’s David Weigel, who was born and raised in Delaware, does a good job of chronicling the carnage from that state’s recent primary. Mike Castle was clearly the state’s most electable Republican. How electable? Read it and weep, GOP: “Castle won five elections while his party was losing the presidency, five elections while his party was losing the governor’s mansion, and four elections…while his party was losing the race for U.S. Senate.”
Castle was shouldered aside by a political novice, a former vice presidential candidate, and a few thousand Tea Party activists. Unless a miracle happens, this result will throw a seat that had been in play to the Democrats in November.
Tea Partiers dispute that assessment. They maintain, publicly at least, that Christine O’Donnell can win. But they also insist that there is more at stake in this election than control of the U.S. Senate.
Castle was a moderate Republican who cast votes many conservatives find abhorrent, including votes for the first massive government bailout and the cap-and-trade bill. A vote for O’Donnell was a message aimed at moderate and liberal Republicans around the country — roughly, “We are watching how you vote, so don’t cross us.”
Countless unimaginative pundits will seize on a likely O’Donnell defeat to say that the Tea Party has gone too far this time, but that misses the point. Conservatives have moved the country to the right in the past. They can do so again if they are willing to show a little independence from the Republican Party.
William F. “Bill” Buckley Jr. launched National Review in 1955 to be the flagship magazine of the conservative movement. The journal did battle not just with liberal Democrats but plenty of moderate and liberal Republicans as well. In both 1956 and 1960, the magazine refused to endorse the Republican candidate for president.
In 1964, the magazine’s editors watched conservative firebrand Barry Goldwater go down to an overwhelming national defeat. In 1965, Bill ran for mayor of New York as the Conservative Party candidate and failed to keep liberal Republican John Lindsay from being elected.
These defeats were discouraging, but they were also necessary. They laid the groundwork for future conservative challenges, many of which succeeded as voters started to be more accepting of conservative ideas. In 1970, Bill’s brother James “Jim” Buckley ran as a Conservative candidate for Senate from New York and beat a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican.
In 1976, Jim snagged the Republican nomination and National Review charter subscriber Ronald Reagan came only a few delegates short of denying a sitting president the nomination of his own party. And in 1980, Reagan and a horde of new conservative activists and congressmen invaded our nation’s capital.
And so it went: Rudy Giuliani’s victory as mayor of New York and the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 were made possible in part because conservatives were willing to challenge not only liberal Democrats but members of the stupid party as well.
In the past, conservatives proved willing to work with Republicans when possible, and against them when necessary. Following Bill Buckley’s lead, they took the long view that ideas matter more than elections, and that conventional wisdom can be bent over time. The approach has worked before. There’s no reason to think that Tea Partiers can’t make use of it again.
(And by the way, I have a new book on this subject…find it here.)
View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeremy Lott
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/17/like-william-f-buckley-the-tea
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
Booger| 9.17.10 @ 1:48PM
The only way it would be impossible for us (Tea Party, conservatives, libertarians, etc.) to lose win would have been to nominate Castle. With Castle as the nominee the choice would have been A) Big government statist with R by his name or B) Big government statis with D by his name. With O'Donnell the choice is now A) Big government statist with D by his name or B) Constitutionalist with R by her name.
As to the "electabiltiy" argument, O'Donnell was running ahead of Coons until her own party slimed her (Rasmussen's numbers). If he establishment is so worried about electability, then they would do well not to spend so much time and energy sliming a candidate who wins the primary. We've heard sooooooooo much about Buckley's rule lately, how about Reagan's 11th commandment? If the establishment wants to invoke Buckley, I hereby trump them with Reagan. Finally, if Castle was so much more electable than O'Donnell, WHY DID HE RECEIVE FEWER VOTES? I always thought "electable" meant the ability to attract more votes. Apparently it means something different to the R establishment, which they ably demonstrated in 2006 and 2008. So if you still think Castle is "more electable" please explain to me, in plain English and with some semblance of logic, how "fewer votes" equals "more electable". Until you can do that, WORD TO YOUR MOTHER.
Cordially,
Booger
R Martin| 9.17.10 @ 7:44PM
Until Ms. O'Donnell drives one of her young male interns off a bridge and into a canal leaving him in the car to drown, I don't want to hear anything about her electability. Instead, let's just elect her.
