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.
>>>That’s one of the reasons that Control is so important.<<<
Since it is most likely, according to many seat counters, that the Senate will be very close - quite possibly 50-50 maybe 51-49 with Biden as VP you got NOTHING.
Put Mike Castle into that situation and what do you have?
Remember Jim Jeffords - Remember Arlen Specter
Castle has bought in to the Liberal ideology - read his press release as to why he voted for Cap and Trade - he comes right out and tells you that he relied on CAP Center for American Progress - and a New Hampshire consultant who specializes in showing companies how they can put in impossible to afford and never to be profitable technology with Government grants.
You do know CAP don’t you - That organization that is funded by George Soros - Run by John Podesta - and you do remember their environmental/energy/green expert - Van Jones?
Don’t think for a minute you can depend on Castle -
If you want a comparison, keep in mind that the ACU score for McCain is 84% and Castle is 52% - Castle, who jumped on the Government payroll one year out of college and has stayed there his entire life has no clue what life is like outside of Government!
I don’t care about her sex life or her finances, or even if she’s a nice person or not. I care about if the senator from Delaware is going to vote with Obama or not. Castle will, she won’t. End of story.
Actually, I haven't. Please do enlighten as to where such a poll might be found.
Rasmussen has Castle beating Coons by 12%, while he concurrently has Coons beating O'Donnell by 10%. Anyone who thinks O'Donnell has a chance is the one who is delusional.
Are you “cool” with *that*?
No, actually I'm not, and I'm on the record numerous times on threads like these as saying that we might as well pull the plug in Delaware this time around, because we're out of luck either way. If we nominate the conservative, we will assuredly lose in the general. If we nominate the RINO, we'll win, but have a loser in the seat.
In short she will be the immediate darling of the Media, a great story of an American Girl Who Beat a Mighty Politician.
Or, as will more likely be the case, the day after the primary will see a rash of MSM pieces about O'Donnell's shady past at that conservative think tank - you know, the one where she ran her own business on company time, then got fired, and then sued for "gender discrimination" (how conservative is that?). Then there'll be the stories about her cheating on her taxes. Then the replays of her interviews on the radio where she made a number of demonstrably false statements, and then wound out some wacko conspiracy theory about the radio interviewers being "on Castle's payroll" when they called her on her lies.
The sad part is - each and every one of these MSM hit pieces will actually be based in facts. Face it, we could have done better for a conservative candidate than O'Donnell. She has way too much stupid, self-inflicted baggage to be a viable candidate. It's just a shame the Tea Partiers decided to try to peddle a pretty face, rather than finding a conservative with substance.
Polls....murkowski was ahead by 32 or 39 four weeks before the election.
that poll showing Coons 10 points ahead has been debunked on other sites. it vastly oversampled wilmingon and is completely contrary to a july poll showing odonnell ahead of Coons 41-39.
you and your RINO buddies on this site always default toward the “electable” leftist, who usually loses.
it ain’t working this year. bennett, murkowski and now castle all going down. castle is scheduled for a hard landing a week from today. LOL
According to Rasmussen this July, Christine has officially debunked the myth that she cannot win in November… hence, Republicans DO NOT have to tolerate career politician and King RINO Mike Castle’s liberalism: http://www.removerinos.com/CastleM.html
Christine O’Donnell (R) 41%
Chris Coons (D) 39%
Some Other Candidate 7%
Not Sure 12%
In a large sample Rasmussen Poll last autumn a hypothetical race between Christine and possible Democrat candidate Beau Biden (the iconic name in Delaware) was tested, with both she and Biden polling in the 40’s. In fact, Christine bested Biden (D) among Independents by approximately two-to-one. This demonstrated real voter power, especially in light of the tremendous “Biden” name recognition. In 2010, Christine has been able to build on her base of support as a proven vote-getter, and she now also has a professional staff assisting her. Early tests show that her online fundraising is good and will get stronger as the Americans begin to focus on the election.
Dude, are you serious? That poll was from two months ago. A lot has happened since then, such as O'Donnell melting down on the radio, lying about a bunch of easily disproven things on radio, etc. etc.
This is reflected in the polls.
Like the Rasmussen poll from today where she is, once again, trailing Coons by double digits.
This is right in line with the one from last month, where she was trailing by a similar margin.
Sorry, as much as we'd all like to see her win, she isn't going to. It's time to face facts. Delaware is just not the state to run a candidate like O'Donnell in.
