Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
If I were voting in the Republican senate primary in Delaware, as I mentioned last week, I’d cast my ballot for Congressman Mike Castle, whose positions run from moderate to liberal, and not his challenger, Christine O’Donnell, whose positions are thoroughly conservative. Why? Because, of course, Castle stands a chance of winning the general election; O’Donnell, virtually no chance at all.
I’d vote for Castle, as I say, but I’m not at all sure I’d be doing the right thing. A word of explanation:
I’m writing this in New York, where—in this, the most Republican election year in decades; a year in which Republicans are likely to recapture the House, pick up at least half a dozen seats in the Senate, and gain as many as seven or eight governors’ mansions—the GOP has been reduced to a state of complete and utter irrelevance. Across the Hudson, Republican Gov. Chris Christie may be transforming New Jersey politics. To the Southwest, Republican candidate Pat Toomey may be conducting an impressive, well-funded bid for the Senate. But here in New York? No matter who wins the GOP primaries today, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo will face only token Republican opposition. As for Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York Times, reporting Sunday on the three Republicans contesting today’s primary, for once got it just exactly right:
They are the three dark horsemen in the race for the United States Senate from New York, kicking up cloudlets of dust as they canter toward the Republican primary election on Tuesday and…the strong likelihood of losing big in November.
How can this be? How can one of the nation’s two great historical parties have failed to produce credible challengers for either the governor’s mansion or the Senate in the third most populous state in the union?
The answer, I think, lies at least in part in the political careers of figures such as George Pataki and Joseph Bruno.
Republican George Pataki served as governor of New York from 1995 to 2006—three terms. Did he cut taxes demonstrably? Improve education in any memorable way? Attack the problem so endemic to New York politics, namely, corruption? Here and there, he made a few efforts. But on balance he merely presided, placidly taxing and spending while doing virtually nothing to draw distinctions between the New York GOP and its Democratic opponents.
Elected to the New York State Senate in 1976, Joe Bruno served in Albany for 32 years—in every last year of which, as best I can determine from Googling around, the GOP controlled the body. Indeed, from 1994 until shortly before his 2008 resignation from the senate, Bruno served as majority leader. Did Joe Bruno stand for limited spending? To the contrary. He prided himself on sending pork to the upstate and Long Island districts of his fellow Republican senators. Did he take on corruption? Not exactly. Last year he was convicted of mail and wire fraud.
In a lot of ways, the GOP in New York remains the party of Nelson Rockefeller—well-intentioned, of course, but moderate or liberal, tolerant of high taxes, committeed to big spending, and based on regional machines (upstate and in Nassau County) than on principles. In other words, all but indistinguishable from the Democrats. Not since the election of the great Sen. James L. Buckley in 1970—1970!—has the New York GOP offered voters a truly conservative candidate for statewide office.
And just look where the New York GOP stands now.
If I were voting in the Delware primary today, as I say, I would vote for Mike Castle. He’s a moderate, but his election might—just might—enable the GOP to capture the U.S. Senate, a prize worth having. But when the tea party argues instead on behalf of Christine O’Donnell—when conservatives insist that, over the longer term, the only way for the GOP to become viable in the Northeast is to present conservative candidates, offering voters a true choice—well, you know what?
They have an argument.
Our friends at Powerline are right. Politics is full of ambiguity and uncertainty, and even to those of us who insist on principle, Delaware presents not an easy choice but, to use Paul Mirengoff’s word, a conundrum.
POULOS > Christine O'Donnell, Litmus Test
- Comment (71)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
With this line of thinking, why should Republicans ever vote in "blue" states?
May '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
At some point a party has to win an election or two, or at least come close, or become irrelevant and out of the public eye. Many of us on Ricochet would describe ourselves as libertarians, but we likely have little connection to the Libertarian Party. Winning matters.
Losing an election while staying ideologically pure is still a loss, and a setback. This is how Barbara Boxer was first elected, as I remember. Even a squishy Republican like Tom Campbell would have been far preferable.
Nancy Pelosi has such power, to call forth another local demon, because she runs without opposition. She uses her significant fund-raising power to support other Democrats, and wins their loyalty. Being in office is a huge advantage that should not be tossed away.
EDIT: I should have mentioned that Pelosi does have an opponent, John Dennis , who attended our Rico Soiree! Bless him for his efforts and good luck. I hope he gives Nancy a scare, and drains off some of her war chest.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 3:41pmRe: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
On the other hand, as Peter implies, a party that stands for nothing distinctive is headed for the boneyard. I, too, would probably vote for Castle. But I am not entirely confident that I would be right to do so.