Jeremiah| 9.26.10 @ 1:52AM
What? Idiot.
Jeremiah| 9.26.10 @ 1:53AM
Whoops! Sorry, wrong thread.
Ecco| 9.19.10 @ 6:35AM
Hooah!!
Siegfried X| 9.17.10 @ 1:59PM
"Unless a miracle happens, this result will throw a seat that had been in play to the Democrats in November."
This article is generally good, but I disagree strongly with that statement. It is way too early to make such an assessment. O'Donnell is only down 11 points in the latest poll, and conservatives have in this election come back from bigger deficits. Many of the attacks on her may have limited resonance with voters. Quoting something she said as a young lady 20 years ago is mostly irrelevant.
Also, we have a rather weak opponent here, not some Democratic superstar like Ted Kennedy who is a shoo-in.
Grzmlyk| 9.17.10 @ 2:07PM
God, I hope she wins.
And then I want public mea culpas from the likes of Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Charles Krauthammer and the passel of establishment Republicans who still don't get it.
Siegfried X| 9.17.10 @ 3:15PM
Krauthammer just wrote a new column about the "Buckley Rule" scolding conservative voters for choosing O'Donnell. He was basically ordered us to stop defying the establishment.
David| 9.18.10 @ 9:42AM
I disagree with "Sir Charles", but he would never "order" anyone since he believes in Liberty. This is a disagreement about strategy; he is an ally who has a different opinion on how to advance our agenda. He is not some liberal fascist.
Ecco| 9.19.10 @ 6:41AM
Well said. Point well made. Krauthammer's wrong on this one, but his track record is very strong. Many conservatives who used to be lefties go wobbly on specific points every now and then. So.... the best philosophy comes from 12-step programs: Take what you like and leave the rest. Personally, I cherish the fact that we have great debates on the Right. It distinguishes us from the "tolerance"-peddling totalitarians of the Left who, in the name of "diversity", demand absolute adherence to the politically correct party line.
Charles Curran| 9.17.10 @ 2:11PM
WFB felt strongly about Liberial Republicans. When Lowell Weicker(LR) ran for reelection in CT, WFB started a PAC whose bumper sticker read " Honk if you agree that Lowell Weicker is a horses ass". Weicker was defeated, Joe Lieberman was elected(MD). Like Yogi Berra said,"You could look it up".
David| 9.18.10 @ 9:36AM
When playing Texas Holde'm, it is sometimes desireable to play less than premium hands in order to increase ones winnings.
DRed| 9.17.10 @ 2:20PM
So what is it about O'Donnell that makes you think she'll actually be a 'consitutionalist' when she actually makes it to the Senate?
JP| 9.17.10 @ 3:20PM
Her word. I tend to look at a politicians actions while in office and not his rhetoric. Mike Castle, as a Senator will be no different than Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chaffee. He is a liberal House member no matter how you cut it.
There are several high profile issues coming up in the next session concerning the future of ObamaCare, the taxes, spending overhauls, and entitlement reforms. All of these issues require a strong conservative set of ideas that are anethema to statists, progressives, and the ruling class. The first instincts of RINOs is to compromise; or as Peggy Noonan puts it, to the ball somewhere between the liberal end zone and the 20 yard line. Conservatives wish to push the ball back on thier side of the 50 -a place it hasn't been since 1929. Castle and other RINOs have no inclination to do that.
DRed| 9.17.10 @ 3:35PM
Fair enough. But what is it about her that makes you think her word is any good? Talk is cheap. Her campaign web site has nothing but a way to donate money. Just saying you believe in the constitution is meaningless.
