More Harm than Good?
That's the big question, this morning, about the Tea Party's effect on the Republican party. It's a ludicrous question, as Yuval Levin explains over on NRO:
Remember, what happened in Delaware may put in jeopardy the party’s chances of winning Joe Biden’s old senate seat, and perhaps of coming back from a 10-seat deficit in the senate to win control of the body. That these things—not to mention a Republican takeover of the House, and a large number of governorships, state legislatures, and local offices—are even imaginable two years after Obama’s election is simply and utterly staggering. And they are imaginable in large part because of the very mood and activity that have gone under the Tea Party label.
But one of the things I keep hearing -- from smart people -- is that "we" keep electing RINOs. "We" keep nominating and electing squishy non-conservative go-alongers, who wind up in the House or Senate and compromise away the core ideas of their supporters: smaller government, lower taxes, leaner regulatory structures, and common-sense values. So when a firebreathing fresh face pops up -- like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware -- she's an almost irresistible choice for people who want real change.
But the "people" won't elect the next senator from Delaware. That'll be done by the "people of Delaware," who chose Joe Biden to represent them for years and years and years. Who elected Mike Castle -- RINO though he may be -- to be their governor.
It's really not debatable whether the Tea Party has done more harm that good. It's been an immensely powerful force in turning the tide against Obama's brand of big government socialism. But it can't turn the tide against simple math. If Republicans are ever going to take back the Senate, they're going to have to do it with some squishy RINOs on the team. Especially from solid blue states. It's as simple as that.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
The difference between taking over the "Kennedy seat" and taking over the "Biden seat" is, Biden is still alive, still able to cash in political IOUs, and still able to hand out goodies, tangible and intangible, to those Delaware campaign workers that produce the best turnout in their district.
May '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
Hear hear. Best is still the enemy of "workable but viable".
Time will tell how it ends up; but I'd vote for Susan Collins if she ran against and could beat Barbara Boxer.
Jul '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
This is an important point that is lost in the zeal to purge RINOs. It becomes a Pyrrhic victory when we fail to take into account the context of the specific locality. It's fine to stand up for our principles, but to be so doctrinaire as to not care about winning the election so long as we're running ideologically pure candidates strikes me as short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating. We may think Pelosi is a moonbat, but her district elects her because they like her. If you're going to win that seat, short of a demographic shift in her constituency, you aren't going to have success running a hardline Conservative. We have to be a little more pragmatic and realize that liberal constituencies aren't going to wake up tomorrow carrying copies of Free to Choose. Sometimes that means running a more centrist candidate than is ideal.
May '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
RINO's from South Carolina: Worse than the likely alternative.
RINO's from Maine: Better than the likely alternative.
Corrupt, unaccomplished, slightly loopy opportunists from Delaware who use their campaign funds to pay their personal rent? Oh, nevermind.
Aug '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
Let's make a deal; if O'Donnell wins the election I will concede that those of you who think it's good that she got nominated are right.
If she gets blown out and the GOP fails to take over the senate by one seat then please concede Rob's point and develop some realism to go with your idealism.
Jun '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
Rob Long: "If Republicans are ever going to take back the Senate, they're going to have to do it with some squishy RINOs on the team. Especially from solid blue states. It's as simple as that."
This misses the point. We are engaged in a two front war. One part is a culture war that is very important but only tangential to politics. The other front is a battle between the ruling elites and the citizenry. Placing a RINO in the Senate only bolsters the ruling class. The Tea Party movement should properly be seen as a conservative insurgency within the Republican Party. First we take back the party, then we take back the nation. It does us little good to replace tweedle-dee with tweedle-dum when both represent the ruling oligarchy. What good to control the Senate if it's not a conservative body? I say it's open season on RINO's, and no bag limit.
May '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
Scott, sounds to me like you've book the opposition research story hook line and sinker.
She's not phenom of virtue and talent, but neither is she fairly described as corrupt, loopy, opportunist, etc. She's just a normal person.
