Posted on 09/06/2010 7:10:48 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Here's supposed wisdom from someone named Professor Bainbridge.
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2010/09/so-what-if-mike-castle-is-a-rino.html
I'm sure he's accomplished at something beyond securing tenure and blogging. But his rambling post doesn't seem all that impressive, does it?
So, now if you oppose a 40 year career liberal Republican in the Delaware Republican primary, at a time when the nation is rising up against the extremism of the Obama administration and particularly his government run health care law, you are a "purist." Allahpundit over at Hotair, linking to like-minded bloggers here and there, argues, among other things, that he thought Beck was wrong when Beck said he'd rather have seen Obama as president than McCain. This is off the mark. I criticized Beck for the same thing. But comparing a conservative challenge to a liberal in a Republican primary to Obama v. McCain in a general election is incoherent. And what Bainbridge, Allahpundit, and the rest don't get is that if the Republicans do not deliver after this election, or at least make a strong effort to contain what Obama has done, 2012 could be a disaster for those of us who believe in constitutional republicanism, not to mention those of us who want a strong and vibrant GOP. So consumed are they with reaching that 51 Republican majority that they don't consider the consequences of such a majority where a handful of its members can hold sway over the bulk of them -- a la Gang of 14, etc., etc. Castle has already announced he will oppose the repeal of Obamacare. Obamacare, as we know, is the most aggressive domestic assault on liberty and the individual in modern times. Bainbridge, et al, need not fear a lack of liberal, moderate, maverick Republicans post-November. There will be plenty -- Snowe, Collins, Graham, Lugar, McCain, and so forth. Purity will not be a problem. Resolve will.
As for this "purity" straw man, conservatives do not agree on all issues. Look at the Supreme Court, where Thomas and Scalia, while agreeing on much, do not agree at all times. This issue is how you perceive your role as a public official and how you intend to carry out your constitutional duties. Castle's approach, while said to be moderate, is actually quite radical. He rejects the Constitution's limits on the federal government and believes the continued expansion of governmental power is inevitable -- which it certainly will be if he is successful and we are not.
It's also interesting that most of the bloggers who support Castle were largely silent during the earlier primaries, where conservatives where challenging establishment candidates from Nevada to Alaska. They didn't take sides as they are for Castle. And they have not contributed much to the conservative ascendency. They're skeptical of it and the Tea Party movement, of which they have little in common. They don't really want to shake up Washington, at least not too much. They enjoy the game of politics, they spend lots of time lamenting big government, they get a kick out of linking to this story or that story, but in fact they are pretty comfortable with the way things are. In the face of hostile, fundamental change, they find misplaced prudence in undercutting the Burkean reformers.
Obviously, I do know how to check votes, as I posted Castle's vote on H.R. 2028.
Apparently, you do not know how to check the votes, as Castle actually voted for H.R. 2389, (Just like he voted for H.R. 2028).
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll385.xml
Let's see if you can figure out where you went wrong in your assertions.
There have been votes to remove Federal Court Jurisdiction over the Pledge (using Congress' power under Article III of the Constitution.) H.R. 2028, was one bill that did this, and as I showed you, Castle voted FOR H.R. 2028.
You seem to think that Castle voted against H.R. 2389. You are incorrect.
In reality, Castle voted IN FAVOR of 2389.
The Roll Call vote is here.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll385.xml
Can you figure out where you went wrong?
If I recall correctly, Castle has a lifetime ACU rating in the 50s. Not great, but nothing like all the liberals with single digit ratings.
There is a big difference between Castle and Coons ... if Castle wins, it's a step toward the GOP regaining control of the Senate. If Coons wins, it's a step away from that.
It's not just how a person votes. It's also whether he brings us back to the GOP control that will be essential to derailing the Obamanation agenda.
So you want to set in your recliner and marvel at the piece of bread on your plate with none left in the breadbox instead of getting off your keester and doing what you can to obtain a whole loaf?
