Free Markets, Free People


O’Donnell takes Delaware GOP Primary

And yes, it may cost the Republicans a chance to take the seat in November.

So what?  Sometimes it is more important to get the attention of the party.  If that costs a seat, then so be it.  And that message is being sent.  Miller, Paul, Angle, and now O’Donnell.

This is what the GOP should take from this race:

"This shows that conservative energy at the grassroots is at tidal wave levels," said Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman and GOP lobbyist. "It may well cost us the Delaware Senate seat, but the same phenomenon will help Republicans, particularly in House races in November."

That’s right.  Key word: “conservative”. And that energy is only going to be maintained with candidates of which that “grassroots” group approves.  Mike Castle wasn’t that candidate.  The same story played out earlier in Utah where free spending and GOP establishment candidate Sen. Bob Bennett was defeated.  Mike Lee, the eventual winner, ran on a rather simple platform that resonated:

"I’m a lifelong conservative and I’ve long stood for the idea we need to limit the power of government in order to make life better for Americans," said Lee, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

The Bob Bennett’s and Mike Castles (one of the only Republicans to vote for cap and trade in the House) of the world don’t fit in that scenario.  And while it may cost a “probable” Republican seat or two in this election, that’s the usual short-term horserace view that continues to get Republicans in trouble.  It’s not just about the number of seats, but who is sitting  in that seat.  Republicans will have plenty of seats – enough to block any further big government nonsense by Democrats.  But they have to be seats filled with occupants that aren’t as likely to side with Dems as the GOP.

What the O’Donnell victory should prove to the Republican hierarchy is the “grassroots” isn’t going to support their candidates just because they’ve been approved by the NRSC or NRCC and the backroom boys.  They’ve been trying to tell them that for years.  Now they’re actually taking action.  The insurgents are alive, well, active and making a statement.  And Mike Castle wasn’t the answer to their desires.

What the O’Donnell race points out – as it did in the other insurgent victories – is the “base” is not going to stand idly by while the NRSC chooses candidates that don’t live up to their wants and expects them to support that candidate.  Especially if the candidate is an old establishment moderate that shows up with the other side as much as he shows up with his own side.

Naturally this doesn’t sit well with the power brokers in the GOP.  Watch the petulant Karl  Rove all but denounce O’Donnell after it is affirmed she’s taken Mike Castle down (via Hot Air):

Again you hear the number count as the prime motivation for the GOP.  “Well we coulda hada seat.”

Yeah, and you could of had the usual sort of person in that seat spending as much time caucusing with the big government Democrats as with Republicans.  So what good is it, really?

Certainly O’Donnell has baggage.  But apparently the conservative voters in DE decided her baggage was much more acceptable than Castle’s votes.  And, as you heard Rove say, they surged at the end, turning out in much higher numbers than expected.  The NRSC can ignore that or they can go with it.  It appears the establishment GOP in the form of the NRSC will choose not to help fund O’Donnell’s race.  And, naturally, Mike Castle, the sore loser, has said he won’t endorse O’Donnell. That way, I guess, if she loses the establishment GOP can say, “see, we told you so.  Listen to us, we know what’s good for you and Delaware”. Sound familiar?

Then look around you and take a look what listening to the establishment on either side of the political spectrum has given us to this point.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

68 Responses to O’Donnell takes Delaware GOP Primary

  • Apparently Rove (or people on his behalf) had at one point been working to keep at least one libertarian/tea-party group from supporting O’Donnell…

    I will be listening to the man less now for that – the shady backroom stuff while he pretended to be impartial.

    • Yes, Rove has painted his own moral stature as an unprincipled hack concerned only with numbers in the win column. I get the feeling he could work for either side and be just as enthusiastic… the country be damned.
       

