The American Spectator

Teflon93| 9.17.10 @ 6:59PM

"Just because somebody doesn't agree on one particular candidate does not make that person an enemy, a squish, a RINO, or a Rulming Class Beltwayed elitist."

No, Quin, it's when they repeatedly toss conservative candidates over the side to get more RINOs that they become this.

You want to say you're a conservative? Then prove it by supporting conservative principles and candidates.

Every time you back a Harriet Miers, an Arlen Specter, or a Mike Castle, you open the door to questions of just what your principles are.

Quin| 9.18.10 @ 10:02AM

Well then, Mr. Teflon, it is a good thing that I was one of the first (I think I was third in the whole country) out of the box in ANY public forum to blast the choice of Harriet Miers, and was repeatedly quoted against her by national publications even though I was down in Mobile And it's good that I backed Toomey against Specter both in 2004 and this year. And it's good that I explicitly said I "carry no brief for Mike Castle." Obviously, then, your comments must be meant generically, because they can't apply to me.

Spinny| 9.18.10 @ 12:06PM

Quin,

To pat yourself on the back for expressing disapproval over the Miers choice was hardly an act of true political courage. And your response to Mr. Teflon's concluding statement misses the point. Ms. O'Donnell was (and continues to be) treated horribly by the establishment wing of the GOP not to mention a few selected conservative pundits.

These attacks have generally centered around her "qualifications" and aspects of her "character". As far as I can tell, under the requirements of the Constitution, she is qualified to the letter of the law. As far as her supposed character flaws? I'd wager she is a good deal less flawed than most journalists or members of the political class in this country - both parties included.

I think what her recent success has revealed is something that is long overdue. For so long, the Washington/NY cabal of politicians, journalists, pundits and media types in general have operated under the personal conceit of thinking they are really smart, really sophisticated, really enlightened people and that, somehow, this delusion makes their opinions more valuable.

Along comes this apparently unimpressive person who takes on this socio-cultural establishment and wins. Quin, just let it go already! She deserves a hearty "Atta Girl" for what she's managed to pull off. The more you write about her, the smaller you look. Just let it go, man! She may not be you're cup of tea, she may not be as smart or as enlightened or formally educated as you. But I can tell you this much....she got a pair of balls you could only wish for!

John| 9.20.10 @ 12:51AM

AMEN Spinny.

Spinny| 9.18.10 @ 12:09PM

P.S. I like Mary Katherine a lot, too. But Quin, it really is unseemly to "hide under her skirt" on this one - as appealing as that might be.

Quin....you really have to "man up" here buddy.

Pete2| 9.17.10 @ 7:26PM

The problem ,Hilyer, is that establisment "conservatives" like you just don't understand when a revolt is taking place by mainstream Americans. These people are not "R"'s or "D"'s. They sick of the BS from both parties. Castle was a liberal period. He was against everything most Americans are for. The same goes for those blind people who supported Bush because he was a republican, come hell or high water. Bush set us up for this phony in the white house to win, for Congress to lurch to the left even further than the GOP tilited it. Further, we are sick of "experts" like you. The people are taking over now, go back into your ivory tower and watch the revolt. AND please, spare us your siloquey on what's going on. No one is listening anymore.

Quin| 9.18.10 @ 10:04AM

You are a foolish man, because foolish people speak when they don't know what they are talking about. To call me "establishment" is to betray utterly profound ignorance. And I'm glad you mentioned Bush. I was criticizing him from the right when he had 70% approval ratings -- and getting BLASTED for doing so by people on this very site.

Spinny| 9.18.10 @ 12:18PM

And, of course, Quin, you never speak out of ignorance. When you speak, you always know what you're talking about. Right?

Quin| 9.20.10 @ 11:22AM

Yes. That's my job.

SoCon| 9.25.10 @ 10:22PM

What a jackass you are, Quin!

Siegfried X| 9.17.10 @ 8:23PM

" skepticism in one race over one candidate does not an "establishment sell-out" make."

Some of those columnists ARE the establishment, and they've been selling out for years. Weekly Standard is a tightly-controlled neocon propaganda tool, and TAS up until a few months ago just puppeted democrat-bad happy-talk establishment propaganda.

Brad Schwartze| 9.17.10 @ 8:28PM

"Every time you back a Harriet Miers, an Arlen Specter, or a Mike Castle, you open the door to questions of just what your principles are."

At some point, you're going to have to learn that you're holding an advantage in political debate right now. There's no need for you to continue this.