We were told that Rubio had no chance by all of the “experts” to include the NRSC. That just energized us because we knew that Crist was just barely two slices.
Like someone else noted, in your view it is just tweetle dee and tweetle dum. Offer the voters a choice of stark differences and they will at least be able to notice the difference, which for many, will be the first time in their voting lives they will have to expend some gray matter energy matter to contemplate.
Did you read Levin’s article? Control of the Senate that is premised on Mike Castle’s vote is worse than not having control.
Moreover, the Bidens do not want Coons to win this seat. They plan to have Beau Biden make a race for it in 2014, when it will be up again. 2014 will almost certainly be better Democrat year than this one, so their thinking goes, and Castle will retire so Beau will have an open seat to run for.
The worst scenario for the Bidens would be for Coons to win. This will effectively block Beau from the seat. From their perspective, it would be preferable to have Christine win the seat especially if, as now looks likely, the GOP will have control of the Senate even without the Delaware seat. The theory would be to let O’Donnell win and then come back with Beau Biden who, they surmise, would easily defeat her in 2014.
Biden would rather have Castle win, but he will acquiesce in O’Donnell because the main objective is to perpetuate the Biden dynasty. Coons is a no-go. Haven’t you noticed that Biden is an egomaniac? That is the defining principle of everything the man does. This political calculus is, I believe, the whole driving force behind the “Castle inevitability” meme. It fits perfectly with the Dem plans, specifically the Bidens’ plans.
Let’s not give Biden what he wants. That is my defining principle.
The Delaware GOP seems to want to give Biden what he wants.
Biden is running unopposed for DE AG?
Ridiculous. That is gross negligence on the part of the Delaware GOP.
At least if Castle wins in September and loses in November, we will never ever ever ever ever ever have to hear again that the RINO is more electable.
They will have to actually use the argument that the RINO they prefer is superior to the conservative we prefer.
Notice that the Castle people never actually try to say that their candidate is good.
I wouldn’t be at all enthusiastic to vote in November in Delaware if Christine lost in 8 days, I doubt most conservatives would be, seeing how awful the Delaware GOP, which, ideally should be impartial in primaries, has been to Christine. I presume that the Delaware GOP has a November election strategy that doesn’t involve conservatives voting for Castle.
If I were in Delaware, I could not vote for Castle.
Christine Counterpunches
September 3, 2010 By eTeam
As the Castle Campaign continues to sink in the polls, he is desperately digging up issues to distract voters from the fact that he voted with President Obama on just about every major spending bill this summer.
Sad but true, his tactics have dominated a whole news cycle distracting some reporters from the real issues, like how we’re going to get private sector jobs back in Delaware or why he voted for Cap and Trade. Because of this, I am amending the “Christine Counters” section of my website to clarify their latest accusation.
Mike Castle is making an issue of the fact that it took me 12 years to pay off my tuition bill and as a result my diploma was delayed. As you can see from the picture below, I participated in my school’s Cap and Gown ceremony in 1993. Yet, the “diploma” in my hand is actually a bursar’s bill for outstanding tuition payments. It took me over a decade to pay off that bill as well as my student loans.
Once the bill was paid in full over 10 years later, the question of whether or not my credits had expired became an issue that even further delayed the awarding of my diploma.
In the meantime, I was awarded a 2002 Graduate Fellowship in Constitutional Government from the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA. This fellowship was awarded based on professional accomplishments rather than academic achievements. I was upfront with the Claremont Institute about the status of the degree, yet it was not an issue because my professional merits stood on their own.
After a very long process, my undergraduate credits finally have been re-instated and I am a proud alumna of Fairleigh Dickinson University.
As your senator, I will focus on stopping the Mike Castle supported Obama agenda, including being the 41st vote in the upcoming lame duck session voting against cap and trade, and further budget breaking stimulus.
