The American Spectator

Ryan| 9.28.10 @ 10:59AM

I understand some of the qualms - particularly among the beltway people who are more concerned with power than about who needs to NOT be in office at times, and the occasional impracticality of the tea party movement.

I think things came most to a head with the O'Donnell/Castle ordeal - probably one of the most high-profile idealism vs. practicality fights we have seen to date.

I think there are a handful of conflicted in-between people as well, and this may be one of the years where it occasionally matters (more often than not, there's no party power switch at stake in Congress or the Senate).

I think that it's more of an individual candidate-by-candidate issue rather than something overall - we've seen Sarah Palin all over the map on some of her endorsements, but I think the one defining nature of the tea party is the removal of incumbents, no matter what; which means some battles will be lost and some not-as-good candidates will squeeze through.

Now, I DON'T think that O'Donnell is as bad as her opponents are making her out to be - the stakes are so high that we have to take all criticisms with a grain of salt (and, IMHO, it may be worth the loss to have gotten Castle - who really IS in the wrong party - out of the way).

log in or register to reply

Scott Crandall| 9.30.10 @ 5:50PM

I think we need to keep one thing in mind: the Repubs (the "Stupid Party") are going to get one more shot, starting in January.
If -- true to their country club, elitist souls -- they don't have the guts for the bare knuckles "dogfight", and the attendant vilification by "respectable opinion" and the media, that turning back Obama's initiatives will take, they're done -- just as the Federalists were by 1820 and the Whigs by 1854.
There will always be enough nut jobs and socialists to support the Dems (the "Evil Party"), but take away Conservatives, and there's not enough left to keep the Repubs going. And if they can't/won't get it done in '11 and '12, good riddance. There is the nucleus of another party waiting in the wings. THAT's the threat the Tea Party brings to the GOP.

log in or register to reply

Sheila| 9.28.10 @ 11:23AM

The Tea Party's problems are far deeper than this "us vs. them" meme. The classic right-liberals who make up its membership are so desperate to prove their racial bonafides that they've become a parody of the democrats they claim to despise. If the spending cuts they demands just happen to gore their personal ox (social security, prescription drugs, education benefits) just hear them howl. Just reassure them they'll get all "their" money and "their" benefits, and they'll happily go home. Genuinely conservative principles and populist movements have nothing in common.

log in or register to reply

Warrior | 9.28.10 @ 11:42AM

May I add that genuinely conservative principles and the current majority of the elected Republicans (and party endorsed candidates) have very little in common also. The problem with this whole excercise has been spelled out in the Pledge. Republicans are now running on a platform that makes them less liberal than their counterparts instead of them being conservative. So, the argument will return to voting Republican because they are better than the alternative. Then 8 or 12 years from now, the independents will vote for the liberals, because they will hope they are better than the Republicans who accumulated more debt, failed to tame entitlements, failed to reduce the size of government, failed to reign in the regulatory agencies and failed to offer an instantly clear and easily distinguished distinction between the parties.

log in or register to reply

Tyler| 9.28.10 @ 12:40PM

Right on. Big government Republicans (Bush) create brand confusion and ultimately lead to Democrats being elected. If there's one lesson to take from the past several years let it be that. The idea of the "big tent" shouldn't be to try get as many people as possible by watering our ideas down. It should be to attract people by actually standing for the principles of the Constitution (individual freedom, limited government etc), which is what people want.

It seems like every poll you see the number of people that identify themselves as Conservatives > number of Moderates > number of Liberals. If this is true, why were Republicans on the verge of extinction? It's because they were more concerned about reaching across the isle than standing on principle.

I'd rather take a chance on a conservative like Christine O'Donnell (who is not perfect) than a Mike Castle who is essentially an undercover operative for the left-wing. If Coons is elected then the people of Delaware will see clearly who their enemy is.

log in or register to reply

RJ| 9.28.10 @ 11:47AM

On at least two points, I see the Tea Party movement very differently from Karol. First, is her reference to the movement not having a foreign policy. Why would she or anyone else expect it to address all issues? The Tea Party, as I see it, is public concern over the amount of government spending - that is the core issue which brings people to meetings and this focus on common ground is its strength. Secondly, I don't understand Karol when she talks about excluding people while discussing the O'Donnell/Castle race. As Karol mentioned the Tea Party is not a political party. Delaware Republicans were given a choice between O'Donnell and Castle. More voters chose O'Donnell. That is democracy. Any claim of exclusion seems to be based on a belief of entitlement. I think it is wonderful that the voters had a choice.

log in or register to reply

Nikhil| 9.28.10 @ 12:40PM

You clearly didn't read the gloating blog posts and rants after the O'Donnell win. It was like a brutal ideological clean-up after a bloody coup. Castle was an evil liberal plant, anyone who backed him can get out of the conservative movement, and anyone who disagrees with O'Donnell or her viability needs to get over it. I.e., the election _was_ the policy discussion, and anyone with alternative views should go vote for the Democrat. It was like a conservative madlibbed a MoveOn.org rant.

Enthusiasm's fine, and good for an election year, but for heaven's sake, leave some baby in there after tossing out the bathwater.

log in or register to reply

Tyler| 9.28.10 @ 1:12PM

While I agree that some of the cheerleading is over the top, you have to realize where this is coming from. This is a reaction to being beaten down by the establishment of both parties, the liberal media, etc. Karl Rove's rant on Fox and the RNC's lukewarm (at best) support of O'Donnell only served to illustrate the idea that the establishment is resisting the hostile takeover that the people are attempting. I realize this all sounds very cliche, but it is absolutely what it happening.