  • Castle won’t back O’Donnell

    That’s right, guys…  Just keep fuckin’ that chicken…

    • (1) If Castle had won, he wouldn’t have needed O’Donnell to support him.  He wouldn’t have needed the NRSC and NRCC to support him.  He most likely would have won in a walk.
      (2) If you want your primary opponent to support you, you should probably criticize him on things that are actually true.  Not allege that he’s a closeted homosexual.  Or seriously misrepresent his voting record at every opportunity.
      I don’t like Castle.  He’s a moderate (not a liberal) and I’m conservative.  But unlike most people here I’ve actually met the man and talked to him about issues.  We don’t see eye to eye at all.  I’m pro-gun and he’s definitely not.  He’s bought into all that climate change crap and I haven’t.  But there is a good reason he’s the only Republican to get elected to statewide office in the last decade.  Castle actually represents the state.

      • I’ve been listening to that reasoning all my voting life.  Hold your nose and vote for the moderate.  No more.

        • And your reasoning had us one dead senator away from a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate.  What’s your point?

          • You mean, by running McCain in 2008?

            We really messed up going too conservative with that one . . .

          • No, I mean the whole “the Republicans have screwed up” sentiment of 2008.  You know where people stayed home to teach the party a lesson.  Which directly led to the losses of 2008.
            “Whats the worst they could do?” then turned into “Holy crap!  Have you seen this Obamacare/Stimulus/Cap and Trade abomination?

          • Actually people voted for the other guys as opposed to staying home.  The turnout in percentage was the highest since 1960 and definitely up in recent times.

            They voted for they other guys because the Democrats seemed to stand for something while the Republicans stood for self-serving compromise.  Or in other words, why vote for Democrat-Lite when you can vote for the real thing.

      • I’m very pro gun, but I’m willing to overlook a pro-control attitude in some candidates from the more liberal states . . . perhaps because the Dems are clearly scared of the issue and we now have the Heller and McDonald decisions. I feel secure.

        With respect to cap and trade, that’s a no go. No way. F’ him.

        Generally I’m on the line with respect to this. There are conservatives and libertarians who define a very strict and unrealistic line, a purity test almost; and these people will pretty much always lose. Flip side are RINOs with no line at all.

        I supported Scott Brown with donations, and he’s a bit too left IMO but he’s a great replacement for Ted. But supporting some guy who supports cap and trade, that’s a bit too far.

      • Jeff the Baptist:
        September 15, 2010 at 10:16
        No, I mean the whole “the Republicans have screwed up” sentiment of 2008.  You know where people stayed home to teach the party a lesson.  Which directly led to the losses of 2008.
        “Whats the worst they could do?” then turned into “Holy crap!  Have you seen this Obamacare/Stimulus/Cap and Trade abomination

        >>>> So things went to hell in a handbasket at super-speed as opposed to getting there at moderate speed. Woopee. This way at least the frog noticed it was being boiled.

      • The Delaware Republicans had their convention in May…..and held the primary in September. September of ’09? No. September, 2010, about FOUR months after their convention produced Castle as the presumptive nominee. Gee, I wonder why some of the O’Donnell supporters might have seen Castle as the nominee of entrenched insiders?

        Now that I know what happened in Delaware, I think I’m leaning more towards this being a NY-23 sort of situation rather than a suicidal Purity Purge.

  • What we are seeing is a clash of methods, not goals. The Republican apparatus is being “conservative”. The goal for them is to win elections. That’s understandable. They’re politicians and that’s what they do. The public is responding that 25 years of Republican “success” is tantamount to the definition of insanity. So, why not try something different? What the Republican party should be thinking is, “How do we keep this enthusiasm and spirit going?”.

  • I was happy to see this, even if we lose a few races to Democrats, it is worth it to purge the party of these statist, phucking lefty rino’s.  Fossil Castle has been as much a part of the problem in our nation as Teddy Kennedy was.

  • Dunno if strict idealogical purity will be helpful in the long run. It appears the Big Tent is giving away to a Pup Tent.

    • If the “Big Tent” yields what we have to day, maybe its time to try and grow the pup tent. Otherwise we simply validate Einstein’s definition of insanity.