Alaska is not Delaware, however. Alaska is generally conservative, while Delaware is not. Plus, four weeks is an eternity in politics - anything can happen, but not what your wishful thinking necessarily wants to see happen. Joe Miller will win in Alaska because Alaska is, at its heart, a conservative/libertarian state. Delaware is not. O'Donnell may well pull out a primary win against Castle, but she is almost assured to lose in the general. Why? Because Delaware is a centre-left state.
Why is it that simple facts like these are so hard for some folks around here to grasp?
that poll showing Coons 10 points ahead has been debunked on other sites. it vastly oversampled wilmingon and is completely contrary to a july poll showing odonnell ahead of Coons 41-39.
Okay, that's good - that's a claim that can be verified or not, and is lightyears ahead of the typical wishful thinking with no evidence nonsense you usually peddle here.
So please, provide a link to the evidence that proves that Rasmussen has now managed to "oversample Wilmington" twice in a row, and is just doing so to help RINO Mike Castle win? As in, show us the actual demographic and other internals breakdown for the polls - which you apparently have access to as a Rasmussen Gold member. Care to provide some evidence, since you claim it exists?
you and your RINO buddies on this site always default toward the “electable” leftist, who usually loses.
Oh of course - since I warn that O'Donnell won't win in November, this makes me a "RINO" who "always defaults to the electable leftist." Sure. Irony is, I'm almost assuredly more conservative than you.
One thing I am also, apparently, is smarter than you - smart enough to realise that in some states, you can run a red meat conservative and win, while in other states, you may well have to settle for a 50% with you type of guy, if it means not having the 0% with you guy in office. Again, simple logic. Why so hard to grasp?
As for my "RINO" nature, tell that to Doug Hoffman - whom I supported with my own money in his race. Or tell that to Joe Miller, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Dino Rossi, Tim Johnson, Rand Paul, J.D. Hayworth, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Mike Lee, etc. etc. - all of whom I support or did support in their primaries, and continue to in their general election runs. Or tell that to all of the solidly conservative state level candidates here in North Carolina who I am supporting, with my time and with my money.
In other words, you simply need to shut your pie hole until you have two clues to rub together, because you don't have any idea what you are talking about. None whatsoever. In fact, you are so far from having any idea what you're talking about that it does even show up on your latest maps. Retard.
You are wrong, QC, totally wrong. It’s b/c of the snowes, Collinses and Grahams that the GOP was never able to present America with a coherent, united vision during the Bush years. It was always, if we stand for this or that principle, McCain or Specter may bolt to the Democrats. Heaven forbid! I’d much rather have a sizeable MINORITY than an ineffective MAJORITY. A pox on Mike Castle’s house! At least with Christine we have a CHANCE at adding one more Senator who respects the Constitution. Bob
Ultimately, sooner or later, one day, people are going to realise that they can't blame Collins, Snowe, Graham, etc. for the position we're in. The buck stops with the PEOPLE - and that's where it will stop, like it or not.
Nevertheless, I would point out that we have a "sizeable minority" right now. How's that working out for us?
You are wrong. You're supporting Democrats, and you're killing this country dead and fast.
41 is not “sizeable”, QC. I do agree that the disastrous Marxist policies are the result of too many clueless and brainwashed people voting. Of course, the usual Senate suspecta are not wholly to blame for Bush’s disappointing Presidency. But as George Will has said, you can’t beat something with nothing, and essentially, that’s what we had from 2002-2006, and even through 2008. *Comprehensive immigration reform and TARP* was the best we could offer?? You’ve got to stand for SOMETHING, and I don’t view “getting along” and “compromising” as *something*. Cordially, Bob
41 is not “sizeable”, QC. I do agree that the disastrous Marxist policies are the result of too many clueless and brainwashed people voting. Of course, the usual Senate suspecta are not wholly to blame for Bush’s disappointing Presidency. But as George Will has said, you can’t beat something with nothing, and essentially, that’s what we had from 2002-2006, and even through 2008. *Comprehensive immigration reform and TARP* was the best we could offer?? You’ve got to stand for SOMETHING, and I don’t view “getting along” and “compromising” as *something*. Cordially, Bob
Don’t post to me again.
That’s a shame, since I actually wanted to apologise to you for coming down on you so hard yesterday.
I must say I felt the same way. I was far too hasty in labeling you a RINO just because you disagree with me on DE race and without being familiar with the other conservatives you have supported. Sometimes I hit the post button a little too quickly. At any rate,had I been a bit more circumspect, the dustup need never have occurred. Sorry.
Be well, FRiend.
Same goes for me, and you be well too FRiend.
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.