William R| 9.17.10 @ 10:04PM

I wouldn't call Mary Katharine Ham a solid conservative. She subscribes to the NeoCon agenda of endless war in the Middle East. Ohhh that's right, she blogs at the Weekly Standard. Makes sense now.

Rove Unhinged| 9.17.10 @ 10:08PM

Rove could have phrased it as "well, this is a blow to Republican chances to pick up a seat in DE and a disappointment in that respect to a lot of people who were hoping to get to 51, as O'Donnel has many weaknesses that can be exploited by Democrats. But she did win a hard-fought primary and survived a lot of mudslinging, so we'll see how it pans out in the General".

Instead he threw an angry temper-tantrum. My wife and I were dumbfounded, as I'm sure many viewers were. "What the ___ was that about?"

That, and not his support for Castle per se, which reasonable people can disagree on, is what turned so many people against him this week.

Kyle| 9.17.10 @ 10:46PM

MK Ham is an insider now, she got a big gig; the conservativism is gonna get steadily smaller now. For not her good looks, we even know who she is.

Tim*| 9.18.10 @ 7:25AM

We Tea Party Rebels don' allow RINO-CINO's or their Apologists to lecture us.

We Tea Party Rebels completed another good work by purging The RINO-CINO Mike Castle .
We're already moving forward and dropping Our Moneybombs and giving energetic support to Christine O'Donnell's Midterm Campaign .
We'll send Castle and his Supporters a Get Well Card .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

We Can See November From Our Houses .

Katievs| 9.18.10 @ 8:28AM

Quin, you are taking this WAY too personally. It's not about you. Try to step back and see the trend.

Try to realize that the establishment's dumping on Christine O'Donnell was very revealing to a lot of people.

Inatizzy| 9.19.10 @ 4:53PM

It sure was for me. I watched Rove make his comments (and many others) on Tuesday night live and, call me naive, but I was shocked. It just seemed so out of suave, savvy character that he let his emotions fly. He did not help our side of the isle in any way, shape, or form, IMHO. He threw gallons of fuel on the democrats' celebration bonfire. But, of course, he was only "acting as a Fox news analyst". GMAB! Ditto to all the pundits.

I personally think (and hope) that all the trashing of O'Donnell could seriously backfire on her opponents.... and I am giggling and heaving OMG just as much as anyone. But, somehow the total package that is O'Donnell endears me to her....go figure. No one is more frugal and stingy about my hard-earned money going to a loser, but, within an hour I sent her $1,000. My gut feeling...she is the candidate...she must win...she needs an avalanche of coaching, support, and money to do it.

JP| 9.18.10 @ 8:58AM

Quinn,
You're raising a strawman. You pull the same stunt Clinton was famous for (committ some foul and then accuse your opponent of doing the same). It wasn't O'Donnell who began a well funded, organized smear campaign 10 days before the election; it wasn't Palin who got on Fox News and had a nervous breakdown. And it wasn't Teapartiers in Ohio, Mississippi, or Texas who gave O'Donnell the victory - it was Delaware Republicans.

I didn't give the Delaware primary much notice until the Weekly Standard hit job. It was only after I read the small but significant piece of mis-information wrote by McCormak that Castle was a "Moderate" did I take notice. End then the deluge of crap began to spew (O'Donnell doesn't pay her bills; she is a unstable loose cannon; she abhors the Sins of Onan, but sleeps around. In short, she's a slut and a nut). And most of these hit pieces had thier genesis within the GOP establishment. My, oh my, the GOP does have some viscious operators - but they reserve thier attacks for conservatives.

Look, the Teapartiers had no problem with Brown (thier support was vital for him); ditto for Chris Christie (social liberal, but great Govenor). So, lets dispense with the Teapartiers are nothing but a bunch of conservative purists who throw hissy fits whenever a liberal runs.

Castle lost beause of hubris. He showed no inclination to address any of the fears and concerns that keep many in the Tea Party up at night. I am not a Teapartier (I'm a conservative-libertarian), but I have the same concerns. O'Donnell may very well be a flake, but her positions allowed her to flank Castle. Castle never saw it coming because he looked to the Beltway GOP establishment and not his own constituents. If the primaries were a football game, Castle screwed around for 3 1/2 quarters, which kept O'Donnell in the game. Down by only a field goal, O'Donnell caught Castle sleeping on defense a threw a late game touchdown pass.

