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.