_____________________________________________
As the O’Donnell for US Senate team continues to gain momentum and rise in the polls, my political opponent is making an issue of the fact that, unlike him, I am not a multi-millionaire. His surrogates are generating stories based on half-truths and twisted facts. Perhaps this is a desperate move on his part to distract from his liberal voting record. Perhaps he really believes only multi-millionaires or incumbents should run for office.
Whatever his reason for spreading rumors, please allow me to set the record straight so we can get back to the business of discussing the issues and serving the folks in Delaware.
1. My opponent claims I owe money to the IRS. The IRS says the erroneous tax bill was a “computer error.”
During my previous campaign against then Sen. Joe Biden, I was audited by the IRS – so were some of my family members and a campaign worker. (Let’s chalk that up to a coincidence.) After a long appeals process, this was supposed to have been wrapped up this past spring.
Yet, in March, rather than a letter finalizing the appeals process, I received an erroneous tax lien claiming I had not responded to their previous correspondence. The IRS admitted the letter was a mistake, issued a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien on May 19, 2010 and chalked it up to a “computer error.” The remaining balance was paid in full on May 16, 2010, clearly proving yet again that my political opponent is desperate and because of which he is ignoring the facts and circulating copies of the erroneous lien to reporters and bloggers.
Please find below, a copy of the letter from the appeals officer assigned to my case. You will notice that it is dated just weeks before the erroneous lien and clearly demonstrates I had been cooperating with the IRS and heading towards resolution.
IRS Appeal Letter
On a side note, whether this is foul play or really just a computer error, it is big government at its worst – the IRS’s “computer error” should not be able to cause such a nightmare in a citizens’ life.
This is exactly why I have pledged to work hard to reform the IRS and simplify the tax code. The IRS has become a burden on too many families and businesses. We need to shrink it, not expand it as proposed by the Obama/Reid agenda.
2. I sold my home in 2008. My opponent claims I lost it in foreclosure.
Please find below, the letter from Citimortgage proving my home was privately sold in 2008 through a realtor and private mortgage company, not a public foreclosure. Yet, my opponent is circulating a supposed foreclosure notice. Could this document be the result another “computer error?”
citimortgage letter
Although I did not have the misfortune of facing a home foreclosure as my opponent alleges, millions of Americans – including scores of Delaware families – ARE facing just that right now. Catastrophic unemployment rates are robbing the American dream from so many who want to work, but can’t find a job. In trying to “smear” me with false accusations of being involved in a foreclosure, Mike Castle is smearing the character of every American family facing foreclosure. Not everyone is as lucky as Mike Castle who has been living on the taxpayer’s tab and a cushy government payroll since 1969.
3. My opponent is trying to start a rumor that I am not a Delaware resident. This is simply not true.
During my 2008 campaign, both my home and campaign office were vandalized, broken into, files were stolen, threatening messages were left and nasty names were scrawled across my front door and porch. For security reasons, I simply do not want my home address made public this time around. Most common people understand this.
Thank you for taking the time to read my response. As we continue to gain in the polls, no doubt new accusations will come. I will continue to remain open and honest. It is my goal to earn the trust and support of Delaware’s voters. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do just that.
– Christine
http://christine2010.com/blog/472-christine-counters/
If she doesn't make an endorsement I wouldn't be surprised though.
*
H.Amdt. 1187 to H.R. 2389 – Pledge Protection - Amendment sought to preserve the authority of the United States Supreme Court to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in 4 U.S.C. section 4, or its recitation.>>> 96% of Republicans voted to preserve “under God” from the hands of activist judges. Castle gave activist judges the authority to take “Under God” out of the pledge of allegiance.
Mike Castle’s vote - AYE
and as I said Bernie Sanders’ (the avowed Socialist) - AYE
et. al.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-384
I realize you may not like to admit it, but there it is!
The intent was to enable the courts to overrule Congress and delete it. Previously, Congress had exempted this from courts reach!