      • Ah, but see, again, by demanding idealogical purity, your pup tent will not grow. I for one would not vote for someone like O’Donnell, who apparently is on record as wanting to rule out masturbation as a way to stop AIDS. I don’t know much about this woman, but if this is the kind of views you want to support, I can see Independents heading for the exits of your pup tent once the light of day reveals more about said views.

        • You have to weigh it out, but social conservative issues like masturbation are low on my list of worries when voting for a senator, particularly a conservative one who most likely defers to the Tenth Amendment (and who would more likely vote for justicies who respect the Tenth).

          Right now the issue is preventing the US from becoming Greece’s big bro, and if we fail at that these silly social issues won’t matter.

        • Ah, but see, again, by demanding idealogical purity, your pup tent will not grow. I for one would not vote for someone like O’Donnell, who apparently is on record as wanting to rule out masturbation as a way to stop AIDS.

          Wait, I’m confused.

          Our only non-negotiable is moving towards limited government. But you reject someone over a social issue they can certainly never pass a law about?

          And then you’re jumping on us for “ideological purity”? Are you sure you don’t want to think this through a bit more?

          • Mr. Hollis:
            <i>But you reject someone over a social issue they can certainly never pass a law about?</i>
            Like I said, limited gov’t means just that. If enough social conservative jacka$$es get elected by giving lip service to conservative economic values (many  of said values I can go with) then start passing theocratic crap it’s not worth the risk.
            I would hardly say “they can certainly never pass a law about?” when it comes to these types. Lewis Sinclair said it best.
            Mr. Don,
            <i>Right now the issue is preventing the US from becoming Greece’s big bro, and if we fail at that these silly social issues won’t matter.</i>
            I don’t consider social issues “silly”. I don’t consider people who want to control the reproductive choices, music, television shows, books, what science classes teach, etc, to be “silly”. I will not trade one set of economic jacka$$es for social conservative ones. You are far too willing to give the latter type a pass.

          • I’m still confused, and you totally failed to address my point. You’re the one flinging claims of ideological purity. I have only one requirement: that someone be in favor of more limited government.

            Your comment about people promising and not following through is irrelevant. Lots of politicians do that on all kinds of issues, including social issues. It’s always a risk. However, if I want limited government, only candidates that espouse that principle are likely to do anything whatsoever to satisfy me. Sure they might disappoint me; it’s certainly happened before. But someone who gets elected promising more government or status quo is certainly going to disappoint me.

            It looks to me like you’ve dug in on this issue and tried to divert the argument away from the main point. Unlike you and Pogue, I’m pretty sure the main thrust of the Tea Parties is limited government, and I’ve seen no evidence (despite requests such as timactual’s of Pogue) to the contrary. Sure, there are individuals in the Tea Parties who believe in social issues I disagree with. That’s fine, as long as we can unite on the clear and present danger: financial meltdown from too big government and too much debt. So, contrary to your claims, there’s no ideological purity in my position. I just want to get to the point that we do something about ever-growing government spending and debt.

            After that, if the socons want to have a fight over ridiculous bedroom stuff, I’ll join with the clear majority of Americans and fight them on that. If they ever really get to a point where they need fighting, which I think is a real low probability. Go check on what, say, Jim Demint thinks about such issues, and I think you’d be fine with it, and if people like him don’t buy off on goofy socon stuff, it’s not going anywhere.

            So I am certainly willing to make an alliance of convenience to fight the case for smaller government. You, on the other hand, seem to have some ideological litmus test concerning certain social issues, and are unwilling to make even a temporary alliance with those who might help get us to smaller government. That sounds like ideological purity to me.

        • I must say I love it when someone like Phalanx stumbles into the comments section with a style  of argumentation that probably works just fine on Facebook, but one that is clearly entry level on QandO.  Billy nicely picked apart young Phalanx.

  • “If that costs a seat, then so be it.  And that message is being sent.”