May '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
If electing RINOs was prudent, though regrettable, I'd agree. But a RINO is no better than a Democrat.
At this point, we gain nothing by winning on small issues. The issues we must win (reducing government interference, reducing corruption, restoring sane budgetary practices, etc) are not issues on which RINOs will support us.
As I've said before, progressives (including RINOs) can get us into debt quicker than conservatives can dig us out, can create laws quicker than we can negate them, can create agencies and programs faster than we can eliminate them, and so on. Small victories will lose us the war.
History and the polls suggested the Tea Party candidate in Delaware couldn't win the primary. She did. Stop trying to play the odds, because the odds are wrong! This idea that only RINOs can win the main elections is defeatest and mistaken.
I really mean it when I say a RINO is no better than a Democrat. It's better that our government continues to rub salt in the wounds of its citizens and stoke outrage, thereby keeping this political revival alive, than to alienate and dishearten supporters of Constitutional government.
Edited on Sep 15, 2010 at 11:47amMay '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
Rob, I think one reason the TEA party has been so successful is because they stopped buying the "math" strategists' thinking. They got fed up with the experts who kept telling them that they had to compromise on first principles for the sake of getting more Republicans in office. Now the electoral history of 2010 is proving that the experts have had it wrong.
More and more people are beginning to think: maybe the reason liberals and "moderates" have always won in Delaware is because liberals are the only ones who've run in Delaware. Maybe there are A LOT of voters out there who would come out for a genuine alternative.
I mean, look what just happened. The Tea Party ran the only viable candidate they could find to carry their platform in Delaware. She isn't outstanding in anything but guts; she doesn't have an impressive CV; she has no money, no connections; she has conspicuous character flaws; she had the entire establishment against her; she had nasty bad press in the closing days of the campaign... And she CREAMED Castle.
I say that proves anything's possible this year.
May '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
A question for Rob. Do you think that Snowe and Collins do more harm than good? I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems that you are saying that we might have to have more Snowes in order to take back the Senate. If so, what are we really gaining?
I can see your point in those instances where we are in danger of falling below 40 if only to keep the Reid from going any further to the left on judges or "progressive" agenda. But do we really control the Senate if we have 51 Rs but 10 of them are of the Maine Republican variety.
I'm with Paules on this one. We need to change the mindset that any R is better than no R at all. I think it has been this attitude that has gotten us to where we are today and if we don't learn, we may "take back" the Senate in 2010, but we'll be right back here before long.
Aug '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
katievs:
I say that proves anything's possible this year.
To be literalistic and somewhat snarky at the same time, it doesn't prove that anything is possible this year. The law of gravity is unlikely to be repealed. The universal speed-limit for light is probably going to stay the same. I don't see the sun rising in the west and setting in the east happening anytime soon.
I'm glad the lady won, and I hope people get behind her. But the "anything is possible" mentality has pitfalls. Our vision doesn't work well when it's unconstrained.
Nor is "this changes everything" likely to be true. Ever. Not even when the heavens snap shut like a scroll and the New Heaven and New Earth replace the old. Even then not everything will change.
Sorry for being such a wet blanket, and you probably didn't mean what you said literally, anyhow. It's just that the mentalities "anything's possible now" and "this changes everything" are so antithetical to the conservative worldview.
Edited on Sep 15, 2010 at 11:54amMay '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
Doc Savage had a point on an earlier thread that we don't need control of the Senate, just enough to obstruct. Not sure I agree with that, though we certainly could stop anything legislatively horrible without control. Then again, what if Obama goes the regulatory route? Then we would need a majority to strip, say, the Labor Relations Board or the EPA of some of their legislated powers. And of course, 2012 offers a lot of vulnerable Democrats for the picking, which this year didn't, especially. Or what if we wanted to hold votes to repeal Obamacare, forcing either a filibuster or a veto? Ruminating...