Ecco| 9.19.10 @ 6:54AM
On a side note, please keep in mind Peggy Noonan has lost all conservative street cred over the past several years. Her initial romance with Obama after his election and much of the drivel she has peddled in the pages of the WSJ show her to have gone quite sideways. She was clearly a wordsmith, not a person of deep insight or principle. I work with someone like this: a "communications expert" who actually lives in the reflected glory of the Mr. Big she serves but who, herself, stands for nothing. Noonan has played out her "I was a speechwriter for Reagan" hand. On her own merits, which are few at this point, she has become virtually unreadable to this conservative. Republicans who don't stand for conservative principles are the very people who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for us with the Big Spending/Big Government years of the Dubbya administration and Congress. Miz Noonan has devolved into a careerist and an opportunist who writes which ever way she thinks the wind is blowing. Her analysis is a half inch deep and all over the map. Heaven save us from such as these, whether in office or as pundits on the sidelines. Krauthammer, referred to in an exchange above, is a worthy intellectual and strategic adversary when disagreeing with him (as in the O'Donnell case.) Noonan isn't worth the time to bother reading.
Steve B | 9.17.10 @ 2:34PM
"In 1965, Bill ran for mayor of New York as the Conservative Party candidate and failed to keep liberal Republican John Lindsay from being elected."
Buckley didn't "fail," he never tried. He treated the campaign as a jest from the beginning. When asked what he'd do if he won, he quipped, "I'd demand a recount."
The title of his book about the campaign reflected its unserious nature, "The Un-making of a Mayor."
JP| 9.17.10 @ 3:07PM
It's funny how many people forget that William Buckley threw Lowell Weicker under a bus at a time when the GOP could use ever seat it could get following the 1986 debacle. Weicker politics were cut from the same cloth as Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chaffee. In 1988, William Buckley launched a campaign to unseat the RINO. He went as far as endorsing and campaigning for little state AG, Joe Liberman.
So, the Buckley Rule was broke 22 years ago, by the man who invented it. Liberman and Weicker has essientially identical voting records. So, Buckley actually was one of the first Teapartiers.
Siegfried X| 9.17.10 @ 3:12PM
I agree. The phony definition of the "Buckley Rule" is just another tool used by the Republican Establishment to try to control our votes, to convince us to vote for RINOs.
The really great thing is that everyone now realizes: we don't have to listen to them any more! They can't hurt us if we don't let them.
Siegfried X| 9.17.10 @ 3:18PM
Speaking of defiance, RINO Murkowski will almost certainly announce later today that she is running a write-in campaign against Joe Miller.
She won't announce until 1 am Saturday EDT, but this (sickening) article makes clear that she is going ahead.
That's the house rules, that any conservative candidate has to win twice, and fighting the establishment all the way.
http://www.adn.com/2010/09/16/.....ering.html
MikeN| 9.17.10 @ 3:19PM
You should clarify that Castle won while his party was losing the presidential race in Delaware, not the presidency. Or has he really won while the party lost in 2008, 1996, 1992, 1976, and 1964?
Giovanelo| 9.17.10 @ 3:20PM
Dear writer,
Will you ever get the point? We don't need Republicans in the Senate, but conservatives. We don't need a corrupted RINO who voted for every possible liberal crap in the books, who voted 60% with them, the most liberal republican in the House. There is no point in electing someone with R before his name, only for the sake of arithmetics, but someone who is going to make a difference. Please stop that bul..it about the "electability" and answer the simple question: of what use in Senate would be to have a RINO who is more likely to vote with the democrats than republicans? It's better than to have a genuine democrat. We used to be bombarded with the same "electability" crap time and again, and first time during the NY3 elections, And guess what - you "electable" and "respectable" "moderate" ended up supporting the democrat instead a conservative in the race. Do you still think the NY23 primary voters should have supported Scozafava over Hoffman?
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.10 @ 5:32PM
"Countless unimaginative pundits will seize on a likely O'Donnell defeat to say that the Tea Party has gone too far this time, but that misses the point. Conservatives have moved the country to the right in the past. They can do so again if they are willing to show a little independence from the Republican Party."
- the writer, in the article you're objecting to
kingsmill| 9.17.10 @ 4:21PM
William Rusher, Clifton White and even a Massachusetts Republican named Roger Moore (among others) were more important to the electoral conservative movement than Bill Buckley.
Dixie Pixie| 9.17.10 @ 4:54PM
Does anyone truly believe the Liberal Republicans and RINO's are going to run away just because the T.E.A Party people went after the RINO's.
No Way.
The Republican Establishment will fight that which it can not seduce.
