'To HELL With Them!'
A Delaware Republican explains why Christine O'Donnell won.
Best of the Web
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010
By JAMES TARANTO
Reader Dave Beruh writes in response to our column yesterday on the Delaware Senate primary:
James, I am a Delaware voter and big fan. I believe you have it wrong on this one.
I agonized quite a bit before voting for Christine O'Donnell. My politics (I believe) are similar to yours, I'm an agnostic, and social issues aren't very important to me, although I would probably be in favor of compromise (civil unions, keeping abortion legal but emphasizing adoption, etc.).
For me Rep. Mike Castle's cap-and-trade vote was my last-straw moment. Then I read an article by a RedState.com contributor who made the Castle-will-be-much-better-than-Coons argument. And I flipped to Castle.
But then I thought: Well, who says O'Donnell can't win? Sure, she got only 35% last time. But that was against Joe Biden, not Chris Coons (add 5%), and in a bad Republican year vs. a great year (add another 5%). That gets her to 45%, a likely but not surefire loss.
And who says after the vicious campaign Castle ran that he would win? He's held statewide office since 1981, and all he can do is refuse to debate and then smear his opponent? He sent out a flyer to all Republicans saying he was a fiscal conservative. Say what? I guess he's a proud moderate only when talking with Democrats.
Finally, look at the good it did to lose Arlen Specter to the Dems. If he had stayed Republican, he might have voted for ObamaCare and given it a sheen (albeit thin) of bipartisanship. He would have been lionized as ending his career to do the right thing. Who knows the mischief he might have caused as a Republican disgusted with his party's partisanship? Instead, he was exposed for the fraud he is. And he exposed Obama, who with vast majorities in both houses could no longer credibly blame Republicans as the party of "no." Worse, it would have denied you the use of "Specter (R2D2, Pa.)"!
So here's why I voted for Christine:
1) Maybe she gets elected, and we get a Jim DeMint ally instead of a thorn.
2) Maybe Castle doesn't win.
3) Her personal "issues" don't sound that bad to me. She didn't drive off a bridge, have sex with an intern in the office, or have TurboTax mess up her taxes. I'm not saying character is irrelevant, I'm just skeptical that she was put under such a microscope.
4) If Christine was so bad, why was she supported by the Delaware Republican establishment in 2008? Did they not care? Were they not trying to win? Well, to HELL with them!
Given these considerations, I decided to vote for the person I thought would make the best U.S. senator.
Oh well, at least Castle isn't a sore loser. As he was conceding last night, he congratulated O'Donnell, pledged his support, and promised to "do whatever I can to send my party's nominee to the Senate."
Haha, just kidding! Actually, the Wilmington News Journal reports that "Castle will not back Christine O'Donnell in her bid for U.S. Senate . . ., his campaign said this morning." My way or the highway, the "moderate" said. You can see why a Delaware GOP voter might say of his state party's establishment, "To HELL with them!" That's essentially what the establishment's senior figure is saying to the voters.
The national Republican establishment initially sent the same message, as TalkingPointsMemo.com reported early this morning:
A National Republican Senatorial Committee source told TPM tonight that the party will be sending money and support elsewhere since O'Donnell, not moderate Rep. Mike Castle (R), is the nominee. O'Donnell, a perennial candidate who has never held political office, trails Democratic nominee Chris Coons.
NRSC officials say that if O'Donnell proves she is viable as a candidate in what is considered to be a blue state, "we would hope Sen. Jim DeMint and the Tea Party Express would invest in her race." If that happens, the NRSC would consider spending for O'Donnell. . . .
The NRSC said it's a big playing field and they will pick and choose their best chances at victory this fall.
"We reserve the right to invest resources in any Senate race at any time just as the Democrats do--as evidenced by the fact that in states like Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Arkansas and Ohio, they have not yet offered financial support for their candidates," the NRSC source said.
As a matter of strategy, it's hard to find fault with what the anonymous NRSC source said. Of course it makes sense to concentrate resources where they have the greatest likelihood of producing victories, and O'Donnell's chances of winning the general election do not seem good. But why in the world would the NRSC source say this? Delaware voters sent a message, and the NRSC, speaking anonymously through a source, told them to shut up.
By this morning, the NRSC's chairman, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, was singing a different tune. Politico's Ben Smith quotes Cornyn's statement:
Let there be no mistake: The National Republican Senatorial Committee--and I personally as the committee's chairman--strongly stand by all of our Republican nominees, including Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
I reached out to Christine this morning, and as I have conveyed to all of our nominees, I offered her my personal congratulations and let her know that she has our support. This support includes a check for $42,000--the maximum allowable donation that we have provided to all of our nominees--which the NRSC will send to her campaign today.
Blogger Ed Morrissey makes an excellent point:
[National Republicans] stuck with a liberal, establishment candidate in a cycle where liberals and establishment figures are uniquely unpopular. Had the Republican leadership been in touch with Delaware Republican voters, they might have found a more suitable candidate for the popular mood, and would not have had to deal with Christine O'Donnell and her outsider bid. They have no one to blame but themselves.
O'Donnell's victory was, it seems clear, a rebuke to an out-of-touch Republican establishment in both Delaware and the District of Columbia: "To HELL with them!" Which leads to a question: Can a party whose leadership is so detached from the popular mood really win big in November?
Sure it can. The Democrats did it in 2006 and again in 2008. They have spent the past 20 months demonstrating, in an ugly and brutal fashion, just how out of touch they are and how dangerous such detachment is to the country. Let's hope the Republicans are faster learners. |