Civility and thoughtfulness should be encouraged, but I hope people are capable of forgiving brief periods of irrationality. None of us should forget exactly what the stakes are and what we are up against.

log in or register to reply

RJ| 9.28.10 @ 2:28PM

Hi Nikhil,

You are right. I am on the West Coast and probably don't have as much insight on the O'Donnell/Castle race as someone on the East Coast.

I have been very unhappy with the NRSC's increasing involvement in primary elections, starting with Specter in 2004, then Chaffee in 2006 and now many races in 2010. Many of their chosen candidates lost and the GOP establishment seems incapable of listening.
Nonetheless, I was surprised by the initial report that the NRSC was not going to support her against the Democratic candidate and negative statements from the Delaware Republican Chairman and Karl Rove. Certainly the George W. Bush years demonstrated to me that the GOP establishment does not share my values for limited government. As a result, I am not rooting for a particular political party, but support candidates such as Sentators Coburn and DeMint who work to stop government over-reach.

log in or register to reply

albert constantine jr.| 9.28.10 @ 12:34PM

I think there is a danger when one tries to make too large of a conclusion from the results of an individual race. While many of the themes of the national movement might seem to be present, it is sometimes too easy to pigeonhole events into a structure with too few pigeonholes.

I voted for Christine O’Donnell in 2008. It was easy to do, as the visceral dislike I experienced when I first met Biden in 1970 while he was campaigning for New Castle County Council President was validated time and again by his poor character (the plagiarism, confabulism and gaffes) along with his being on the wrong side of nearly every foreign policy position and judicial confirmation for 36 years. The fact that I liked Ms. O’Donnell’s position on most issues, and she was easy on the eyes were bonuses, as I voted for Ray Clatworthy in 2002 and 1996, Jane Brady in 1990, and whoever it was who ran against Biden on my overseas absentee ballot in 1984.

In the O’Donnell/ Castle primary in 2010, my approach was not the same. I believed that Castle could win this seat, as apparently Beau Biden also did, given his decision to sit this Senatorial election out. I have voted for Castle in the past, but I have also voted 3rd party in some of his races based on my frequent frustration with his voting record or actions in office. Too frequently he has voted in a way that pandered to moderates and leftists, which I believe he did to widen his margin of victory in the general elections. He had never been through a primary, and took the conservative base for granted. Even though he claimed he was going to serve out the remaining four years of this Senate term and retire, I had no confidence that he would be a reliable conservative vote.

Given a choice in the first primary election/ referendum between Mr. Castle’s record and Ms. O’Donnell’s positions on the issues, I chose the person who articulated a vision more consistent with my own, i.e. Ms. O’Donnell. When I spoke with other registered Republicans during the summer of 2010, the majority articulated similar thoughts. Those who supported Castle in discussions with me were Democrats or disconnected independent “moderates”. The Castle campaign theme seemed to be “Vote for Me Because I Can Win”, with no emphasis on why I as a Republican primary voter should want him to win.

The endorsements or support from Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin or Jim DeMint did not influence my decision. Nevertheless, given the frequency I find myself in accord with most of the above on many issues, it did affirm for me that I was not alone in my judgement. The conduct by Mr. Castle since the primary has certainly confirmed for me that my assessment of his career in public service was correct.

I do not belong to the T.E.A. Party, though I have great respect for the movement and what it is currently trying to achieve. I have been registered as a Republican for more than thirty years, and I have attended Party Committee meetings during that period and volunteered on individual campaigns. I have also supported local Democrat candidates on rare occasions when I thought it was the right thing to do (in my lifetime there has not been a Democrat running against a Republican that I have ever supported for national office). I am a self-described conservative, and I believe most of my actions support this description.

I believe Christine O’Donnell will be a much better Senator than Chris Coons, and I support her candidacy with my time, and I will again with my vote in November. If she loses, though, I will not regret my vote, even if I will have to endure a lot of obnoxious “We told you so”’s from both the left and the right. I had my choice and I took it, as did 30,520 other voters in the 091410 primary.
As far as purging the party, all I did was vote for one candidate in a primary instead of another. While I understand his feelings, Mr. Castle’s actions are not the actions of one who had the interests of the party over his own. It is more accurate to describe the situation as someone who took his ball and went home when he didn’t get his way rather than describe him as a victim of a purge.

As far as those other self-described conservatives who attacked the flawed O’Donnell candidacy before the primary, now that the votes are 2 weeks past counting and the result is known, there are some choices. You can prove the name callers right by failing to support the conservative running for Delaware’s Senate seat, or continue to sling mud in her direction, instead of subjecting her opponent to the scrutiny he is due. You can acknowledge that the primary is over, and the choice has been made for better or worse, and commit to work for a conservative victory, or at least not make it more difficult.

Those who are doing this won’t have to worry if they are “us” or “them”. They’ll know they re doing the right thing, which to me has always been better than the adulation of a throng and adequate protection from the fury of a mob.

log in or register to reply

Tim*| 9.28.10 @ 5:07PM

It's Reasonably Simple .

Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Core Values

* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

Rise Up !

log in or register to reply