Just in case anyone is interested the recent Delaware election results indicate a near certain Republican win. Consider the total numbers of Republicans ( 57584 ) and Democrats ( 34721 ) voting and the total number voting ( 92305 ). All things being equal it looks like the Republicans will be around 60% to the Democrats 40%.
Rove and Krauthammer are simply wrong. Christine O'Donnell is a winner if the Republican Party does not throw the election to the Democrats by undermining O'Donnell.
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.10 @ 5:43PM
Countless unimaginative pundits will seize on a likely O'Donnell defeat to say that the Tea Party has gone too far this time, but that misses the point. Conservatives have moved the country to the right in the past. They can do so again if they are willing to show a little independence from the Republican Party.
I have been making this argument forever here, and getting shouted down by the GOP-loyalist die-hards. I am not really a fan of O'Donnell, but this needs to happen - if American conservative continue to stick to their guns the GOP will start to throw their weight behind more qualified and electable conservatives rather than the most electable available Republican politician. This could be a very good thing, if - somehow, and really I don't see this happening - American conservatives can play the long game and accept short-term setbacks. The future of the country is at stake and the changes needed are profound; sacrifices will need to be made, goals will need to be pursued long term. Short term losses will be, in the rear-view mirror, insignificant provided we effect long and lasting positive change. We cannot keep only patching this sinking ship, and need to stick to our guns until the GOP catches up. It might be a wait, though, and Americans are not a very patient race.
eric| 9.17.10 @ 9:32PM
Thanks Jeremy!
This was helpful. I get it now: "conservatism" is what the Tea Party movement is all about and "conservative" can now be used interchangeably with "whackjob." I used to think those poor uniformed people wearing goofy hats and carrying bizarre signs were misfits. I had no idea that they were the face of conservatism today.
So again...Thanks!
Ecco| 9.19.10 @ 7:08AM
Ahhh.... we have a visitor from the Left. One can tell because the heretofore vigorous yet respectful exchange of ideas devolves in his hands into an ad hominum assault. Welcome, Lefty. Give it your best shot -- it only exposes your inability to marshall a coherent argument or critique of ideas with which you disagree. These guys always put a smile on my face.
Andrew| 9.17.10 @ 10:12PM
From the blog post above: "conservatives were willing to challenge not only liberal Democrats but members of the stupid party as well."
Is "the stupid party" something that a neutral journalist would write?
Jeremy Lott | 9.18.10 @ 1:16AM
Give me a break. It's a nickname.
Tim*| 9.19.10 @ 9:26AM
Yeah , It's an insider's right to call The Republican Party " The Stupid Party " , It's like Black Guys callin e ach other " Nigger " .
Ecco| 9.19.10 @ 7:04AM
It's a reference to a clever assertion made by nationally syndicated conservative radio talkshow host, Dennis Prager, who has said: "There are only two parties in the United States -- the Dangerous Party and the Stupid Party, and I'm a member of the Stupid Party." Sigh... me too...
Tim*| 9.18.10 @ 6:23AM
The Tea Party has purged The Republican Party of RINO-CINO Mike Castle , as we have been instrumental in purging other RINO -CINO's from The Republican Party .
We've already completed Our first good works .
Apologists attempt to play the patience card ,which is what incrementally emboldened The RINO-CINO Ruling Elitist Bastards , in the first place .
Like Da Man Say , " Ninety percent of life is just Showin' up ".
Now We , The Great Unwashed Tea Party Rebels and Our Great Ynwashed Tea Party Candidates are showing up .
We Tea Party Rebels don't allow others , such as RINO-CINO's and their Apologists to either define or lecture us.
We Got Our Candidates and now We drop Our Moneybombs and give energetic support to Our Tea Party Candidates right on into Our November 2nd Midterm Tea Party Campaigns
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Can See November 2nd From Our Houses .
eric| 9.18.10 @ 11:24AM
Aww turns out that new face of conservatism dabbled in witchcraft. But good for you for sticking by her, Mr. Lott -- for the long-term sake of your party. I'm sure if Mr. Buckley were alive today he'd be proud of you!
David Williams| 9.18.10 @ 12:14PM
So she's dabbled in witchcraft, eh? But does she have the honesty of a Hillary Clinton, the ethics of a John Edwards, the gravitas of an Al Franken, the pomposity of a John Kerry or the brains of a Barbara Boxer? One wonders if Mr. Buckley would be as proud as you leftists are of your lot.