    Then I don’t want to hear ANY bitching if the Democrats retain Senate control and start passing things via Reconcilliation, approving ultra-Libs for the bench, consent on Obama’s nominees, refuse to hold Committee oversight hearings, pass Health Care/Bank Reform/CapNTax/Stimulus bills on party-line votes that wouldn’t even reach the floor in a Republican-held chamber, etc…

    You wanted it?  You got it.  All of it.  Congratulations. 

    • We’ll take the chance, thanks for the concern

    • You mean as opposed to what they are doing now with the RINOs currently in place?

    • Then I don’t want to hear ANY bitching if the Democrats retain Senate control and start passing things via Reconcilliation…

      You won’t, at least not from me. I’m already on record – a minority that knows what it stands for is better than a majority that merely slows down the journey to oblivion.

      Besides, most of your ranting just makes no sense. The reconcilliation thing is a total red herring, because a bill has to pass in the first place to get to it and the Republicans will have enough seats to filibuster if needed. None of the bills you named ought to get through the Senate if the Republicans get the clear message about what the voters want. Heck, if the Democrats couldn’t pass those things with 60 senators, what on earth makes you think they can pass them with six or seven less?

      If the Republicans in the Senate are so d*mn stupid that they let the Democrats pass all the stuff you named after picking up that many seats, then the time will come to throw their asses out on the street too.

      • “I’m already on record – a minority that knows what it stands for is better than a majority that merely slows down the journey to oblivion.”

        Except that if the minority shrinks too much, then it becomes irrelevant and the journey to oblivion speeds up.  If it doesn’t grow enough to form a majority, it still doesn’t have control of any of the levers of power.  Which means all it can do is vote no.  All that does is slow things down.

        • Except that if the minority shrinks too much, then it becomes irrelevant and the journey to oblivion speeds up.

          A definite possibility. However, the possibilities break down as follows, as far as I’m concerned:

          - We do politics as usual. Oblivion is then virtually inevitable. It’s just a matter of how long it takes. The longer it takes, the more damage is done on the journey and the harder it will be to recover.

          - We throw out politics as usual, and take our chances. Oblivion might then be avoidable is we successfully get enough principled people elected. If not, oblivion will probably happen more quickly, and thus do less damage in the meantime and be easier to recover from.

          This isn’t a football game. It’s the future of this society. The battle lines have been drawn. The other side gives no quarter – the left have made it clear that they will lie, cheat, steal, use violence, or do anything else necessary to promote their flawed vision of a collectivist society. They will not compromise, not one iota. If nothing else is clear from the last twenty years, that should be. 

          The last thing we need on our side is collaborators with those opponents.

          We have tried the compromise route. It’s time, and past time, to abandon politics as usual and forge ahead, not necessarily seeing our course clearly, but trusting on our principles to help us find a successful path.

          The alternative is lying down and accepting that the other side has won, because you have consented to play by their rules.

          • “a minority that knows what it stands for is better than a majority that merely slows down the journey to oblivion.”
            I will be keeping this line if you don’t mind.

    • For reconciliation to happen, it has to get through the House and the conference.  If the Republicans win the House, reconciliation is off the table.

    • “Then I don’t want to hear ANY bitching if the Democrats retain Senate control and start passing things via Reconcilliation,”

      That would only vaguely be possible with the Dems also retaining the House, which seems unlikely.  If they keep both houses and use reconciliation or deem as passed crap to evade Republican gains, then that just pisses the public off more the R’s keep momentum to get one or both houses next times, and the onus is on the D’s.

  • Castle won’t endorse?

    What a sore loser piece of trash.

    We’re better off without him.

    “Dunno if strict idealogical purity will be helpful in the long run. It appears the Big Tent is giving away to a Pup Tent”
    >>>> It’s not “strict” – see Scott Brown, but messages are being sent here, if anyone wants to listen.