People accuse the Teapartiers of being nothing but undisciplined emotional political novices. But who out politiked whom in Delaware? Castle should only blame himself. Katherine Ham et als. are shell-shocked. Come January there may be more than a few GOP Senators who actually mean business. And the Lugars, Roves, Corkers, McCains, Cornyns and Grahams don't like it any more than does Harry Reid.

jcp370| 9.18.10 @ 6:46PM

Gee, I'm proud to have the same initials as you. Thanks for saying what I've been trying to all week long.

Inatizzy| 9.19.10 @ 5:00PM

Hallelujah and Amen!!

"Them negative waves...
Have a little FAITH!"

The wake up call from Delaware was deafening.
Now everyone needs to gulp down the coffee and O'Donnell cereal and GET TO WORK, grouchy bedheads included. The bearded marxist must be defeated. I just think that in this political environment she/we can do this.

Kent| 9.18.10 @ 9:03AM

The Ruling Class "conservatives" are the ones who have been carrying water for Coons since O'Donnell won. Like Rove and Krauthammer. All their actions have been intentionally done to harm her campaign and to help Coons win, as a rebuke to the untrained, non-elite common folk who voted the wrong way. Rove is the architect of the Tea Partynas much as Nancy Pelosi or Obama. His strategy of big government Republicanism has proven a disaster. He is rejected. Thank God and Grayhound he's gone. Hat tip to Roy Clark.

R. Dittmar| 9.18.10 @ 10:46AM

I have a suggestion for Ms. Ham. If she doesn't want to take anymore flak over O'Donnell all she needs to do is shut her piehole. I know Ham wasn't a fan of O'Donnell, but O'Donnell won the primary fair and square. So if Ham wants what's best for the GOP she can be gracious and get behind O'Donnell or if that's asking too much simply hold her nose and move on to discussing other things so as to do no more damage to the cause. I can tell Ms. Ham all about nose-holding after having to support the Weekly Standard's golden boy for prez back in 2008.

On the other hand if her desire is to pull a Krauthammer/Rove and continue to bad-mouth the nominee at every opportunity our of some pathological desire to jump up and down in November shouting "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyan. I'm smarter than people in Delaware." then I'm afraid to tell her than some more disparagement is coming her way. I'd be partial to the term "egocentric bore" rather than "establishment sell-out" but others mileage will vary.

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 11:11AM

I think Quinn is off target here. Some of the attacks on O'Donnel by guys on "our side" were so over the top, and these political pundits were also saying we should vote for the electable conservative in the race and they labeled Castle as such. Castle is no conservative, he's much more leftwing than most RINOs. Any "conservative" political pundit that thinks Castle was the better alternative to O'Donnel does need to be "voted out" as well. Quinn and other conservative pundits seemed to spend more time trashing O'Donnel but these were the same pundits that were rallying around Dave Weigel, a callow leftwing who deserved to get fired for being a hack.

Speaking of Hamm, she was one of the conservatives that wanted to purge Ann Coulter not too long ago for Ann's "gaffe" at CPAC when she used the new f- word in a joke. But we are supposed to be all full of forgiveness for the Castle supporters now?

WM| 9.19.10 @ 1:57PM

Interesting. Coulter's "gaffe" would have been just a pretext. After Michael Steele's Afghanistan comment this summer, William Kristol wrote a column demanding his resignation. You know neocons. Ann Coulter then wrote a column in early July demanding that William Kristol resign, even though she is a war supporter. She was ticked off because the neocons do not advocate things for American national security, but to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of some artificial noble cause to achieve "national greatness." (As if we weren't great now).

Oldefarte| 9.18.10 @ 11:14AM

What's happening here IMO is that female candidates are grabbing the horse by the reins in the Republican Party, defeating entrenched good-old-boy incumbents, some of whom simply [as Jack Nicholson said] CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! It sad to me that some Republican males [in not DOING THEIR JOB AS MODERATES OR CONSERVATIVES] are now being upstaged/exposed by these female candidates who are willing to carry the torch [and take the political shots/abuse] of hopefully resurrecting/saving our country from the grasps of the extremely radical politicians who now control all three branches of our government. Males are falling behind females in academics, corporate leadership, family support mechanisms, and now, in political leadership. It's sad, not because women are doing thus, but that they are HAVING TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THE FALURES OF MALES. Men need to simply BE A MAN, BUCK UP [as Sarah would say], and be men/eaders!!!!!!!!!

William R| 9.18.10 @ 11:21AM

And since when has Walter Mondale's former speechwriter Charles Krauthammer ever been a conservative??

