When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
The Wall Street Journal just posted tomorrow's opinion page, including a "rando" (an item in "Review & Outlook," where the Journal's unsigned commentary--its editorials--appear) on next week's Republican Senate primary in Delaware. Voters, the Journal argues, ought to cast their ballots for Congressman and former Governor Mike Castle, a moderate Republican, and not for his conservative opponent, Christine O'Donnell, who has the support of the Tea Party.
So GOP primary voters must decide if they want to vote for Mr. Castle, ...who would help Republicans organize the Senate and who opposed ObamaCare but who will give them heartburn on some issue in the future. Or they can vote their heart even if it means giving up a Senate seat....
Politics in our two-party system is about coalition building, and any successful party must stretch across many groups. Republicans will have to accommodate much of the tea party agenda if they hope to assemble a new majority and avoid third-party challenges. But tea partiers who want to restore proper Constitutional limits, rather than merely pad the ratings of talk radio, might recall William F. Buckley Jr.'s counsel* that his policy was to vote for the most conservative candidate who could win.
I've been agonizing over this one--or at least co-agonizing, as I've read Paul Mirgengoff's continuing series on "The Delaware Conundrum," the fifth and most recent of which Paul posted earlier today. I keep hoping for a poll showing that O'Donnell would have even a remote chance of defeating the Democratic in the general. None has emerged. To the contrary. It appears as close to a certainty as ever arises in politics that, whereas Castle would win, O'Donnell would lose, and lose catastrophically.
If I lived in Delaware, I'd vote for Castle.
*William F. Buckley's actual words: that he always supported "the rightward-most viable candidate." And whereas Bill always receives the attribution for that remark these days, he lifted it, as he himself explained, from a liberal who once remarked that he supported the "leftward-most viable candidate." The liberal in question? Bill's friend and perpetual antagonist, John Kenneth Galbraith.
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
It may sound odd but I hope the Republicans don't retake the Senate. The Senate is where political careers and movements go to die. Just ask the last few Senate majority leaders. The best way to kill the momentum of the tea party is to make Senate leaders the tip of the spear.
I would rather have enough rock-ribbed Senators to filibuster legislation than retake control and put squishy Republicans in the drivers seat. The Senate will always overshadow the house in a national debate and the worst thing for actual reform would be the likes of Graham, McCain and the ladies from Maine pretending to be statesmen and swooning to the media and so-called moderates.
Jul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
This one's a no-brainer. O'Donnell has revealed herself to be a wack-job. She would be demolished in the general election.
Castle might be way more liberal than I'd like, but keeping him in line is what the Republican leadership is for.
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
There's also the not insignificant matter of O'Donnell's character -- or the lack thereof. When she visited the Examiner offices, I found her less than truthful and somewhat delusional. Her later revelations to John McCormack of The Weekly Standard suggested her problems were even worse than I already thought.
I have low expectations for primary candidates, but basic honesty and decency is something I would insist on. I'm afraid O'Donnell doesn't clear that low bar.
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
I'm leaning toward E. Andy, above, on this one. It is very agonizing. The most viable candidate, yes, absolutely. But we have to be careful about squishing our way to the kind of Republican leadership we had not too long ago. I would favor a strong realignment of the Senate in 2012, along with the White House. If it all rests on the votes of the Grahams, McCains, the ladies from Maine, et. al., we're done. How's that for uplifting?
Edited on September 8, 2010 at 3:42amJul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
Mark Hemingway: There's also the not insignificant matter of O'Donnell's character -- or the lack thereof. When she visited the Examiner offices, I found her less than truthful and somewhat delusional. Her later revelations to John McCormack of The Weekly Standard suggested her problems were even worse than I already thought.
I have low expectations for primary candidates, but basic honesty and decency is something I would insist on. I'm afraid O'Donnell doesn't clear that low bar. · Sep 7 at 6:35pm
Somewhat delusional?
Geez, if we disqualify everyone who fails that standard, there are gonna be pigeons building nests in the rafters of the Capitol.