    • And I think the message is – what? Limited gov’t, except when it comes to regulating what goes on in peoples’ bedrooms? Sorry, that’s a deal breaker for me.
      Limited gov’t means just that – stay out of deciding market/business stuff except for obvious abuses, and stay the hell out of peoples’ bedrooms! Too many of the Tea Party types are for the former but not the latter.

      • Then you are an idiot. Because right now, even if some of the new republicans might be prolife or something like that, that is NOT what they are running on, and not what is on the agenda.

        We are facing economic Armageddon and you are concerned about a few issues that are not even part of the national scene right now.

        Besides the most common view an all of these social issues among Conservatives is that they should be left up to states and localities instead of one size fits all rulings by judges.

        So what the hell is wrong with a little federalism?

        • Mr. Kyle,
          Then you are an idiot. <<< That may be. When it comes to peoples’ individual liberty, I’d rather take no chances.
          Because right now, even if some of the new republicans might be prolife or something like that, that is NOT what they are running on, and not what is on the agenda. <<< Exactly. Not running on it NOW. Once in power, though, look out.
          We are facing economic Armageddon and you are concerned about a few issues that are not even part of the national scene right now.
          Besides the most common view an all of these social issues among Conservatives is that they should be left up to states and localities instead of one size fits all rulings by judges. <<< Code words for stuff like miscongenation laws. After all, people are free to leave a state if they don’t like the laws, right? WRONG! It is not always that simple, and there are rights that should NEVER be decided by the majority.
          So what the hell is wrong with a little federalism? <<< As long as the same level of rights are upheld in all 50 states, nothing.

          • come on miscegenation laws? man you are really reaching. If you think for a moment that modern conservatives pose anything close to a threat to personal freedoms as do the current marxists in the government then I was correct, you are an idiot.

          • “ Code words for stuff like miscongenation laws”

            With cryptographic skills like that, why do we need the NSA?  You need to get your AFDB checked, it seems to be malfunctioning.

      • Limited gov’t means just that – stay out of deciding market/business stuff except for obvious abuses, and stay the hell out of peoples’ bedrooms! Too many of the Tea Party types are for the former but not the latter.

        Second.

        And just who is O’Donnell anyway?
        McQ contends “that message is being sent.”  What message?  Fiscal conservatism!?  How, exactly, does electing O’Donnell send a message of fiscal conservatism?  Sure, she says she’s a fiscal conservative, but how do we know?    All republicans say they are fiscal conservatives, but when the rubber meets the road, they lose traction.  O’Donnell has little to no record of being a conservative on these matters.
        What we do have, is a long record (and quite incredibly long given her age) of O’Donnell being a social conservative.  And how many times have we seen so-cons be actual fiscal-cons in Washington?  Hmmm?  How many?
        I fully expect her, if of course she pulls off a miracle and gets through, to be a staunch fiscal-con through at least for the next two years.  Hell, it’s easy to be when you’re the opposition to kill any spending bill that comes through.  But what happens when her party becomes the majority?  And, like we’ve seen many times before, when the Republicans play board games with our money, will O’Donnell stand tall or buckle to her senatorial seniors?

        Short answer:  You don’t know.
        My experience tells me that so-cons don’t make for good fiscal-cons.  They’re are always willing to spend our money, ignore the constitution, and step in where they don’t belong to further their vision of morality.

        This is the message that the tea party along with Palin, Armey, et al, sends with this election.

        I get Paul.
        I even get Miller.
        Angle I don’t get.  And certainly not O’Donnell.
        How many more nails would one need to permanently close the lid on the idea that the tea party is about taxes and spending?

        Cheers.

        • How, exactly, does electing O’Donnell send a message of fiscal conservatism?

          Who voted for cap and trade?

          Oh, wait … I know, I know …

          • So wait, that’s all you need to send the message?  Elect anyone who didn’t vote for cap n’ trade?  Well, hell… there are millions of those to choose from.

            Best that they picked a lying nutjob to really drive that message home.