Exit neocons, stage left

http://americasfuture.org/doub.....tage-left/

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 11:29AM

It should be noted that none of the Castle supporters seemd to have any reservations about him. They essentially did not seem to care about his where he stood on the issues. They shoudl said only he could win and thus we should vote for him, which has to be the most shallow and stupid reason to engage in the politcal process at all. The Buckley rule was used as a prop by these people, but somehow I think Buckley would have been anti-Castle. Castle did not meet one of the criteria of the Buckley rule...that he be a conservative. And I"m not so sure after O'Donnel destroyed him in primarny if he was ever a lock to win the seat. I think it's a hard sell to suggest that he could beat the Democrat in the general when he could not even compete with O'Donnel in the general, who was bascially presented as a THE WORST PERSON EVER for what appears to be trivial matters. You'd think O'Donnel tortured dogs , etc, given some of the attacks by "conservatives" on her.

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 11:32AM

I've never cared much for Charles K. The National Review likes to puff him up for some reason. When he's right, he's good, but he's rarely right about something when no other conservative is. He comes across as a little arrogant to me as well, but I think people give him a pass because of his paralysis.

William R| 9.18.10 @ 11:44AM

One of the first jobs Rich Lowery Editor of National Review had when he got out of college in 1990 was research assistant for Charles Krauthammer. And now we get a daily dose of Mondale's speechwriter at National Review. Lowery has turned it into a Neocon rag. Giants like Russel Kirk and Frank Meyer graced the pages of National Review in my youth. Now we get Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh Ponnuru. It is a NeoCon rag.

JR_annapolis| 9.20.10 @ 12:22AM

Rich Lowry (not "Lowery") is a brilliant young conservative...in word, voice, and deed. Your dillusional / near-hysterical screed against the likes of Lowry, Goldberg, Ponnuru, and NRO in toto calls everything about you into question. Take your meds and go somewhere else to fuel your conspiracy theories.

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 11:39AM

I think Quinn and Jim Gerahty and some others labeled anybody as being anti-Castle as being nothing but emotional partisans and activists, while depicting themselves as pragmatic about their support of a Obama Republican in Castle. There is nothing practical about conservatives standing in line to put a Obama Republican in power. In the big picture of things, this is sending a message to the GOP that we expect better candidates, even if O'Donnel is the WORST PERSON EVER per the Church Ladies among our conservative pundit class.

quin| 9.18.10 @ 12:31PM

Where do you people get off continually making false allegations? I NEVER labeled ANYbody as being emotional partisans and activists for being anti-Castle. And I never rallied around David Weigel. And it WAS courageous to fight Miers right out of the box -- when most readers weren't even paying attention and hadn't bothered to do homework ahead of time and when Bush was still riding high in the polls. I see a problem here: I see such anger that there is too much of a tendency to see EVERYthing in all-or-nothing terms, and so you label your friends as enemies if they agree with you only 97% rather than 100%. You know what: That's just counterproductive. I will stop taking offense at being labeled a RINO when you start acknowledging that fighting the estblishment for 30 years should be enough to establish credibility in the eyes of people who have just gotten involved in the past two years. When you have bled for the cause for decades, then you can start slinging labels around. Meanwhile, you can NEVER label false accusations around without getting called on it. Ever. I challenge you to identify a single false allegation I have made here. But on this thread alone, I see a host of false allegations -- demonstrably, provable false, because facts are stubborn things -- against those of us who did no more than urge caution. If we can't even have an honest and civil discussion about whether caution is called for in one race without resorting to labeling those in slight disagreement with epithets, then there is something wrong -- and the MSM can say they are right in labeling ALL of us as nothing more than angry and filled with hate. Jim Geraghty and John McCormack (the hero of the campaigns for Doug Hoffman and Scott Brown) and MK Ham and me as RINOs or establishment types is so off base as to be absolutely frigging outrageous. Stop the cannibalization, folks. Don't make enemies of your allies.

Spinny| 9.18.10 @ 4:57PM

Quin,

"BLED FOR THE CAUSE"....Quin, I don't view you as the enemy and your critical analysis of B.O. has been superb. But, BLED? C'mon. People who BLEED for the cause of freedom, independence, and all of the other profound gifts that our founding fathers have given us put on a uniform and put themselves in harms way. You really are becoming WAY too emotional about this and you are taking this WAY too personally. You are just too "invested" to talk about this calmly and you are losing perspective. Just stop, step back and LET IT GO! You have simply not persuaded me or most of you're readers. And having worked among the Neo-Cons many years ago during another "life", Mary Katherine is, in my view, moving in their direction.....what a SHAME!