May '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
It's a frustrating situation, but not a conundrum.
If O'Donnell were an articulate, accomplished champion of conservatism who probably couldn't win, then there'd be a conundrum. But she's such an apparent clown that she would not only lose, but discredit and embarrass conservatism in the Northeast in the process, making its outlook even more dire than it already is.
I think your initial instincts were right, Peter. There are hills to die on, but this isn't one.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 3:42pmAug '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
Well, as I see it, there's a moral obligation to pick the best candidate that is possible.
With the presidency, that's usually be easy, and with your local politics, you usually have "inside" information. But I have no idea what "possible" means in this case. Delaware isn't my state, and my state has its own headaches.
I hereby invoke federalism in order to safely ignore this issue.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 6:40pmMay '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
Look at the record. I wish the smaller tent were actually viable. But as Jay Cost points out (link below)- on the record, by past votes, Castle is right of the middle. Not as far as I'd like, but still right of center, and you know where he stands. For example (Katieevs, note), Pelosi has hollowed out the Hyde Amendment because she has had the power, Castle has always supported it and still does:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/castle-really-rino
Aug '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
I think that Michael Medved has a valid point on this issue; the Republicans cannot take over the senate without some moderate/left senators. There are simply not enough conservatives in the country to elect conservative senators in every state.
It's hard to argue with that line of reasoning; there are some states that are simply too blue to elect a conservative. I doubt very much a Tom Coburn type conservative could've won Teddy Kennedy's seat; it probably took a Scott Brown type to win.
Tea partiers should be happy they dumped Murkowski and Bennett for more conservative candidates that can win. To nominate a conservative with questionable character in a state who has no chance of winning is a bridge too far.
May '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
I would vote for the conservative. I agree that the right answer is not clear. One might be better short-term and the other better long-term. But what it boils down to is that (1) a moderate is likely to help Republicans only on the issues that least matter, so isn't really better than a Democrat, and (2) a Republican in name only stains the entire party in public perception, regardless how obvious his dissent.
A Republican seat isn't really a win if the politician doesn't have the will and the spine to help the GOP take a sledgehammer to government programs and spending. Better to risk defeat and convince voters up there that true alternatives to progressivism are indeed available to them.
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
Another point: Capturing the Senate by dint of electing new "moderate" members would crystallize the zeitgeist of this election -- Americans are anti-incumbent but still moderate-to-liberal.
We don't need 51 conservative senators, just a governing majority with the heft to set an agenda and convince the more moderate members to quietly go along on the major votes. Think of it as the reverse of what the leftmost members have done so successfully to the moderates within the Democratic caucus.
I fear another disastrous season of the Republican "maverick" if the senate is won by the election of Mike Castle.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
Peter, you're late to the brawl.
We've been bloodying each other's snouts on the other thread.
I agree with Scott: if O'Donnell was, say, Michelle Bachmann, I'd have sent her money and would be proud to watch her charge gallantly up the hill.
But there's nothing gallant in futility.
Or in refusing to admit - as the Tea Party continues to do - that you made a very embarrasing mistake.
I understand people's desire to poke Mike Castle in the snoot. That's the same way we New Yorkers felt about Cuomo in 1994.
But New Yorkers only paid the price of a lazy and feckless Pataki.
If O'Donnell wins tonight, the entire nation will pay the price of Senator-for-Life Chris "The Bearded Marxist" Coons.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
Dear Friends:
As this thread, together with today's earlier thread on the Delaware race, has gone so long, with so many fine comments, I think it would be instructive to pause for a moment and summarize the discussion so far:
May '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
Kenneth: Peter, you're late to the brawl.
We've been bloodying each other's snouts on the other thread.
I agree with Scott: if O'Donnell was, say, Michelle Bachmann, I'd have sent her money and would be proud to watch her charge gallantly up the hill.
But there's nothing gallant in futility.
Or in refusing to admit - as the Tea Party continues to do - that you made a very embarrasing mistake.
I understand people's desire to poke Mike Castle in the snoot. That's the same way we New Yorkers felt about Cuomo in 1994.
--------------------------------
If O'Donnell wins tonight, the entire nation will pay the price of Senator-for-Life Chris "The Bearded Marxist" Coons. · Sep 14 at 4:10pm
Yes- Bachmann is parodied like crazy, but she is a solid woman of high character and conviction, who plays it straight and honorably.