Tim*| 9.18.10 @ 8:25PM
Now The Rest Of The Story .
O’Donnell appeared on Maher’s old show 22 times as a conservative activist speaking out against abortion, homosexuality and premarital sex.
From an unaired clip from 10 years ago , Oct. 29, 1999, "I dabbled into witchcraft--I never joined a coven. But I did, I did ... I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do....
One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that.... We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar."
Zzzzzzzzzzz !
The Liberal Media Clowns are desperate .
Les Nesman| 9.18.10 @ 10:03PM
I was a supporter of Ms O'Donnell until I learned of this. Once a witch, always a witch. This woman appears to be chaste & a member of the one true church and now we learn of her deception. Anyone who votes for her is voting for her master, the dark lord Satan.
Ecco| 9.19.10 @ 7:31AM
Without commenting on the personal faith situation of Ms. O'Donnell, which which I don't have enough familiarity, I do feel puzzled by the principle you assert. Surely if - as one would infer from your concern - you adhere to a Judeo-Christian belief in repentance and salvation, then you cannot believe that anyone is truly beyond these graces? I know of several former Palestinian terrorists who at risk of their very lives (the Sharia penalty for apostasy from Islam is death) are now devout, practicing Christians. Surely a youthful misadventure with pagan silliness is not MORE irretrievably lost to redemption than a youth spent killing innocent people in the name of Allah?
Ecco| 9.19.10 @ 7:47AM
Eric, you disappoint me. You satirically noted "Aww turns out that new face of conservatism dabbled in witchcraft." Surely as a good Leftist you know that all cultures are equal, and that you cannot therefore judge as superior or inferior any culture or choice of belief/behavior. Indeed, in the absence of absolute truth, yours is a creed of devout moral relativism -which not only extends to pagan witchcraft but must indeed embrace it with the approbation reserved only for New Age enthusiasms. Must we tutor you in your own Leftie fundamental principles? Female genital mutiliation, Sharia death penalty to homosexuals, Mao's cultural revolution, Pol Pot's killing fields, honour killings.... all these must be just part of the great undiscernable and indistinguishable mosaic of equally valid expressions of equally valid cultures to you. Tolerance and multi-culturalism -- these must be your bywords. Engrave them upon your Leftie heart. Of course, having said that, it must be noted that Ms. O'Donnell is not a dead white male - in which case you could take the gloves off...
albert constantine, jr.| 9.18.10 @ 2:48PM
While Mr. Lott may be correct in much of his assessment, some of his cited source may be of questionable value. I had read Mr. Weigel’s article previously. While he may be from Delaware, I’m not certain that his out of state residency for the last several years gives his the optimum vantage point. Some of his statements, though, help clarify why Castle lost. According to Mr. Weigel: “in the past, I saw yards with Obama/Biden and Castle signs, Kerry/Edwards and Castle signs, Gore/Lieberman and Castle signs -- you get the picture”. That which made Castle acceptable to Delaware’s left is what made him unacceptable to the Republican primary voters. Castle won those other races because the state Democratic Party rarely put serious challengers up against him. As he would have been 7 years old at the time, Mr. Weigel likely doesn’t remember Jake Kreshtool, who ran against Castle in 1988. Most in Delaware probably don’t either, as he garnered less than 30% of the vote. Anyone remember S. B. Woo or Dennis E. Williams? How about landscaper Mike Miller, fresh off probation to challenge Delaware’s incumbent Congressman? Castle panicked after 2006, when he won with only 55%, and tried to pander farther left with votes against the Iraq surge, his vote for the Bush impeachment investigation, and culminating ultimately with the Cap & Trade vote. He figured that Delaware’s conservatives in the Republican Party had no other place to go, and relied on a smear campaign to scare voters away from the O’Donnell camp when his pollsters told him he was in danger. Castle’s only virtue was that he could win, and his very first primary proved that this was not necessarily so. As a result, Delaware’s Republican primary voters chose someone with a much greater chance of losing, but whose stands on the issues more closely resemble what Republican voters want from a Republican candidate, and hopefully, a Republican Senator.