William R| 9.18.10 @ 11:48AM

Rove??? Amnesty for illegal aliens. Biggest expansion of government since LBJs Great Society. Give these clowns the hook.

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 12:53PM

I never called you a RINO. I never called Jim Gerahty a RINO. I do think it's legit to wonder why a conservative would think Mike Castle conservative enough to invoke the Buckley rule, a rule that Buckley did not even follow religiously.
You did have at least one post in support of Dave Weigel, which does kind of give some crediblity to the belief that the pundit class is often more worried about sticking up for their buddies in the media than sticking up for good journalism or conservative principles. And there were a lot of the younger bloggers here at Amercan Spec posting in defense of Dave Weigel, as though most Americans care about that guy's job prospects. Any profesional knows that you should not post anything in private that you would not want disclosed in public, and Weigel should have known that if I do as a mechanical engineer.

I didn't realize Jim Gerahty and the other guy that I never heard of got Scott Brown elected? I thought the people of Mass voted him in. The hero of the Scott Brown campaign? That's some hyperbole, there.

I think if you have asserted Castle was better than O'Donnel, it's legit for people to conclude that you may be a RINO. Fair has nothing to do with it, and it doesn't matter how conservative you were in the past if all of a sudden an Obama Democrat like Castle winning is all that matters. I haven't read most of your original posts about Castle so I have not personally asserted that you (Quinn) are a RINO. You were one of the few to stick up for J.D. Hayworth although I do wonder why it took you so long, considering you knew both him and McCain personally.

Quin| 9.19.10 @ 10:42AM

For the record, I never wrote one word on the Weigel situation. For the record, I do not know McCain personally. FOr the record, I never asserted that Castle was better than O'Donnell. For the record, I tend not to get involved in local or state GOP primaries unless and until I see somebody being smeared with falsehoods (especially somebody I KNOW to be a solid conservative like Bill McCollum of Florida) or unless there is a major national issue at stake or unless I personally, directly know one of the candidates to be far superior to another one. I stayed out of the Hayworth race too long because I didn't see those indices show up until rather late in the game. I was wrong there; I should have written something on that one sooner. But at least I did write to defend Hayworth from smears once I saw them.
It is worth noting that not all attacks are smears, by the way. If an attack is factual and sober, that's fine.

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 1:03PM

My point about Hamm was I think it's funny that she whining about conservatives wanting to purge the RINOS and anti-O'Donnel crowd when she wanted to purge Ann Coulter not too long ago. I believe the name of her colum was Addition by Subtraction. I don't see anybody suggested we shun the anti-O'Donnel people but I think it's irrational in the age of Obama to expect conservatives to care what you said or did in the past if you can't see that this vote was an up or down vote on Mike Castle. I think Castle is a liar to the core to present himself as a Republican to voters. This guy wanted fundraising money from conseervatives who disagree with him on almost everything. He is everything that is wrong with politics, and yet you had conservatives rallying around him and trashing us as wingnuts and "activists" for simply supporting the more conservative candidate in a Republican primary.

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 1:06PM

Correction, we got trashed by various pundits for supporting the ONLY conservative in the DE republican primary. :)

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 1:20PM

I like Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, and Ramesh Ponnuru. When they argue with conservativism with some passion, they are quite effective. I think they are more persuasive when they are in "firebrand" "wingnut" "activist" mode rather when they adotpt the "let's be overly nice and fair to Democrats" approach to political debate.

And I think Lowry misapplied the Buckley rule to the Delaware primary, as there was only one conservative in the race. THe Buckley rule is not vote for the Republican who is most electable. I think there was something in there about voting for the conservative most electable, and only a fool or smarmy liar is going to make the case Castle is conservative. He's not even a moderate on the issues, unless Obama is a moderate now.

Lowry, for whatever reason, also chose to misrepresent the Limbaugh Rule.

William R| 9.18.10 @ 5:14PM

All you need to know about Lowry, Goldberg and Ponnuru is that they supported both Trey Grayson and Mike Castle over Rand Paul and O'Donnell. National Review trashed Rand Paul just as they trashed Ms O'Donnell

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 1:50PM

If Jim Gerahty and the other other NRO people are so offended by being called RINOs, why did they endorse McCain over Hayworth? THere was no need for them to weigh in on that race at all. Don't whine if people think you are a RINO if you endorsed John McCain, especially when your publication normally doesn't endorse anybody in primaries. You also had a lot of McCain supporters at American Spec. :)

TAS reader| 9.18.10 @ 4:03PM

Quin,

You're a great writer, a patriot, and a good and decent man. Ignore some of the foolish things written by these foolish commenters. I read what you wrote and know your writings well. Some people will never allow facts and consistency to get in the way of a good rant, against you and others in the conservative media.

