GOP nightmare: O'Donnell topples Castle in Delaware primary

politico ^ | Tuesday September 14, 2010 | ALEXANDER BURNS |

[Bigtigermike]

The path to a Republican Senate takeover narrowed to the point of vanishing Tuesday night, as marketing consultant Christine O’Donnell upset Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware’s Senate primary and likely dashed the GOP’s hopes of capturing the seat in the process.

Though six other states and the District of Columbia voted in primary elections Tuesday night, the outcome in Delaware had by far the most profound implications for the fall campaign. While Castle was comfortably on track to capture Vice President Joe Biden’s former Senate seat, O’Donnell will enter the general election at a wide disadvantage to the presumptive Democratic nominee, New Castle County Executive Chris Coons.

Other leading Republicans openly lamented O’Donnell’s win. Karl Rove, appearing on Fox News, immediately declared: “We were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We’re now looking at seven to eight. This is not a race we’re going to be able to win.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42172.html#ixzz0zZB0iBKy

[Nosterrex]

We are not going to elect people to office for the sake of the GOP. Those days are over. Either support conservative principles or get booted out of office.

[4rcane]

anyone remember the media used to attack the tea party as just part of the gop, when tea party activist all around the country said they’re not part of any party. Both party will be held to account

[4rcane]

rubio, miller they all came from 20-30 points behind, win the primary then extend the lead for the general. All the while the establishment say they couldn’t win and we must have a rino in there instead

[tanknetter]

Very true. It’s like College FB before overtime and we’ve decided to go for two on the last play instead of kicking the game-tying extra point. Contrary to what many are posting, if the TP doesn’t get some big wins in Nov., it’s credibility will be shot and 0bama and the dims will be back with a vengence.

More than any other race this year, O'Donnell is a "bet the ranch" situation for the TEA Party and Conservatives.

I'm supportive of the notion that the NRSC and GOP organizations may deny O'Donnell funding. Let the TEA Party and Conservatives show that they're not just able to get their preferred candidate the nomination, but also willing and able to adequately fund and support that candidate through to a general election victory. If it can be done, it'll fundamentally change the nature of the GOP, empowering grass-roots Conservatives while reducing the power currently held within the establishment apparatuses.

[metalurgist]

The “so called” leadership of the Republican party needs to be weeded out also. That POS Ross, the Republican party chief of Delaware needs to be expunged with extreme prejudice.

[metalurgist]

we won the primary

WE? You live in California! Straighten out your own damn state before you criticize others.

[JHBowden]

Really, sometimes you’d rather see a Dem elected than a damn RINO? Please, explain that logic to me.

I'm from Illinois, feel your pain, and used to defend RINOs myself. I've changed my mind since, watching Specter jump ship, Crist's unprincipled behavior in Florida, McCain savaging Republicans while being friendly with Obama during the 2008 campaign-- I just don't see where RINO majorities get us.

In addition, the entire model of the welfare-state needs to be changed. That means we need to jettison one-day-at-a-time rationalism, and look at the big picture. Christie is fighting the good fight in New Jersey; even if reform is painful, integrity is respected. Rubio is highlighting ideological contrasts in Florida. Change ultimately takes faith in other Americans, that they can be persuaded to embrace the right thing. This means not mirroring poll numbers, but working to change them.

Lastly, as others mentioned, RINOism ruins the conservative brand, makes Republicans look like power-hungry hypocrites, and gets our policy proposals blamed for the socialist ingredients we incorporate for the sake of compromise. The 00's showed this is an unworkable, unsustainable strategy, even when we have majorities.

[Gene Eric]

>> Really, sometimes you’d rather see a Dem elected than a damn RINO? Please, explain that logic to me.

A matter of battered constituency syndrome. Sometimes you gotta’ make the tough choices. I’m with KoRn.

November is not the endgame. This battle will continue for decades.

[Claud]

I’m with you.

What if all this talk about Democrats losing the Senate, while perhaps true, has been a calculated strategy on their part?

Partly to make us complacent, but partly also to convince us that since we CAN retake the Senate, we better just elect those moderates and RINOs who will give us the “best shot of winning in November” instead of conservatives who we agree with.

That way, the squishy Repubs who win the Senate can be more easily rolled by the Dem leadership. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there were discussions along these lines among top-level Democrats.

[Claud]

The party still has to govern if and when it wins. We are facing nightmarish debt and insolvency. We are teetering on the edge of civil war.

You really think people like Castle will be able to make a difference? Reverse what they have voted for all these years?

Give me the political novice in this situation who can—naively according to DC wisdom—do what needs to be done without fearing the political cost of doing so.

[NELSON111]

Maybe you can hurl them some more next year while you watch Dick Durbin leading the Senate to easy confirmations of a sixth liberal Supreme Court justice...

Not a good analogy. We had 4 RINO's vote to confirm Kagan...and what...9 or 10 that voted for Sotomayor?

And Castle would have stood ground against that? Highly doubtful.

RINO's in charge prove to be more destructive than democrats, How? RINO's in charge gave us BHO because they gave the American public no clear alternative. I would prefer the American public to have a clear choice. Choose between good and evil...not between evil and the lesser than evil.

Personally...I am SICK of having to make that choice.

[demkicker]

Thanks - I believe the GOP establishment is going to get the wrath of some very angry conservatives today!

[riri]

That is a small price to pay to be rid of a RINO that only voted conservative 43% of the time and put fear into the hearts of the other RINOs that we couldn't get rid of.

The more RINOs, the more we empower the RINO bloc. Let's remember the lessons of the Gang of 14.

[SideoutFred]

I wish I could straighten out our state, but it’s a lost cause. I’m moving out of California in the not too distant future. It’s unfortunate. This was once a conservative bastion and the light of the world, now it’s a liberal joke.

[SideoutFred]

Arnold one because he was a RINO. Tom will tell you that if he was nominated, the unions out here would have killed him. He could not win in California. At least not at that time.

Actually, I wish Tom would have run this year. With the state so screwed up, he probably would have a better chance.

[SideoutFred]

If you’re worried about the brand and RINO’s ruining it, I think you should completely get away from the GOP brand to begin with.

That’s part of the problem, isn’t it? The Dems have a huge tent and they really don’t care if their splinter coalition “harms” the brand. What you seem to be saying is conservative or bust. As a conservative, I love the fire and enthusiasm for that. As a pragmatist, I don’t think you will win many elections. A plurality of people in this country are conservative, but not a majority, and that’s the problem.

To change policy and yield influence, you must be in power. That means you can’t do it alone just on conservativism alone. That’s the reality of it.

[houeto]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Rove on the lib morning shows trashing O’Donnell tomorrow.

Well, you were partially right.

[dforest]

Her opponent is an avowed Marxist. So the GOP will be largly responsible if she doesn’t win.

Their trashing of her leaves the GOP elites holding the bag if a Marxist wins.

[pabianice]

HAZMAT suits ready? They're piling-on at DumpsterUnderground.

[JHBowden]

To change policy and yield influence, you must be in power

This is true and trivial. If progressives are in power, then the policy changes are progressive. If conservatives are in power, then the policy changes are conservative.

So we agree in principle, though you think there is a benefit to electing progressives, perhaps because we would control committee chairmanships. You think it is pragmatic to set the agenda without enough voting for the agenda, like the effort to reform social(ist) security in 2005. Pragmatism looks pretty damn unpragmatic in practice.