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
I'm always alert for those rare occasions when I can disagree with my old friend Peter Robinson. And in this case I also get to disagree with my new friend Kenneth, so this comment is something of a twofer for me.
Controlling the Senate with the likes of Mike Castle, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and John McCain holding the balance is worse than no control at all. At least today each successive liberal policy disaster is 100 percent the fault of the Democrat party, with the Republicans in solid opposition.
We need to win something worth winning by electing conservatives.
So we might lose in Delaware. Consider that Mike Castle has said that he won't vote to repeal Obamacare. He's also a supporter of McCain Feingold free speech limitations, even voting to overturn the Supreme Court decision recognizing some free speech rights for non-union, non-media corporations.
From what I can see, Christine O'Donnell holds solid conservative positions. I bet we won't have to fight Senator O'Donnell tooth-and-nail as she plays the moderate card, leading some bipartisan coalition against "extreme" conservative policies benefiting "the rich."
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
Looked up after posting my brilliant analysis to discover Mark Hemingway's comment. The untruthful and paranoid thing is troubling. Very much so.
Now I'm with Dave Carter in the agonizing camp.
Normally I'm able to hold an opinion for more than five minutes!
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
George Savage: Looked up after posting my brilliant analysis to discover Mark Hemingway's comment. The untruthful and paranoid thing is troubling. Very much so.
Now I'm with Dave Carter in the agonizing camp.
Normally I'm able to hold an opinion for more than five minutes! · Sep 7 at 6:50pm
Plenty of room over here, George. Welcome. But I have to tell you,...anyone who would not support a repeal of Obamacare has, in my mind, tagged himself as being fundamentally at odds with the Constitution and therefore forfeited my support. The DC Beltway has already met its quota of people who can't or won't take their oath to uphold the Consitution seriously. We need fewer of them, not more.
May '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
O'Donnell is no wack-job. She is smart and conservative. She does not wish to have the United States become a Socialist country. She wishes to return to the responsibility of individualism and to the Constitution. That is the one thing from which this country is moving farther and farther away.
Castle, if elected, will vote with the Dems 99.9% of the time. He could even likely switch parties.
We have all seen how the Republican leadership has kept Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, McCain, Graham and Voinovich of Ohio, in line. That has worked so well we really do need to add Castle to the list.
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
George Savage: Looked up after posting my brilliant analysis to discover Mark Hemingway's comment. The untruthful and paranoid thing is troubling. Very much so.
Now I'm with Dave Carter in the agonizing camp.
Normally I'm able to hold an opinion for more than five minutes! · Sep 7 at 6:50pm
George, you've broken one of the first rules of punditry: once you've written something brilliant, don't muddle your thinking with further research. Seriously, the problem with nominating really loose cannons is they become the poster children for the opposition as they trumpet, "See, this is what that wacky Right is all about!" In general, I'm for nominating the more Conservative candidate, assuming that candidate isn't apt to dominate the campaign in a negative way. So put me in the "agonizing" column.
Jul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
Look, at the end of the day you're a conservative or a Republican.
Those of you who have trouble with the GOP because of their squeamishness on social issues or fiscal conservatism will be well-suited to support O'Donnell.
Here's why: The GOP doesn't need to win EVERY race.
Let that sink in.
Here's a historic moment. The GOP is poised to take the House and by all rights a significant increase in the Senate. Let's say the GOP gets 50 with the addition of Castle. Who cares? 41 is a filibuster, but 60 is for cloture. Which side will Castle be on for Cap and Trade? Tax Increases? Abortion? Will his votes be significantly different than Cooper? Here's the short answer: NO.
The ultimate stupidity of 'winning every race at all costs' can prevent ordinarily clear headed folks from seeing that the ultimate goal is the reduction of government.
It doesn't matter what letter is beyond the name. It matters what the vote is.
Plus, the ridiculous static analysis of someone like Silver doesn't take into account how Castle voters will vote once he's eliminated...
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
Hey, wait a minute: I know Mark Hemingway, and I can attest to you all without the slightest hesitation or reservation that Mark is, a) a stout and thorough conservative, and, b) an extremely tough, skillful, and realistic reporter. Mark knows most politicians have a screw or two loose. But if he--he who no doubt wanted to like her--if he found O'Donnell "less than truthful and somewhat delusional," that does it.