One point of clarification for Matt X: The American Spectator was not, and never was, a champion of John McCain, at any stage of his political career. Oh, no, sir.

The Weekly Standard? Perhaps a few there, but not here. I've read both over the last 10 + years, and I can tell you that TAS has never gone for McCain in any way, shape or form (and, good for them).

SoCon| 9.25.10 @ 10:25PM

What a brown-noser. No one said Quin's not a good man and a patriot, we just said he's a squish sometimes.

Get over yourself.

Matt X| 9.18.10 @ 4:17PM

TAS reader,

I never claimed American Spec was a champion of John McCain. But some of their guys that blog here were endorsing and parroting McCain's talking points about J.D. Hayworth...they sneered at J.D. Hayworth as a buffoon and other things. I pointed out that Quinn did defend J.D Hayworth so I think it's you that may be confused. They do have guys at American Spectator that like McCain....trust me.

I never claimed Quinn was a bad guy, even if he is a RINO, something I never stated or implied. I'll state it again, I don't think he's a RINO, but IF he thinks Castle should have been supported on this silly argument that he is more electable in the general election, why the heck is he a conservative pundit in the first place? I thought it was about persuading people to vote for conservatives, not about the REpublican party holding a majority in name only. :)

Quin| 9.19.10 @ 10:55AM

For the record, Matt, I never said Castle should be supported. I never based anything I wrote on the electability argument alone. I urged caution on O'Donnell because HER record is dicey, especially with respect to actually suing one of the great and true conservative organizations of all time, ISI -- which led me to believe that she herself is hardly a stable ally for conservatives. I also explained that electability IS important as ONE consideration, for VERY and explicitly conservative ends: judges; suboena power for oversight of the radicals Obama appoints to administrative agencies; the ability to pass a budget (which takes only 51 votes, not 60); and so on. On all of those things, having a 55% friend is far better than having a 5 % friend, and it then becomes a prudential judgment about whether the 55% friend is worth supporting in the primary. That said, all I ever did was caution outsiders against jumping on board for O'Donnell, arguing that she might not be the best vessel while also saying clearly that I carry no brief for Mike Castle. In other words, I thought the arguments on both sides sort of balanced each other out and thus urged restraint. Those are debatable judgments, but they are all judgments from a movement conservative perspective, not from a RINO perspective. They are the sorts of constructive discussions conservatives should have with each other without questioning the other person's bona fides as conservatives. Now, if I had written that Castle should be supported because O'Donnell is too conservative -- which I didn't -- or that O'Donnell should not be supported because she is too much of an outsider -- which I didn't -- THEN you would have reason to consider calling me a RINO or an establishmentarian, if you also took the time to look at other writings of mine easily available on this site and saw a pattern. But that's not what or how I argued. I argued from a clearly conservative outlook. And I never put labels on those who disagreed. The idea is for conservatives to discuss among ourselves what is best for conservatives. Labels and epithets hurt that cause.

SoCon| 9.25.10 @ 10:27PM

I didn't like the way you treated Palin or O'Donnell, Quin. Sometimes I think you have a touch of Beltway Fever. Why so pissy?

Jesus| 9.18.10 @ 6:17PM

Mammon worshippers like this group of lemmings are a good laugh.
I can't wait untill the day i say to you anti-Christ prostitutes of my name, "depart from me ye cursed, inever knew you".

God| 9.18.10 @ 6:39PM

Shut Up Son.

Oldefarte| 9.19.10 @ 10:49AM

I've noticed that there seems to be some differences of opinion here concerning who is [or is not] a true Republican,etc. Let me remind everyone about that old axiom that IF YOU PUT/LOCK ANY TWO FRIENDS/PEOPLE IN A ROOM, EVENTUALLY THEY WILL BEGIN TO ARGUE WITH ONE ANOTHER! The point should not be as to who is MOST PURE, but simply to get people on the same page. There was once upon a time a Republican Party that included not only Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, but Nelson Rockafeller [sp?] and Richard Nixon. Then, the liberal latter had more influence than the former; but slowely [and hopefully surely] the former's deciples are now gaining the upper hand. The fact remains that we need BOTH camps to succeed, and the solution/answer is for the former to somehow convince the latter of its superiority in thought and ideas [not to expell the latter]. We need to convince the Snowe's and the Collins's that our conservatism is the best way to success, okay? Let's quit fighting amongts ourselves and start going after the enemy, which is [or should be] the extreme-radicals of the Democratic Party who have taken over this country and who are ruining out way of life know as America!!!!!!!!!!