If Delaware was Castle v. Bachmann, I'd vote for Bachmann. Bachmann was a tax attorney who raised 5 kids and 20 foster kids, then (like Palin) went into local politics because of convictions and worked her way up. O'Donnell is an unaccomplished cipher looking for a perch.
May '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
I'm with Aaron. I'd vote for the conservative, though not without misgivings. (A lot of my doubts would be whether the Republican establishment would support her if she wins the primary.) As I said on the earlier thread, I wish she were a stronger candidate, but to me booting out the worst of the RINOs is worth the risks involved.
If it were a race for governor, where proven executive ability is more crucial, I'd probably come down differently.
Meanwhile, I wish we could all grant, as Peter does here, that there is a reasonable case to be made on either side, and stop calling those who judge differently a fool or an idiot or a sell-out.
May '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
George Savage
Another point: Capturing the Senate by dint of electing new "moderate" members would crystallize the zeitgeist of this election -- Americans are anti-incumbent but still moderate-to-liberal.
George, I really think you are reaching too far here. If the Republicans actually retake the Senate there will be a much more conservative flavor to the body and the sheer magnitude of the electoral swing will make a big impression. That the new Senator from Delaware is a bit squishy will matter little. And what will be the "zeitgeist" when Coons wins?
And Paul is reaching also. It's a long way from an "electable Republican" to "stands for nothing". I know zilch about either candidate in Delaware, but I've seen that line used in California against candidates who were miles better that the Democrat in the race. A party that is not willing to step up and win the election is not ready to hold national power.
Aug '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
New York politics is like New York: what, actually, comes from it? An election there seems as freakish and as alien and as sterile as a contest to see which member of Kraftwerk does the best Mr. T imitation. "Schade an den Fool! Enough of your yibba-yabba!" Along the way, some memorable moments of unintended high comedy, but the conclusion is foregone: an all-way tie for last place.
Sep '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
I don't know whom I'd vote for, but I recommend that if O’Donnell wins we rally around her.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 4:50pmMay '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
There's something else to consider about Castle-, Snow-, Collins-, Graham-types: They follow. Snow and Collins got in line on Obamacare real quick, because that's where the wind was blowing. Now they're in line on extending the tax cuts, and for the same reason. Graham and McCain are now borders-first on immigration, and both are quiet as church mice on Cap-n-tax.
If, as George suggests, the zeitgeist is changing, then the squishes will move along with it, making them very useful to our cause. Sane, electable true believers are preferable but sometimes don't exist.
Sep '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
If the Democrats get routed in November, it means nothing if the new Republican Congress lacks the will to repeal Obamacare and rollback the socialist agenda. As Mark Steyn has repeatedly warned, the Dems are playing strategically. They are willing to lose an election cycle or two, as long as they get the machinery of the Socialist State in place. Their idea is simple: Once 51+% of the American people become government employees or wards of the state, America irrevocably shifts to the Left and becomes a Euro-style welfare state forever.
If Obamacare stands (with its private army of 17,500 IRS enforcers), that is the end of the Republican Party. We are finished. Unless you want to be flushed down the Great Loo of History, we need congresspeople with real conservative cajones. RINOs like Mike Castle do us no good. I don't care if Christine O'Donnell wears a rubber nose and rides a unicycle. If she's willing to vote for repeal (of everything), she gets my vote.
If the Dems are willing to sacrifice a whole election cycle in order to further their agenda, we can sacrifice a few House or Senate seats on principle.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 5:02pmAug '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
Ed Jordan: I don't know whom I'd vote for, but I recommend that if O’Donnell wins we rally around her. · Sep 14 at 4:46pm
Edited on Sep 14 at 04:50 pm
I'm not sure I want to rally around someone of questionable moral and professional character even if they are a conservative. Who's to say this O'Donnell wouldn't sell out at some point if she's elected? It's what rank oppportunists tend to do.
I mean, Newt Gingrich is a smart guy and certainly a conservative but I'd never vote for him because in my opinion he lacks moral fiber.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Castle and the Conundrum of the Northeast
This proves the politics of personal destruction work. Congratulations!
It also proves that conservatism is dead. Hardly anyone has principles that they are willing to abide The object of being conservatism is not to win at all costs to paraphrase Jonah Goldberg. But in this case, the intelligentsia (Yeah, right. Challenge me to an argument.) would rather win than abide by principles.