            “See… we’ll elect this crazy bird here just as long as she didn’t vote for cap n’ trade.  Don’t try us!”

            Yeah, that’s got long term success written all over it.  That’s gotta be worth the Dems having the senate for another couple of years.   After all, what’s the worst that they could do? … oh wait.

            Cheers.

        • “All republicans say they are fiscal conservatives, but when the rubber meets the road, they lose traction”

          Which is why Castle lost. As Rove said, the election was more about Castle’s voting record than O’Donnell.  Seems like a pretty clear message to me. We want traction. 

          • And O’Donnell is going to give you that traction? You’re willing to bet on that?
            What’s your reasoning?  Because you’ve seen time and time again, woefully under-qualified social conservatives with no record do this?

            I’m sure you can provide tons of examples, right?

          • “You’re willing to bet on that?”

            Hmmmm. Let’s see. There is a 100% chance  that Castle will vote for big government, and an unknown, but probably than 100% less chance O’Donnell will.

            Hmmmm. Tough choice.

            Sort of like do I stay on the sinking ship and certainly drown, or jump into the water and maybe get rescued?

            Yeah, you bet your a** I’ll take that chance.

        • Mr. Mahone,
          You said this much better than I can. Thank you! Your doubts are very much the same as mine. To quote:
          My experience tells me that so-cons don’t make for good fiscal-cons.  They’re are always willing to spend our money, ignore the constitution, and step in where they don’t belong to further their vision of morality. <<< And this is why I can’t vote for the GOP. It it not any level of govt’s purpose to further any vision of morality. Period. The GOP has proven, over and over, to be moral crusaders and hypocrites when it comes to actually living the morals espoused. Do as I say, not as I do. When they stop that b/s, plus work on the financial problems, then I can support them.

          This is the message that the tea party along with Palin, Armey, et al, sends with this election.

          I get Paul. <<< He’ll be most interesting in the Senate.

          • Wow. Who are all these elected Republicans who have ignored the constitution in order to further their own vision of morality?

            C’mon, just give us two or three.

        • “How, exactly, does electing O’Donnell send a message of fiscal conservatism?  Sure, she says she’s a fiscal conservative, but how do we know?”

          Because that is what the people who elected her are yelling about, and she sailed in over the establishment’s objections in rejection of someone who is known not to be a fiscon–that’s the message.  If she is socon and not fiscon, and ends up in the Senate she’s definite one termer–this is Delaware we’re talking about–sending the message is worth the risk.
          “They’re are always willing to spend our money, ignore the constitution, and step in where they don’t belong to further their vision of morality.
          �”
          Then they don’t get re-elected, and the establishment R’s take control again–small loss if it happens, but big gain maybe.
          “How many more nails would one need to permanently close the lid on the idea that the tea party is about taxes and spending?”
          The only thing that would actually back up your accusation is if tea party supported candidate defect to soconism en masse and the tea partiers stay with them.  What you are claiming is a nail is a figment of possibility, not a certainty at all.

      • “and stay the hell out of peoples’ bedrooms! Too many of the Tea Party types are for the former but not the latter.”

        I am sure you can provide tons of examples, right?
         Besides, who needs a bedroom these days?

  • It is a dilemma to be sure. Pass on what appears to be an unreliable sure thing for a reliable maybe.
    Could it be that is how the Democrats got themselve in the spot they are in today? They publicly sought Conservative (With a Big C) Dems to run in likely places where they saw weakness. And in ’06 and ’08 turned the map blue. But it was a weak blue. If those BlueDogs couldn’t vote in line with their constituents, then they were, at best, token Democrats.
    And now these BlueDogs are to be thrown to the dogs. Political Triage is in play and where the Dems see a BlueDog being overrun by Republican Red (along with Tea Party Red, White & Blue), they will just cut their loss and move on.
    Is that any better than what we are facing today? Castle could have gained us that seat but at what cost? I contend that Castle is part of the problem. I do not think that his opponent is a good candidate in any way but to elect Castle is to return to the days that got us to where we are in the first place. The message being sent has to be heard loud and clear, not only with those in the fight today but also for those watching from the sidelines (Two Senators from Maine are high on that list). 