Quin| 9.19.10 @ 10:56AM

Wisdom from Oldefarte. He's right. Thanks, friend.

SoCon| 9.25.10 @ 10:28PM

Awww, OldeFarter and Quin have a mutual admiration society thing goin' on.

John Guardiano| 9.19.10 @ 1:08PM

Quin,
Not so fast! Your thoughts prompted my inaugural blog post @ ResoluteCon.com (www.JohnRGuardiano.com)

http://bit.ly/9sWKRb

You give Ham too much credit, I think, and are too quick to make excuses for Rove and the Beltway boys.

Regards,
John

WM| 9.19.10 @ 2:11PM

Quin, have you ever considered the possibility that you are simply too generous in your opinion of the character and motives of others in the establishment? Some types of reactions to a particular candidate in specific situations really are indicative of true colors.

just a conservative girl| 9.19.10 @ 4:25PM

Ham is correct. I too have been called names for questioning the candidacy of O'Donnell. It seems like some people can't separate the arguments. I am not talking about Castle, I am talking only about O'Donnell. While her words are wonderful to the ear of a conservative, that isn't the issue. The issue is how she has lived her life. I don't care that her house was foreclosed on, I care that she isn't taking responsibility for it. I also care that she is using campaign funds to pay her rent. This woman has not had a job in years, how is she supporting herself? That is not an unreasonable question to ask.

Luckily I don't live in Delaware, so I don't have to worry about voting for her. But if I did, I wouldn't happy about my two choices.

Matt X| 9.19.10 @ 7:19PM

THe reality is most "conservative" pundits would vote Castle over O'Donnel. It's a good thing pundits don't get elected because there would be a lot of them voted out of their job this election cycle.

Hamm's not correct. And she can whine all she want about "tolerance", but she's the one that called for a purge of Ann Coulter. We don't have to accept this silly insane notion that you are a conservative if you find Obama's boy Castle more preferable to some woman who is conservative. Hamm can go play Church Lady on her own time.

Matt X| 9.19.10 @ 7:22PM

Does Conservative Girl care about the issues? Doesn't seem like it to me. Seems like Conservative Girl is shallow and she's got her nose all in O'Donnel's personal business. I'd like to see the Church Ladies that seem to dominate the conservative movement these days be exposed to the same scrutinity as O'Donnel. Don't whine about Obama if you think O'Donnel is the devil and Castle was the better candidate.

JR_annapolis| 9.20.10 @ 12:54AM

Conservative Girl seemingly DOES care about the issues...including CHARACTER, which doesn't seem to matter to you. Don't insult the woman for raising the very points that will surface this week from Progressives (or Marxists, if you include O'Donnell's opponent in DE) in order to distract from THEIR candidate. And, yes, her name has two L's at the end...or do those details not matter to you, either?

Jeremiah| 9.26.10 @ 1:47AM

Where is Castle's character? He's a liberal RINO who supports abortion and rejects our gun rights; guess "CHARACTER" doesn't really matter to you!

Matt X| 9.19.10 @ 7:25PM

The problem with Old Farte and Quinn is they want us to believe that Castle wasn't our politicaly enemy. THey want you to believe that Castle was some moderate like Romney, and that's not the reality. Castle is more liberal than a lot of Democrats.

Matt X| 9.19.10 @ 7:34PM

I think the anti-O'Donnel crowd can't handle freedom of speech. Nobody has to suck up to you. You are free to trash O'Donnel but this does not entitle you to a free pass on criticism of your motivations in doing so. I think it's useful to point out that the those with the biggest problems with O'Donnel had no case to make that Castle was more conservative, only that he was more electable, which, of course, is all speculation and I think his poor performance in the primary put that talking point to bed.

I do want to point out that the anti-O'Donnel people are the ones that have, in general, been the ones insulting conservatives for not getting on board with Castle. They are more pragmatic than us, we are just activist simpletons who ignore demographics. That was the narrative pushed by a lot of conservative pundits. It's disappointing but I have stopped expecting a whole lot out of conservative pundits in the print media.