I hope she does. I think COD is going to win. That is my impression from the polls, FB and the general anti incumbent trend that has repeated itself so many times, Plus the fact that Castle is super liberal and I don’t believe the Delaware GOP grassroots is liberal. And she is a good candidate.
I hope Governor Palin endorses her anyway, though, because I always want to see her on the right side, that is: doing the right thing. And the sidelines is not the right side in the Castle-O’Donnell race. Not for Sarah Palin. She should be taking the fight to the enemy, and the enemy is clearly Mike Castle and his agents in the GOP Establishment.
Let's see if freedomwarrior998 can figure out where he went wrong in his assertions!
If she beats Castle, O’Donnell can win in Delaware doesn’t have to beat her own party too. Last poll was over a month ago and was at 10 points down with no recognition and no support. We can’t simply cede sections of the country (the northeast, for example) because it’s easier. Those are the races that demand attention because good candidates can win.
Reagan won Delaware twice and Bush 41 won it in 88. It’s not like it’s an historic liberal bastion.
Conservatism can win anywhere because it rings true to what the nation is supposed to be about. All it requires is a good spokesman. It’s liberalism that needs a used-care salesman kind of sale job.
The intent was to enable the courts to overrule Congress and delete it. Previously, Congress had exempted this from courts reach!
Wrong. Your ignorance is astounding. The House passed H.R. 2028 back in 2004 (and Castle voted for it) but it was blocked in the Senate. Thus, the Courts never had their jurisdiction removed. H.R. 2389 was another attempt to remove the Jurisdiction of the Court. H.Amdt. 1187 was an amendment to H.R. 2389 offered by Mel Watt of NC. It wasn't a Bill. It was simply an Amendment to the underlying bill. If it was passed, it would have excepted the Supreme Court from the effect of the Bill. IOW: All of the Federal Courts EXCEPT the Supreme Court would have had their jurisdiction removed. The amendment failed, and Castle voted for the underlying bill anyway.
If O'Donnell is such a good candidate, why do you need to lie for her?
I didn't go wrong anywhere. Can you and your little Pal even comprehend what "H.Amdt." stands for? It's not a stand alone Bill. It was an Amendment to the underlying Bill. The original intent of H.R. 2389 was to strip ALL federal courts from Jurisdiction over hearing cases related to the pledge. During the debate, Mel Watt offered this amendment, which would have excepted the Supreme Court (and only the Supreme Court) from the underlying Bill. The Amendment FAILED, and Castle voted for the underlying Bill anyway.
Let's try this again, and see if you are honest enough to admit your mistake, or if you will continue lying (which will say more about your character) Did Castle vote for 2389, Yes OR No?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll385.xml
This is the kind of lying that people don't like to see in politics. It's amateurish and it says a lot about O'Donnell since her people are throwing this stuff around. Castle supported H.R. 2028 back in 2004 without hesitation. He voted FOR H.R. 2389 even after the amendment failed. While he did vote for the Watt Amendment, this isn't "voting to allow activist judges to strip under God from the pledge." Some people believe that it is Unconstitutional to remove ALL Federal Court jurisdiction over an issue. (I think they are wrong, but it is a legitimate debate.) Others believe that all Courts except for the Supreme Court should be stripped of their jurisdiction. Perhaps Castle falls into this group. In any case, the assertions by the O'Donnell camp are a flat out lie, and are indicative of why people might be hesitant to support her.
I'm not suggesting that Castle is perfect. I don't think he is by a long shot. If he were in a State that was just a bit more Conservative, I would never suggest voting for him. However, he is in Delaware. One of the most liberal States in the Union. O'Donnell will lose that Senate Seat, and we don't need a Harry Reid or Schmuck Schumer as Majority Leader in January.
I would rather lose the Senate seat than see Castle in the seat.
If O’Donnell wins, would you support her just to preserve the precious seat?
That kind of thinking is why we have Reid and Pelosi destroying the nation right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.