Here's a (surprisingly SFW) post from Ace of Spades, one of my fellow cocktail-circuit squishes. He gives a balanced appraisal of O'Donnell's chances, concluding weeellll, maybe: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/305702.php
May '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
OT to Aaron, if I ever see a Ricochet contributor deploying emoticons, I shall thrash him vigrously about the head and shoulders. Unless it's a woman, in which case I'll just say "you're such a girl". My opinion of Mark Levin took a serious blow when I saw him use LOL. Is he turning into Katie Couric? OMG, get some man pants, Mark.
May '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
Those RINOs who might help us obstruct Obama in 2011 are just as likely to obstruct a Republican President in 2013.
Jun '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
katievs
She's not phenom of virtue and talent, but neither is she fairly described as corrupt, loopy, opportunist, etc. She's just a normal person. · Sep 15 at 11:30am
I don't pretend to be an expert on Delaware, but I'll line up more with Scott on this one (she may not be corrupt, but "normal person" isn't a good description). Having said that, O'Donnell is far more conservative than Castle and if it was a choice between the two in a fight for the actual office, she would be the more reliable conservative vote. Unfortunately, that is not what was being voted on yesterday and it's clear that Castle would have beaten Coons and it's unlikely O'Donnell can do so. Result: Reliable liberal vote in the senate.
Should O'Donnell repeat the Massachusetts miracle, I'll be the first to cheer, but count me skeptical on that race.
Nonetheless, the Tea Party is, on balance, a good thing.
Edited on Sep 15, 2010 at 12:13pmJul '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
To borrow a term from America's Got Talent: Poppycock.
First, O'Donnell was ahead in the polls before the Rove attack machine got to her.
Second, where is she down by 26? She's down by 11, which means she needs 5.5 points.
Third, Mary Matalin pointed this out last night: She could potentially be the 51st Senate vote and she would be a reliable, fiscal conservative Senate vote. The argument against her that some are making that she can't win is unknown. Being the 41st vote certainly helped Scott Brown.
Actually a RINO is worse than a Democrat, because then in political theater a massive expansion in Federal Entitlements gets to be called "bi-partisan." That's worth a lot in Washington, DC. What's worse, is on what issue do you get the conservative vote? It's a crap shoot and that's dangerous.
A choice not an echo.
Edited on Sep 15, 2010 at 12:16pmJul '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
"What's in a name? that which we call a democrat
By any other name would smell as rotten"
I second ~Paules.
There are two parties and should have two distinct identities. If a Republican wants to vote with the Democrats, then that Republican should join the Democrat party.
May '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
~Paules: ...Placing a RINO in the Senate only bolsters the ruling class. The Tea Party movement should properly be seen as a conservative insurgency within the Republican Party. First we take back the party, then we take back the nation. It does us little good to replace tweedle-dee with tweedle-dum when both represent the ruling oligarchy. What good to control the Senate if it's not a conservative body? I say it's open season on RINO's, and no bag limit. · Sep 15 at 11:25am
Amen!
Jul '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
And a Democrat elected will definitely obstruct a Republican President in 2013. That's the problem. You're worried about the potential trouble a RINO could but isn't guaranteed to make, and ignoring the certain trouble a liberal Democrat would make, and who is already favored to win the race by default. We should strive to put forward the best Conservative candidates we can, but we should not blindly back someone with ethical and character questions simply because they're the only Conservative in the race. At the national level, electability matters when we're talking about potential control of the Senate.
Jun '10
Re: More Harm than Good?
This O'Donnell gal must be some sort of laughingstock character. I hear/see negative comments impugning her honor everywhere I look. All these comments seem to be coming from Republicans. It's no wonder the woman can't win an election...
Uh, wait...she did win, didn't she? She must have just scraped by with an extra couple of lucky votes. No, you say she won by 8 percentage points!! Why that's nearly a landslide. Must have been a very small turnout, much smaller than usual. Wrong again? Oh my god, the turnout was nearly twice that as expected.
Well, I guess that proves she has no chance at all in November.