Matt X| 9.19.10 @ 7:55PM

Quinn, you deny saying this regading Dave Weigel? It's on Matt Lewis's website and sounds like some kind of defense of Weigel to me. Why did he resign, Quinn? Hmmmmm:

“Why should Weigel resign? All he did was reveal the establishment media’s party line about conservatives. He was just dumb enough to put the media biases into memorable cyberprint. The real fault is with the ethics of editors who tacitly reward liberal bias throughout their newsrooms and crack down on it only in cases like this, where the reporter pulls away the MSM’s fig leaf of fairness. It is their ethics, not Weigel’s, that deserve to be questioned.”

- Quin Hillyer, The Washington Times

Quin| 9.20.10 @ 11:27AM

I stand corrected on one point. I meant that I did not WRITE a single post about Weigel. I forgot that I gave Matt Lewis a quote to use in his blog. But you are so foolish. Can't you spot sarcasm when it is whacking you in the face? The point was not to defend Weigel (or NOT to defend him), but to use the situation as an opportunity to hit his two-faced editors. That statement is not a defense of Weigel; it is to say that Weigel's sin pales in comparison to that of his editors.
I will also say for the record that in person Dave Weigel is a nice guy. That doesn't excuse his outlandish statements and actions, though.
Jeesh.

Matt X| 9.19.10 @ 8:00PM

In other words, Quinn doesn't think Weigel had had any personal responslibity for his actions. But he denies that he defended Weigel?

Again, for the record, I never asserted that Quinn was pro-Castle. I think that I"ve said several times that I never saw your original opinion pieces on the DE primary. But you sure seem defensive like a Castle supporter.

Matt X| 9.19.10 @ 8:06PM

How are we going to convince the Snowe's and Collin's and Castle's if we keep rewarding them with our votes? THe big picture in Castle losing is it should be sending a message that we will vote for flawed conservaative Republicans over "perfect" liberal Republicans in the age of Obama. Castle had a nice run but unfornately for him and good for us, Obama has helped many Americans understand what Democrats are all about.

Matt X| 9.19.10 @ 8:26PM

I think the conservative pundits who are all worked up about being called RINOs by "activists" like me (although I only said that it's not irrational to think that somebody who supported Castle over O'Donnel MIGHT be a RINO) need some perspective. If we are willing to throw conservative stalwarts like you under the bus for simply having doubts about O'Donnel as a canddiate and demonize you as a RINO (the horror!) , it seems like it's going to be a very bad election cycle for Democrats this year and the country is going to sent Obama back to Chicago in 2012. Personally , if I were Quinn or Geraghty or Rove and others, and people were calling me a RINO for only expressing doubts about O'Donnel, I would feel pretty good about where our country stands, if I cared about defeating liberals and Obama democrats. And it's simply not true that Castle was even a 55% friend on the issues that matter. THe Club for Growth hated him so he wasn't an ecnomic conservative, the NRA hated him, he was for Obamacare, cap and trade and in general supportive of Obama. He wasn't some Mitt Romney or even Scott Brown type of Republican. Castle makes McCain and LIndsey Graham look good.

Handy| 9.20.10 @ 11:33AM

Funny thread. The funniest thing is how Quin is exhibiting Obama tendencies through his arrogant thin-skinedness.

When people like Quin and Colin Powell ride the fence all the time, they shouldn't be surprised when they wind up with a wedgie. Like Colin, Quin never states his position clearly, so we never know what he is truly saying. He always leaves himself lots of "wiggle room."

Hahaha. The joke is on the RINOs.

Matt X| 9.20.10 @ 10:50PM

Quin,

You can call me a fool all you want, but I seem to have a better memory than you do about what you said about Dave Weigel. You got burned by a fool. You can cry foul and say it was sarcasm but you sound more like a protective father coddling his son in your comments about Weigel :)
Bob Tyrell's quote about Weigel was sarcastic and funny.

In the real world, Dave Weigel wouldn't have a job right now. But there are no real consequences for hacks in the media. And he's no nice guy from what I hear from other people I know in the DC area.

SoCon| 9.25.10 @ 10:36PM

You're right, Matt X--RS McCain got burned, too.

Dave Weigel| 9.20.10 @ 10:53PM

Just teabaggers like Matt X just jealous of my good looks and my success.

SoCon| 9.25.10 @ 10:31PM

Weigel, what good looks? You look like a fat Charlie Sheen. You can't hold a candle to Matt X.