    You have to remember this is not the end but only the beginning. Take a big bite now in order to blunt the Dems agenda. And then take it all in ’12.    AND.   KEEP.   IT!!!!

  • I love it.   The Republicans are behaving like the Democrats used to.  The ideologues try for ideological purity, believing somehow the rest of the country will go along with them.  Internal divisions risk turning what should be a big year for them into what may lead to major disappointment on November 5th.    Instead of focusing on the economy and giving the public reasoned pragmatic solutions, the headlines are about GOP extremism and division.   I go into this more in my blog today, but there is real reason to think that the GOP has just peaked, and now risk losing control of the message and blowing the biggest electoral opportunity they had since 1994.   This election cycle is starting to be fun.

    • {sigh} All it takes to draw this imbecile back in to our comment section is the imagined opportunity to crow about something.

    • Many of us are not demanding ideological purity, but fiscal sanity. That includes opposing stupid sh*t like cap and trade.

    • Ideological purity has nothing to do with it. There is plenty of room for moderates like Scott Brown.  But what there is NO room for anymore are people who pretend to be center-right and then vote nearly 100% of the time with the left wingers. 

      Filling your party with traitors is a certain path to defeat, Furthermore, you said, it is just like the Democrats, well In my view the Democrats STRENGTHENED their party when they purged it of moderates, after all, it wasn’t till they did that, that they were able to win in 2008.

      • Mr. Kyle,
        Based on your, and many others statements here, it’s just a matter of time until even Scott Brown is labeled a RINO. Personally, the GOP would be well served by having more of Senator Brown’s outlook and fewer such as this lovely person from Delaware.

        • Personally, the GOP would be well served by having more of Senator Brown’s outlook and fewer such as this lovely person from Delaware

          >>> Sounds like all that helpful advice we heard in 2008 after the elections, how the GOP had to move left in in order to win elections.

          We’ll figure it out for ourselves, thanks for helping though

          • Isn’t it just amazing how we seem to constantly get advice on moving left, from everyone under the sun?

            Let’s add that to this list of non sequiturs: the way to make conservatism work is to move further leftwards.

        • “the GOP would be well served by having more of Senator Brown’s outlook and fewer such as this lovely person from Delaware.”

          That may well be, but you can only choose from the folks who are running.  

    • “the headlines are about GOP extremism and division.”

      As they have been for quite a number of years.  It really doesn’t matter what the GOP focuses on, the media focuses on alledged GOP extremism. Old news.

      “I go into this more in my blog today,”

      I am sure you do. More headlines of GOP extremism and division, mostly imagined. 

      • That is the point Scott missed (probably on purpose).  The NYT immediately picked up on Boehner and lobbyists even though Boehner pales besides Pelosi, Schumer, and other Democrats.  The headlines from the NYT and the sycophants are always pro Democrat and anti Republican.  So, what is the real difference.  None.

        Since at the last poll, the Tea Parties had higher favorables than unfavorables, substituting an O’Donnal for a Castle may have far fewer repercussions than the professionals (and Erb) think.  I also doubt those primary fights will translate to House seats.

        The funny part, is the ones who are complaining about Castle losing are the Erb’s and the “kss my ass”‘s.   Maybe that is going to work out just fine after all.
         

        • “That is the point Scott missed”

          Nah, he didn’t miss it, he is one of the propagators of that line.  It is fact, supported by his unbiased, objective, super sharp analysis and years of education (he has a Ph. D., you know). If we took some courses and became educated we would see it too.

  • PS- Looks like the NRSC is playing CYA, they’re now sending money to O’Donnell

    Better late then never I suppose

  • Last I checked, Castle’s lifetiem ACU rating was 56%, not 0%. . .

  • And of course there is no agenda of social issues on the left, just on the right.