Hold your noses, my friends in Delaware, and vote for Mike Castle.
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
Pat Sajak
George Savage: Looked up after posting my brilliant analysis to discover Mark Hemingway's comment. The untruthful and paranoid thing is troubling. Very much so.
Now I'm with Dave Carter in the agonizing camp.
Normally I'm able to hold an opinion for more than five minutes! · Sep 7 at 6:50pm
... So put me in the "agonizing" column. · Sep 7 at 7:02pm
Getting crowded over here.
Jul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
Look, Peter. I've got a simple rule in life. Judge people by their actions.
Mark Hemingway is a squish. Plain and simple.
Jul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
Let's beg the question for a moment about whether O'Donnell is a wack-job.
The question is, can she be elected?
Folks, we're talking about a heavily-majority Democrat state that overwhelmingly elected a moron like Joe Biden time after time after time.
Castle is the only Republican elected state-wide in living memory. The people of Delaware like him. He has protected Dover Air Force Base, the biggest employer in the state. He has protected the credit card companies, the second-largest employer.
It's personal with the voters and Castle. If O'Donnell defeats him in the primaries, the voters will revert to their default mode: Democrat.
I understand the whole principle-vs-pragmatism thing: I've voted Libertarian every single time since 1988.
But this is pure pragmatism: she...cannot...win.
I'd rather have a "nominal" Republican like Castle than a Democrat-Senator-for-Life. If Castle was that squishy, he would have changed parties long ago.
Jul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
I don't really know any of the specifics of this race my point is a larger one. Vote for whoever you think best but for God's sake don't vote for a candidate just because they will put the Senate in Republican hands. The Senate isn't run by a majority its run by a super-majority. Its a body of compromise, conciliation, really long questions and rambling incoherent speeches. It is not the body where reforms are made. The Senate is where reform goes to die. The message of reform is distorted when the Senate is the focus of the debate. The Presidency and the House are the key to success and actual permanent structural reform.
Jul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
It's really simple: do you want Joe Biden to be replaced by another Democrat Senator-for-Life?
If O'Donnel wins the primary, that's what you absolutely will get.
Explain to me how a smaller Republican Senate contingent is a good thing.
Jun '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
I don't know much about either Castle or O'Donnell. Based on what I've learned here, I'd go for the win with Castle. But, when did being a wack-job become a significant disqualification? That's new.
Edited on September 8, 2010 at 5:24amJul '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
I am not being an idealist. There are very few tangible benefit to having Republicans control the Senate. They cannot gain a big enough majority to override a Presidential veto. This means they cannot advance meaningful legislation.
Also republicans and conservatives are two very different things. A solid conservative minority would be more politically effective than a squishy Republican majority.
Finally republicans haven't done anything to show that they deserve to be put back in power. The only thing that recommends them to the job is how awful the democrats have been. What concrete things have they done to show that they have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008?
What exactly are the benefits of having Republicans control the Senate?
Aug '10
Re: When the Tea Party Goes Too Far
Peter Robinson: But if he...found O'Donnell "less than truthful and somewhat delusional," that does it.
Hold your noses, my friends in Delaware, and vote for Mike Castle.
Sorry Peter & Co., I want to hear--in explicit detail--what is wrong with O'Donnell. If it is not an exceeding amount, I go with her. Weirding and slander is not adequate in the new paradigm of King Tea. If there is nothing super-substantially wrong with O'Donnell that can be offered, my preference--in many but not all cases--is for the un-conservative Republican to lose--even at some cost to our side. In the long war, we win. The liberal Republicans must fear losing more than we fear our side winning. We will lick our wounds and simply work harder in the off-election years to garner yet more support for a real conservative and educate even the opposition voters why these principles are best. Hard work is good. If Republicans say, “But, but, but!”—then I say, "But, but, but...get it right…and do it now—not later." It worked in the withdrawing of support for McCain; conservatism is making real progress.
Edited on September 8, 2010 at 6:36am